Tim Averill Invitational online
2020 — NSDA Campus, MA/US
CX Novice Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show Hidelexpjdebate@gmail.com - add me to the chain (also, have a subject line with the tournament and round, thanks!)
lexington '21 johns hopkins '25
she/her
my name is pia - call me pia (pee-ah), please and thanks :)
about me
2n--X----------------------------------------------2a
policy-----X------------------------------------------k (i understand cap and some identity stuff, high theory is a no)
10 off policy stuff----X-----------------------------------------1 off k
for lil lex
i've never judged pf before but i did policy debate at lexington high school for four years. i'll definitely be looking at the flow (which i will be flowing in the policy way, vertically).
i don't know anything about the topic so keep acronym use to a minimum and make sure to explain all your arguments clearly. for more information, please refer to the ld/pf section below. i look forward to judging you!
debating
disclosure-------X------------------------------------------------nah (not if it's new, but definitely if in the packet division!)
do lbl------X-----------------------------------------------idrc
signposting-----------X-------------------------------------switching b/w flows w/o saying so
clarity>speed---------X--------------------------------------speed>clarity
"extend ___"----------------------------------------------X---“actual warrants - that’s ___”
block split--------X--------------------------------------block repetition
impact calc----------X-----------------------------------------nah
frame my ballot-------X------------------------------------------just talk
new args in the 2ar----------------------------------------X--no.
case debate----X----------------------------------------------drop it
1nr prep---------------------------------------------X--no (you have 13 minutes...)
conditionality good----------X----------------------------conditionality
death bad-X--------------------------------death good (PLEASE do not do this to me)
read the rehighlighting----------X--------------------------------send in speech doc
tech stuff
cameras on-------X---------------------------------------cameras off
i hate tech problems-----------------------------------X-------------im lenient w tech issues
slow down----------X-------------------------------------------same speed as normal debate
google docs--------------------------X-------------------------word (idc, our novies also use google docs)
talk to me---------X----------------------------------------------silently stare at me (i'm over talking to myself)
random things
dee-ay or see-pee------------------------------------X---”dis-ad” or “counterplan”
flow----------x---------------------------------------whatever
be a nice person-X------------------------------------------intimidate the other team
time your speeches-------X----------------------------make me do it
lincoln douglass, pf, etc.
time your speeches---X--------------------------------------------------meh (PLS)
how you present yourself---------------------------------------------------------X------the flow (i am a policy debater :))
speed----X----------------------------------------------------talking
paraphrasing ev--------------------------------------------------X--read the ev (PLS again)
speech docs---X----------------------------------------------nah
speaker points
mostly between 27.5-28.5 unless i feel the need to give you lower or higher speaks
+0.1---make a good joke about ppl ik (angelique pham, zoey lin, mahima ramesh, amanda flashner, will yang, larry lin)
+0.1--show me your flows after the round (send / show me before i make my decision so i can boost your speaks)
+0.1---make a joke about lucifer/the office/parks and rec/other tv shows i like
+0.2---be partnership goals like lexington pj (we're the coolest :), hi angelique <3)
please email me if you have any questions
Updated for states '23:
I'm Anna, she/her, freshman @ uchicago
Add me to the chain: annakozlova@uchicago.edu
Respect your opponents' pronouns (ask)
Let me know if you are having some kind of tech issues (wifi, microphone) before the round.
Background:
I debated policy for 4 years at LHS (in mass), alternating 2n/2a. Tech>truth***, I will put aside personal biases to evaluate your arguments fairly. Especially after judging a lot of LD/PF in the last year, as well as teaching PF over the summer, i've gotten more experienced with evaluating specific arguments, although I still think there is a fairly universal way to judge them, which are all outlined below.
The main TL/DR for me is the core of debate -- say what you will about tricks and silly arguments, what matters is being able to win on substance, and although I'd prefer that substance be legitimate, I just want to be able to weigh either side at the end of the round. If there is a genuine ethics issue, we can pause the round, but I don't like watching tricks debate all too much. I'm familiar with the topic for this session, and you can assume I have a good amount of background -- I'm also a history and polisci major, so make it interesting. I like K's, good case debate, interesting DAs (if you can spin them in any way as plausible), etc -- not a fan of nitpicky T or tricks debate. Clarity in your argument is critical -- you can be fast, just be clear in both speech and logic. GFW. (Also I'm a big fan of impact calc, that should be in your speech, c'mon).
No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc -- your speaks will plummet.
*********
novpol:
tl;dr - i'm good with any argument you want to run as long as you explain it fully (especially this year, seeing as i have less experience with the topic than in previous years), i have no pref for aff or neg, i've been both a 2n and 2a at this point so i respect the hustle on both sides.
impact calc is also super important to me!
please please PLEASE tell me why your impact should be prioritized, or why your aff is more important.
use analytics - don't just rely on cards.
extend your arguments throughout the round. line by line - respond to your opponents specific arguments.
extend your arguments - keep them, your cards, etc, in the round after you read them once!
stay organized. use your time efficiently, split the block well (ask if you're not sure what this means), be polite in CX, and don't trash-talk.
i'm a more policy-leaning person in general, but i'm down for a good K or theory debate, again if you explain it fully.
GFW!
jvpol:
tl;dr - a lot of the things in this paradigm about how i evaluate arguments will still apply to you, even if you've been debating for a little while. however, if it your second or third year debating, i have higher expectations about the way you explain your off case or your aff, the way you behave during CX and before/after/during the round, and the nuance you give to all of your (and your opponents) arguments.
long:
general: be organized! since it's your first year, all that matters is for you to have fun in the round and learn a lot! good and well-setup flows not only make it easier for me as a judge to evaluate your arguments, but it also makes it easier for you to extend these arguments or respond to your opponent's arguments. also, i'm down for open CX when both partners can respond to and ask questions, but if i can clearly see one of you is talking over and controlling the other, i will not like that and will dock the more aggressive person's speaks. speaking of which, i will not tolerate partners interrupting one another during their respective speeches; i find it rude and toxic for the environment, so please be kind to one another!!! that is one of the most important things!
one of the biggest issues i see novices struggling with, especially during the packet debates, is the lack of analytics until the 2N/ARs. i think it's normal to be worried that the arguments you make off the top of your head aren't going to work, but honestly, if you're just reading cards in all of your speeches that have nothing to do with your opponents' arguments, it doesn't help you during the round. make analytics, point out if your opponent dropped an argument, tell me why you win in your own words, and explain your arguments also in your own words. super duper important for everyone, but specifically addressed to the novpol packet debates.
speaking: i'm fine with spreading, as long as you're clear. be as fast as you want, but if i stop understanding you, i will say clear, and if you don't acknowledge that through slowing down or emphasizing your words more, i will take off speaker points.
CX: i always pay attention to cross ex - you can poke a lot of holes in your opponents' arguments here, and it's just as important to stay persuasive.
case: i enjoy a good case debate; as long as the arguments all interact with one another and you're not just reading random blocks that have nothing to do with the 1AC, we'll be all good! weigh your impacts, defend your 1AC, and extend your authors from the 1AC! they do not disappear when you go into your 2AC and 1AR, so use them!!!
especially with the packet, i find that novices avoid analytics, any arguments that don't have cards, and extending their cards into the 2AC and the rest of their speeches. it feels like a waste of reading cards, for one thing, it's less persuasive, it makes your life harder, it's less educational... overall just extend your cards and arguments! make analytics! take risks! i cannot emphasize this enough (and yes, it's in my paradigm twice, that's how important i find this).
also, your arguments need to be there throughout the round if you genuinely want me to evaluate them - if you say something in your 1AC/2AC but do not bring it up back up until the 2AR (or 1NC and 2NR), i can't vote on it.
do impact calculus! it's great practice and it's super helpful to me to evaluating your case.
disads - i like disads as an argument, although i might not be able to buy politics DAs like elections or senate after the election, but other than that, i'm down for a good story. make sure that the link chain to the affirmative is clearly outlined in the 1NC, and that the impact calculus is there. weigh! your! impacts! explain to me why your impact is larger, more probable, or more imminent, and why it's more important! this is crucial in winning the DA - otherwise, i can't evaluate why your disad should be prioritized.
counterplans - i'm a big fan of counterplans (if they're competitive, but that's up for debate :)). speaking of competition, i come in with no bias about any types of counterplans. aff, if you want to convince me the counterplan text isn't competitive, convince me. neg, if you want to win the counterplan, give me a clear story of how it works, why it solves better than the affirmative, the internal/external net benefits, otherwise i can't vote on it. i don't have much to say about the more policy-leaning arguments, mostly because i'm more experienced with them, and want to let you have free rein with them!
kritiks - i've been mainly policy for my high school years, meaning i'm not well versed in most k literature (except for more policy ones, like the capitalism kritik). however, like i mentioned above, i'm down for any argument, as long as you're able to explain it well. i want to make sure you can clearly articulate links and your alternative, as well as your framework, etc. if i can tell you're just reading blocked out k's from varsity members, i'm less inclined to vote for you. as well as that, interact! with! the! 1AC! even though you're running a k that basically just says "aff bad for x complicated reason", you need to do case debate! running an argument parallel to the aff doesn't produce anything within the round. LINK DEBATE: i also really prefer specific links over generic links, although if you can spin the generic link nicely, i will like that as well. ON THE ALT DEBATE: pleeeease explain your alt to me very clearly. alts are often extremely questionable (to put it nicely), so if you're advocating for it and you go for it, make sure we all understand it. thank you!
k-affs: like i mentioned, i'm not super educated in k literature, and especially k-affs. i absolutely will not pretend that i fully understand your aff from just the 1AC, so please! explain it to me like i'm a parent judge or someone who has never interacted with a k aff, even though i have. i'm also not the biggest fan of them, but if you can somehow convince me my ballot can do something outside of the round, then i may vote on it. i personally do not believe that my ballot has any role other than determining who wins/loses the round simply because of the nature of debate (and how many times you've read the k aff before my round - what makes me unique?). if there is a performance/song/whatever in your 1AC, use that throughout the round if you can, although i'm not exactly sure how it works (again - k aff dumdum, so if your aff is a k-aff, i will be reasonably lenient in your arguments). if you run a tva/fw, explain it to me, be very clear, etc. same as with all arguments, make sure you understand it beforehand, and aren't reading straight down whatever file the varsity folks gave you.
framework - framework! i enjoy framework on the neg, i think it's an important part of debate, and i love a good framework debate with interacting arguments on both sides. explain your interp to me, standards, etc. for the neg - when you're running a K, make sure you explain to me why your framework ISN'T self serving, because often times, i find that it is. other than that, go crazy, i'll happily judge whatever you put in front of me! again, this is super important: understand your arguments! as first years, you gotta know what you're doing so you can learn from the round.
theory/t - this is another argument i'm not the most familiar with, but just like the K, explain it very well. i think fairness is an internal link to education, not that it's an impact, but try to convince me otherwise. i like a good t debate, give me your interp and a case list (underrated!), or a counterinterp, reasons to prefer, etc. i don't really hold a bias about precision vs specificity, so feel free to convince me. i will buy any argument as long as you explain and understand it!
overall, i just want you guys to have fun and learn a lot. as first/second year debaters, all that really matters is that you get educational experience in a respectful and fun way, especially in debate, which is such a challenging yet rewarding activity. i was one of you once, so i will be extremely nice within the round, whether that be if you have a question for me, or are having technical difficulties. no prep time will be taken from you if your wifi glitches out, or your document crashes, because i completely understand! GFW!
nLD/nPF:
i don't debate in these events, but i'm very familiar with the topic for this month as well as general arguments so i can still judge well. i have plenty of experience with judging and teaching PF, but LD is where i lack a little bit (so if you have any arguments that aren't linear, like some forms of tricks, flesh out really well). since i debate in policy, please make sure to lay out the story of your aff/neg or pro/con position very clearly - i value impact weighing a LOT, especially in PF and LD. explain to me why your impacts are more important, whether that be due to your framing, your "solvency", or otherwise. you also need to be able to flesh out, or really thoroughly explain, the chain of events that you're defending. however, i may not understand all of the nuances of a debate like LD if you read tricky arguments, which is something to take into account. i will be able to give an educational rfd (my style is speech-by-speech), because i've seen a lot of these rounds and i've been involved in debate for years, so the round will be productive for you. and good luck have fun! p.s. if any of the policy args apply to you, and i'm assuming they do, take that info!
so...you've read to the end of my paradigm. very impressive!! here's my speak increase/decrease chart:
note: i will not significantly change your speaker points from what i think you deserve - if i think you got a 28 (including some of these things, because some of these you do implicitly and i think they ought to contribute to your final speaker points), i cannot boost you up to a 28.5 or 28.7, but i can give you up to a 28.2 of additional points when you make purposeful changes to how you debate based on my boosters.
28.5 is what i am adjusting from throughout the round.
+0.1 if you post my email without asking me on the email chain - this lets me know you read my paradigm, or at least am aware that i have one, which is a good practice to encourage.
+0.1 if you make a funny new england joke
+0.1-0.3 if you talk to me about any of the things i listed i enjoy - it's nice to know you're human and not just a face on NSDA campus :) (this depends on how entertaining i find your comments)
+0.1 if you show me your neat flows after the round! like i said, organization during a round is super important, and i think encouraging organized flows is crucial in furthering your debate career.
+0.2 if you're nice to your opponents before, during, and after the round - good sportsmanship is so crucial, especially in these crazy times, so be respectful people! don't interrupt a lot in cross ex, don't talk over one another, no personal attacks, no post rounding, no angry facial expressions, etc.
+0.2-4 if you ask me thoughtful questions about the round, ask about how you could have run an argument better, ask about the details about my decision, etc. it's important that you improve, and getting detailed feedback other than just the RFD is incredibly useful! i'll love you taking initiative.
-0.7 at least if you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, before, during, or after your round - i will tolerate absolutely none of this, and while this might not influence my decision by a lot, it will drastically affect your speaker points.
-0.2 if you bash your previous opponents in the round, are rude within the round, scream at your opponents, etc - show proper etiquette and sportsmanship in debate, this is just as important as any arguments you make.
-0.3 if you read arguments such as "trigger warnings bad" or are insensitive to your opponents' triggers - i have been in a similar situation where i had a panic attack due to an aff not putting any tw at the top and could barely debate for the rest of the round. it's a personal issue for me, so please, be understanding.
-0.1 for each time you purposefully misgender your opponents - it's plain rude.
***tech>truth: this is a difficult call to make, because making horrible arguments and banking on them just because your opponent didn't answer it doesn't win you a round. however, regardless of whether or not your opponent makes those kinds of arguments, you still need to respond to them - even though i value the truth of an argument (like space lasers or aliens? no thank you), i'm still going to weigh it even if it's really out there, and if the other team manages to convince me that there is a unique and important reason that they should win the round because you didn't sufficiently answer their albeit obscure argument, it'll be even more important. this is specifically true in policy debate, and occasionally in LD, but in all kinds of debate, i honestly believe that using racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc within a round should cost you the ballot, even if your opponents didn't say more than "this is racist and that's bad, here's why". so all in all, i value tech and truth very similarly, but depending on the round, one will take priority over the other. so just answer all your opponent's arguments, don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc, and be thorough with your arguments!
Crystal
She/Her
Add me to the email chain please: crystall1663@gmail.com
Hi! I'm Crystal. I am a 4th year high school policy debater. I am a 2N so I will be sympathetic to FW and T arguments. Besides that, I'm open to most arguments. Just try your best and be nice! Be sure to explain things during the debate for the sake of me and your opponents. If you're a novice I encourage you not to run super complicated Ks because you will trip yourself up. Overall, I will give everyone high speaks for a good and engaging debate. Some points that I will be considering when making my decisions are:
General:
Tech>Truth
In my opinion cards are not responsive— that's your job. You need to extend and apply your evidence, just reading them makes the debate stale.
Judge instruction - Tell me why you win. I can't read minds so I might interpret things differently and put together arguments in a way that disadvantages you. If you tell me why you win, then I will be able to understand how you want me to see things.
If you’re pressed for time here’s a TLDR: I am pretty much open to all arguments, if you are running an obscure one be sure to understand it yourself and explain it clearly. I like debates with a ton of clash so if you manage that in a debate your speaker points will be pretty high. Have some sort of judge instruction in your last speeches, it helps make sure that I am not misinterpreting your situation in round. Don't be harmful to other people in your round. If it was unintentional be sure to apologize, your speaker points will decrease but I will not vote against you for accidentally saying it. If you continue to be rude on purpose I will vote against you.
Now onto the long stuff. . .
Aff:
Extending Aff solvency - I think the Aff sometimes gets caught up in the Neg's arguments and forgets to extend their own solvency. Without a good reason why your case solves there is no reason for me to vote Aff. Even if you prove that the Neg doesn't have any solvency either, that just means I buy the squo is better than the world of the aff..
Answering T/FW - If your opponent makes these arguments, answer them because it could cost you the debate.
K Affs - Just know how to run a K well. Don't go for a K you have no practice in and don't understand. Generally I am open to K offs as long as the lit is explained well.
1ar - You can read cards in the 1ar. But I strongly recommend you limit it to one or two. It is better to extend cards you already read or respond to your opponents.
Neg:
Extend Case - Don't forget to answer case. Just because you have other arguments don't drop case. I will vote Aff if they have extended case and proven that they solve. If the Aff solves better than the Neg there is no reason for me to vote Neg.
New 1ar arguments - If you tell me not to consider new arguments in the 1ar I will listen to you. But that’s up to you.
Other general stuff is just being nice during CX and speeches. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, trans phobic and ableist. I'm not a fan of death good. Talk clearly and loudly but don't interrupt others. Be sure to time yourself and don't try to steal prep. Good luck and have fun!
tl;dr
lexington ‘21
don't be problematic [i'll lay it out for you: oppression good, death good will be an auto L]
add me to the email chain -- lexnovies@gmail.com and lexpjdebate@gmail.com
paradigm inspiration -- pia jain <3
about me
2n---------------------------------------------X--2a
policy---X----------------------------------------------k [i probably need a lot of explanation]
short--X------------------------------------------------tall
angelique-X--------------------------------------------other names
shake my hand after the round---------------------X--i would prefer not
debating
do lbl (please)------X-----------------------------------------------no
clarity>speed---------X--------------------------------------speed>clarity
open speech-------------------------------------------------------X-no (i'll only flow what the actual speaker says)
open cross-ex---X---------------------------------------------------nope
every speech is MY speech-----------------------------------X-----i have a partner
“extend ___”----------------------------------------------X---“actual warrants - that’s ___”
"what's your plan?"----------------------------------------X----i will stop paying attention to cx
block split--X--------------------------------------------block repetition
impact calc----X-----------------------------------------------nah
frame my ballot-------X------------------------------------------just talk
signposting----X--------------------------------------------switching b/w flows w/o saying so
new args in the 2ar------------------------------X----------NO! [i really like good 2ar extrapolation]
case debate----X----------------------------------------------drop it
conditionality good----------X----------------------------conditionality bad (2-3)
t in the 2nr---------------------------------------X------------not really
k-affs-------------------------------------------------X----------framework
*to note: i have a very high threshold for k-aff solvency. if i think your aff does not have an actual way to spread your movement i will not vote for you
random things
dee-ay or see-pee------------------------------------X---”dis-ad” or “counterplan”
flow-X------------------------------------------------whatever
be a nice person-X------------------------------------------intimidate the other team
keep track of your prep---------------X-------------------------make me do it [i will probably do so anyways]
1nr prep------------------------------------------------------------X-denied
read the crime da--------------------------------------------------X-don't
speaker points
generally 27.3 - 28.6, you will 100 percent get below a 27 if you are problematic
+0.1---make a good joke about pia, mahima, amanda, or caroline
+0.1---be partnership goals like lexington pj (subject to my judgement)
+0.1---tell me to "stick to the status quo" if you go for a neg on presumption ballot
+0.5---i got into college while judging you
-0.1 ---if you ask me if im related to antoine or if im a debater in the round
if i judge you in other events besides policy
other events----------------------------------------------------------------X-sorry i literally know nothing about it**
--i literally mean nothing i do not even know the speech times, prep times, etc.
--paraphrasing evidence is something i probably will not flow so please read your cards as they are highlighted
--i am very tech over truth (unless it is problematic) and okay with speed
--impact calc will definitely help me evaluate the debate
--explain your framing and why i should prefer it to your opponent's otherwise i will default to what i have on my flow
also, feel free to email me or facebook messenger me after the round if you have any questions
hi! my name is michelle, i go by she/her pronouns, and if you're reading this i'm probably judging you soon whoa! please add michellewu7154@gmail.com to the email chain
*for novices: novice year is all abt learning so if there's anything you want to work on specifically, let me know before the round
tldr:
- be clear, organized, and explain your arguments
- weigh and compare args, write my ballot for me
- time yourself and keep track of your own prep
- be nice, make the round a safe and fun learning environment
- you do you, but i'm not the most experienced in high theory ks or other strange theory
abt me:
- currently a freshman in college,
- i've done policy debate since freshman year and ran policy strategies
about the debate:
- a complete argument has a claim, warrants, and impact (all are important but most people will forget warrants and not use impacts)
- i shall say this many times, please weigh your arguments and do comparisons with your opponent's arguments (it helps me make a decision and it'll make ur debates much more in depth and fun). don't just say we have a higher probability, magnitude, or timeframe, explain why and how they interact with each other on both sides
- tech > truth (this means i will look at the arguments on the flow and what has been said, not what is my or your personal opinion. you should point dropped args and explain why they're important for you. that being said, i will not value "tech" if it is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or in any way disrespectful because that wouldn't be very cash money of you please use ur best judgement)
- clarity > speed
- organization!! tell me which arguments you're responding to/extending and when you switch flows. please roadmap before you start your speech, which is telling me the order of flows in your speech, and sign post during your speech, which is labeling the points you're talking about
- write my ballot for me! this takes lots of practice but make your last speeches big picture, tell me what are the most important points from the round, and what i should care about. before you start the 2NR or 2AR, ask yourself "why are we winning this debate" and your answer should be the first sentence of the speech
- did someone say impact calc? did someone say evidence comparison? did someone say weighing across multiple flows? :0 yes indeed i said it (key word: outweighs)
for ld
i've judge a couple ld rounds, but i'm still unfamiliar with some jargons or ld-specific theory. i can flow your arguments, but i might need a little more explanation.
good luck and have fun!!