Viraj Bodiwala

University of Chicago '26

Maine East '22

1A/2N

email: mehsdebatevb@gmail.com

IF YOU READ A K IN FRONT OF ME, I WILL HOLD YOU TO A HIGHER STANDARD.

tech over truth.

I'm a second year at UChicago studying quantum engineering, physics, and computer science. I debated at Maine East High School in Park Ridge, IL, for four years, doing moderately well and breaking to semifinals at many national circuit tournaments. I attended camp at Wake Forest University and the Michigan K Lab. Apart from my freshman year, I read primarily critical arguments, but have also have dabbled in topicality and counterplans. My arsenal consisted of afropessimism, baudrillard, settler colonialism, and some performative arguments. I also read a fair bit of memes.

The following is from Parth Shah's paradigm, someone who I more or less completely agree with it when it comes to debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts, this includes procedural fairness. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic. All thing said, at the end of the day I will adapt to your argument style.

I dislike judges who exclude debaters because of what they decide to read in a debate round, I will NOT do that as long as you don't say anything racist, sexist, etc.

Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals.

Lastly:

Be nice.

Feel free to mmail me with questions about kritiks, philosophy, UChicago, etc.

Hi, I'm Eemaan (ee-mahn), I use she/her pronouns, and I'm a varsity debater at Lane Tech! I have experience with both policy and K debate so I am open to most arguments as long as you can do it well. That said, hate speech of any kind will not be tolerated, and if I catch your team making racism good, patriarchy good, etc. arguments or using derogatory language I will vote you down and give you both lowest speaks.

General things:

- Add me to the email chain: ebutt@cps.edu

- I should be able to hear what you're spreading! Clarity > speed.

- I will keep time, but get into the habit of timing yourselves

- Tag team is fine w me in CX

- If the round gets messy (i.e. no clash, too many dropped arguments), I will lean towards voting for whoever I want. Please dont let it come to that tho as that would make my life harder

Overall, have a good time! Debate can be stressful, especially now that it's all virtual, but allow yourself to have fun and enjoy the round. At the end of the day, this is an activity and a learning experience. Be nice to your partner, to your opponents and to me!

I will give +0.3 speaks if you manage to make a reference to stan twt without it sounding weird.

hi I'm Kendra! add me to the email chain kebyrd1@cps.edu

they/them

let me know your pronouns before the round starts, I don't want to misgender you!

if you mention Beyonce in round I'll give you +.6 speaks.

even more speaks if you can quote a song that she sings on the Homecoming album.

i'll also give you +.1 speaks for having your cameras on throughout the debate.

i'm a varsity debater at LT and I'm probably just as nervous to judge as you may be to debate :) we're in this together

i don't really have any preferred arguments but I like to see people run args that they actually believe in. i prefer clarity over speed but spread until you pass out if you want to.

most importantly, if you use any racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, or any other discriminatory language, you will lose the round with the lowest speaks and i will contact your coach.

be kind to everyone involved in the round but most importantly have fun :)

"Ah–nuh"

If you read a K aff your chances of winning are not good and I will give you very low speaks.

I would like to be on the email chain: aecarpen2004@gmail.com.

Don't be rude in cross ex (or at any other time during the debate).

Hi everyone, this is my paradigm: I am currently a senior at Jones. I have been a debater for the Jones team for four years and I am one of the triumvirate captains of Jones. I use he/him pronouns. If you can mention at some point that you read my paradigms I will give you +0.1 speaks. - The lesson here is ALWAYS READ THE PARADIGM.

It would be great if you could add me to the email chain here acullen2@cps.edu. Also I will be available for questions later if you need them.

First before we start on what I like: Please keep the debate professional, have fun and all but don't waste my time or the opponents time.

No hate speech of any kind will be tolerated results in auto loss, and zero speaks. I will not call out any authors, unless obviously it is incredibly clear that they are problematic, but if the opposing team does this it will be weighed in round.

Try not to commodify violence for the ballot. As we are debating remember that there are very real impacts outside of debate.

Please please please signpost. This saves so much time in round, it helps both me and the opposing team evaluate arguments and makes the entire debate easier.

Time should be run by the team, I will keep a timer going also.

Please signpost

I tend to lean truth over tech but I do really enjoy theory arguments. I think that truth would mostly be evaluated in a debate that is incredibly convoluted.

On K's. Please explain clearly how it links, how it causes the impact and how the alt solves. I really enjoy K's especially when they are well done.

On topicality. I will tend to lean affirmative here. I think it is the job of the negative to prove that the affirmative is non topical, however, if standards are not extended on the affirmative this is a problem for them.

On theory- Run it 100%. Fun theory is one of my favorite parts of debate.

Case Turns- Also another argument that I find really fun. This is one of the arguments that I mainly run, so I am pretty well versed in them.

Part of debate is understanding when is the right time for a specific argument. Please understand and reflect on your privileges as a school before reading arguments like "small schools T". Also understand that debate is a game that we all can engage in, and ensure that every argument you make is welcoming to me and the other team. I am fine with uncomfortable arguments as long as they do not cross into being problematic.

Debate is about learning, and having fun with your arguments. Good luck with your round!

STANFORD & BERKELEY 24: Very thin working knowledge of the topic. Proceed assuming I know almost nothing, ESPECIALLY in heavy econ debates

my name is kyujin (pronounced Q-jin) – he/him, toc elim debater & il state champion @ northside from 2017-21, coaching @ interlake since 2021. email chain: kyujinderradji@gmail.com and interlakescouting@googlegroups.com.

trying to update this once or twice a year every year that I’m active; debaters spend thousands of hours researching and preparing for tournaments, and the least i can do to maximize the benefits that come from that is to let you know how i will approach evaluating the things you prepared to say.

TLDR: no hard and fast rules except that I will not evaluate death good, and i am heavily biased against strategies that eschew line-by-line debating. if you read a planless aff i would put me lower than “k-friendly” judges but not at the bottom of your pref sheet.

LONGER:

top level –

· i have substantive preferences (of course, everyone does even if they don’t say so) BUT those should not change the way you debate. debates are best when debaters are not just Saying The Words They Were Told To Say, but rather when all the debaters have evidently been thinking about their position and making refined and clear arguments that are not intended to confuse but instead to persuade. while, of course, you will not persuade me that we should kill social security to prevent the Hat Man from haunting your dreams, my role is to evaluate the effectiveness of your communication in attempting to prove that such is true.

· additionally, i will exclude arguments prefaced off events that happened outside of what i have witnessed in the debate, ad homs, or otherwise accusatory statements. i will err towards facilitating the continuation of the debate unless it becomes clear that is no longer possible, in which case i will follow tabroom procedure and maximize opportunities to ensure the well-being of the debaters directly affected by malicious and/or harmful behavior.

· do not attempt to pander to me!! there’s obviously a level of comfortability and camaraderie that i think is good and appropriate in the setting of a debate, but ultimately i am almost out of college. many older people in debate lack boundaries when engaging with high schoolers that honestly makes me very uncomfortable. i appreciate being friendly/relaxed etc, and i encourage that, but please do not act like we are old buddies or make comments that you wouldn’t make to a teacher.

· people who have shaped the way i think about debate: john turner, shree awsare, dml, holland bald, luther snagel, addison kane, wayne tang, all of northside c/o '19

pet peeves –

· clarity. i will not clear you. it's up to you to be as clear as possible even if that means sacrificing speed. having to give an rfd where i tell you that i couldn't understand a third of what you were saying is frustrating annoying for me and embarrassing for you.

· kicking stuff. not kicking out of stuff correctly, even if it doesn’t do you any strategic harm, is a very bad look and your speaks will suffer.

· cx. barring the aff is new or you are mav, you must either do cross ex for all 3 minutes or end early. you cannot use cross ex for prep.

speaker points –

· speaker points will be rewarded by knowing what you are talking about, doing research, clarity, strategic vision, and being funny. speaker points will be docked by rudeness/undue assertiveness, lack of clarity, and lack of strategic vision.

· doing my best to accommodate new trends in speaker points even if i might disagree with them. i understand how frustrating it is to have stingy judges give low speaks and jeopardize seeding/breaking.

decision calc –

· tech over truth. BUT! that requires you extend a claim, warrant, and impact. a 2nr should extend an impact and do impact comparison, not something like “they dropped impact #3 in the 1nr, extinction, don’t make me reinvent the wheel” – bad bad bad. setting yourself up for failure at the hands of a smart 2a.

· i need your arguments to make sense – that’s really really crucial. seems like a truism but unfortunately it is not.

evidence –

· i care a lot about evidence quality – i'd say more than the average judge. research is the largest/most valuable portable skill from debate and i will look for ways to reward teams who have clearly conducted original, innovative, and/or high-quality research and can demonstrate the knowledge that research has imparted them with.

· i do read evidence (not every time, but if I feel so compelled) but i will not include that into my decision unless evidence is a subject of disagreement.

· I will read more than the highlighting, but I will only evaluate the un-highlighted portion if I think that you have misrepresented it in a way that makes the evidence read better than it is i.e. you selectively highlight words or ignore paragraphs to make your evidence look more conclusive. I will not include warrants from ev in my decision that you have not read obviously.

· rehighlightings are obvi great, you can insert them, as long as it’s not egregious. You can’t insert cards from other articles that an author has written in order to indict them – you have to read that. the point of inserting recuttings is just to point to the other team’s own evidence and provide direction as to what specifically is at issue with it. introducing other articles obviously requires you read them, because that is not evidence read by the other team.

· caveat to the above – please! make sure you are not mis-recutting evidence. It will look like you didn’t actually read the evidence and assumed it was miscut. Your speaks will suffer.

the rest of this paradigm are my opinions on various positions, but matter much less than what was just said above.

planless affs/framework –

· 70-30 neg. one of the two hardest things for the aff in these debates are when the aff does not have a meaningful reason why debates over the resolution are bad, as opposed to the resolution itself. this usually requires some kind of exclusionary critique of the idea of debating the topic entirely, which is a pretty high bar to clear imo. the other barrier to an aff ballot in my mind is the role of debate. what is the ballot’s function? what does it mean if i vote aff or neg? why is debating the 1ac valuable fro the neg? all of these are questions I think the aff must be able to answer, and often they cannot to a satisfactory degree. given the aff is choosing to forego a traditional defense of the resolution, i think the burden of proof is set significantly higher because the aff must then establish a new set of criteria by which to evaluate the debate – which also often lends to the neg’s predictability offense on framework.

· i heavily prefer impacts pertinent to the process of debate rather than its substance (paraphrased from holland <3). topic education and the like tend to ignore the way that competition/resolutional wording distorts how we approach the topic – and lend themselves to internal link turns absent substantive defense to the 1ac’s thesis claims.

· all good for a da/pic against a planless aff – my favorite debates v k affs senior year were going for tech good against a “zoom bad” aff and heg good against a mao aff.

· NOT good for k v k debates. i will likely be confused and you will likely be unhappy with my decision.

counterplans –

· :thumbs-up:

· fine for intricate competition debates BUT i will need arguments to be warranted – saying “their interp justifies x” is sometimes not immediately intuitive for me, so just err on the side of explaining things more.

· agree with like everyone else that counterplans can’t simply identify an aff internal link and write a plank to the effect of “solve x impact”. it’s like making an alt cause argument that explains no alt causes.

· i won’t automatically judge kick a counterplan.

· i am neg leaning on basically all theory. most theory is better articulated as a competition argument. i am not a good judge for teams who shotgun 1ar extensions of conditionality and make it 5 minutes of the 2ar – obviously can be a legitimate strategy but it feels like it has recently become a safety net for teams who are afraid of debating substance. also, please slow down in heavy theory debates.

disads –

· :thumbs-up:

· comparison and narrative-telling are the most important. telling me why I should care about your thing and using examples/common threads from evidence is very helpful and demonstrates a lot of skill.

t v plans –

· :thumbs-up:

· there should only really be two kinds of t debates to me: one that gets to the core of a topic disagreement (i.e. t-enact on CJR or t-AOS on immigration) and one that points out an egregious instance of a violation. outside of these two instances, i’ll tend to err aff.

· i prefer t debates with lots of evidence, warrants, and little repetition. limits is the best neg impact and (usually) precision or aff ground are the best aff impacts.

k’s vs. plans –

· yes for most. i think these are best executed when they function as an impact turn to core ideological assumptions of the plan. the more the k is [insert theory – no perm because footnote DA] or reps k of [one of your 9 impacts], the less I will be a fan.

· ideally, the function of your framework argument should be to ratchet down the importance of having a coherent alternative.

· i generally quite dislike "you link, you lose", and i have a pretty low threshold for voting aff on framework in these debates. giving the aff some kind of access to their consequences (at least as a defense of their epistemology) will make me much more receptive to a research or epistemology k.

Lily - she/they - not "judge" :)

Walter Payton ‘22

Michigan ‘26

Please include me on the email chain - lily.g.debate@gmail.com
Please send word docs, not google docs :)

First and foremost, BE NICE TO EACH OTHER, and do not be arrogant. Debate is (supposed to be) fun!

I love debate. It was one of the best parts of my high school career and is something I actively enjoy doing in college. Debate is for the debaters. I will work as hard as possible while judging and will give the same care and commitment to the debate that I would like if I was debating.

I have done both kinds of argumentation: policy and kritikal. I feel comfortable evaluating either. That said, I am unfamiliar with the HS topic, so please be deliberate in explaining key concepts.

I will not vote on things that happened out of round.

If you read an ethics violation, I will ask if you want me to stop the round and go to Tab. If you do not want me to do that, I will ignore said violation.

That being said, I’m good to vote on pretty much any argument that is likely to be introduced, as long as there are warrants to do so. I would vote on wipeout, afropessimism, Russia war good, libertarianism, structural violence is a d-rule that outweighs extinction, spark, the reverse security K, framework is a micro-aggression that outweighs the impacts to their model, T 3-tier, etc. Harassment in round becomes a Tabroom issue, but I am extremely confident that any argument introduced by debaters trying to win will be okay, and the only limiting factor will be my ability to keep up with the flow.

I don't like judges who pretend to be tech over truth but then vote on the perceived quality of an argument. Whether or not a judge "buys" an argument is irrelevant to whether or not a debater won that argument. I read arguments I don't believe and will try to win on them, I expect you all to do the same. I will reward the strategic deployment and technical execution of bad arguments; I will not punish the better debaters for being scrappy.

In person:

- Make sure you're facing me during CX and speeches.

Online:

- Please turn your cameras ON for CX and during speeches, it'll be better for your speaks! Plus looking at an actual person talk is so much more interesting that staring at a black box for 8 minutes.

- My camera will always be on, if it isn't that usually means there is a problem with my wifi/tech so wait until you can see me before you start your speech.

- When sending speech docs PLEASE do not just share one big 2AC/2NC/1NR doc that has every arg your team prepped and then make me scroll through it while you skip the args that were not read in the round. You should send a doc that only has cards you are going to read that are relevant to the round.

Email: rgu6@illinois.edu and gurachael@gmail.com (in case one doesn't work)

wy '21 (policy)

uiuc '25 (parli)

I am not familiar with the emerging technologies topic this year so please contextualize whenever you can.

I’m not really good with K debates. However, if you do run a K, make sure it is well explained. Be very clear when explaining the link, impact, and alt to the k. I don’t like super wild K’s, so be careful with those.

For the rebuttals, tell me what I should be voting for and why you should win. During novice year, I think it is especially important to do impact calc and evidence comparison.

Please signpost and tell me which argument you are answering and do line-by-line. This would make it easier for me to flow your speech.

Also, have fun and try your best.

Solorio ’21

Any pronouns are coolio.

cesargutierrez.email@gmail.com

If CPS: cgutierrez38@cps.edu

General:

Tech>Truth.

I'll usually vote on anything if well-articulated.

Impact calc is good.

Have fun.

Don't be a jerk.

Clarity over speed.

***Specifics***

Case:

Always important. I do think most teams nowadays are doing less of it. A good 2nr/2ar should always give me a story of what is happening and how I should evaluate it. Overviews are good... just don't forget the line by line. Tell me how the advantage interacts with the disad or kritik and what that means.

Disadvantages:

Love these. I always want a good thorough story of the DA [assume I don't know anything about it]. Turns case should always be there, tell me how your DA interacts with the aff [Don't just be like "Extinction turns the aff", tell me how your impact or Link specifically affects the aff. Blocks are good, just don't rely on them too much. I prefer impact analysis on top instead of an overview. Compare your cards to theirs, "Our card is more recent, qualified, etc...". Every part of the DA is important. You do have to win every part of the DA [Same for Advantages] If they drop a DA [or anything] don't just say "they dropped it", give me a reason why I should care, what does it mean that they dropped it, you get the picture. Link turns case is a really good argument.

Counterplans:

CP and DA is always a good move. Adv cp + impact turn = my fave. You do have to win the net benefit. Won’t vote on a Counterplan without it. 100 planks? Of course. Agent Counterplans are amazing, just make sure to establish competition. Love Pics, the aff does have to win the entire Plan is a good idea. Always remember to answer theory on the CP. Explain how you access the aff's internal links and do the work. Competition determines legitimacy for CPs - if a CP is a legitimate opportunity cost to the aff, aff theory arguments are a bit less persuasive to me.

Topicality:

If you do go for it make sure it's a full 5 minutes. None of this T, CP, and Disad nonsense. Impact out both your standards and theirs. Give me reasons to prefer reasonability and competing interps. Probably need examples of in-round abuse. ASPEC is pure banter. Just don't drop it 2as.

Theory:

This is always an important part of the debate. 3 condo is probably the max. Prove to me why rejecting the team is necessary. If you have to think "is this counterplan shady/cheating". It probably is.

Kritiks:

I find them interesting, explain your theory of power, philosophy, etc. Explain the alt very clear, and how it resolves the impact to the K. I am most familiar in the following, Cap/Neolib, Security, Settler Colonialism, Ableism. Links specific to the aff are amazing. [It has to be why the aff links and not the squo]. Long overviews? Sure why not but don’t just read it and be like “Line by line, done above, done above, done above”. Framework is important, don't undercover this in rebuttals. The vague alt argument isn't very convincing unless made iffy in CX. The alt needs to solve case, establish root cause claims. Not my Baudrillard < Yes, its your Baudrillard.

K Affs:

"Good luck to you" - Conor Cameron 2019.

Misc:

Roadmaps [This is copied from Argent Martinez’s paradigm who copied it from John Tao's paradigm—I agree with them both]

Please. There are four things I've been seeing that drive me absolutely insane - and apparently there's enough for me to even write about it.

1) Roadmapping the 1AC. Don't do it. It's not necessary. It's not a thing.

2) Asking if I want a roadmap. The answer is YES. The answer is always YES (with the exception of the 1AC, because, once again, don't do it).

3) 1NC roadmap - just tell me how many off, and then where you plan on going on. Don't tell me what the Off cases are, that's not necessary.

4) Roadmap by being clear and concise: "DA, K, Case in order of solvency then advantage one." Do not roadmap: "I'm going to go a little bit on solvency, and then maybe the K...and if I have time maybe the DA...."

Important:

Don't be a douchebag. If you are ableist, sexist, racist, etc. I will vote you down on the spot.

College of William and Mary

Walter Payton College Prep '21

Put bhemingwaydebate@gmail.com and sweetnessdebatedocs@gmail.com on the email chain.

I debated for four years at Payton and am not debating in college. If you are a team that reads k affs, you should not pref me. My only 2NR strategy was framework, and I really don't buy the common arguments about debate space being bad or debaters having the ability to change it through individual rounds.

A compete argument consists of a claim and warrants. Simply saying that an argument was dropped means nothing if it's not contextualized to how that implicates the round.

Case

Case debate is underutilized by many of the teams that I judge. Neg teams should use smart case turns or recut the 1ac evidence instead of just using impact defense.

Bad framing debates are the worst. If you don't use warrants and just parrot taglines at each other, I will just default to util.

Disadvantages

2NRs that are the DA v case are fantastic. I judge disadvantages v case primarily through the quality of warranted rebuttal analysis, quality of evidence, and impact calc. I think 0 risk is possible, but it would require a lot of evidence analysis by the aff.

Explain why uniqueness matters with politics DAs.

Counterplans

Process counterplans need to have a clear solvency advocate and articulated reasons why its better then the plan because I'm not a fan of sneaky CPs.

Kritiks

I am qualified to judge a Security/Biopolitics/Cap K round. Identity and high theory Ks will be very unpersuasive to me. Links must be specific to the 1ac -- reciting generic blocks will not be voted on. I have a high threshold for voting neg on the K-- the neg should win specific links and framework. It's not necessary to win an alternative.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations. I don't have a lot of preferences other than both teams need to describe what the topic looks like underneath both interpretations. 2NRs and 2ARs should clearly explain what their view of the topic looks like and what their opponents view looks like.

I'll vote on extra-T or effects-T only if there is a clear violation.

Theory

Theory should be 5 minutes of the 2AR if you're going for it.

add me to the email chain -- ohernandez55@cps.edu

If you are reading this, hello.

My debate philosophy is based on the versatility of debate itself. The fun part about debate is the fact that there are thousands of ways to debate along with unique arguments that may seem unconventional but can be used in a very practical way.

Opinions on counterplans: Although I enjoy the versatility of debate, counterplans lie in a bit of a grey area. I will only vote on a CP if the CP in question is able to thoroughly defend itself against any perm and is intrinsically unique when compared to the AFF.

Kritiques: I vote looser when it comes to Ks. In order for me to vote on a K, it has to have either a clear path of solvency or it the alt is completely unorthodox but has been debated thoroughly and seriously. I will not vote on joke Kritiques. If you are running a K, it is ideal that you debate with both passion and extensive knowledge of the Kritique you are running.

Topicality: I will rarely ever vote on T. Unless there are outright violations outlined thoroughly in the T flow, I most likely will not vote on it unless of course the AFF has dropped it.

Spreading/Speed: When giving a speech, it is important to get through all cards. It is equally important to speak clearly. I am not stingy when it comes to speed, but if it gets to a point where the debater is rambling jibberish, I will begin to consider the better speaker in my decision.

Extra: If you run the Surrealism K, 9 times out of 10 I WILL vote on it. The only time I won't is if the debater just downloaded the file from Open Evidence just to take a quick W. I will know if you did this.

Northside '21

Harvard '25

she/her

Add me to the email chain: laurenhollis@college.harvard.edu

---

Background: I debated for 4 years at Northside College Prep in Chicago, Illinois. I went to workshops over the summer including the Chicago Debate Summer Institute, DDIx, and DDI. I'm currently debating at Harvard. My debating experience is all with policy debate, but I have judged public forum as well.

I am open to all types of debate - DA, CP, T, K, theory - go for it.

Instances of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc will not be tolerated.

I will vote you down if you are egregiously clipping.

Please be nice to one another! Debate should be an enjoyable activity that you are continuously learning from :)

Hey, Im Mason Hubbard I use he/him pronouns and am part of the Lane Tech Varsity debate team. I have knowledge and understanding of both policy and K debate so I am definitely open to most arguments. My main rule is that rounds will be conducted with respect for everyone inside and outside of the room meaning any arguments that are promoting any sort of hate speech (pro racism, sexism, etc) will be voted down and the partnership will receive the lowest speaks. Besides that though I anticipate clashes and really enjoy good cross examination and closing speeches so make sure to to be as engaging as possible.

Further things to take note of:

Add me to email chains: mhubbard2@cps.edu

I prefer clear speaking over speed reading, make sure to pronounce tags loud and clear.

Time your speeches and cross ex always.

I will give additional speaks for any good NBA or marvel movie references during speeches

Overall I look forward to competitive rounds with both teams learning more than they left the round knowing and both sides being respectful to everyone in the room.

Lane Tech 2021, Duke 2025 (I do BP now ew)

Add me to the email chain - fljones@cps.edu

THIS PARADIGM IS OLD AND I'M TOO LAZY TO UPDATE BUT THIS IS MY FIRST TOURNAMENT ON THE WATER TOPIC SO IF IT'S A T DEBATE BE REALLY CLEAR LOL

Like most judges (ideally), I will vote for any argument as long as it is debated effectively. Please be nice to each other or you will get bad speaks. Cross ex is super important, don't blow it off. I don't care what you run just do it well. Understand whatever you're saying, and if you don't understand it then use smaller words. Make the debate interesting please. Do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, bad, etc. Tech over truth mostly just because it's really funny when teams get away with tech stuff, just don't let it get to your head because the skills you gain from debate should not be sneakiness and talking really fast.

That's pretty much it, just have fun in the round, debate can get stressful just remember it's never that deep! Even if you're getting ripped apart it's gonna be alright, life exists outside debate. But also bonus speaks if the other team cries in cross ex.

Don't run ASPEC. I'll vote on it I guess but don't run it. I'll cry.

Detailed stuff:

T - 2NR should be impacting out why the aff being untopical is bad. If it's just "they're not topical so they should lose!" I'm probably not gonna vote on it. Like all theory, you should be explaining why it's a voter.

DAs - Give me the story. If I can't explain in my RFD how exactly the aff triggers the impact, I don't know why I'd vote on it. But beyond that this is pretty meat & potatoes just don't fumble individual parts of it, & explain why the DA outweighs case/vice versa if you're aff.

Ks - I don't consider myself a huge K debater, but I've read a fair share and I have a decent grasp on a good amount of K lit. That being said, a couple things: 1. Don't run a K that you don't understand the lit of. Everyone can tell and you'll probably lose. 2. Assume that everyone else in the round has never heard the K before. What I mean by this is that your explanations are crucial. Me and your opponents should all be able to understand the link, the alt, and the thesis of the K. Even if they drop like the entire K I'd still like a decent explanation of what all your big-worded, full-paragraph-tagged cards mean lol.

CPs - I like me a good CP. Aff, if they read an abusive CP, put theory on it. I like me some good CP theory. I feel like CPs are a really under-appreciated part of debate. I recommend external net bens rather than just like a solvency net ben or something, but if you can prove the CP solves all of case I guess it doesn't really matter. Get creative with your CPs please, and aff get creative with your perms. Gimme more than just "Perm do both, next" explain what the perm would look like.

Presumption - I love giving a "Neg on presumption" RFD. Nothing is more satisfying than shredding an aff to bits. That being said, you should probably have a DA or something with it so I have to err your way still, but yeah go get 'em. Aff on presumption is a thing too but idk it don't hit the same yknow?

If you have any specific questions just ask me before the round. I like to think I'm pretty chill but I do take debate seriously. I do my best to give a good amount of feedback too, if it feels like I'm ripping on you don't take it personally, I try and give varsity-level feedback so y'all can elevate your debating the most you can.

bnkatz1@gmail.com

Northside '21

Northwestern '25

0 time TOC qualifier, 4 years of debate for Northside College Prep

He/Him

--

If I am judging a virtual debate and you send documents with analytics omitted, you will be docked speaker points. Your mic quality is not nearly as good as you think it is, so why would you voluntarily make it harder for the person who's deciding which team wins (me) to understand what you're saying by omitting a useful visual supplement? Act like I'm half-deaf.

--

Pay attention to where you use jargon and explain or contextualize where you can. This topic has lots of acronyms so it would help to say full phrases and what they actually mean at least once in-round.

If you can't explain an argument you plan to read in front of me at a conversational speed, there are very good odds that you won't win me over when trying to spread it. Debate what you're comfortable with, not what you think I'll like the most.

I avoid reading speech docs where possible. I will read a card if it is referenced during cross-ex, as well as if specific warrants are called to my attention during speeches. However, I will not give the full robustness of a card's argument to you if all you are doing is repeating the author's name and the claim.

Primarily debated soft left affs in high school, but have also read traditional policy. I have read every kind of argument on the neg. Increasingly sympathetic to traditional big stick affs as a judge, just because soft left debaters have a structurally harder time winning the debate.

Thoughts on arguments:

• Both aff and neg teams severely underfocus on case. This is almost universal. For the neg, aff evidence is never as good as it's made out to be and should be called out in the 1NC. If you're an aff team and truly believe your case is good, then actually spend time talking about why your warrants respond to the neg's on- and off-case arguments (which it should if it's good) beyond just saying that you are extending X card.
• Disads reach zero risk very easily. Although framing debates tend to be ineffective and misfocused, my general perspective is that low probability likely negates high magnitude at the point that a layman would consider your DA contrived. I like politics DAs but they tend to be really bad, and case-specific DAs are often the most interesting but always harder to develop. In general, if you think your DA is good, I'll probably think it's okay; if you think your DA is bad, I'll probably think it's terrible. A good internal link makes everything I said above moot.
• Counterplans have been massacred without forgiveness and it makes me sad. I strongly dislike the current norm of going for the most abusive counterplan that can still be voted for, but a won argument is a won argument. Still, I tend to bias aff theory against CPs even if it's not a reason to reject the team. (advantage cps > pics/agent cps > process cps > cps that compete off of a single word). As far as complicated mechanisms go, go nuts, I'll be able to grasp it.
• Not sure what this topic holds, but I imagine lots of the research will be focused on security and reps-based kritiks. One characteristic of Ks which somehow appears all the time in K Aff debates but never gets drawn own on the neg side is the role of Ks in shaping how the round is argued. If you treat your K like a counterplan, you're fighting a losing battle. I'm not necessarily pro "framework K," but ultimately the alternative is just a digestible manifestation of the epistemology/pedagogy/whatever that you claim the aff is undermining.
• Topicality debates tend to be dependent on a lot of factors external to the resolution - mainly how late into the year it is and how many affs have already been generated on the topic. A small topic tends to lean aff on allowing innovative (to an extent) plans, but large topics justify limiting what affs are acceptable more stringently. In a given round, this is largely irrelevant, but good debaters draw these characteristics in as warrants on the standards debate. These claims provide rhetorical strength and can help the persuasiveness of the line-by-line on interpretations/standards substantially.
• K Affs are interesting and I'll happily vote on them, but I am, personally, reasonably persuaded by aff arguments favoring predictability and the benefits of switch-side debate. A good kritikal aff is not one which critiques the resolution, but critiques the way that we debate the resolution. If your aff does the latter, most framework arguments go out the window. I will deduct speaker points for 2ACs that have a massive overview but doesn't include it in the doc.
• K v K debates are the debates I have debated and certainly judged the least. I think it's the burden of the aff to prove that perms are allowed in a method debate since the aff has already gone so far as to reject the resolution to justify reading their advocacy, but it is up for discussion. Cap links to just about everything but that doesn't always means it's good. The Parenti and Emanuele card is not nearly good enough for the amount it gets read by neg teams. Most of what I said in my thoughts on Ks extends here too.

Two separate instances of clipping will result in an auto-loss and zero speaker points for both debaters. To be clear, clipping is intentionally skipping highlighted parts of a card while acting as though it was still read. To not clip, explicitly state when you stop reading a card before fully finishing ("cut the card at [x]"), keep track of where you stopped reading that card, and after your speech ask if anyone in the round wants a marked copy of your document where the highlighting you didn't read in the card is omitted.

***FOR NOVICES: HOW TO WIN***

Flowing is the most important (and underutilized) skill in debate. Write down your opponent's arguments. All of them.

Do line-by-line - Read and answer everything you just wrote down. Answer your opponent's arguments. All of them.

Novices that learn how to do both of these semi-competently will win the vast majority of their rounds.

This is my Paradigm -- Noah Kern (noahkern@gmail.com)

If you're a novice, good job checking my paradigm. Put me on the email chain please.

Debated for Northside for 4 years.

He/Him

--

I am fairly familiar with IR jargon but I have only judged 1 round on the 2022-23 topic. Take that as you will. 

Go at whatever speed you're most comfortable with, flow everything the opponent argues, answer all of your opponent's arguments in order, and aim to make it as easy as possible for me (or whoever is judging you) to understand your arguments.

please add to the email chain:

gbsdebatelovesdocs@gmail.com

djmcdermott2@gmail.com

HS Debate: 18-22 (4 years) -- Walter Payton WM

College Debate: 23 (1 year) -- Michigan MS

Top

Judging record is more informative than judging opinions.

How I Decide Rounds

I go through parts of the debate in this order, and stop at one if it is sufficient for me to not need to go further.

1. The flow.

This aspect is all tech, no truth. As far as I can tell, I am easily among the most tech-oriented debaters/judges in debate right now. I imagine I'd pull the trigger on a small technical concession much more readily than many other judges. Similarly, I think there are probably far more low point wins than are actually given out. The flow is where my analysis will end for almost all crushes and many debates that are semi-close but not that that close. I have switched to flowing on computer because back-to-back analytics were unflowable for me on paper. I still have no qualms voting you down on an argument I didn't flow in a speech because you were spreading through blocks even if it truly had been there, but hopefully flowing on computer will make this less of an issue.

2. Evidence

Mixture of tech and truth (truer args have better ev, but better card cutters/researchers will put out better ev). I get to this level of analysis in two circumstances: either a) I'm told to read cards or evidence quality is centered in the debate or b) despite not being told to read ev, the flow is too close to vote on alone. This is where most good, close debates will end.

3. Minor Intervention

Tech guided by truth. If I still can't comfortably decide a round based on ev and flow, I'll do things like give more weight to evidence quality despite not being told to by the debaters, look for potential cross-apps, or try to find something like that to decide a round without having to fully insert my opinion. This is where most bad debates without enough judge instruction will end.

4. Major Intervention

All truth. This is where bad debates with no clash and no judge instruction will end.

Biases

I hope to use the above steps consistently irregardless of what args are in front of me, and I think judges who are ideologically predisposed for or against a certain argument or style are annoying. I hope these biases won't affect my decisions, but the way someone has debated/coached will inevitably affect their judging in some way, so following is a list of biases based on how I've debated:

1. Policy bias. I'm almost certainly better for the K than you think (especially Ks on the NEG), and certainly better for it than my debating record would suggest; cross-apply all the tech first stuff here -- more than happy to vote on some small conceded disad to a NEG framework model if competently extended. This bias is mainly limited to thinking about these debates differently from how primarily K debaters would since I've almost always been on the policy side of policy v K debates.

2. 2N bias. This is small and to be honest could help the AFF more than it helps the NEG because I'm somewhat lenient for 1ARs in terms of if I count an extension to be an argument. I think structural AFF side bias (first and last speech) is probably true in theory but tech determines if I think that's true when judging. Overall I don't expect this to affect my judging very much. Probably one of the most 50/50 judges on condo. Default to judge kick.

3. "Small School" bias. For the most part I think people complaining about being from a "small school" would be better off spending the time they spend talking about it cutting cards, and if you do that you'll be just as competitive as your peer from a big school. However, the one area where I think there is truly a difference in schools is that I think a sizeable majority of judges are likely to (obviously subconsciously) factor school's/team's rep into their decision in close debates. I hate this and have a bit of a chip on my shoulder because of it. If debate rounds could be judged blindly I'd be all for it. I obviously won't hack for "small schools" or against "big schools," but when I was doing prefs late in my career I frequently wondered if a judge who would be good for me in most debates might be bad for me in those few key debates where I was hitting a team with more rep. I am not one of those judges.

4. Good argument bias. This is maybe too obvious to warrant saying. I'll vote on tricks and dropped ASPEC or whatever (all the flow first stuff applies for annoying args as well) but obviously in a close debate find it easier to vote for an argument with good ev, deep defenses, well-explained warrants, etc., and will likely award higher speaks in those kinds of debates.

Stuff I Frequently Wondered About Judges

-- What framework impact? --

I almost always went for fairness and consider it the most strategic, however I know I was considerably worse going for non-fairness impacts when I tried to adapt to judges, so I would just do whatever you like best.

.

-- Can I go for the K/K AFF? --

Yes.

.

-- How many condo? --

Don't care. If you lose condo you'll lose and if you win condo you'll win, the amount you read probably won't end up mattering past a good 2A contextualizing their interp to the round.

.

-- Do advantage counterplans need solvency advocates? --

Don't care.

.

-- 1NC construction/do they care about a ton of off? --

Don't care. Do whatever.

.

-- Insert rehighlightings? --

Fine.

.

-- Plan text in a vacuum? --

Fine.

.

-- Is going for theory hopeless? --

No.

.

-- If they drop condo or aspec or it's a crush etc do I have to fill the whole 2NR/2AR? --

No.

.

Speaks

Mean speaks is 28.5, standard deviation is .4, so two-thirds of debaters will be from 28.1-28.9, 95% will be from 27.7 to 29.3, and essentially all will be from 27.3 to 29.7.

Walter Payton ‘21

Top Level:

- Novice year is about learning how to debate, so be nice, keep calm, flow, and everything will be okay.

- Do impact calc and make sure to tell me the story of your advantage/DA in every round.

- Being rude is not cool and edgy; it's annoying. I will lower your speaks substantially if you're a jerk.

Affs

- I don't think I'm the best judge for a K aff. I find T USfg extremely persuasive in the context of novice debate

- I read a soft left aff. If you're reading one, you need to answer turns case analysis on the DA and extend specific framing arguments. Reading a bunch of framing cards and never extending warrants from them will make me sad.

DAs

- Impact calc and turns case are important.

T

- I have given a substantial number of T 1NRs in my time. I like T debates, just make sure to explain why your interpretation creates a better model of debate than your opponent's.

- Legal precision is the most persuasive standard to me, but you should go for whatever standard works best with your interpretation. Make sure to spend time in each of your speeches telling me which standard should frame my decision and why it should do so.

- Both teams should spend the rebuttals explicitly comparing the models of debate set by the interpretation and the counter interpretation. If the debate is clean and well impacted out, I'll give everyone good speaks.

CPs

- Not a huge fan of the process CP, especially in novice debate. I'll vote on it if you win but I won't be happy about it.

Ks

- Most familiar with your generic cap/security/biopower stuff and a little bit of set col.

- Explain your thesis clearly and spend a lot of time on the link debate. Links should be specific to the aff (a USfg link alone is not enough)

Hey whats up guys, as you can see my name is Jace, don't be afraid to call me by my first name !!

I prefer policy debate but k debate is great too. Don't let my preference scare you from running the arguments you want to run. I'm pretty open to most arguments.

The only thing I would note is that I'm not really gonna vote T unless it isn't answered correctly or it's dropped.

samir.i.rahaman@gmail.com

Northside '21 (debated)

KU '25 (debated freshman year)

1. I probably care more about clarity than others. I won't flow off the speech doc and I will try to avoid reading cards after the debate. If I can't understand the words you are saying when you are reading a card I will give that card minimal weight even if the tag is comprehensible.
2. I am bad for Ks and K affs.

- email: mnsodini@cps.edu

- If you can, try to keep cameras on during the debate

- Try your best!

Email: jmtorres7@cps.edu

coleweese1@gmail.com

4 years of high school debate (18-22), am no longer debating.

Zero topic knowledge, err on the side of maximum explanation.

Top:

Tech over truth, but truer arguments are easier to win. Any argumentative preferences I list below speak to which arguments I find more true/intuitively persuasive than others. Preferences are certainly not set in stone and I will be swayed by good debating.

My flow is the most important determinant of who I vote for. I will vote on dropped arguments, even if they are quick. At the same time, I will not vote for arguments that I don't have flowed even if you think you made them. I will read evidence, but I will only read evidence that is extended through the end of the round. I will give more weight to evidence that is explained more fully.

Speaks:

I try to keep an average of 28.5 and am not afraid to give low points.

Policy v K:

I find it easier to understand policy arguments and was policy in high school, but am definitely willing to vote for Ks on the neg and think they are strategic. I'm a little less willing to vote for K-affs, but will do it.

Framework/T-USFG:

I am most persuaded by fairness impacts, but if you feel more comfortable with others, feel free to go for those. Interpretations are important to me. I feel like judges often find a middle ground between an aff's framework interp and a neg's counterinterp, I will not do this.

T:

People don't go for reasonability enough. I also think predictability outweighs limits.

Theory:

I am more likely to vote on theory than your average judge. Default position is that condo is good, and judge kick is an extension of that, but can obviously be convinced otherwise.

Misc:

Don't spread through analytics and be clear.

I think people let vague plan writing off too easily. If the plan text could be interpreted as something other than what the aff thinks it does, that's probably a solvency deficit.

I would prefer you read rehighlightings, but don't care enough to penalize you if you insert them.

Might be a hot take, but I think the perm double bind is fire.

New affs probably don't justify neg cheating.