I realize that this paradigm is short because I hastily threw it together, feel free to ask questions before round or email me: calebpbray@gmail.com

I debated 4 years LD at Valley (conflicts are Valley people). I'm currently studying public policy, math, and economics at Iowa. I competed on the national circuit and I should be able to understand what's going on. In terms of experience with debate positions: Phil > Theory/T > Tricks > LARP > K. DON'T ASSUME I KNOW YOUR LIT. Also please slow down on tags and card names.

Quick Note for PF: Read anything you want, just tell me why I as a judge should vote for you given the context of what's happened in the round. I don't really subscribe to the idea that I can only vote on arguments of a certain form. I default presume neg, (unless you make arguments as to why I should presume aff) if there's no offense in the round for either side.

Paradigm Defaults: Theory before K, No RVIs, Role of the Ballot is Truth Testing, and Presume Neg. Unless you tell me otherwise, I'll assume these things.

Phil: I like nuanced framework debate, it's what I did mostly when I debated. I love framework interactions with other levels of the flow (ie weighing your framework v K/Theory/Tricks/whatever).

K: Not familiar at all with the lit, but I'll vote on any K as long as the alt and ROB are clear. Just give me a reason to vote for your K/K aff. If you get up and do some Mongolian throat singing for 6 minutes with nothing else, then I'll give you speaks based on the quality of your performance, but I probably won't vote for you because you didn't give me a reason to.

LARP: I did a little bit of LARP in my last year, please give me impact calc (e.g. probability v magnitude), weighing, and a clear link chain.

Tricks: Please clearly label your tricks, and flash your speech doc if you've got a ton. I don't like having to read through huge blocks of tricks (even though that's what I did in debate) but I will, it just makes the inevitable Thomson card's argument a little stronger. I think tricks can be funny and good if done well, but I probably won't vote on your one dropped Resolved A priori vs your opponent's entire position that you dropped. Also please slow down on tricks/spikes.

Theory/T: Not super confident judging super in-depth and dense theory debates, but go for theory/T anyways. Just have a clear abuse story and weighing between interps. I'm better able to flow the theory debate if you slow down a little, especially if you're extemping.

Special Note on Theory/Tricks: If you're time constrained against your opponent's mega abuse theory/tricks position I'm willing to gutcheck to an extent if you're not able to make the line by line as long as you give me a warranted and clear reason to that also responds to the overall argument, but you should have some great weighing in there too.

Clipping/Misconduct: If you see your opponent do something violating the rules such as clipping, then please have the incident recorded, so it's not a "he said, she said" type of argument. I'll evaluate clipping/misconduct claims as the highest layer at the end of the round regardless if you drop the claim in a later speech. If you falsely accuse someone (or lack evidence and I didn't notice any clipping) then you insta lose. If your claim is right and has evidence from me or you, then you insta win.

Me as a judge: Tech before truth. I'll vote on anything as long as you give me a reason to, except for arguments related to out of round practices. I.E. I will not vote on disclosure. Please give me warrants and articulate your position as clearly as possible; don't make me guess or use background knowledge to figure out your position. Explain your position and why I should vote for you like I'm new to debate and have never heard this position before. I evaluate the round by looking at all the layers of the debate and start by evaluating the highest one (according to what you've argued). If you're too fast, I'll say slow, if you're too quiet, I'll say louder, and if you're unclear I'll say clear. I'll say this however many times, but it will lower your speaks if I say it a lot. (NOTE: It has been a hot second since I last debated/judged so I won't lower speaks if I need you to slow down, but include me on your email chain please @ calebpbray@gmail.com).

Speaks:

25.9 and below - you did something wrong

26 - poor

26.5 - a bit rough

27 - a little disappointing

27.5 - alright

28 - decent

28.5 - average

29 - good

29.5 - very good

30 - legendary debater

Iowa City West 2023

for email chain- hedu23@icstudents.org

LDer but also have experience in policy

if i'm judging you you're probs a novice - scroll to the end

prefs -

K - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theory - 2/3

Tricks - 3

LARP - 3/4

In general, I'll vote on any argument as long as it's warranted and you explain why it's relevant under the fw

defaults -

no RVI's, truth testing, competing interps, drop the debater on T, drop the arg on theory, TT over cw, cx checks are good, tech>truth in most cases - would only use these if there's 0 args either way

longer version

K's - I'm familiar w deleuze, lacan, setcol, cap, etc; non-topical and T are fine. At the minimum, explain the K as if I've never heard it before & err on the side of overexplanation

LARP - pretty straightfoward, just weigh

T/Theory - depends on the shell/each round - defaults are above. For disclosure I would probs vote against it on answers that aren't that good lol. No ad homs

Tricks - tbh they can be fun but you should still flush them out if ur going for them and have warrants, pls don't read like 20 aprioris cuz that's annoying

Phil - I read mostly phil, can probs understand most syllogisms. will be listening during cross

other stuff-

Speed - slow down for tags and I'll say clear a few times before affecting speaks

Speaks - they're arbitrary but I'll probs start at a 28.0/.5 ish and move up or down, if you're rude or read offensive args expect a drop. won't drop speaks for reading stuff that's lower on my prefs

NOVICES - Debate is a game and you should have fun doing it. If you're confused, just pretend you're not because then I won't be able to tell. Pls extend your framing and poke holes in/turn your opponent's framing/tell me why your framing should come first and why your contentions are important and impact under your framing! and weigh your impacts under timeframe, probability and magnitude; otherwise i'll just have to default extinction. PLS! USE WORD DOCS IF U CAN HELP IT

Hi! My name is Aviva, pronouns are she/her. Please put me on the email chain: avfra23@icstudents.org

I'm currently a Sophomore at Iowa City West High School.

If you are a novice read whatever arguments you want I will be able to evaluate it. Please skip to the note for novices and ignore the rest of my paradigm.

I will vote on any argument with a claim, warrant, and impact. I will vote for any style, the following is just a preference of what I personally enjoy, I will not hack against you or hurt your speaks because of what style you debate.

If you have an uncommon/weird framework please explain it well. You can't just say "extend" to extend.

I am able to evaluate any speed. I spread and debate people who spread. If I can't understand you I'll say clear.

Tech>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth

Prefs:

Tricks-3

Phil-1

Theory-1

Ks-2

LARP-4

FOR NOVICES: Please please please respond to each other's frameworks and extend. The framework debate determines what contentions matter, so if no one engages in the framework debate it will be very hard to evaluate the round. If no one responds to anyone's framework I will determine the round by looking at whose contention level offense has the strongest link back to one of the frameworks and if they were extended. I primarily vote off of framework and then go down to contention level. To Clarify, I recommend still making responses to your opponent's contentions and trying to turn them but please don't only respond to your opponent's contentions and not do any framework debate. If you turn your opponent's contentions and win your own contentions you will still win the debate because regardless of which framework I look at offense under you will be winning. If you win an a priori, that comes before everything else, but please still argue for why it comes first in round as well as make sure you don't only reread your a priori and sit down.

LARP

I don't LARP very much but LARP is pretty straight forward so I'll be able to evaluate a LARP round. It's low on my prefs because I think LARP is ok but you definitely won't lose speaks or anything if you LARP.

Tricks

I'm good with tricks and will almost always evaluate them. tech>truth. I will listen to anything with a warrant.

Ks

I like Ks, and I read them sometimes. I'd probably be the best at evaluating stock ks like fem, cap, security, ableism etc. I can evaluate high theory just explain it if it's super complicated. I'm ok with k tricks, please hint at a floating pik in the NC.

Theory

I will listen to all theory shells no matter how frivolous. The only exception is no ad homs. I will vote on disclosure if your opponent just didn't disclose but I don't like shells that are like may not full text in the cite box. I default to drop the debater, no RVIs, and competing interps. You must extend paradigm issues and voters for me to evaluate them, and if you just don't read paradigm issues in a shell I won't evaluate it. I won't hack for a specific paradigm issue and am more than willing to vote for dta, yes RVIs, or Reasonability. The only exception is if you go for reasonability you must have a brightline and a reason for that brightline.

Phil

Phil is probably what I like to watch the most. I think the NC AC strategy is very strategic and will give you good speaks if you execute it well. Hijacks and preclusive arguments are cool. If you think your framework is super complicated for some reason just explain it well but I'll probably be able to evaluate a phil debate. Please weigh in the framework debate because that makes it a lot easier to evaluate.

Defaults

I default to permissibility negates and presumption affirms, and truth testing, but I will not use my defaults unless there are literally zero arguments for why they flow one way. I have defaults because they're necessary to resolve some rounds, if no one wins any offense and no one has reasons presumption affirms or negates, I have to use my defaults because otherwise, the round will be irresolvable.

Speaks

29.5-30: You're just an absolute legend.

29-29.5: Good Work

28.5-29: Good job

28-28.5: Pretty good

27.5-28: You did fine

26.6-27: Eh, ok

0-25: You were mean or did something really wrong

My name is Braedon Kirkpatrick (He/Him/His). I was an LD debater for 4 years at West Des Moines Valley High School and dabbled a bit into policy. I graduated from high school in 2019 and am currently in college. If you have any further questions regarding my paradigm, need to add me to the email chain, or just need to contact me for any reason, my email is braedon-kirkpatrick@uiowa.edu.

Notes on Speaker Points:

The easiest way to get good speaks out of me is to speak/spread as clearly as you possibly can and make good args that aren't just ctrl+c, ctrl+v -ed from a pre-written massive backfile. Managing to crystalize near the end of the round will also net you high speaks.

Also, if you are debating a novice or someone new to the circuit, please make the round as inclusive and as educational as possible, as we want to include people in this activity instead of scaring them off by being overly intimidating. I will reward high speaks if you do this.

I will plummet speaker points if there is any open hostility, bigotry, excessive rudeness, and/or aggression in the round. Just remember to be kind and we will get along just fine :)

Online Debate:

- I would appreciate it if you kept at a speed that is comprehensible on online debate, as the lack of audio quality can make it so when circuit debaters spread at top speeds half of the arguments are incomprehensible, and if I can't hear it I cannot vote on it. I would also appreciate you starting slow and ramping up speed for the first 10 seconds of your speech and slowing down on taglines and author names, as it makes it easier to engage with the case.

- If you know that you have tech issues, I would appreciate you keeping a local recording so if your speech cuts out, we can retrieve the arguments that were said, otherwise I will not be able to vote on what I did not hear.

- Signposting is really important for me especially in the online debate format as in order to flow your rebuttals and extensions I have to know where they are in the first place. If you don't do this it is likely I will miss an argument or 2 while I waste time attempting to find the argument, which may affect how I judge a decision.

-I really appreciate and your opponent appreciates it when you flash your case so please do it, especially in online debate.

The Core:

I believe that debate is, at its core, a game. I am willing to vote on pretty much everything (read my paradigm for exceptions) as long as the argument is explained well and it isn't offensive. All I require is for you to tell me why you deserve the ballot. In order for me to vote for an argument you make, however, I must be able to hear it. If you indecipherably mumble a turn in the 1NR that neither I nor your opponent can hear and then blow up on how it was conceded in the 2NR, I will be far less likely to vote for it than if you clearly and distinctly read the turn. If you have some reason why you cannot do so that's completely fine just notify me before the round starts so I can better flow your arguments. If you stand or sit, read from paper or computer, wear a suit or workout clothes, spread 350 wpm or speak like a political official, it doesn't matter. All that matters to me is the quality of your arguments.

For Prefs:

I'd consider myself to be a jack of all trades, master of none when it comes to familiarity with debate strategies, as I have a good level of exposure with Ks, Framework, Tricks, LARP, etc... but did not specialize in a single type during my time as a debater.

Specific Stances:

Defaults:

- If no ROB is provided, I will default to truth testing over comparative worlds

- I assume Tech > Truth unless proven otherwise

- I assume flex prep is A-OK

-I assume Theory > ROB > Framing unless weighed otherwise

-I assume all Plans, CPs, Ks, PICS, etc... to be unconditional unless specified otherwise

-I assume plans on the AFF to be whole-res unless specified otherwise

Framework: The only issue I normally have in framework rounds is a complete lack of clash. I really don't like to vote off of embedded clash arguments as I feel it opens up the door for a lot of judge interventions, so just be specific on how your cases interact.

K's: Don't have much to say on K's, other than please be explicit in your link and on what my role as a judge is. Also note that I have to understand something to vote off of it, and while I have some good experience with different types K literature, probably best to assume I have never heard of your lit before and I don't know what kind of arguments certain authors make.

NIB's: All I ask is that you clearly speak when reading NIBs so that it is possible for me to flow and for your opponent to have a chance to respond to them. Don't forget that arguments are claim, warrant, and impact, as I need NIBS to be arguments not just claims to be able to vote on them.

Spikes: Sometimes you need a good 4 min under view. Sometimes it isn't necessary. You do you. Your speaks won't suffer if you use them. Just as a good rule of thumb, list your spikes in some fashion so that your opponent and I will be able to write them down in some recognizable form and be able to engage with them. It helps us, makes it easier to signpost for you, and gives you more credence on the validity of the spike. The only spikes that I will not evaluate are in round spikes that affect speech and prep times and spikes that have "evaluate after the 1AR or 2NR", as I do not like spikes that attempt to alter the NSDA structure of debate especially since these specific spikes make the round super messy.

Disclosure: I hate disclosure arguments as I see them usually being used against new debaters and people just coming into the circuit, but I will vote on it if nothing is read against it and there is a particularly compelling case for why. For instance, if it is an elim round and you have screenshots of your opponent being shifty 15 minutes prior to the round and lying about their case, then I would consider a disclosure argument.

Theory/T: I have no specific paradigm issues with theory except I won't "gut check" against theory args. Got to provide an argument as to why the theory is frivolous and why that is bad. If a shell is extempt, please read it slower than you normally would, as it allows for both me and your opponent to be able to respond to the violation.

Evidence Ethics: I usually just default to tournament rules for this.

LARP: Please give me clear impact calc weighing with a clear link chain, that is all.

Hi I'm Hanae Matsumoto (she/her)!

Iowa City West High School '23

Add me to the email chain hamat23@icstudents.org

pref sheet!!!!!

Theory- 2

Phil- 1

Tricks- 3

K- 3

LARP- 4

*These are not arguments I hacked for but rather arguments I have the most experience with.

general:

I will vote on any argument with a claim, warrant, and impact as long as it doesn't exclude debaters (no oppression good)

Tech >>>>> Truth

CX is binding

Make sure to weigh

Be nice to everyone

Be nice to novices

Speed is fine, I will say clear if I can't understand or there's tech issues

specifics

theory: Fire- I'll listen to any shell no matter how frivolous

Weigh between theory standards, shells, voters

Disclosure isn't my fav but I'll vote on it if it's won

Would prefer if I don't have to default on paradigm issues. (default DTD, no RVIs, competing interps)

phil: Also cool, just make sure to explain well

Creative applications of fw are fire.

Tell me what your winning on the fw debate and why that means you win fw (messy fw debates are not ideal)

Familiar with basic phil authors (eg hobbes, rawls, kant, levinas, social contract, etc)

Phil is what I read 80% of rounds atm

larp: I don't LARP very often but I can evaluate it

Weigh between links, impacts, evidence, weighing standards- just weigh!

tricks: They're fun, have warrants, the better executed the more enjoyable

Being sketchy in cross is fun, but there's a limit

k's: They're nice, just err on the side of over-explanation. Don't assume I know the literature (even if I am familiar with it)

Familiar with deleuze, butler, lacan, queerpess, agamben, set col, cap, etc

trad: Do whatever, have warrants!

I did speech at Lansing KS 2013-2017... no debate. I consider myself to be a lay judge. I can't keep up with spreading.

I'm a secondary English teacher in the Iowa City Community School District. I have two undergraduate degrees in English/Creative Writing and Secondary English Education from the University of Iowa.

I'm interested in politics/social justice outside of NSDA so I understand issues to a degree. But, the art of the argument itself often confuses me. I try my best to stay on top of it as I flow.

Please feel free to ask me any questions about what I'm familiar with - I won't be offended! I'm here to help you make the best argument and have a good round.

Remember to be respectful to one another! I value civility above all else. :-)

Here are my paradigms for various events. If you have any questions feel free to ask for clarification in round.

PF paradigm

I am a former PFer and so I am familiar with the event. I competed for 4 years and I am pretty easy going as for judge preferences. I flow the round, but I do really like to see weighing, sign posting throughout the round and voters in the summary and final focus. I am okay with some speed, but this is not policy or LD so don't go over the top.

Congress Paradigm

I competed a bit in Congress in high school and am familiar with the event. I also have 2 years organizing a youth congress program in Iowa. I am looking for organization in speeches, and also prefer if you speak with limited notes rather than read word for word.

LD Paradigm

I have judged some LD and competed about 2-3 times in high school, but I still consider to be a lay judge. I do flow though, but please provide clear extensions.

Speech Paradigm

For Public Address/ Limited Prep speeches, I like seeing organization in the speeches, and for events such as oratory a clear argument

For Interp. I prefer seeing clear character pops and smooth transitions between characters.

Tell me which time signals you want otherwise I will typically give just 2 down for interp/ public address events and then 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 in extemp.