Meadows Presidential Novice Policy Scrimmage
2021 — NSDA Campus, NV/US
Novice Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Debated for Niles West 4 years, now debate at UTD, have gone for nearly every argument, K or policy, conceivable
Go for what you want to go for, if you got a K aff, make sure you can beat framework, if you go for a process cp, make sure you can beat theory, etc, etc, I will try my hardest to adapt and judge the round as objectively as possible. I mean this was just the longer way of saying tech > truth.
I won't vote on things that happened out of round or in other debates.
You can insert rehighlightings of the other team's evidence, text of a card only needs to be read once for it to be evaluated.
No racism/sexism/etc, be nice. Don't do that thing where you delete tags or read new affs on paper or stuff like that to make your speech harder to read.
I've become more willing to comb through evidence over the years, but it's mostly out of curiosity since debaters seem to be getting better at spinning ev, obviously I have my limits, but the debate includes the debate over the evidence.
I think conditionality is good, it seems to be necessary in this day and age when topics are very broad. I've become more neg biased recently but maybe it's just my disillusion with one unwarranted sentence of condo bad somehow becoming an entire 2ar. Condo in general seems to have gotten significantly more shallow. There probably is some point at which condo becomes bad, but I can't truthfully see myself voting for condo bad absent some egregious neg strategy or technical error.
You get infinite condo against new or undisclosed affs.
I personally don't particularly like process cps, this is a sliding scale, as consult ICJ or a commission cp seems less competitive than something like a states cp on face, but it seems like people are either unwilling or unable to actually invest time in theory in the 1ar anyways, so it often doesn't matter. I think fiating multiple actors (think both USFG and the states, not the states cp, or fiating compliance with another actor whom you fiat) is probably cheating, but I can be convinced otherwise. I tend to lean neg on theory questions despite all that
I like Ks the more specific the link analysis is. I tend to think of Ks as one or multiple thesis statements that, if won, should theoretically disprove the aff. This means the more you pull warrants from cards, explain the aff in the terms of your K, etc, the more likely it is that you beat the perm since that explanation makes links a lot more salient.
FW/T vs K affs. Since this is the only portion of a paradigm that matters for most pref sheets, yes I will vote on framework, yes I will vote against it. These debates seem to come down to impact comparison, as usually it seems hard to win either topical affs are necessary to prevent the entire collapse of this activity, versus framework is genocide, which makes winning as much of your impact quite important. Fairness impact seem to make intrinsic sense to me if debate is a game, but im not sure why that is a catch-all win if the aff wins debate rounds have impacts.
On a side note, I hate long overviews. Overviews should be for args that either; a. Are significantly more important and necessary for your argument to work, or b. Don't make sense when on the line-by-line (eg, meta-framing for how I should evaluate a debate). If you can do it on the flow, do it on the flow.
Hi my name is Axel Garcia, I'm currently a 3 years debater/ competitor, I debated public forum and policy debate in high school. I mostly debate policy and PF. I have Judged more than 20 debates all different kinds of styles (Old Account = https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=171692 ). My Email is firstname.lastname@example.org Thank you
-Can you please call me judge, i also allow tag team CX
-I like any type of argument you run! I especially like judging very interesting arguments. Just make sure there are links between your arguments and you clearly explain. Do not just read cards and expect that to be sufficient, I want you to go further than that.
-Spreading is okay as long as you articulate and are clear.
-Don't expect me to do the work for you because I won't.
i rarely do LD debate, Spend a lot of time contextualizing your card/s if you're relying on it to win the round. Even if it was already constructive, it's a good habit to cover it thoroughly a 2nd time just in case I missed something.
Sometimes i would do PF but not always.
Remember to Spread as long as you articulate and are clear.
Show me the most important issues and why they favor your side, we already had rebuttal speeches and 2 cross fires (PF).
I appreciate puns in round. However, if you intentionally make any racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory comments, I will give you extremely low-speak and notify your coach.
Tag team cx is allowed
Big questions once during highschool don't really know much about it. Except to do you best and I value one overarching argument that's successfully upheld throughout the round over winning on the flow. Big picture analysis
Random bonus like things that would boost your points
- using your time wisely. ( not just sit there and do nothing. Think what you are going to do next )
- try to act confident, even if you're not, by making eye contact with your opponent and standing up straight, which can make your argument appear more believable.
- Remain calm at all times, and never shout or get angry since it will only make your argument seem weak.
- Always have your camera on when speaking and stand up when speaking
What not to do and give you less points
- if you intentionally make any racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory comments, I will give you extremely low-speak and notify your coach.
- don't play games when you are done speaking or when you opponent is speaking
- don't go your phone to call, chat, play games, ( you can use your phone to be in a call your partner if you are using prep time
LD: policy pls (below should still be applicable)
If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.
TL;DR Go for what you're most prepared for and can execute the best because that's what really makes debate fun and productive. All that aside, please read a plan in the 1ac.
I'm not very familiar with the topic.
Debate is good
Tech > Truth
Clarity above all else
Clipping is bad
Utilitarianism is good
I, as the judge, am a policymaker
Fiat is a good thing
A couple Great cards + explanation always beats 10 pieces of mediocre ev
There's never an excuse not to do line by line
Fairness isn't an intrinsic impact, same as education. It can be an internal link to other things but simply ending your impact calculus with "They KILLED FAIRNESS" won't do it for me. Now, having said that, I am of the belief that affs are progressively getting less and less topical and that's bad for debate and abusive to neg teams. Just treat your extensions and impact work like you would any DA. (I WON'T EVALUATE T AS A DA. TOPICALITY IS A YES OR NO QUESTION. RISK ANALYSIS FOR T IS ABSURD). I also lean heavily towards competing interpretations; the quality of your ev does matter.
If your entire strategy solely centers around the K, I'm most likely not a good judge for you. I can certainly understand your generic Cap and Security K but any high theory requires a whole lot of explanation for me. Just because I understand what you're saying doesn't mean you can weasel your way around with bad links if it's even somewhat contested. If you're aff I'd down to see an impact turn (obvious exceptions, of course, are: racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, etc.) If you say "Fiat Double Bind" or run Death Good, your ceiling is a 26.
K-Affs (Includes Framework)
If you read a K-Aff, strike me, I don't care. (If both sides are willing to have an Irony debate, then we can talk.)
I love PICs the most but they always need a solvency advocate. Other than that (in my opinion), I think most clash is best done on solvency.
The only theory I feel even remotely comfortable voting aff (TO REJECT THE ARGUMENT) on are utopian fiat bad, object fiat bad, riders DA bad, delay cps bad, and floating piks bad. Condo is generally a good thing and I personally think you're better off not reading that 30 second shell if the neg is running just 2 conditional advocacies. Perf Con is still a thing though. Also, in principle, I judge-kick. I think that if I default to Condo being a good thing, and the status quo always being a logical option, it would be illogical for me to choose a plan of action when doing nothing would be better.
Also, I won't vote for Word Piks. This certainly doesn't excuse excessively disrespectful behavior but I don't think saying the word "dumb" warrants a loss.
I like politics a lot and I like engagement and clash at the link level even more so. Turns case analysis (vice versa for the aff) is always a good thing and should be a must have.
I love impact turns and my personal favorites are: Heg Good, Warming Good, Cap Good, Dedev, and China War Good. It will take a lot for me to evaluate 0 risk of an impact. It can happen but your cards need to be far better.
If you sneak in a reference from The Wire I might be inclined to increase your speaks.
senior at Damien
Put me on the email chain- email@example.com
please be respectful of others
ask me questions before the round if you have any
I'm cool with spreading just don't go warp speed through blocks and always emphasize/signpost, ill shout clear if you're going too
fast. thoroughly extend warrants, shadow extending sucks. Better analysis is better than card dumping and
don't leave it up to me to do the work for you. Good speaks for comparative analysis. I'm pretty familiar with
the POLICY topic but don't assume I know the entirety of an arg.
My email for speech documents is: firstname.lastname@example.org
HS debate from 1991 - 1995
CEDA/NDT debate at Pace University from 1995 - 2000.
I assistant coached at St. Marks from 2001-2004.
Long break until 2020.
I am currently coaching a new program.
Speaking clarity is very important.
Judges enforce speech time and pick a winner.
Judges judge best that intervene least.
High speaker points for clarity, excellent research, depth, and understanding of arguments.
Respect your opponents.
Low speaker points for lack of speaking clarity, reliance on debate theory over research.
I will mostly try to flow without looking at your speech documents. If I can't understand what you are saying due to clarity issues, I won't shore that up by reading along in the speech document.
I will attempt to render a decision based on how you weigh the debate, rather than my own interpretation of how to weigh the arguments.
These were invented during my long break from debate. I've judged one round of k-aff so far in JV as of 9/8/2021. In that one round, I voted neg on a counter kritik of academia that said the neg was plagiarizing the aff, which was good, because we need to rebel against academia, so I "voted neg to vote aff". That's just how that debate played out on the flow.
So far, I don't see myself casting my ballot as though I am starting a social movement or that it will have out-of-round impacts on the issues being discussed during the round. If I thought my ballot had out-of-round impacts on those issues, I think I would not limit my decision to what was discussed in the round, but rather I would intervene with my own research and opinions. Maybe I am missing something here, and you can explain it better.
Hi my name is Alexanna Mouskondis and I am a junior at the Meadows School. I have been in policy debate since my freshman year.
I would like to be copied in on the email chain before the debate starts.
I do not mind spreading as long as you are clear and I can understand your arguments. If I cannot understand what you are saying I will say clear.
Please make sure to time and flow yourselves.
Be respectful to your opponents, especially during cross ex.
Remember to do your best and have fun!! Good luck :)
ps. If you're funny I will give you extra speaker points <3
debated at notre dame for 4 years in policy
**SPEECH/WSD PARADIGM AT BOTTOM
2n/1a (I was a 2a/1n for my first 2 years of debate, but I probably have a more 2n mindset than I do as a 2a)
tech > truth BUT true analytic > shitty evidence
***UPDATE: I am not completely informed on the water topic so don't assume I know everything
- I know it's hard on everyone, so as long as you explain your situation don't worry that I'll dock any speaks
- I won't be following the speech docs during your speech, so be clear when you're speaking
- If I can't hear you or if my wifi is bad, I'll verbally let you know
- my camera will be on when I'm on my computer, if my camera is off that means I went to the bathroom or I went to get a glass of water, but I'll also let you know in the chat that I'm leaving
I will dock your speaks if:
- you are rude/insulting to your partner, opponents, and anyone else
- you are racist/sexist or anything similar
Some trends I found when I gave high speaks:
- great impact calculus
- judge direction (written ballots in your speeches)
- warrant comparison
- tricky spins
- gutsy decisions
I'll evaluate the debate on what is said in the debate rather than my own preferences. When faced with opposing arguments, I'll look to the cards that you extend in the rebuttal speeches and read through them. However, when I'm unable to resolve anything in the debate, I'll default to my personal preferences listed below. Judge direction is always good and helps me evaluate the debate much easier. Have fun!
*Everyone asks this but I'm fine with tag-team cross-x, as long as you give the person who's supposed to question and/or answer the chance to do so
*Also if an argument is dropped, I won't give it weight unless you extend the argument answering it. Don't just point out it's dropped
This is my personal opinion, but I think a lot of affirmatives don't really use their aff. You have 8 minutes of offense from the 1AC. Use it!
Framing is important it tells which impact I should prefer more, so even if you win aff solvency or the disad story, I'll vote on the impact linking to the framing story that's winning.
I really like gutsy and risky arguments (i.e. if the negative reads a new impact in the block and you impact turn it, and that's what you go all-in for in the 2AR) I'm all in and will probably give you high speaks.
I love a good impact story with some impact calculus and turns case. I give a DA more weight if the links are more specific to the aff
I like to see an explanation of both in-round abuse and how it destroys debate outside of rounds. I think that makes a strong and compelling argument.
debatability is the impact - limits, ground, fairness, education are all internal links UNLESS you give me a reason on why [xyz] should be an impact
case lists and TVAs are really persuasive to me
As a 2N, I love a good cheaty and shifty counterplan, so I'll consider it more than the average judge. Every counterplan needs a good overview though so I understand how the CP functions and what are the mechanisms behind it
*Ks I am familiar with -- Antiblackness, Set Col, Fem IR, Security, Queer Theory, Psychoanalysis
Honestly, you can read any K in front of me as long as you explain the story well
If you win framework, you don't automatically win the debate, BUT it gives you an extra 3 steps ahead. I evaluate all the arguments underneath the K by the framework given.
I really don't like fiat is illusory arguments where all your links are predicated off of, and I'll probably not vote on it unless dropped or convinced otherwise
I'm fine with floating piks but make sure you answer theory if given.
the aff [cumulative]
- i'm fine with them - the closer you are to the topic the better
- usfg is bad shouldn't be the only argument, I want more creativity and spin if you are reading a k-aff
- you get a perm
- debatability is the impact - limits, ground, fairness, education are all internal links UNLESS you give me a reason on why [xyz] should be an impact
- past voting history states that I'm easily convinced that procedural fairness is an impact
k v k
- love this - it's such a power move
- make sure you explain everything to me because these debates can get really confusing
- similar to topicality paradigm
- basically, if dropped and exploded, I'll give it weight
- *perf con is a reason why you could sever your reps*
wsd & extemp
I don't have any history judging wsd & speech, BUT I have done some debates in wsd and know a bit about speech and understand the structure. Honestly, just debate, argue, and convince well and I will judge to the best of my abilities. I will judge without personal bias and vote on whoever did the better speaking.
Look these things are usually long, convoluted, and filled with lies; so I will try my best to be completely honest.
USC '25 - Notre Dame '21 - Qualed to TOC - Was on Coaches Poll - add me to the email chain - [briansnitman at gmail.com]
TLDR: I view debate as a competitive activity which means that my argumentative preferences go out the window once I enter the room or the zoom call. For me, this has meant I have cut arguments ranging from SPARK to Set Col to H-Triv. For me it doesn't really matter, I don't think that any discussion can be objectively pedagogically harmful no matter the content. This means that to me Tech>Truth, and I can be convinced of anything if the other team does not contest it adequately. The only other important thing to know is that for me, the most effective ballot framing occurs when each team can paint a clear picture of what the world looks like after I submit an aff or neg ballot. This means going beyond just extending your impacts, and actually humanizing the whole aff, and almost explaining it in very simple terms. I am also not very card focused meaning: Smart Analytics > Bad cards or even good cards that aren't explained well.
K's - I'll be honest as a 2A my partner and I ran a one-off K strat every round, but I still don't understand all the buzzwords that people like to throw out. For the neg, I am more likely to just vote on just framework than other judges because the aff teams usually don't do any line-by-line. If the alt is just a framework argument then just say it, otherwise, I get confused. Links are usually mishandled and don't require a lot of evidence. K-tricks are cool and I think they should be employed, who cares if it's an easy way out. For the aff, perms make a lot of sense for soft-left aff's - you do need a net-benefit, but it seems pretty easy to win that the alt doesn't solve the aff so long as you answer the outlandish alt solves case arguments. Other than material net-benefits - I think that epistemological net-benefit also makes sense (ie practicality or particularity in policy analysis). The neg usually makes the mistake of not contextualizing the link to the perm - and DA's to perms usually don't have impacts that the alt can't resolve. For me, the perm doesn't need to avoid the links if it solves the impacts to said links. For extinction affs it makes a lot of sense to just go for util and impact turns, but you have to use util as a justification on the framework, otherwise it will be difficult to win.
PTX DA's - Let's be honest the politics card you are probably reading aren't about the aff, meaning that a blanket extension is not sufficient. I don't want to hear "X author says this"; instead take the opportunity to impress me with your civics knowledge and make logical arguments as to why the aff would derail the agenda. The one caveat to the you don't need cards rule is that if the aff has very specific link turn evidence you will be in a bad spot. I think that it is important for the negative to contextualize the link as much as possible. Too often the generic 1NC taglines make it seem like there are a million thumpers and anything can trigger it. What this means is, if your card says that water policy is controversial and thus derails the agenda, you should explain why every other contentious policy issue does not derail the agenda in similar ways. For the aff, you should obviously try to do the reverse and explain why, despite what their evidence says, other issues do have the potential to derail policy items. While the link debate is a little bit more about spin, I think that cards are very important on the internal link and uniqueness debate.
TOPIC DA's - These typically cause a lot of clash which makes them more fun to judge. Hats off to you if you go for a generic disad and just get really good at it. That being said, these disads usually require a little bit more evidence. For me, I think it is more important to contextualize all the warrants in the existing evidence, IE explains what the statistics and studies mean before you read another card that says basically the same thing as the one you already read.
CP's - I was a 2N my junior year and I almost exclusively went for the most abusive counterplan on the topic - thus have fun and feel free to terrorize the aff so long as you can defend it. Theory is great against these counterplans but affs get scared to go for it when the block read their 18 sub-point response. Condo - literally have no preference.
T - This is the one place where it is all about evidence. Intent to exclude is very important to me, otherwise IDK why the aff can't be topical.
Speaks - Technical debating is what gets you the ballot - ethos and pathos get you speaker points - To be honest I probably give higher speaks than other judges
Please add me to the email chain: email@example.com
I debated at Meadows for 4 years, qualifying to the TOC my junior and senior year (8 bids). I'm currently studying at UVa. (A lot of this is similar to Malcolm Gordon's paradigm)
Top level: Be nice and debate arguments you are comfortable with! Being overly aggressive/rude in rounds isn't cool. Debate is hard, everyone is trying their best - so please be respectful.
Online Debate: Don't steal prep - it's obvious. Tech problems aren't your fault - I won't hold that against you. But try to debate on a consistent set up so you know what works for you.
- Conditionality is good (but reading 4 cp's that don’t solve or compete with the aff doesn't help the neg)
- I am more likely to buy solvency advocate theory, multiactor fiat, etc than condo bad
- Both teams should point out when interps are arbitrary
- I think cps need to be functionally and textually competitive - cps that compete off certainty/normal means are probably cheating, but it's the aff's burden to prove that
- Word PICs - Read it as a K probably solves all your offense
- If you are actually considering going for theory at the end of the debate, don't just re-read 2ac theory shells. You need to engage with and answer the other team's offense
- I won't be familiar with every violation on the topic - so please clearly explain your interpretation and what a year of debating looks like under your interp
- Giving a case list of unpredictable affs that the aff's interp justifies is convincing
- Impact calc is really important. Just saying "limits" or "ground" isn't enough to convince me that I should vote down the other team
- Intent to define/exclude is important, but contextual evidence is also good
- Almost all of my 2nrs were some version of cap/neolib/postpolitics k. Given that, I think generic ks that don't engage with the aff produce some of the least educational debates
- this includes teams that just make "state bad" or "reform bad" links
- Reading a k isn't cheating - I think it is better for the aff to make arguments like "weigh impacts the aff solves v impacts the alt solves" or "consequences outweigh epistemology" on fw
- I won't vote on a perm if I don't know what it is - aff teams should explain how a perm overcomes the links rather than reading 5 perms in the 2ac that aren't explained
- Winning framework isn't enough - k teams should have specific links to the aff (whether that's their plan, advantages, etc) and an alternative that resolves their links/impacts
- The aff should never ignore good root cause debating - I think it can serve as terminal solvency deficits to the aff and a reason why the alt is better
- K debates that are very specific to the 1AC are my favorite debates to watch - but if your 2nc or 2nr could be read for multiple different affs on the topic - that's a problem
- Cps that are competitive and actually solve the aff are great
- Aff teams should extend theory on cheaty cps more often
- Strong solvency deficits o/w a small risk of a net benefit
- DAs with strong link stories and good ev are great, but spending 4 minutes on impacts doesn't make sense if there isn't an i/L (this probably means topic da > politics)
- Aff teams - cross x of the 1nc is a good time to squash laughable da's
- Defensive arguments that are executed well can take out a da - nonuq, no i/L, aff not key, etc are all good if you explain how those outweigh the neg's arguments
- I'm definitely open to planless affs, but you should be able to explain what you solve (otherwise presumption args can be very compelling)
- I am probably the least familiar with fw v k aff debates. I think fairness is an impact, but the neg needs to prove that their interp gives access to the type of education the aff advocates for. TVAs are good.
- I enjoy k v k debates, but only when both teams actually engage with each other's arguments. Strong links (about method, theory, or another aspect of the 1ac) are reasons why I'm less likely to buy a perm. Otherwise every k v k debate becomes both cap and racism are bad, etc. Explain how the alternative takes a different approach to resolving both team's impacts.
- Please be respectful
- I definitely pay attention and flow questions
- CX is underutilized - Ask questions that actually help your arguments (otherwise it's just a waste of 3 mins)
My name is Lauren Zimmerman. I am a junior at the Meadows School and have been debating policy intermittently since my freshman year.
I don’t mind speed, just make sure you are clear and coherent in your arguments. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.
Please be considerate of your opponents.
Please copy me on the email chain before the debate starts. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
Make sure to stay organized, flow all the speeches, and time yourselves because I won't do it for you. Also, If you are funny and make me laugh, I will give you extra speaker points. Good luck and make sure to have fun :)