St. Mark's School of Texas '22

Please put me on the email chain: salabbasidebate@gmail.com

Top level: My paradigm is just here to explain how I think and debate but when judging I do my very best to throw my predispositions out of the window. If you have any questions just ask me.

Tech over truth--this does not mean if you make an unwarranted claim it is true, this means if you make a warranted and explained argument and the other team drops it then it is true.

CP Theory--Condo is probably good for 3 or less advocacies but I can be persuaded by theory debates. Perf cons are usually ok unless it's something like the abolition K and the crime DA. I generally think if you are reading multiple counterplans they should at least have a decent solvency advocate.

Framework--Aff's should be in the direction of the topic. I am very persuaded by T in debates where the aff isn't.

K's--I am more accustomed to judging the CP DA debate but if you read a substantive K then I will be able to judge that round just as well (the abolition K and the cap K are both fine for example).

guno/sean/judge. do with that as you will

flow.

guno.debate@gmail.com

+0.5 speaks given if you add me without asking. do with that as you will

be nice. don't do with that as you will. be nice.

don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. don't do with that as you will. don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.

don't read death good. don't do with that as you will. don't read death good

i've been equally a 2A and 2N, but i prefer being a 2A. do with that as you will

Topicality: I've had two T debates in my life. do with that as you will

Kritiks: order of understandability

--security---queer theory -------setcol---------------------other identity-----------------------------------------------high theory

don't drop fw

do with that as you will

K Affs: k affs have value but i don't think u shud read it as a novice. do with that as you will

fw/t-usfg are my bread and butter. went for it in every 1nr. do with that as you will

Disads: bread and butter. went for it in every 1nr. do with that as you will

Counterplans: literally never took it in the 1nr. don't drop perms. do with that as you will

Theory: don't drop it. go for it if they do. do with that as you will

30 speaks if you have a methane impact. do with that as you will

jokes abt ppl at gbn, gbs, nt, oprf, minn south, or uc lab +0.5 speaks. do with that as you will

u can read anyone from gbn's paradigm and i'll agree for the most part. sohan bellam's paradigm details thoughts about k affs that i agree wtih

1. Conflicts [as of 10/04/2020]

• No Univ of Chicago Lab
• No Iowa City

2. Short Version

• tech over truth
• strong analytics/analysis can beat carded evidence
• prioritize your impacts
• have fun!

3. Pandemic Social Distancing Related Technology Notes

• Please slow down 5-10%. Emphasize your warrants. Without a microphone stem, your quality fluctuates. Keep in mind that I still flow on paper.
• Please get explicit visual or audio confirmation from everyone in the debate before beginning your speech. I may use a thumbs up to indicate I am ready.
• If my camera is off, unless I explicitly have told you otherwise, assume I'm not at the computer.
• If the current speaker has significant tech problems, I'll try to interrupt your speech and mark the last argument and timestamp.

4. Some Detail

I've been meaning to do this for a while, but have not really had the time. My hope is that I end up judging better debates as a result of this updated philosophy. I am now changing to a more linear philosophy, it is my hope that you read this in its entirety before choosing where to place me on the pref sheet. I debated for four years at Homewood-Flossmoor High School in the south Chicago suburbs from 2007-2011. During that time I debated, Sub-Saharan Africa, Alternative Energy, Social services and substantial reductions in Military presence.

Nearing a decade ago, during would would have been the h.s. space topic. I started at the University of Northern Iowa, Where I debated NDT/CEDA Middle East/North Africa while judging a few debate rounds across the midwest. After my freshman year I transferred to the University of Iowa, where I started coaching at Iowa City High School. This year, I will continue to coach the City High Debate team.

Framing, Issue choice and impact calculus are in my opinion the most important aspects of argumentation, and you should make sure they are components in your speeches. Late rebuttals that lack this analysis are severely.

I preference tech over truth. Your in round performance is far more important to me, as it is what I hear. I greatly attempt to preference the speaking portion of the debate. Increasingly, I've found that my reading evidence is not necessarily an aspect of close debates, but rather results from poor argument explanation and clarification. The majority of 'close rounds' that I've judged fall into the category of closeness by lack of explanation. In some limited instances, I may call for evidence in order to satisfy my intellectual fascination with the activity. Anything other than that--which I will usually express during the RFD--probably falls upon inadequate explanation and should be treated as such.

I feel my role as a judge is split evenly between policymaker and 'referee' in that when called to resolve an issue of fairness. I will prioritize that first. Addressing inequities in side balance, ability to prepare and generate offense is something may at times find slightly more important than substance. In short, I consider myself a good judge for theory, THAT BEING SAID, rarely do I find theory debates resolved in a manner that satisfies my liking - I feel theoretical arguments should be challenged tantamount to their substance based counterparts. Simply reading the block isn't enough. Though I was a 2A[≈ High power LED current, peak 2.7 A] in high school I have since found myself sliding towards the negative on theoretical questions. I can be convinced, however, to limit the scope of negative offense quite easily, so long as the arguments are well explained and adjudicated.

I consider reasonability better than competing interpretations, with the caveat that I will vote on the best interpretation presented. But topicality questions shouldn't be a major concern if the team has answered.

I have a long and complicated relationship with the K. I have a level of familiarity with the mainstream literature, so go ahead and read Capitalism or Neolib. Less familiar arguments will require more depth/better explanation.

Jake Kalinovskiy

Current debater at GBN

GBN 2022

jakdebate@gmail.com

-- add me don't ask

-- tag team cx is good

-- if I don't say anything/am quiet assume I'm good. I'll lyk if I'm not ready

Be interesting/funny = speaks + more likely to do work for you, I prefer to give higher speaks, don't give me a reason to doc yours.

I reward argumentative creativity, I've debated revisionism 50 times -- what makes you special?

- analytics are real arguments -- a smart analytic > unexplained card

- if you try to out-card them and just don't analyze it I really don't care how many cards you read.

- if you read answers to arguements that were in the doc but they didn't get to I will be disappointed.

- I like debate/K tricks if you understand them.

- a dropped argument is true if warranted/impacted out in the rebuttals

Debates about debate are my favorite, go slow: - this is my bread and butter, just please please please tell me why to prefer your model

T, Theory(all of it, condo especially), Framework = much love - the framework page goes aff or neg, that frames every other flow.

Case debate:

I'm probably going to start evaluating the debate here, probably a good idea to win case.

neg, if you don't have cards use analytics PLEASE

Framing: - also frames the rest of the debate (unless you tell me why it doesn't)

if its not case specific I care very little

debate changes value framing

if the disad is bad you don't need ThEiR lInK cHaIN is lOnG (this means connetta and all of the cards like it, just take it out of your 1ac, I will comment after the round how much of a waste of breath this is and no one needs to hear that lecture)

i LOVE the framing contention, but if you read one it needs to be a massive part of the debate. This has to be the hill you die on or its a waste of 1ac space

T:

love it

fairness is probably an internal link but so is nuclear war

Da:

- is your politics link unique? is it really? okay then go for it

- real disads: I'm down, have fun. Connetta is wrong

- 0 risk is a thing

Cp:

Pcp is a good answer to garbage

- Pcp is a T debate -- what does your model of debate look like?

I love garbage if it can beat Pcp

don't bother with solvency advocate theory

-- if you can finagle their aff away I respect it. they have to defend every aspect of the aff. (if it passes the Perm test its a viable option)

condo/judge kick:

I'm down for the condo debate -- I won't make up excuses to vote neg - I love debates about debate, if you create a spicy condo speech you will be rewarded handily in speaks

judge kick is the most abusive thing this side of the Atlantic, but if you don't answer it I have no choice.

impact turns:

- thebomb.com

- big stick affs don't get 'but killing people is bad' as an answer

K:

neg:

don't read it if you can't explain it in English -- K goop in the final rebuttals that hasn't been clearly defined in by the rebuttals will be ignored

if you're reading a framework K -- don't be weasly, the 2nr should be very clear about what you want me to vote on.

-- the neg has to have reps if you're reading a reps K.

if you fiat the alt -- I can be convinced that the pic is okay

have an alt

if you wanna read security abt an impact that isn't terrorism, I'm not your guy.

aff:

most Ks are incoherent and I'll vote on it without a second thought

neg link uniqueness and alt solvency are usually jokes

Kaff:

you're a novice. please don't

if you decide not to read my paradigm, it probably has pedagogical value but the neg ballot on T is looking delicious right about now.

Speaks:

- FLOW -- if you send a picture of your flow in the doc and I like it I'll boost your speaks

- I want to give you higher speaks

Debated at Cedar Rapids Washington for four years. IFLs state champion 2021. Wellesley College class of 25. I'm only familiar with policy debate. She/Her/Her's pronouns. My last name is pronounced "Kern". You can call me Elizabeth instead of "judge."

Put me on the email chain: elizabethkolln@gmail.com

You do you. I'm fine with almost anything. Don't be rude/offensive in round. I will not tolerate any behavior that is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. If you repeatedly misgender your opponent I will vote you down. Don't read "death good" in front of me.

Coppell 2022- I am not super familiar with this year’s topic yet so please explain water-jargon or acronyms when you use them. :)

Tech > truth.

Time your own prep. Not a bad idea to also time your opponent's prep. Also please format your speech docs so that they're easy to navigate. Try to be clear and coherent, I'll make my decision based on my flow.

Dropped arguments are true but warrants are still important. Don't say the other team dropped an argument that they answered.

tldr-

More familiar with policy, but will vote on Ks/K affs. Will vote on theory. Don’t botch the case debate. If you’re a novice read my novice section please. Be nice in round!!

Novices-

The most impressive thing you can do is debate off your flow and do line-by-line. Also sign-post. This makes my job so much easier. I don’t like messy debates. Also please give a roadmap.

Impact calc is essential. Tell me why it makes sense for me to use your framing model.

Split the block! The 2NC should take 2-3 positions and the 1NR should take 1. This gives you more time for line-by-line and leads to more in-depth debates.

I'm generally going to give y'all pretty high speaks because y'all deserve it.

Cx-

I think cross examination is a speech. That being said, I need arguments you make in cx to show up in your future speeches.

T-

I like T and I will vote on it. It needs to be extended well in the block in order for it to be the 2NR (1NRs on just T are a power move.) If you're going for it make sure it's the only thing in your 2NR. Structure is key, messy T debates aren't fun for anyone.

Fairness is not an impact, but can be a strong internal link. Limits for the pure sake of limits is not compelling. Clash and education are good.

Theory-

I will vote on it. It needs to be a good chunk of the 1AR and all of the 2AR. Don't just read your blocks, apply it to the round.

Dropped theory is a voting issue.

DAs-

I like DA debates. I need impact comparison.

CPs-

CPs are generally good. I like smart CPs that actually solve the aff. Cheaty CPs are probably bad and should have theory read against them. 2 condo is probably fine, 3+ is shadier.

PICs are probably cheating but they can be smart arguments.

Ks-

Most familiar with Ks like cap, security, etc.

I understand most identity Ks but I am not the best judge for those debates.

PoMo is a no go.

The aff should probably be able to weigh their plan in some way, but I can be convinced otherwise. The link is the most important part of the K. If you want judge kick, tell me.

Subbi Namakula, Michael Cho, Jake Sanders, Henry Wright, and Warren Sprouse have all coached me during my debate career. My senior year I was mostly policy-oriented, but I don't really have a preference when it comes to K vs. Policy debate.

Case-

Case turn debates are fun (except spark.) Don't concede the aff's framing. If you read generic impact defense contextualize it to the aff and their internal link chains. Worthwhile impact defense is really all about pulling the logical warrants out of your cards and using them to poke holes in the other team’s internal link chains.

I've read soft-left affs for almost my entire debate career, but extinction impacts are fine too. Have a clear route to solvency. Also explain your internal links.

I'm most familiar with topical affs. I have read some K affs, but I'm not especially well-versed in them. Framework/Cap debates are fine.

Be nice. Have fun.

Carmine Miklovis (he/him)

American University '26

cmiklovisdebate@gmail.com

Who Are You?

I did policy debate for Glenbrook North for 3 years, and stopped debating at the start of my senior year. I had a little success, but am probably unsuited to judge in the late elimination rounds of the larger tournaments of the year.

Top Level (Non-Negotiables)

Any behavior that is actively violent or otherwise harmful to anyone in the debate will not be tolerated. Default to gender-neutral pronouns (they/them) if you don't know your opponent's specific pronouns.

My ballot will not (and cannot) be a referendum on out-of-round behavior.

Debate is a game.

Tech > Truth, but the original argument has to be complete and not incoherent.

Cross-applications are never new.

Evidence should be highlighted to make actual arguments and shouldn't look like haikus. Teams should call out other teams for extending warrants that weren't originally highlighted in their cards.

If I'm unable to draw a line between an argument made in a final rebuttal and an earlier speech, I won't evaluate it.

Pen time is important. Don't expect me to flow 4 perms in a row. If you're spreading analytics at full speed, don't be mad if I miss the 11th 10-word subpoint you made about why weighing the aff is bad.

Clarity > Speed (you should spread, so long as you're clear)

Clipping is an auto-loss. Accusations of it must stake the debate on it and would benefit from audio proof.

If your primary strategy relies on attempting to win the debate by confusing your opponents, you should strike me. I'll probably end up being confused too.

The age of your blocks is inversely proportional to your chances of winning.

The more judge instruction you do, the less I will have to intervene.

What follows is a list of predispositions that I have about certain arguments. All of the following can be overcome by good debating, but are important to note when preffing me or debating in front of me. Given equal, or unclear, debating, the following predispositions will guide how I resolve the debate.

Topicality

--T v Policy Affs

I have no predispositions about which standards are good, and which ones are bad, or whether to prefer competing interps or reasonability. Don't assume I know the "community consensus" about which affs are and aren't topical, or about what "egregiously untopical" aff MBA reads.

I dislike plan text in a vacuum, but will still vote on it.

--T v K AFFs

I'm not the best for K affs, but if you have me in the back, there are a few things to note.

Your 2ar should have a lot of judge instruction. Given that I ran almost exclusively policy arguments, in the absence of robust judge-instruction from the aff team, I might resolve the debate in a way that favors the team whose arguments make more sense to me.

Aff teams should impact turn the neg's standards on T (and definitely shouldn't read a counter-interp that links just as much to their own offense).

Don't expect me to vote on buzzwords unless you actually explain them.

Additionally, I think any K aff that is not explicitly critiquing debate should always lose to a combination of switch-side debate and a topical version of the aff. K affs that aren't explicitly critiquing debate tend to instead have a reason why defending the USFG is bad, in conjunction with a reason why advocating for their scholarship is key. However, the reasons why the USFG is bad can easily be read on the neg, as a K, and the "advocacy key" warrant is not an "affirmation key" warrant, so the neg only needs to win a small risk of any of their offense on T in order for me to vote neg. That being said, this predisposition can be easily overcome by good debating, and will not substitute for insufficient negative topicality debating.

Kritiks

I'm not terrible for these, but I'm not amazing. You should err on the side of over-explaining your arguments, especially if they're more complicated. I'm good for certain Ks, such as cap, security, settler colonialism, and kritiks of IR, and you shouldn't substantially alter your level of explanation or strategy if you have me in the back for those, but anything else will require a lot of judge instruction.

A simple way to know whether or not you've met the threshold for explanation that will allow me to vote for your argument is to not only explain the concept, but explain the implication of it for the debate, and try to do so using as few buzzwords as possible. For example, "Dropping that antiblackness is ontological zeros all of their state good offense because it proves the state will never actually change, which means engagement is futile and means any risk of a link is sufficient to vote neg."

If you really think an argument is so important that winning it means you should win the debate, it should be more than a one-liner. Otherwise, don't expect me to vote on it, and don't post-round.

Links should be more specific than "any action by the United States federal government is bad."

If you have a new style of K, with completely never-before-seen elements, that you think will revolutionize debate, I'm probably not the best judge for it.

Perm: double bind should just be a way of explaining perm: do both, not a separate argument.

Counterplans

Counterplans that compete off of words that are always in the resolution (resolved, "United States federal government," "should," "substantial" or "substantially," et cetera) are unpersuasive to me, and should lose to theory or the intrinsic perm.

Counterplans that compete off of normal means (also known as "process counterplans") shouldn't be prolific on the NATO/emerging tech topic. Instead, I think plan-inclusive counterplans and advantage counterplans should fill that deficit in the negative's strategic arsenal.

Intuitive solvency claims don't need advocates, but you should have an advocate for why, for example, building a space elevator would prevent the collapse of U.S. hegemony.

Disads

Not much to say, they're great, especially specific disads. While I would prefer specific links, I'm fine with generic links if you can contextualize the link story to the aff.

Aff teams should take advantage of dropped straight turns, and neg teams should stop dropping straight turns (usually in the 1nr).

Evidence should tell a coherent story. If the uniqueness evidence says the bill passes because of bipartisanship, the link shouldn't be about political capital.

Theory

Like most other theory arguments, whether conditionality is good or not is a debate to be had.

"No neg fiat" is a joke.

Most theory arguments against kritiks are nothing more than a time skew for the 2nc, as opposed to a viable 2ar option.

Case

Impact defense is fine. I'm persuaded by the aff explaining why the specificity of their internal links means the impact defense isn't responsive.

Aff internal link chains and solvency mechanisms are suspicious, and should be poked at in cross-ex and in neg speeches.

Comparative impact calculus goes a long way in helping me resolve the debate, and, in conjunction with turns case arguments, can make close debates significantly easier to resolve.

Turns case arguments would benefit from (but don't necessarily need) cards. The level of explanation of your turns case argument is proportional to the likelihood I will vote on it if it is dropped and properly extended.

Closing Thoughts

Email me if you have any questions/would like additional feedback. I will listen to any redos you send me and give you feedback.

Otherwise, good luck and have fun.

i go by tech, (he/they)

uclab 2022

email chain please: rnxdebate@gmail.com

im probably only going to judge novices for the 2020-21 and 2021-2022 year, but here's a full paradigm anyway.

tldr, partially stolen from sonny patel:

- i view the speech act as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- generally better for the k, aff or neg, but i'm open to voting on nearly anything you put in front of me. details below.
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters.
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating

info about me:

i go to uclab, currently a senior and technically in my in my 4th year for debating, but i haven't done a tournament this year (college apps </3). i am a black, trans, and queer person - this inevitably impacts how i view certain arguments. i am a k debater (mainly identity critiques), but policy is chill too. i am generally tech > truth. i obviously try my best to leave my biases at the door, but no judge is completely unbiased. alright enough about me

personal thoughts about debate

i am someone who believes that debate is a place of education and changing subjectivity. i think what arguments you choose and ones you interact with do impact how you think about the world in some way. i have a lot of sympathy for k debaters specifically, as both a k debater myself, and also as someone who believes that debates should be about what interests and impacts you. i think debate and how we debate changes and fluctuates to adapt to the world, and that debaters and judges and coaches should too. this "philosophy" for lack of a better word frames a lot of how i see debate - take that however way you want.

however, if you debate well enough on anything, you can win on anything, regardless of my personal opinions.

general stuff:

please, be clear :)

you can read basically anything in front of me as long as it isn't racist/sexist/anti-queer/etc.

please don't be overly mean/rude. sass in crossex and in your speeches is great if you aren't being rude after/before/during rounds. HOWEVER if its for performative reasons (queer rage, black rage, native rage, etc) than i think to some extent its fine, but i don't think it should extend before or after round.

@ novices: please flow :))

send docs, especially since it's online debate. try and send analytics in case you cut out/someone has audio processing issues.

some judges hate cursing, but i literally don't care. curse in every sentence if you want.

i'm very expressive. if you want to know what i think of something, often you can see it on my face and in my expressions.

people who impacted me the most in debate: sonny patel, ignacio evans, dsrb, and beau larsen

long version:

t/framework

if it's a policy aff v. t, i think these could be good debates, but they usually get really messy. i will vote on reasonability.

if it's k aff v. t: i cannot lie, i am generally aff leaning on these types of t debates, but this does not mean i will never vote neg/cannot be convinced that the performance of the aff prevents -insert impact-. i consider myself aff leaning more k aff debates v t because t teams never seem to grapple with the actual content of the aff when they run t - often k teams are built to answer t, so they use their scholarship to answer it. so when you are debating a k team, you still have to contextualize your blocks to their actual content. again, that doesn't mean i hate t or will never vote on it out of spite. this also doesn't mean k teams should think i'm automatically going to vote for you.

i think the aff should be able to defend either why their departure from the status quo is good, or why they are still topical despite utilizing nontraditional means (no plan text, poetry, etc.). i generally think the former is more convincing. i don't think fairness is an impact but rather an i/l to education, but again if you can convince me otherwise, i'm more than happy to vote on it. convincing arguments for me on T are (good) tvas, education impacts, and in round abuse arguments. pointing to when they have been abusive in round and running good tvas that engage with their scholarship and paint a picture for how their language and rhetoric can be included traditionally without sacrificing their scholarship is 10x more convincing then "we can't run elections da :(".

for affs, i rlly like well thought out c/i's. offering ways in which to think differently about how we debate and what we debate is great. other than that, impact turns are generally more convincing to me than a w/m, but if you are able to argue it well i'm down for either.

some wake debate camp advice: challenge yourself to engage with a k's literature. when you're prepping for a tournament, instead of writing T next to every K aff on your spreadsheet, try to engage the aff on a level other than the procedural. it can help you open up your literature base and maybe learn something new :)

da's

i'm always pro aff specific links/da's. p l e a s e do impact analysis! judge instruction at the top of your rebuttals is great. tell me why i should vote for you and what that does/will do.

cps

chill, cross apply above. explain the net benefit to the cp well, i feel like sometimes people just say it and don't explain how the cp resolves the da/whatever. theory stuff can be super cool and creative and can make debates interesting, so if you have funky theory stuff you can run it :)

ks

my fav :). i mainly debate identity critiques with a sprinkle of high theory but i'm cool with anything. baudy gets a lot of hate (honestly, deserved) but it can be interesting especially if memed. performance kritiks (especially on the neg) are great and i really like listening to them, but please utilize the poem/performance throughout the entire round. leaving it in the 1ac/1nc and never using it again makes me sad. teams often never answer the performance (which you should, btw) so use that! use it as an argument, take lines from your poems and use it to answer their arguments. utilize it almost like it's an analytic. also, please don't forgo your thesis explanations just because I debated kritiks, you still need to do that to win any argument.

i'm pro specific links to affs, but unlike many judges that doesn't mean i won't vote on a link of omission (unless convinced otherwise). i do think framework often has a huge role in evaluating these, but if you have a lom, take lines from their aff and weave it into the link, take in round lines (cx answers, etc) and use them to make your link more specific, those can often be more convincing than a card.

aff, please make a perm. and don't just spread through 70 perms without any warrants or explanations, actually warrant out the perm and explain why it's more preferable. and neg, while i am guilty of whipping out the perm block and just doing that, have some specific answers to their perm and why its worse/why the aff is mutually exclusive just to close the door firmly on it.

for k-framework, i think it's seriously underutilized. it gets really messy at times, but i think a framework argument is not only important but can be damning. my default framework is who did the better debating, but once framework arguments are introduced i will vote depending on 1) who better convinced me that their rob is the best way to view the round and 2) who best meets that interpretation. compare your rob to your opponents, but ALSO compare who best meets that interpretation. its so much easier as a judge if you do some instruction. write my ballot for me.

on the alt, it is the weakest part of the kritik. don't stay married to it -- if it's the best decision for the round, don't be afraid to kick it and go for the impact turns. if you do go for it, make sure you explain the world of the alt or explain why vagueness is good.

i'm good with long o/v's but you still have to line up what you said in the o/v on the flow. also, if you don't slow down and spread through the o/v, all that embedded clash gets lost. if i cannot understand you, i cannot flow you, and therefore cannot evaluate any of the wonderful arguments you make. read your o/v at tagline speed.

kritiks i know very well/have debated: afropess/optimism (wilderson, warren, moten + harney), mbembe, baudrillard, black fem (sharpe, hartman), rodriguez, psychoanalysis, cap, security, abolition

kritiks i know kinda: sci-fi, deleuze, afrofuturism, model minority, puar, nieztche

k affs

i love these. performance? cool. plan text that you fiat? based. plan text you don't fiat? great. no plan text? nice. just make sure you have a complete understanding of your aff and your aff's scholarship. if you don't, it will show in your cx and i will be sad. for t stuff, please read the t/framework section.

k v k debates are, in my opinion, both enjoyable and frustrating. as a k debater, i find them so much more refreshing and engaging. k v k debates can often be two ships passing by, which can make judging, listening, and debating frustrating. being well read in multiple literature bases will help you tremendously. from experience, getting demolished in crossex when your opponent knows your thesis better than you do sucks. these debates can be incredible to listen to and think about, but when you are debating be as specific to the aff/neg's thesis as possible. it makes judging and debating so much easier. having a tight grasp on yours and your opponents literature can make your arguments more convincing and clash so much better.

use history!!! especially if its a theory of power debate, use historical examples to contextualize your theory -- theories can be very abstract and kind float and exist without context, so using history can make your jargon make more sense in real world context.

theory

sick. do it. creative theory debates can be really interesting and easily voted on. if you do the work on it i have no qualms voting on it.

speaker points

i start at a 28 and work up or down, any racism/sexism/anti-queerness/ableism/etc will result in an automatic L and the lowest speaks possible

things i evaluate:

- performance/poetry

- compelling crossex questions/answers

- clarity

- use of jokes (make me laugh)

- general spreading

@ novices, stolen again from sonny patel:

"Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help. :)"

if you have any questions, email me :) happy debating!

debated policy for glenbrook north high school

put me on the email chain: julia.s.debate@gmail.com

pronouns are she/her - for online debate, please change your name to include your school and preferred pronouns.

(last updated for the CJR topic)

tech > truth

I don't tolerate rudeness/racism/sexist/homophobia/transphobia etc.

don't read death good

clipping/false accusations of clipping will result in a loss

specific arguments:

theory: I will vote on most theory arguments - if impacted out well enough. However I will not vote on aspec or rvi's even if they're dropped. As a 2a, I love 2ars on theory, but I really encourage for them to be given off the flow for the most part. Prewritten blocks aren't always responsive to their arguments, and it's kind of weird to get up and give a big speech about education and argument development when you haven't thought out what your saying well enough to extrapolate it without reading a script.

counterplans/disads: I think that counterplans should compete off of non-artificial net benefits - but i'll still vote on them if you can win that they are theoretically legit (I tend to lean aff on this question, but that doesn't mean I'll kick the cp the second they read their 2ac theory block - articulate why your counterplan specifically is good for debate). Normally not a fan of agent cps, but given the only disads on cjr being politics I am sympathetic to them. disad debates are great, please do impact calc. I won't judge kick unless explicitely instructed to.

impact turns: for the most part i'm fine with them - although I will not vote for trump good, or impact turns to soft left impacts (racism, etc).

ks: k's on the neg are fine - I have some experience running ones like security, set col, cap/neolib, etc. i don't have a great understanding of higher theory ks, but if you can articulate them well enough to me then that's fine. Long overviews at the top are a no for me, please just have a quick explanation and then detailed line by line.

k-affs: novices should read a plan, and it should defend hypothetical government action. otherwise it’s fine.

other:
- fairness is an impact.
- if you are going to k the disad/cp do not put some egregious tag like "doesn't solve" and then get up in your rebuttal and saying "they dropped the k of the disad/cp..." that is ridiculous

Background:

USN head coach 2012-present

MBA assistant coach 2000-2002

The stuff you are looking for:

email chain: bwilson at usn.org

K Aff: Defend a hypothetical project that goes beyond the 1AC.

Framework: My general assumption is that predictable limits lead to higher quality debates. Aff, how does your method/performance center on the resolutional question in a way that adds value to this year's topic education? Why does the value of your discussion/method outweigh the benefits of a predictable, topic-focused debate?

Topicality: I am agnostic when it comes to the source of your definitions. Just tell me why they are preferable for this debate. Aff reasonability defense must be coupled with an interpretation, and RTP that interpretation. I will be honest, when it's a T round against an aff that was cut at workshop and has been run all year, I have a gut-check lean to reasonability. Competing interps becomes more compelling when there is significant offense for the interpretation.

Theory: Other than condo, a theory win means I reject the argument unless you do work explaining otherwise. For condo debates, please have a clear interpretation and reasons to reject. I am more open to theory when it is about something particular to the round and is not read from pre-written blocks.

CP's: I prefer CP's that have a solvency advocate. I think a well articulated/warranted perm can beat most plan plus, process CP's.

Politics: I like it better on topics without other viable DAs, but I am fine for these debates.

DAs: I find "turns the case" analysis more compelling at the internal link level.

Cheating: If you are not reading every word you are claiming through underlining or highlighting, that is clipping. If it seems like a one time miscue I will yell something, and unless corrected, I'll disregard the evidence. If it is egregious/persistent, I will be forced to intervene with an L.

If the other team raises a dispute. I will do my best to adjudicate the claim and follow the above reasoning to render a penalty either to dismiss the evidence in question or reject the team. I think I have a fairly high threshold for rendering a decision on an ethics challenge.

RIP wiki paradigms, or how my paradigm started for years but is now showing its age:

I like it when debaters think about the probability of their scenarios and compare and connect the different scenarios in the round. If it is a policy v critical debate, the framing is important, but not in a prior question, ROB, or "only competing policy options" sense. The better team uses their arguments to access or outweigh the other side. I think there is always a means to weigh 1AC advantages against the k, to defend 1AC epistemology as a means to making those advantages more probable and specific. On the flip side, a thorough indictment of 1AC authors and assumptions will make it easier to weigh your alternative, ethics, case turn, etc. Explain the thesis of your k and tell me why it it is a reason to reject the affirmative.