Tabroom.com

CDL Tournament 5 Blue Silver Conference

2021 — Chicago, IL/US

Judge Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Yazen Affaneh Hire None

Jesus Alberto Anaya Hire

Last changed on Sun June 16, 2019 at 3:21 PM CDT

Here's my judging paradigm:
Before I begin, here's a little bit about my background and correlation with debate:

If you need further information on your round or ballot, you may email me at jesus.anaya92@gmail.com

You may send me a picture of the ballot to refresh my memory of the round.

I inherently come to the round with an unbiased mindset otherwise I tend to strongly look at Neg for a neg ballot;

I feel this is were framework is important to me, I would make it an important note that the judge (I) may feel like the USFG within the round throughout the round depending on how you read your AFF or NEG.

Otherwise, I think framing the round to be important here.

This is a National Sport.

Performances, Poetry, K. Affs, K's, Narratives, changing Resolved, Use of Other Resources Within the Round may be questioned until framed within the round.

The transition of paper cases/tubs (traditional debate or latter) to a more modern way of debating (laptops/K,Spreading -I'm okay with Speed) may be debated if you think that's important as part of your voter.

It's always great to use the classroom space as an integrative part of the debate in order to feel like the debate sphere is important to "Occupy" the classroom space and learning why it's important to the debater or judge.

If you feel like it's important to use your computer to check status quo issues, you may. I feel using this to implement impact calculus would potentially further a voter as to make you more of a Realist or status quo relevancy.

Debated LD for 2.5 years in high school.

While I did not debate Policy in high school, I came to know the logistics of it my high school junior year. I have been judging Policy ever since. So, approximately 4.6 years in the RCC and LCC circuit at Chicago's CDL.

I debated Parliamentary Debate in college for 2 years.

Speaker points:
Debate is much more than just eloquent speaking and speeding 20 arguments in 5-8minutes.
Be COHERENT when speaking. While I am generally okay with speed, you must be clear or I'll stop you.
I tend to give higher speaker points when you extemporaneously speak your last speeches. Don't just read cards, use your knowledge and understanding of the arguments made in the rebuttals and constructive. During your R's, if you plan on reading cards, take at least 10 seconds to link them to your wining argument, don't just read them to fill up time.
Using your own words and analysis may get you higher speaker points. Take your time and explain. Depth over Speed/Breadth.
I generally come into a round with a Tabula Rasa mindset so you can see how easily it is for you to get my vote.

Kritiks/Perfomance/Narratives/Critical
I'm generally okay with them. If you go for K, performance, narrative or anything in that nature, you better have established and won the framework debate. If you're running those types of speeches, whether AFF or NEG, please do yourself a favor and know it from beginning to end. Don't lose yourself and find yourself in a situation where you misinterpret or fail to understand the philosophical arguments. Most importantly, If you're presenting any of the above, please shower me with link analysis. Make that your priority.
If you're running Non-Traditional Policy (K, Critical-Aff, Performance; as I'm seeing them come up in rounds) just make it clear to me at the beginning of the round why you're doing it, and then toward the end of the round why I should prefer it over a policy based/or why that in itself is a policy based option- yeah you can run them but let me know why that > Policy)

Counterplans
I'll consider them in the round. Establish why I should prefer your plan over AFF's early in the round. If you're AFF, make it your priority to establish early in the round if NEG's CP is conditional or unconditional. Believe it or not, this would save you in the round, not just time but my vote, if you decide to drop it and NEG decides to go for it.

Topicality
You better present your interpretation coherently, it better not be muddled. If scattered, you're just asking for a disaster. Please tell me how AFF violates T or how they don't meet your interpretation. Walk me through the standards, don't just speed through them. Why is your Interpretation superior? At the end, tell me why I should vote T. All in all, if you're running a T, I better hear the terms: Interpretation, Violations, Standards, Voting Issue. With me, you win T if you have won the interpretation debate.

Theory Arguments
Honestly, I believe any argument can be won with a little bit of theory. Shape the round for me early in the debate with theory and BAM, you won my heart. Tell me how your specific theory argument is a crucial check to the AFF, or the round for that matter.

Structure your theory arguments in a way where I am able to identify which issue I should prioritize as a judge.

Impact Calculus
If you utilize impact calculus from beginning to end, you have already earned yourself great speaks. Better yet, have already earned yourself a winning argument. When evaluating winning arguments, I would prefer that you do so using impact calculus and emphasizing the terms: Magnitude, Timeframe, Probability, etc.

The Round as a Whole
When it comes to summarizing my RFD, I tend to vote on who the better thinking and analyzing team is. Sure, you dropped and argument, but that doesn't assure that the opposing team will win on it or win the round. If you fail to explain to me why I should extend your argument with analysis, I will not vote on it. During the 2AR and 2NR, it's especially important for me to hear the term "voting issue" (or highlight your most thought out arguments with analysis) and highlight why and how you ought to get that specific voter. It makes it easier for me as a judge to centralize my decision. Most importantly, it will let me know as a judge that you have acknowledged your strengths and weaknesses for that round, which is what I want for you to know at the end of the day. Have fun!

Copied and Pasted from Wiki;

Optional as I have seen in some of the rounds:

Use of Technology in the round to use Status Quo/Current Events to implement or evaluate/frame the round or Framework. Debater Framework when using Status Quo implementation.

Voting Issues/Crystallization:

Make sure to further extend your voters in a clear manner so that I may be able to cross-apply any dropped/or extended arguments.

If you feel like you need to stop the round for medical attention, please let me know.

Lilah Bartolome Hire None

sohan bellam Hire

Derrick Braswell Hire

Ricky Cai Thomas Kelly College Prep

Erin Carley Hire

Last changed on Thu January 6, 2022 at 8:08 PM CDT

I am no debate expert. At this point, debate enthusiast is probably a more fitting description of what I am. All that to say, hear me out and pref me accordingly. I was a policy debater for 4 years in the Chicago Debate League & I competed for 4 years on both the JV circuit and Varsity circuit for Samford University. It took me two years to learn that my talent and gift lie more with teaching debate and judging more so than my actual desire to debate. Had I applied myself a little more, I probably could have been a more competitive debater but meh- allegedly I'm an adult now and that's the past. Pay attention because this provides context for my actual paradigm; see below.

Debate is a game. Debate is a simulation. Debate is real life. Debate is an opportunity to model real life policy making. All of these things are true, and all of these things have a place in debate and deserve to be truth tested within the confines of the rules that exist unless you can articulate a reasonable argument that it is not. I will not tell you what arguments you can and cannot run. I think teams deserve the right to run the arguments that make sense to them, they are comfortable defending, and are prepared to argue. The real question is whether or not you are willing to do the work to earn my ballot.

I am a lazy judge. I will listen to you, and I will flow. I will vote on the arguments that make sense to me based on the work you do in the round. I will not go out of my way to prove I am competent by explaining high level theory knowing you will probably only retain 3 percent of what I say post round. While I will talk about the arguments, I will mostly provide feedback related to the procedural element of debate. If you see me in the back of the room, it is mostly as a favor to an old debate bud, which means that I am probably vaguely familiar with the topic, if at all, and have zero desire to spend time explaining how things came to be within the topic. If you have specific questions about the topic we can talk about it however, my goal is to ensure you receive the feedback you need to be a better debater- the topics change, the skills to actually be a good, competitive debater will not. After we have addressed the most important skills, I will talk about the actual round.

Arguments:

Again- Run the arguments you are comfortable with. If you can explain it and defend it, I will vote on it. Being a policy debater, from a very policy-oriented team, my typical wheelhouse of argumentation involved strong case arguments, disadvantages, T, and Counterplans with the occasional Neolib or Cap K. That's not to say I won't vote on anything else or refuse to commit to learning anything new- If you are going to run more high theory arguments, understand you will have to spend more time explaining the warrants in the cards and how it relates to the round. If you cannot do that, do what you do but good luck. You leave a lot of responsibility on me to figure it out and you may or may not like how I apply it to the round. I only draw the line with arguments that are discriminatory, hateful, and/or harmful. If it is from a place of ignorance, I will spend time to address it and enlighten you on why the arguments have no place in debate. If I feel it is done purposely to demean or hurt your opponent, I am prepared to end the round with a ballot in favor of the opponent enduring the abuse, severely dock speaker points of the perpetrators and I will address it with you and the coaches of both teams. I won't mince words. Consider yourself warned.

T and Procedural theory arguments are very valid debate strategies, however, be prepared to really spend time on it if you want me to vote on it. My threshold for these arguments is incredibly high given that a lot of teams aren't very good at articulating anything other than "our opponents dropped it." I need to know why the standards are important, I need to know what ground is lost, I need to know how this round sets the precedent for the remainder of the academic year on the topic. If you're going to commit to these kinds of arguments, commit.

Disads: Please make sure your warrants in the cards match the tags. I read cards. If it doesn't make sense, I am going to make fun of them. Tag your cards accordingly. Sincerely, Every Judge Ever.

Counterplans: You have the burden of proving you provide the better Alternative that is 1percent better than the plan. It is not enough that you provide an alternative. Do the work.

Kritiks: Not my favorite arguments in debate but again if that's your thing, have at it. You have the burden of proving why they are the starting point before we can even begin to acknowledge the aff plan.

I will not argue about my decision with you or your coaches. I said what I said.

More than anything, as a judge, my primary responsibility to facilitate a safe space for young people to have fun while discussing very important topics that shape the world around them. This is an extra-curricular activity and not anything that warrants stress and despair. While we are here, we are going to respect each other, learn together, and grow our skills. I will not tolerate any language or posturing that indicates otherwise.

All of these seem intuitive I think but alas... the opposite has happened enough to where for a while I entertained the idea that the quality of debate was rapidly diminishing. Jury's still out.

If you have any specific questions that I didn't cover here, please feel free to ask prior to start of the round.

FYI: My face tends to say everything my mouth won't. I have gotten pretty good at filtering what I say however, I am not responsible for what my face does when people start talking. Do with that what you will.

Denise Carmona Thomas Kelly College Prep

Last changed on Mon April 15, 2024 at 10:41 AM CDT

Den (She/They)

Email:
• For chain, please use crossxnight@gmail.com
• For personal inquiries, contact at dnisecarmna@gmail.com

Background:
• Community Coach @Kelly College Prep (Chicago, IL)
• 4 years of High School Policy Debate experience
• Judging Nat Circuit & UDL Tournaments since '19

Topic Comment(s)

Round Counter: 76

4/4 -- Let's have some fun. Except if you run the Death K. Then perish. Joking aside, run anything you deem fit. This is cities, you should never give your opponents mercy because best believe I never got any. ????

Overview:

I'm experienced with both lay/circuit styles of policy debate. Nevertheless, I default towards a tech over truth style of judging unless said otherwise in-round. In terms of judging preferences, I have none. As evidenced by my judging record, I'm primarily preffed by k-oriented teams. I have judged k v k rounds. I have judged k v fw rounds. k v heg good. Judging these rounds have led me to think of debate in a broader capacity. Despite set preferences, I'm capable of being in back of the room judging stock issues debate.

Overall, I'll do my best to judge rounds fairly. I wholeheartedly appreciate the opportunity to judge. It allows me to better educate myself and teach my students on topic trends and/or strategy innovation.

Chicago/UDL: To answer a common question I get... I judge a multitude number of debates (~40) a year. The debaters I've coached win top speakers & break at locals. My proudest achievement is one of my debaters winning the City Championships! Therefore, I'm confident I'm qualified to judge your round. If you ever have any questions about your rounds, please CC: your coach and reach me at dcarmona16@cps.edu since I'm a school district employee.

What I enjoy:

Disadvantages-- Specific links to affirmatives recommended but generics are fine as long as it's still applicable. In terms of the politics disadvantage, evidence recency takes priority. However, how politicians act > what politicians verbally express. Uniqueness overwhelms the Link is a strong argument.

Kritiks-- Always have specific links to the affirmative. Links predicated off the topic itself doesn't lead to any meaningful educational debate specific to the case being ran. However, that doesn't mean I won't vote for Links of omission if the opposing team fails to answer them. If your strategy entails going for the links as impact turns to the affirmative, tell me explicitly to judge kick the alternative. If the negative has to win that the plan is a bad idea, don't let the alternative weigh the kritik down.

Counterplans-- CP debate is pretty awesome. Multiplank Counterplans are good. Planks that are supported by 1AC authors are even better. I don't have a disdain towards process counterplans. If your counterplan is not carded/supported by evidence in the 1NC, those rounds shape to be an uphill battle for the negative.

Topicality-- For the negative to win Topicality, they must [1] provide a model that best adheres to the topic, [2] exclaim why the affirmative fails to meet that model, [3] flesh out why the negative's model of debate is preferable, [4] evaluating the flow through competing interpretations is best. For the affirmative to beat Topicality, they must [1] explain why they meet the negative's model and/or [2] provide a counter-model that's better for the topic, which leads to [3] more educational and fair debates moving forward. [4] Frame the debate through reasonability.

T-USFG-- Prefer the debate to be framed similar to topicality (better model of debate). However, teams going for the impact turn(s) are welcome to do so. Affirmative teams running an advocacy statement tend to go for "the negative's model of debate is inherently worse, therefore by default the judge should vote for the affirmative's model". Definitely, the best approach when 1ACs are built to counter FW by embedding claims on the game of debate and how to best approach the topic. However, I have seen my fair share of critical affirmative's that.. could be read on any other topic. Negative teams, emphasize switch side debate. Provide TVA(s) under your model of debate. Explain the affirmative's burden and the negative's role in this game. Convince me that the negative should be the one reading all these different theory of powers against teams defending a policy. If they break structural rules such as going over speech time, call it out. Procedural fairness leads to better education. Don't rely too heavily on portable skills, I typically buy claims that people rarely become policymakers after this activity.. I'm a graphic designer for reference.

***If your arguments are descriptive in its explicit/graphic content, please provide a trigger warning pre-round. Let's avoid going to tab at all costs and/or having a procedural ran on you. I will stop the round if the other team deems the environment as uncomfortable.

Hall of Famers---

Rats: Kelly Lin, Lisa Gao, Ramon Rodriguez

Learned From: Armando Camargo, Juan Chavez, Jocelyn Aguirre, Leobardo Ramos, Scott Dodsworth

Carlie Ceska Hire

Jon Cohen William Howard Taft High School None

Dailyn Davis Lindblom Math and Science Academy

Nathan Dengle Pritzker College Prep None

Monica Do Hire

Suranny Dominguez Hire None

Johnathan Duffie Hire None

Ayomide Dugbo Hire None

Justin Farber Hire

Nicholas Gallina Hire

Last changed on Sat November 13, 2021 at 4:00 AM EDT

Debated Policy at Indiana University: 2014-2018

Mostly judge for NYC UDL now.

**Often times UDL rounds don't save on tabroom so all the rounds I've judged the past few years won't show up under judging history below the paradigm.**

Top Level

ngallina42@gmail.com

I flow on paper, including CX, and will do my best to try as hard judging as the debaters are debating. I like to follow the speech doc on my laptop simultaneously.

Please be nice and polite if possible.

Debate is a game until it is not, treat it as such.

Claims in debate will be taken at face value until contested by the other team.

Topicality:

I absolutely love T debates. My entire debate career I was attracted to affs that were right on the border of being T. With that in mind, I view T in an offense defense paradigm. If the 2AC on T was all defense the neg should pounce on that. Given proper framing it can be extremely difficult for an aff to win T with no offense. That's not to say there isn't a chance because reasonability is an extremely powerful piece of defense.

If you are looking for extra speaks on T debates go through and comment on the quality and source of each others evidence. Both teams will make distinctions about definitions and ev but those distinctions don't matter unless they are impacted out with why those distinctions matters.

I.E. If neg says US = 50 states and aff says US = 50 states but territories I want someone to tell me whether or not excluding Puerto Rito etc affs matters.

Framework:

I prefer that affirmatives have some relationship to the topic. This does not have to be an endorsement of any sort but a response I believe is important. I will reward affirmatives and negatives that display a depth of knowledge of the topic area.

Please take pains to explain to me what your version of debate looks like both in-round, doing research, and for the rest of the season. One thing that I think affirmatives leave to the wayside is "what is the role of the negative in your model of debate"? If you can't confidently and succinctly answer this question you will be in trouble.

Fairness is an impact if debate is a game. If you can win that debate is not a game it becomes an i/l.

Affirmative contextualized explanation is paramount. Pull out lines from the 1AC 2AC evidence to illustrated links. Please tell me why either A the link to the K turns the aff and/or why the links to the k trigger your impact AND you can 'solve' it with the alt.

Author names are not an argument.

Perms are OP but can be dealt with pretty soundly by a 2N that clearly demonstrates how the links function as case turns.

Affs please push on alt solvency to push back against the ability for the alt to solve the links as well as morph in the block. If you aren't asking about the alt in the 1NC CX you are probably doing something wrong.

Research was my favorite part about debate. If you can show that you CP/PIC exists in the lit (this includes aff ev) are more than likely not good to go. This of course depends on what happens in the debate and how it is argued.

Solvency deficits should be tied to specific advantages/scenarios. Please tell me a CP that solves two of your i/ls but not the third is not sufficient to solve the advantage.

I default to sufficiency framing.

I will never judge kick a CP. If the CP links to the DA and you go for it in the 2NR you will lose.

Framing is the most important part of the flow. How should I view the relationship between UQ and Link? How do the impacts interact? Who better controls impact escalation?

If you are turning the DA or the aff please be clear at what part of the chain you are turning. Turns that operate at the link level will do better than turns that operate at the impact level only.

For Px, blippy fiat solves the link etc is not an arg unless explained more. If explained more, fair game.

Theory

Give me contextualized examples of your theory points. Prewritten theory blocks devoid of connection to the round will not get you far. I will do my best flowing your subpoints on theory but please slow down and give me time to write it down.

Condo probably never outweighs T because T is a question about whether or not the debate should have happened and Condo is a discussion about what happened in round.

Limited Condo is good.

Good luck and don't forget to have fun!

arielle gearring Hire

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 4:01 AM CDT

Lane Tech 22' | Michigan State 26'

(R-E-L) Arielle

aegdebate[at]gmail.com

she/her/hers

1n/2a for 4 years | currently a 1a/2n

baseline:

I appreciate kindness and wit. everyone deserves to be here. I'll speak to tab/coaches if warranted.

stop stealing prep. it makes me sad. ill dock ur speaks.

if you're a novice who doesn't read a plan you will receive feedback but not my ballot.

I prefer you use my name (see top) instead of judge.

I don't write out/give crazy long rfds, if you have in depth questions on substance of specific args please email me, I'll end you my notes.

I am not qualified to adjudicate out of round disputes. if approached before the round about an inability to debate someone for a personal reason, I will take you to tab.

misc

I hate random lull time before/after speeches -- pls do ur best to send out emails promptly

"see-pee" and "dee-ay" make me cringe now

9-10 sheets is excessive. you get 8 & you can pick the ones I flow.

-----

I believe judges should adapt to their debaters not the other way around and no one wants to read 7 paragraphs on how I feel on random arguments. So do what you do best

judge instruction. love when you write the ballot for me

tech >> truth (to an extent) | clarity >>>> speed

ev analysis & comparison!

I pay attention to cx

The K

I currently read a plan but did not read one throughout most of high school. The literature where I am the most well-read is: settler colonialism and select arguments about Queerness. However I have seen and debated most of the literature out there. You however will need to explain higher theory to me.

On the NEG

I let the AFF weigh their plan. Alt solvency is important to me, I prefer you don't kick it.

On the AFF

I find myself voting for framework a lot and I don't think its because I am bad for planless AFFs, I find teams tend to critique the res debate but never impact it out or contextualize it to the round.

I prefer when your 1ac cards should probably feature and interact with the resolution. If your literature isn't topic specific I find it hard to rally for you on framework.

fairness is an impact but <<< clash personally.

(T, CPS & DAs)

what is the difference between 5 or 6 condo

topicality: underrated when done properly. I used to be skeptical of judges that said that they have little or no topic knowledge, but now I understand, slow down and explain your definitions, please!!

reading theory is good, going for theory because you dont want to debate substance is NOT.

process counterplans are also probably cheating but can be persuaded otherwise.

case debating is underrated and most times done poorly, if you go for a case turn in the 2nr I'll boost ur speaks

Chris Gentry Hire

Last changed on Thu March 21, 2024 at 7:46 AM CDT

Name Chris Gentry

Previous institutional affiliations and role

Appalachian State Debator 4 years, double member parli, experience coaching and judging PF. Policy, Parli

Add me to your email chain chris.gentry.e@Gmail.com

Former Coach Hubbard High School

Former Coach Harker Middle School

Current Chicago Debates Program Manager - 2 years

High school and college debater – graduated college in last 5 years

1.Clarity > speed:Clarity helps everyone, I am happy to listen to you spreading and will happily get most of it, just slow down on the tags so I know where we are if I get lost.

2.Neg positions: Overwhelmingly the biggest issue I see in debate is students poorly linking neg positions. cool your impact scenario is great but your link is weak so I struggle to care.

3. Cross x Don't be rude in cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter.

What is your normal range for speaker points and why? What can earn extra speaker points for a debater? What can cost speaker points for a debater, even if they win the debate?

I give 27.5-30 points, 27.5 being for poor speech, less than 27.5 for abuse. You can lose points for demonstrated abuse in round or poor treatment of partner or opposition. You can gain points through good responses and effective response strategy

Do you say clearer out loud if a debater is unclear? Is there a limit to the number of times you will say clearer if you do? Do you use other non-verbal cues to signal a lack of clarity?

I will say clearer or louder 3 times.

Do you find yourself reading a lot of evidence after the debate?

Not a ton, mostly to confirm accuracy and understanding

Do you evaluate the un-underlined parts of the evidence even if the debaters do not make that an argument?

No, I need the argument to be made for why a thing matters, how it matters, and what it is that matters. I will only read the underlined parts of the evidence if I doubt validity

If you read evidence after a debate, why do you tend to find yourself reading the evidence?

To ensure proper decisions and to confirm accuracy if any cards feel like they are incredible.

What are your predispositions or views on the following:

Topicality.

As long as it is clear and warranted especially on ground loss. I need the impacts to be fully leveled out, and I need there to be solid arguments for fairness impacts.

Theory for the aff versus counterplans and/or kritiks

I definitely prefer critical arguments that are resolution specific versus the generic kritik, however I am fine with the generic kritik as long as you tie it well to your argument and the resolution being debated. I will vote on perm and theory if presented well. That said, I really like critical arguments when they’re not generic and the ideas are clearly articulated. Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know how you are using them to determine the functionality of the argument. I also think it’s important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction the criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, don’t drop or omit solvency of the criticism.

Affirmative’s need to read a plan in order to win on the aff:

They don’t need to read a plan but they do need an advocacy that is different than the SQ

Performance teams that use elements other than spoken word (such as songs, dance, poetry, silence) to support their arguments

I find performance-based arguments to struggle on solvency. I find the nature of debate to sometimes be constricting to performance. I am not saying I won't vote for it, I just need you to explain why your performance produces in-round solvency in opposition to the performance of debating/criticizing or advocating for policies

I do think "performance" as critical metaphor can have access to rhetorical solvency, but it's harder for me to access literal solvency. So while I am not biased towards projects or performances so long as they are grounded in some context that is in round, I think they can still be interesting and get a ballot.

What types of debates do you enjoy the most and why?

I enjoy good K v K debates

I enjoy unique critical debates

I also have a large background in policy both in real life and in deate and am happy to handle policy args too

Dev Gopal Hire

Hollis Griffin Von Steuben

Last changed on Thu July 21, 2022 at 7:20 AM CDT

Former Community Debate Coach Von Stueben High School

No card cutting or presenting evidence selectively that it presents or leads to a false narrative about your opponent. Being truthful is fundamental. It's unfortunate that I even have to mention it, but it does happen, even by well skilled and experienced debaters.

As you can infer from the debates listed below and other rounds from Speechwire, my limited experience at this point is best for traditional policy debates and not heavy theory (K's). If you are a pure K debate team, and all you like to do is run K's on both sides of debate, you need to strike me as a judge if you can. I have evaluated some K heavy debates, and I did a poor job evaluating them. While I appreciate and see the value of K's, I am not that good at judging them at this point, I continue to work on them, yet I still have the belief that the AFF must be defending the Resolution.

Debate Experience

I did not debate as a student, and this is my third year as an assistant coach in a urban high school policy debate program in Chicago. My son is a high school debaterYou are now probably not surprised that I am inclined (not rigidly) to believe that US hegemony and economic growth are good, and that death is bad.

I enjoy Topicality clashes, especially competing interpretations and I favor predictable limits over ground.

In-round Logistical Preferences

Spreading, if I can’t understand what you are saying, how do you expect me to flow? My preference is hybrid, spreading where you need to but slowing down for the points you want to emphasize. If I need you to slow down or better articulate your speech, I will let you know by saying "clear."

If you are sharing evidence electronically, do me the favor and make sure its in the order of your speech, especially if you are spreading.

I appreciate detailed road maps, sign posting, and expect the teams to run the debate (keeping track of time).

If I have to correct any unsportsmanlike behavior, you have already been penalized a 1/2 point and are one the way to losing another 1/2 point. After the 2NR, the Neg team should just flow the 2AR, there is one speech left in the round, so be polite and don't talk, put away your things, etc.

I am a huge fan of debate, I really respect your hard work, and will do my best for you.

sean guno Hire

Joanna Gusis Hire

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 11:41 AM CDT

gbn '22 - msu '26 - 1n/2a for all 5 years - she/her

last updated: 4.21.2024

please put me on the chain:

gusisfiles@gmail.com

most importantly (in order):

1. be nice to each other, flow, have fun

2. don't be rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.. i have no problem contacting tabroom or your coaches when if i feel my role as a judge needs to become subordinate to my role as an educator

3. i will not evaluate things that occurred outside of the debate. if something was truly problematic, the debate should be stopped and tab should be contacted. in a similar vein, i strongly believe you should reach out to an opponent if you find an ethics issue with their evidence. substituting a caseneg with an ethics violation that you found pre-round probably makes debate worse than the ethics issue itself.

4. tech > truth (but truth makes it easier to win tech)

5. these are my predispositions -- they can all be changed with good debating (see the line right above this)

6. arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact -- if you do not have all 3, i don't care if it's dropped. if it takes you less time to read your aspec 1nc shell than it takes me to type out "aspec = vi," it isn't an argument and i don't really care if the 2ac doesn't have an answer.

7. impact calc and framing really matter -- top of your 2nr/2ar should tell me what i'm voting on and why. my life is easier and happier if you write my ballot for me

8. tag team cx is fine but don't speak over your partner

9. you don't need a card to make an argument (see #6), but card probably beats no card

10. prep time ends whenyou say it does. if you prep after the timer ends, prep time ends when I say it has.
---things that can happen after prep ends: sending a speech, standing up, giving an order, setting a timer.
---things that cannot happen after prep ends: editing a doc (includes copy-pasting things), saving a doc, talking to your partner

11. marked doc is not removing the cards you skipped (this is flowing), its only adding "mark" for cards that you did not finish. if a team asks for a new card doc with the cards the other team skipped, you should take prep for them to put that together.

*topicality*

-i read questionably topical affs all 4 years of high school and 1 in college - do your worst but do it well

-precision > predictability > limits > ground

---specifically: grammatical precision > legal precision > contextual precision > overlimiting > neg ground > under-limiting > aff ground > topic education

-loooooove plan text in a vacuum, but affs tend to not debate it thoroughly enough

*framework / t-usfg*

-i love a good fairness debate but am not a die-hard fairness hack. probably think clash / testing and fairness are more convincing than something like movement lawyering, but it's debatable

-i think tvas and switch-side debate are pretty good ways to cut down the aff's offense

-i mostly tend to think affs should have a counter-interp because i need models of debate to compare. if your strategy is to impact-turn framework, i will assume that means your c/i is 'affs get to do what they want, how they want'

*disads*

-specific links are important, but not as important as a good story

-a thumper isn't a thumper until you tie it back to the link. for example, saying 'there are other bills on the agenda' is not a thumper until you win that those other bills will cost pc

-0 risk is a thing (maybe not aaaactually a thing, but probability can get so low that i should treat it as zero risk)

*counterplans & theory*

-anything is fair game as long as you can defend it BUT if the counterplan is cheating, the aff should be able to beat it on theory or a perm more easily

-i wont judge kick unless you tell me to (saying "the status quo is always an option" does count as telling me to)

-just saying "sufficiency framing" <<<<<<<<< explain why the counterplan solves / how i should evaluate it

-condo is probably bad (i know, hot take) but that won't matter if both sides just spread blocks at each other. you should NOT read this as 'she wants to only hear condo speeches'

-condo is probably the only theory violation worthy of rejecting the team unless there is an argument otherwise starting in the 2ac (but its a pretty high threshold)

-theory is (almost) always a question of models and (almost) never a question of in-round abuse

*kritiks*

-i've been around the block with the literature but that doesn't mean i want to hear baudrillard blocks spread directly into your computer at 400 wpm (nobody does)

-i tend to think ks need an alternative that solves the links and impacts, but high-quality framework debating can arguably substitute for this (i really do prefer k's that are more than 'you link, you lose')

-it's pretty hard to convince me that we should never do anything to meliorate a problem a team has isolated

-in a perfect world, links are causal, specific, and unique. this world is far from perfect

-i'm better for the k than you think (filter this through the fact that it came from me...obviously there's some bias there)

---

if you have any specific questions about my preferences, feel free to ask before and after the round :) im happy to help

good luck, have fun !!

vincent hall Hire None

Joyce Harduvel Kenwood Academy

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 6:01 AM CDT

Former UC Lab debater and current Kenwood Academy coach (16-present)

jharduvel [at] cps [dot] edu

The most important things that you can do to get my ballot are:

Strategic overviews that explain how to resolve the key issue(s) of the debate
Comparative warrant analysis
Well-impacted arguments throughout

I strongly prefer to resolve the debate based on the flow rather than by reading your evidence and believe that you should do that explanatory work for me.

I will vote on whatever arguments that you wish to make. I'm more familiar with critical literature so if you're planning for a tech-y policy debate, be ready to explain your arguments thoroughly and do some storytelling in your overview.

Slow down enough on analytics that they are clearly flowable. I believe that there is a threshold you need to meet for me to vote for any given argument. Blippy extensions are going to give me significant pause and even if something is conceded, I need more than "They dropped condo and it's a voting issue for fairness and education!" to vote on it.

Topicality and theory: These debates should include clash, comparative analysis, and impacts just like any other part of the debate.

Kritiks: I prefer when debaters are specific on the link and alternative debates, and when they go for arguments like the K turns case or is a DA to case instead of vague impacts.

Counterplans: I am sympathetic to aff theory arguments against PICs, consult CPs, and process CPs. On the permutation debate, I tend to lean neg and assume risk of a link to the net benefit (unless I am told otherwise, of course).

Speaker Points: I reward line-by-line, comparative impact calculus, clash, creative argumentation, explanation of warrants, and smart analytics. I will deduct speaker points for oppressive language or arguments, rudeness, being purposefully evasive in cross-ex, excessive interruptions of your partner, and ethical violations. Clipping cards or refusing to provide the other team with access to your cards are serious violations, and I will deduct speaker points accordingly whether the other team points these issues out or not.

Ryan Howell Von Steuben

Benjamin Jacobi Hire

Nicholas Johnson Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 4:06 AM CDT

Novice

I am a constrained ethical policymaker for novices.

-Constrained: Topicality is a real issue. (Other theory arguments may also be acceptable - they should reflect policy processes or limitations.)

Note that this means that agent counterplans where there can exist no decision-maker who could choose between the plan and the counterplan are on theoretically shaky ground, and will be harder to convince me to vote for them. (Many international agent counterplans fall into this boat).

-Ethical: Moral obligations or reasoning can motivate my decision-making

-Policymaker: I want to choose the best policy action at the end of the round. Kritiks that operate at the policy-level are acceptable (and must include a policy-level alternative that does more than rethink or reject - you don't have to advocate specific policy actions, but your alternative must express policy goals or programs that could or should be advocated under the K).

Varsity

I am close to Tabula Rasa. Some caveats related to that:

-You can't access my knowledge - you may assume I have a 9th grade education and read a newspaper regularly. Anything more complicated than that will need to be explained in clear unjargonated language or I will pretend I didn't understand you.

-Teams have an obligation to make complete arguments. Arguments which are not complete in the speech they first appear are dead. The opposing team should point out how they're incomplete, but if I notice on my own I will stop flowing that argument and treat it as if it didn't happen. (This is usually as blatant as failing to argue an impact or a link, but if a team demonstrates and wins there's a logical failure caused by a missing internal link, it will kill the argument). Note that arguments can still be built upon with new impacts/harms and links later, but they must represent a logically complete and coherent argument when they first appear.

-You need to tell me how to weigh the round, especially when there's something more interesting than standard Cost-benefit analysis.

-I will vote to fulfill winning Role of Ballot/Judge or Moral Obligations as my means of determining the outcome of the round, regardless of which team that leads me to vote for.

That said, I tend to lean particular ways on certain arguments:

Topicality - I am sympathetic to Topicality arguments against blatantly untopical cases. Which doesn't mean I will always vote on T in such cases (I've certainly voted for plenty of such Affs in the past), but the affirmative will have an uphill climb if the negative argues it well. I find TVA arguments especially persuasive in such cases. (See also Kritiks - some of that applies to K Affs as well).

For any T argument, if you want my ballot on it, you need to win the interpretation/violation, give a good explanation of the impacts (voters), and win some standards which prove your interpretation solves the impacts. This stuff can get developed in the block, but just extending a shell isn't going to do it.

CPs - I love in-depth CP debates where the CP is directly responsive to the affirmative case. The CP has to make sense relative to the Aff, and has to have a valid process. The more specific the CP to the Aff, the better.

-Court CPs: The Supreme Court decides what the law is (Marbury v. Madison). I need a court CP to do this - it has to give a decision which explains the law, and then apply it in a way that works as a CP to the Aff. This is hard and it should be - SCOTUS is not magic. I will also find it much easier to vote for a Court CP which can specify the case taken up and ruled on. (Note these things apply to Court Affs as well).

-XO CPs: Need to prove the president has the power to specifically do plan

-Foreign Actor CPs: I'm a little leery of these, and the aff will have a lot of theoretical leeway in perming these.

Kritiks - I require a K to clash substantively with the aff.

-I will not vote for a K that is merely 'reject' or 'rethink'. The alt needs to be an actual alternative to the world of the plan. (A K Aff needs to lead to actions in the world at some point). I need to be able to understand how someone will or can live in such a world.

-I will generally not vote for PIKs. The K must cause me to vote no on the Plan specifically, or I will vote aff. (The Plan is the necessary point of clash and conflict for the K). (I will make exceptions for Ks which are basically asking me to punish behavior by the affirmative team in the round, but the behavior must be truly egregious, and I'll treat it at the level of a theory violation).

-I will not buy 'they didn't talk about / do anything about X' sorts of links. The aff itself has to link in an immediate and visceral way.

-I can easily be persuaded to be skeptical about links of the form 'plan is a part of X, X causes impact Y', especially when 'X' is a term whose definition varies wildly between authors. This is especially likely to come up with things like the Cap or Neolib and similar Ks. Much better if you can link things like plan to the impact directly, rather than relying on some general 'Plan is Cap, Cap causes the impact' type of argument. (More generally, I'm very open to more nuanced explanations of the evidence and the world over black and white depictions).

-The aff always gets to weigh plan action against the alternative. If the K happens at a discursive level (in-round voters), the aff should argue the discursive benefits of advocating for the Plan.

-I am skeptical of 'in-round solvency'. If you want to make such a claim, I need evidence that it actually works. Not just unwarranted claims it will or should work, but empirical evidence it does. (This definitely applies to K Affs as well).

-The purpose of reading evidence is to bring in testimony about the real world. But reading other people making argument doesn't add anything to the debate round, and generally involves long jargon-laden texts. I would vastly prefer if K debaters skipped reading cards from philosophers and made the argument themselves (preferably with little-to-no jargon). Do please still read evidence for any empirical claims you need to prove. Note also that Ks are especially likely to lack important internal link arguments (because they're snipping tiny amounts of text out of large bodies of work), and making the argument on their own would help debaters make complete arguments.

Evidence

I have strong feelings about evidence integrity in debate.

Evidence which is blatantly misrepresented will be treated as if it has not been read. This can cause arguments to fail outright (see arguments must be complete in their first speech), and I will invoke this even if it is not argued. Teams should still endeavor to point these things out - I'm not infallible. (Evidence which is well spun will not be penalized - the key difference is the original article must leave open the possibility of the interpretation argued).

If debaters notice other harms to evidence integrity, they should definitely bring them to my attention.

General

I tend to find cohesive negatives stronger than negatives which just toss out a ton of things. I tend to think negatives should advocate the CP or K Alt. I tend to find contradictory positions to decrease persuasiveness. (None of these are hard and fast rules)

At the end of the round, I'm generally looking for a comparison between two worlds, and I want to choose the better world. While 'better' is something the debaters can and should argue about, more depth and detail about the worlds being compared is a huge plus persuasively.

Felix Jones Hire

Last changed on Fri December 3, 2021 at 8:06 AM CDT

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.

Jacob Kalinovskiy Hire

Last changed on Sat April 10, 2021 at 2:12 PM CDT

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

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

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

Roland Keske Lincoln Park High School None

Samuel Klingher Hire None

Julieta Lara Phoenix Military Academy

Dennys Lucero Hire None

Gabrielle Lyon Hire None

Clinton McClure Hire

Jennifer Moran Von Steuben

ROSA E MORENO Hire None

Amanda Nobra Hire

Mackenzie ODonnell Hire None

Vidhi Piparia Hire

Jacqueline Puschmann Hire None

Taylor Roberts Hire

Charles Rosentel Pritzker College Prep None

Angela Ruiz Phoenix Military Academy

Katie Schaag Hire

Benjamin Schaare Hire None

Morgan Schumann Hire None

Ulric Shannon Hire None

Arri Singleton Hire

Cat Marie Smith Lindblom Math and Science Academy

Nasir Smith Hire

Joshua Soto Pritzker College Prep None

Amber Renea Thomas Hire

Max Tozer William Howard Taft High School

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 2:18 AM CDT

General about me: I debated CDL and a couple of invitationals for 3 years at Taft, acting as captain my third year, my email is maxtoaster@gmail.com . I'm a graduate of Lake Forest College with degrees in philosophy and psychology, and any pronouns are fine.

Please add me to the email chain if you chose to have one, and feel free to email me with any questions. I love debate and all the different strategies people employ, so I'm open to any arguments as long as you're having fun and aren't being a jerk to the other team, or running racist/sexist/homophobic/etc... arguments. And feel free to call me Max, not "judge" or "Mx. Tozer" or anything like that. I enter the round as a policy maker, and defaulting to reasonability, and continue to operate as such unless told to behave otherwise in round.

Disclaimer: I'll run down my beliefs about specific arguments here, but don't change your preferred strategy to pander to what you think I'd like after reading my paradigm. In my eyes all strategic approaches to a debate are valid, and I want you to argue the way that you're best at and will enjoy the most. I vote for the team that does the better debating, I won't vote against a team for running an argument I don't like or anything like that.

Case- case debate is fine and good, but as a tip, please don't forget to look at your opponents sources and dates. Aff, please do some storytelling. I'll put more weight on your harms if you tell me how we get there. K-affs are fine but I'd advise not running them if you are a novice, stick to what you understand.

FW- I LOVE myself some framework debate and will take them seriously into consideration when making my decision on the round, ROB's are great if you want to have one, anything that makes my job easier. That said, I recognize that framework can be used as a tool for silencing, and advise teams to be ready to defend their framework if their opponents bring this up.

DA's - All DA's have 100% likelihood unless I am told otherwise. DA's that don't have extinction impacts are refreshing and nice. It's in no way necessary, but I will give you and your partner +.2 speaks out of gratitude for mixing things up a bit if you run a DA with non-extinction impacts.

Theory - Awesome cool and great, but if you want me to take this seriously spend time on it in your rebuttals.

CP's - CP's are one of the most useful tools in debate, very strong, often short, and have a great potential for tying your arguments together. Because Cp's are SO good, I do believe they can get abusive, and I will vote on condo or other theory arguments if argued well. I'm not a big fan of PIC's, and the Cp's solvency should be competitive with the aff. The CP should solve better, if I think the aff and the cp both solve the same impacts equally well, I'll vote aff.

K - my favorite off case in debate, feel free to get as creative as you want with them. That said, the most important part of a K is the link. BE SPECIFIC why the aff links to your K, if you have an aff specific link read it, if you need to read a general link, elaborate on it in your own words regarding the specifics of the aff. Try to stick to K's you understand, and clearly explain your alt. nothing wrong with using a cp as a policy example of an alt.

T - I will vote on T, but you should tell me why I should vote on T in round. Explain to me how your opponent's aff specifically violates your voters, and explain the impact your voters have on the round/why they should be voters. 5 minutes on T in the 2nr isn't a bad idea if you want me to vote on it.

Other -

-I flow your speech, not your cards. Spreading is fine, but clarity is key, it's not my job to look over all your cards to figure out what you're saying if I can't understand you.

- Tech over truth 90% of the time, if something exceptionally absurd is claimed by one team, I will give the other the benefit of the doubt, but you should be fine.

- Don't be afraid to have a sense of humor. Debates are long, straining, and often repetitive, everyone in the round would be happy to have the formalities be broken for the sake of a joke.

- Speaker points: I try to stick to this scale - http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html but I will add or subtract some points based on sportsmanship. Insulting your opponents isn't okay, don't do it.

Jose Uriostegui Hire

Lillian Vazquez Hire None

Alex von Stange Hire

Last changed on Sat December 3, 2022 at 5:55 AM EDT

Please ask any questions if anything’s unclear – I’ll be happy you helped fix my paradigm.

Yes, I want on the email chain. My email is: avs197@gmail.com

Debated for eight years, in high school in Vermont and in college for UVM.

I did mostly PF in High School, and did Policy and Worlds in College.

Judging Preferences, tl;dr:

K-teams:

Tech vs. Truth: Closer to the truth side of the divide, obviously dropped argument has big impacts on the round but if your 2nr is "they dropped 'puppies -> nuke war'", well, good luck.

Cross-x is great, open is also great, also continuing during prep is fine imo. Debate with 8 min cx > debate with 3 min cx.

Pointing out flaws doesn’t require evidence, logic is fine. I did worlds, I already think evidence is overrated. Do more analytics.

I'm far more likely to yell clear at you during analytics, especially if not prewritten in doc.

I don't do "30 seconds prep", tell me when to turn it on and when you're done, don't want to police each instance of prep.

Do not argue with your judge. If you think they decided faultily, great, pref them lower / strike them. It sucks but is inevitable in such a subjective event and I don't want to argue with someone because they disagree with my decision.

Topicality:

· More 2nrs should be T, no one respects it enough.

· Potential abuse always most persuasive. Tell me what . Limits can be extremely persuasive if you do it well enough

· Neg should be able to provide a topical version of the affirmative under their definition

Framework:

· Always an option, never the best

· At higher levels, you should be prepared for common k-affs, and shouldn’t use framework as an excuse to not engage

· Affs shouldn’t just blow off framework, if you don’t engage in it you should have a very compelling reason why you’re doing so

· K-Affs should interact with the topic. Don't have to affirm state action, but if your kritik is legit it probably has lit on how it interacts with the topic too

Disads:

· I’m willing to vote on 0% of a link, but that’s hard to achieve. If you're minimizing the chance of the link, it’s probably easier to just beat them on impact calc.

Counterplans:

· Condo good – Neg should probably get ~2 worlds

· Multi-plank counterplans are very cool, unless you make each plank conditional which makes it no different than multiple counterplans.

· Status quo is always an option, but the Neg has to specify that if they want me to pull the trigger

· States/NGA is probably illegit, but voting on five second theory blips is bad

· PICs are cool, especially when you have a reason to pic out of some aspect of a convoluted plan.

Kritiks:

· They’re good for both use in the debate round and in making us better people, you’re not going to win “Ks bad”

· I'm too dumb to understand how most alts work, spend extra time here

· If you can't explain the alt in cx how is it supposed to work irl

· Serial policy failure is probably true, but explain why it hasn’t happened yet or what it looks like in the SQ

Case:

· Please do more case debate, most affs just aren't true or at least aren't getting anywhere near the impacts they promise

· I’m more than willing to vote Neg on presumption if you call it out.

Don’t say racist / sexist / ableist stuff in front of me, please. You’ll lose the round, 0 speaks, etc.

Zion Wilson-Chambers Lindblom Math and Science Academy None

Victoria Yonter Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 12:31 PM CDT

As a debater: 4 years HS debate in Missouri, 4 years NDT-CEDA debate at the University of Georgia

Since then: coached at the University of Southern California (NDT-CEDA), coached at the University of Wyoming (NDT-CEDA), worked full-time at the Chicago UDL, coached (and taught math) at Solorio HS in the Chicago UDL

Now: Math teacher and debate coach at Von Steuben in the Chicago UDL, lab leader at the Michigan Classic Camp over the summer

HS Email Chains, please use: vayonter@cps.edu

College Email Chains: victoriayonter@gmail.com

General Thoughts:

1. Clarity > speed: Clarity helps everyone. Please slow down for online debate. You should not speak as fast as you did in person. Much like video is transmitted through frames rather than continuous like in real life, sound is transmitted through tiny segments. These segments are not engineered for spreading.

2. Neg positions: I find myself voting more often on the "top part" of any neg position. Explain how the plan causes the DA, how the CP solves the case (and how it works!), and how the K links to the aff and how the world of the alt functions. Similarly, I prefer CPs with solvency advocates (and without a single card they are probably unpredictable). I love when the K or DA turns the case and solves X impact. If you don't explain the link to the case and how you get to the impact, it doesn't matter if you're winning impact calculus.

3. K affs: Despite my tendency to read plans as a debater, if you win the warrants of why it needs to be part of debate/debate topic, then I'll vote on it. As a coach and judge, I read far more critical literature now than I did as a debater. My extensive voting history is on here. Do with that what you will.

4. Warrants: Don't highlight to a point where your card has no warrants. Extend warrants, not just tags. If you keep referring to a specific piece of evidence or say "read this card," I will hold you to what it says, good or bad. Hopefully it makes the claims you tell me it does.

Random Notes:

1. Don't be rude in cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter.

2. Questions about what your opponent read belong in cross-x or prep time. You should be flowing.

3. While we are waiting for speech docs to appear in our inboxes, I will often fill this time with random conversation for 3 reasons:

i. To prevent prep stealing,

ii. To get a baseline of everyone's speaking voice to appropriately assign speaker points and to appropriately yell "clear" (if you have a speech impediment, accent, or other reason for a lack of clarity to my ears, understanding your baseline helps me give fair speaker points),

iii. To make debate rounds less hostile.

High School LD Specific:

Values: I competed in a very traditional form of LD in high school (as well as nearly every speech and debate event that existed back then). I view values and value criterions similarly to framing arguments in policy debate. If you win how I should evaluate the debate and that you do the best job of winning under that interpretation, then I'll happily vote for you.

Ballot Writing: LD speeches are short, but doing a little bit of "ballot writing" (what you want me to say in my reason for decision) would go a long way.

Public Forum Specific:

I strongly believe that Public Forum should be a public forum. This is not the format for spreading or policy debate jargon. My policy background as a judge does not negate the purpose of public forum.

Login to Tabroom

CDL Tournament 5 Blue Silver Conference

2021 — Chicago, IL/US

Judge Paradigm List

Judges