Update for NPDL-TOC 2024

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Introduction/Summary

Hello all! I hope this paradigm answers most of your questions, but please contact me at alex.abarca@yale.edu if you have any outstanding questions. I’m also happy to discuss debate in general. I’m a first-generation, low-income student and down to answer any questions about college!

I competed in NPDL-Parliamentary all four years in high school. I was a two-time NPDL TOC qualifier, a four-time state qualifier in IX (CHSSA), and a four-time national qualifier in IX (NSDA). I top spoke at the Jack Howe Long Beach Invitational and won the 2020 Stanford Invitational. In college, I was a member of the Yale Debate Association, served as tournament director for the 2022 Yale Invitational and Yale Osterweis Invitational, and judged both tournaments.

I have judged elimination rounds at NPDL-TOC 2021-2023 and the semifinal and final rounds in 2022. I have experience judging the West Coast Circuit and the NYPDL/East Coast Circuits.

I’m happy to judge either lay or tech rounds, but I see myself more as a traditional judge. I don’t like to think of debate as a game – we sometimes discuss heavy topics in rounds and articulate policies with theoretical real-world implications. Viewing debate as a game is unfair to our logic and skills, the people and situations we draw from when writing resolutions, and people who want to learn from this activity. Thankfully, theory usage as a strategy to win has begun to fall out of fashion in the community – I’m happy to judge theory debate when it’s well-warranted and called for. If you do it in an attempt to shut your opponent out of the round, I may vote for you, but don’t expect to speak above a 25.

TLDR of My Paradigm for Parliamentary Debate

I avoid speed and jargon unless you and your opponents agree on it (jargon such as turn/cross-apply/extend is great if both teams understand it!). I encourage the 1AR/1NR (PMR/LOR) to collapse functionally towards the most critical arguments and weigh (against both sides, even-ifs, and counterfactuals) using a variety of weighing styles (scope, magnitude, brink, etc.). In constructive speeches, connect your arguments to a definite weighing mechanism and the resolution. Be explicit in your definition and operationalization of terms (this will make your life easier when impacting arguments). As mentioned above, I am generally unreceptive to Kritiks or Theory unless they are well-warranted in the round and executed well and have some basis in either the resolution or an in-round fairness violation.

I encourage everyone to share their pronouns – although you are certainly not required to. Do not make harmful generalizations about groups of people in your argumentation. If your opponents argue with you on your rhetoric, I have a medium threshold for dropping you. If I vote for you, your speaks will suffer. Share content warnings with us before each speech where there is new content.

As a note for me: I have ADHD – please ignore my facial expressions and body gestures for the most part. If I stop flowing and give you a confused look, that’s a sign that you’ve lost me in terms of argumentation.

Specifics

How I Adjudicate

I look at the flow and see where the critical arguments in the round fall. From there, I consider which side won more of those critical arguments. I will vote as strictly on the flow as possible. In the case where everything is a wash, presumption flows to the opp unless there is a counterplan, in which case presumption flows gov.

In-Round Intervention

The act of having a paradigm means none of us are tabula rasa philosophically. However, I will not intervene in the round unless arguments or inaccuracies are called out. If something is factually wrong (especially in my field, Comparative Political Development/Representation Linkages), I have a low threshold for tossing an argument or fact out.

Argumentation

Have a clear framework, weighing mechanism or criterion, and have sound plan-text.

Use cohesive logic with well-structured link chains. Have strong and defined warrants coupled with transparent impact chains. If I hear, “This will improve the economy,” I will not be happy. In what way, in which sector, who will benefit from these improvements? This a gentle reminder that the more expansive the magnitude and severity of the impact, the tighter and more cohesive the link chain.

For refutation, please substantially interact with the argument. Consider the claim, warrant, link (internal/external), and impacts of the argument. I've been judging rounds recently where I keep using "ships passing in the night" in my RDF, and I'd rather not have to say that phrase again. Cloudy refutations mean I must intervene more in the flow, which is potentially bad for you.

In the rebuttal speeches, please have voting issues, explicit weighing, and collapse down to the most important arguments. Except for the PMR/1AR, you do not need to go down the flow line-by-line. In the case of the PMR/1AR, I suggest you interact with the most substantial new arguments in the opposition/negation block and not waste your five minutes going down the flow.

Organization:

Please signpost – I flow on spreadsheets, so signposting makes my life easier. If you don’t have clear signposting, there’s a high chance of me dropping an argument accidentally. I prefer using jargon such as turn/extend/cross-apply/etc., but only when both teams are comfortable using such language. Regardless of jargon, make it clear where you are on the flow.

Framework:

Provide a mechanism for flowing the round. Use this reference point to weigh all the arguments. Lately, I have judged rounds without such a reference – these rounds inevitably become a mess of “prefer our side – no, prefer our side.” Why should I prefer your side? How do your impacts and logic better link to the weighing mechanism? Impacts in a void are unhelpful – debate and life are relative.

Speaker Scores:

I start around 28 and then go up or down. More substantial argumentation and speaking will warrant higher speaker scores – where your contribution to the round is substantial. I disagree with judges who think anything rhetorical is irrelevant – how you convey your ideas matters, or why don’t we type out responses online and save ourselves the hassle of attending tournaments?

Theory

If used correctly, I am open to hearing almost any theory argument. I'm happy to judge the round if you sincerely believe a Kritik or Theory Shell is warranted. If you use a K or theory for strategic purposes, I will have a low threshold for voting against you if called out by your opponents. The history of theory debate is that marginalized groups and debaters used it to access better the space they had historically been shut out of. Using theory debate as a strategic decision without acknowledging these historical reasons is a disservice to the art of theory, philosophy, and the people who used them. I also believe that we can read more conceptual and technical arguments in a way that makes them more accessible while still retaining their core purpose.

As a first-generation, low-income, queer(bi), and Latinx former debater, I don’t think being against K’s as strategic gains is against minority debaters. I think we should all be inclusive first and then go to theory when that’s functionally not realistic or save it for the moments when we need that access or want an issue spotlighted in an accessible manner.

Note: I am Native, so if you're going to read a set col/Native sovereignty based case, please do it well/respectfully and be aware (especially with respect to graphic impacts) that you are talking about my family.

Update for Yale 2023: I've judged less than 5 times since graduating HS in 2019. I will not be able to follow full speed spreading and I am not up to date on progressive debate norms. I will still sort of know whats going on with your progressive case, but I'm probably the best judge for a strong lay debate at this point.

Email for email chain: Cameron.chacon@yale.edu

#1 issue is being kind in round, especially if your opponent is obvious not as ready for a progressive round as you. Be nice to novices, small schools, etc.

About me- I competed mostly in LD and occasionally policy in Texas from 2015-2019. Now I go to Yale, and am on the parli team here. I competed in TFA, NSDA, and sometimes TOC circuits back in HS, mostly ran Ks.

LD: I like to see strong engagement with the value/criterion framework and how it influences the rest of the round. In general, I vote across the flowing, meaning that points not engaged with will become voters. I can handle speed but would prefer to not judge a round that is spread entirely. Finally, I prefer arguments with clear logical chains. I also believe that debate should be conducted with a clear ethical code and that competitors should be thoughtful about the points that they present in rounds, especially when making judgements about a specific group of individuals.

Parli: Please sign-post when you are moving through the flow. No speed above 7/10. Weigh!!

Hi! I'm Edward. I debated parli at Evergreen Valley High School for 4 years & currently debate APDA at Yale. I want to keep this paradigm short, so I'll just give a general overview of my experience & how I evaluate arguments.

I did a lot of lay and flow HS parli. I qualled to TOC twice & was in finals at NPDI 2019. I prefer flow debate, but I'm a little bit out of touch with it since I left the west coast. I'll evaluate lay debate on the flow; "quality" of speaking doesn't matter to me. If your opponents aren't familiar with non case arguments, explain them. I have low tolerance for exploiting progressive arguments to win rounds. Don't spread opponents out if they can't handle speed. I will tank your speaks and depending on severity (don't test it) I will drop you. If you make problematic arguments (exclusionary to other debaters) I will drop you. I'm not too great myself with speed, but I can usually follow. Moderate speed is okay, but it's probably best not to spread. I might drop some args if you're too fast and I might call slow or clear.

I evaluate case by comparing contentions (also turns) and their impacts. I'll ask myself if you get access to your impacts with reasoning/links, if defensive arguments mitigate your impacts, and how your impacts compare against your opponents' impacts. I default to a utilitarian analysis and don't have too much experience debating other ethical frameworks.

I flow T with an interpretation, violation, standards, voters, and underview. I'll ask myself three questions about the argument. What did your opponents do wrong? Why should I care? How should I treat it in context of other arguments? If you answer those three questions, I'll have a good idea about how to evaluate it. If you don't specify, I'll treat T as an A priori voting issue, but I won't know how to evaluate it: your opponents might wiggle out.

I really liked kritikal debate. I didn't really run anything but Cap (lol), but I'll listen to other stuff. Just explain it really well. Try to link your framework back to actual material impacts: I don't really know how to evaluate stuff that doesn't link back to real things.

I said this'd be short but I don't know if it is. Hopefully it wasn't too much of a read! Have fun and good luck!

Hi there,

My name is Alex Gordon -- I competed in Congressional Debate for 4 years at the Dreyfoos School of the Arts in West Palm Beach, FL. I debated a decent amount nationally, placing 3rd in Senate at NSDA Nationals my senior year, and ranked well at a few other tournaments over the years. I am now a sophomore at Yale University, where I compete in parliamentary debate.

I judge congress rounds holistically, preferring the best overall legislator over the best orator, best debater, etc. That said, here are a few things you may want to consider in reference to how I evaluate speakers:

1. If you are disrespectful, rude, or violate decorum, I will refuse to rank you, no matter how good your speeches are.

2. Feel free to use humor, but always make sure you are taking the competition seriously and with respect.

3. Don't be afraid to take risks. I reward creativity and unique argumentation and styles.

4. I am fine with speed, but some judges are not, so check their paradigms, too. Also, make sure your computer can handle speed through Zoom, too. The last thing I want is to not understand what you are saying as a result of the technology

5. Every speech after the first affirmative should have refutation. There is no excuse not to, because that just shows you are not listening to your fellow representatives.

6. Please have warrants! I should not be left asking "Why" or "How" after you make your argument. Also, please do not rehash.

7. Please do not say, "According to the New York Times" and move on. Provide a name and/or date with sources, if possible.

8. Be passionate. Show me why I should not only care about your side of the debate, but about your particular argument and why it is the most important in the round. Connect to the humanity of debate -- paint a narrative of what will or will not happen as a result of the vote. Make me want to vote for you and your side.

9. Have fun. Show off your personality.

As a final note, I want to say how inspiring it is to see you all still dedicated to the activity and willing to put the time into competing this weekend. I know there is a lot going on in people's lives, and debate can oftentimes be a stress-inducing activity. If at any point you just need a break, or need to leave and get a glass of water, always feel free to take care of yourself first.

Be well, and be kind to one another.

Alex

Please feel free to contact me at alexgordon003@gmail.com with any questions.

This paradigm does not apply to New Haven UDL students.

I was a parliamentary debater in the New Haven Urban Debate League for four years, and I've debated on the YDA for the past two years.

For Policy, I have no experience, and I'm not used to fast debate. I also strongly value clarity, both in terms of speaking and in argumentation. Respect your opponents, especially during CX.

For LD, I can handle a reasonable amount of speed, but please do not spread. I value framework pretty highly. You can certainly still win even if I accept the other team's framework, but you'll have an uphill battle. Please provide explicit voters for the round, and be sure to weigh these voters in your rebuttals. I'll be flowing regardless, but this makes my job much easier. Do not use theory.

Good luck and have fun!

Hi!

I did Congress, Extemp, and Impromptu in high school. A few things I look for:

1. Clear warranting. I would like you to fully explain the "why" behind your arguments and how you get to point A from point B. You must make it clear to me why your version of the world is the most plausible/likely.

2. Good use of credible sources. Please don't just make assertions; I would like to see where you are pulling arguments from. Also please apply these arguments

3. Strong weighing.

Most importantly, I expect all members of the debate to treat each other respectfully! Good luck and have fun :)

I am a "truth over tech" judge, and please do not spread. I cannot flow everything if you spread and some arguments/evidence will most likely get lost.

Experience: Two years of policy in high school, in fourth year of APDA/BP in college at UChicago.

Theory: It's annoying, I will vote on it if necessary but will be looking for other places to vote, so be convincing if you do run it.

I am tech > truth, but please still substantiate and warrant your arguments, if they are not warranted then it will reflect in speaks and decision and will impact how the round is weighed. Dropped arguments are absolutely conceded, but make them good arguments to begin with. Crazy arguments are fine if you give warrants (e.g. you must convince me that the U.S. has one billion nukes, instead of simply asserting it). I will not vote on good arguments for which warrants were not given if I can help it.

Evidence: I am of the mind that evidence should support your arguments, they should not be your arguments. That is, you can say "X will happen because Y source says Z occurs, and Z causes X." This is a fully fleshed out argument, and then you can weigh X against other impacts. Obviously the way your arguments and evidence is constructed will probably vary a lot, and that's fine. Being convincing is the most important part so this is not a hard and fast rule.

Framework: Give one if you want, otherwise I just use cost-benefit analysis. Conceded frameworks are taken as true and I will use them to vote on the round; if you're giving a counter framework then you must prove why yours is better.

Generally: My average speaks is a 28. Collapse strategically and on what you win on; my ballot is decided by what are in the final speeches. If you talk about something in those speeches, I take that as a sign that you want me to vote on that issue. Some speed is ok if you're clear, if I can't hear then the things I didn't hear just won't be on my flow. Do not spread. I prefer live docs with speech docs/evidence pasted before each speech, including rebuttals and summary. On crossfire, I am not flowing but I am listening, and if you want to use a crossfire response in your speech then by all means please do.

Don't just say the name of a card. Have a very brief summary of what the card says because that is how I remember it.

And weigh, weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

Be nice and respectful, use the proper pronouns, give content warnings where needed. Just be a decent person please; not being a decent person will be reflected in speaks and/or in decision. And of course, have fun :)

Email: samuel.johnson.fop@gmail.com

Hi y'all! I debated for Valley High School for seven years and graduated in 2020, qualifying to both NSDA Nationals and TOC.

Bronx 2022 Update: I haven't judged (or thought about) debate in a while, so just keep that in mind. Go a little bit slower please, but everything below still applies. 

Email: animeshjoshi9@gmail.com

I don't flow off the doc, just a heads up.

General:

Tech > Truth.

Do what you want to do.

Here are just some miscellaneous guidelines.

1. Explanation usually matters more than argument content. As long as I can get a coherent warrant for an argument, and it's not blatantly offensive, I'm willing to vote on it.

2. I'm good with any type of debate and will evaluate every argument to the best of my ability. I read a lot of analytic philosophy as a debater, so I'm probably most comfortable with that style and would likely enjoy it when executed correctly. That being said, don't read something you're bad at just because I read it--it leads to bad debates that will make me sad. Watching debaters do what they're good at is super cool, and I think I'm comfortable adjudicating any style of debate. The one exception is probably LARP v LARP; I'm not very well versed in that. Disclosure theory is fine, but I don't like it at all, especially super tiny violations, i.e. round reports, open-source in cite box, etc.

EDIT: Also, not the biggest fan of osource being read against full text disclosure, but you do you. Also pt2, reading some sort of framing mechanism, i.e. ANY framework, is probably in your best interest.

3. Despite being from Valley, I'm not the biggest fan of tricks. Watching a bad tricks debate makes my head hurt, and they often seem like cheap shots (the way they're currently used in debate, they aren't always bad arguments). However, I do understand their strategic value and, when executed correctly, can be really enjoyable to watch. Cool and nuanced topical tricks > resolved. I'd prefer to not hear a 2AR on a garbage a priori when there's a clear substantive route to the ballot--that's all.

4. Even if things are conceded, please extend them. I have a low threshold for extensions, but there still needs to be ink on my flow with something resembling a warrant. That is, a 2AR going for defense to a 2NR on theory STILL needs to say "extend aff offense, it was conceded."

5. Independent voters need to be warranted. Tossing out a claim without any reasoning attached to it is not a coherent argument.

6. Weigh between arguments, please. Every type of debate gets messy whether it be theory, framework, or clash of civs. Weighing really helps me resolve these rounds.

7. I dislike people prescripting every speech. It seems to be happening more and more--it irks me. I will reward debaters who actually generate arguments and think of responses on their feet.

8. Have fun! Debate is super stressful and rough. Try to lighten up and enjoy some of the experience! But don't be exclusionary to somebody who isn't versed in circuit norms, is a novice, etc. Let's try to keep the space inclusive :)

If you have any other questions, let me know before round!

Hey y’all! My name is Trent Kannegieter (he/him/his), and this is my paradigm for the 2020 Tournament of Champions. Congratulations to everyone who made it! I’m excited to see some great rounds.

Briefly about me:

I am a junior in college studying history and human rights. I competed nationally for Bayside Academy (in Daphne, Alabama) from late 2015 to early 2017. While Congressional Debate was my main event, I also competed briefly in Extemp, PF, and LD, qualifying for national championship tournaments in each. I currently compete in parliamentary debate and continue my engagement with high school speech & debate through the Yale Invitational, which I co-directed in 2019.

When I’m judging a round:

The best debater in any given cycle is the one who wins the judges’ support for their side of the legislation through their unique contributions to the round. My ratings in any given round are a function of which debaters, on aggregate, were most “persuasive” as measured by this standard. This paradigm means that I’m primarily an “argument-driven” Congress judge, especially relative to some other judges. Early speeches, even if they cover what some may call “stock” points, can win rounds. But smooth presentation, while important, is insufficient to carry my ballot. They only matter insofar as they push the judge toward your side of the legislation. (Thus, the benefit of speaking first is getting the first crack at selecting and explaining these key issues. The tricky part is anticipating where the rest of the round will go and not allowing later speakers to make render contributions irrelevant.) There are many ways to convince a judge, from compelling data to inventive warranting and deep impacting. However, at the Tournament of Champions especially, many of you will likely do this. In light of this talented pool, refutation and engagement of other speakers is at an even higher premium than normal. That is, lots of you will probably be convincing. Prove to me why your stuff is more important than the stuff others bring to the table. Quality wins my ballot over quantity.

I check my biases at the door. That means that you don’t have to worry about running any type of argument in front of me because it seems “conservative” or “progressive.”

Relatedly, this also means that I’m not going to fill in any blanks in your argument for you. If you’re going to make an argument that seems “intuitive,” I still expect you to prove that point to me. (Put in the way I would explain it when coaching, your claim is only as strong as your warranting, data, and impacts.) Be aware of this while competing in front of me. An earlier speaker might make a claim, but not warrant or impact the point sufficiently (or provide good enough data) for the point to stand. Depending on how the round shakes out, this means you can still be the debater who “wins” a point whose claim was first introduced by an earlier speaker. Don’t dogmatically fear being tagged as “rehash” if you do this well. (This is of course distinct from making the exact same point with similar warranting and impacting as earlier speakers did. That’s rehash. Don’t do that.)

I care about questioning blocks! If questions weren’t supposed to factor into ranks, we wouldn’t have them at all. Good engagement, both as questioner and respondent, will be rewarded. Bad engagement will be noted. Respectful exchange (I.e. keeping questions short; not cutting people off) is a must.

Things you can assume:

You can assume that I know a bit about the world, but no more than information that would be on the front page of a paper like The New York Times. Anything else needs to be explained to me. (Don't just say terms like "contact theory" or "stagflation," explain what they are and why they matter.)

You can assume that I'm rational. If you make an argument based on a logical fallacy (such as ad hominem or is/ought), I won't pick it up.

You can assume that, like most people, I tend to be more skeptical of evidence from sources that aren't either peer reviewed or well-respected publications. If your data is from a source that isn't intuitively "trustworthy," it's your responsibility to explain why I should trust it.

On Presiding Officers:

Good (and impartial) presiding is imperative to the integrity of Congressional Debate. I am also aware that presiding in this format presents a unique challenge. Here, as with anywhere else, good presiding should be rewarded. My ballots reflect this belief. That said, presiding does not automatically earn you a place on my ballot. (No funny business. I used to preside frequently in high school, and I’m stuck at home right now and myself school just went to Universal Pass/Fail grading for the semester, so I’ve been spending some time with my old copy of Robert’s Rules of Order.)

That’s it! Best of luck this weekend and beyond!

Howdy, I'm currently a sophomore at Yale, did debate in high school, and still am competing occasionally in college.

Pretty experienced with Worlds, Congress, and PF. Flow judge, but I hate spreading. Make voter issues and paths to victory as explicit as you can.

Hello Debaters!

Good for you at checking paradigms.... I judge several different types of debate:

As a communicator, you should be able to adapt to your audience...ie Judge.

Have fun! Debate is a wonderful activity where you can be smart, have fun, and learn at the same time.

Some items I think you should be aware of that I think weakens your presentation:

Being rude, forgetting to tag your cards, not having cards formatted correctly, and not making some kind of eye contact with judge during cross.

DO NOT say please vote for Aff/NEG...your argumentation and evidence should demonstrate your side should win.

Things to help your presentation: Smile, being polite, and organizing your arguments with internal signposting...sharing cards and evidence before using them.

Public Forum- DO NOT PROVIDE AN OFF TIME ROADMAP- I do not need it.

Please have started the email chain and flipped as soon as you can.

include me in the email chain macleodm@friscoisd.org

Or use a speech drop

General Ideas

There is not enough time in PF for effective theory/K to run. I will not vote for you if tricks or theory are your only arguments. I expect the resolution to be debated and there needs to be clash.

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.

To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.

The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.

Technical Debate

I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.

I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a mom of two five year olds and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is.

If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Policy I am a stock issues judge when adjudicating Policy. I am fine with speed/spreading with signposting and roadmaps.

I can't stand the K. Please don't run one. Debate the resolution or run a T argument but very rarely will I vote off case arguments.

Parli/World Schools- Need to see fully developed warrants, impacts and confidence. I love stories and learning new TRUE stuff...

LD- I love debates about Criterion and no neg cases are great if ran with logic, links, and detailed examples. Tell stories. I will buy it if presented professionally and with logic. I need weighing of worlds and chrystalization.

Congress- Please make sure to reference previous representatives speeches and show me you have been flowing and are responding to what has been said in round.

Showing decorum and being polite- like thanking the previous representative always a good thing :)

PLEASE DO NOT ask if I am ready- I am always ready or I will say to please wait.

World Schools- I love the decorum/Parli element and terminology usage. Attacking the premise of arguments, call out logical fallacies, and weigh the worlds please....Make sure to give examples that are not just made up- I know Harvard studies everything, but please refrain from making stuff up.

I do appreciate puns/tasteful humor and use those POI requests and answers strategically.

Debated PF 4 years at College Prep on the national circuit, currently debate APDA at Yale.

tech> truth, ask me specifics before round

I probably won’t call for cards unless I’m told to do so (I guess at eTOC I'm gonna look at them all because they'll be emailed to me whether I want to see them or not).

If you don’t weigh, you’ll probably be sad after RFD.

Pet peeves:

1. Don’t talk fast if you don't have a lot to say.

2. Don’t talk too slow or I’ll fall asleep.

3. Don’t debate during prep time.

A few notes on my personal stylistic and argumentative preferences

“Spreading” is something you do with softened butter on warm rolls, not something you should be doing in a debate speech. If I hear you double-breathing to accommodate your fast speaking, I will assume you are having a medical emergency and call 9-1-1

If you use phrases such as “cap K,” “friv T,” or “K Aff,” I will assume you are talking about some musician’s stage name that I am simply not aware of.

If you use any jargon-y abbreviation I am unfamiliar with, I will Google that abbreviation and use the first search result to evaluate your argument. For instance, if you use the abbreviation “AEG,” I shall Google “AEG” and see that “AEG” refers to the “Anschutz Entertainment Group;” then do my very best to understand how your argument connects back to said institution.

Spiking is unethical, whether you're spiking someone's drink or spiking in a debate round. Don't spike.

I greatly enjoy moral philosophy, but do not use terms like "deontological" and "teleology" if you do not understand them. Also, do not just ask me to judge an ethics round from a utilitarian perspective because "it helps the most people." That is not an argument, as that justification already relies on a utilitarian worldview.

I love philosopher name drops and I will smile if you can do so properly.

In Parli, I would like for people to at least make an effort to ask/take POIs. It's a debate, so there should be some level of dialogue.If you are charismatic, I will give high speaker points. While I will of course adjudicate based on argumentation, if you sound like Siri reading a 7 minute speech you will not be getting a high speaker score.

Yale Stuff: Before going into my paradigm, there are a few things that debaters tend to do which hurt the Yale Debate Association's ability to hold future tournaments. Please do not

– Prop open doors

– Prep in random open rooms

– Walk into professors' offices

Paradigm

I've just finished debating 4 years in LD. I went mostly to traditional local tournaments and a couple national tournaments each year.

I'll vote on anything that's not offensive. I'm most familiar with FW and phil. Speak clearly and signpost.

Speed: I'm used to spreading but was never very good at it. Make sure your spreading is clear and slow down on tags, author names, and dense arguments. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or don't catch.

FW: I usually enjoy these debates the most. Make sure you explain why your opponent's offense is precluded. Numbering your arguments is never a bad idea.

Ks: Not very familiar with them. I'll vote on them, but don't assume that I know the argument ahead of time. It's better to overexplain than underexplain.

Theory: I default to competing interpretations and RVIs good, but it's open to debate.

Tricks: If you clearly explain why you've won I'll vote on them. The bar for answering tricks will usually be very low.

Speaks: I'll try to average 28.5

**Updated October 2022**

Hi, I'm Ellie (she/her)! I have experience competing and judging in PF and WS. For four years I competed mostly in APDA for Yale. I coached for Blake after my high school graduation. I have judged many rounds over time, but not recently, so be aware of that. 

Feel free to message me for feedback (if I forget you can nudge me), if you have questions about APDA, for moral support, or anything else. I'm happy to help!

Please put debate.ellie@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com on the email chain if you make one!

This paradigm is for PF, though some things apply across events (eg: the decorum section).

The Split

Everyone frontlines now. That's nice.

Speed

I can flow speed, but proceed at your own risk. You can "clear" your opponents but do this sparingly. I don't use speech docs to fill in things I could not catch/understand.

Types of arguments

You are the debater and I want you to enjoy debating things that interest you. There are few things I refuse to hear.

Progressive arguments are important. I'll do my best to evaluate them fairly. I am not super well versed in K lit so while I will try and understand whatever you read, there's a risk I just miss something.

I really don't like when teams run squirrelly arguments just to throw off their opponents. Your points may suffer even if I vote for you and my threshold for responses will be lower.

If you're on a topic where people tend to run "advocacies" please prove there's a probability of your advocacy occurring.

I am not amenable to speaks theory.

The only other args I refuse to listen to are linguistic and moral skep – I have yet to hear them in PF, but don't even try lol

Dates

read them lol

Evidence

I very strongly prefer cards > paraphrasing, but it isn't a hard rule. I will punish you for misrepresenting evidence or knowingly reading authors that are fraudulent or very clearly unreliable.

Know where your evidence is. If you can't find it, it's getting kicked. Do not cut cards in round.

Bracketing is bad. No debater math pls.

Summary and Final Focus

Extend defense. Don't go for everything. Args needs to be in summary to be counted in FF. Also, weigh.

~~Decorum~~

Being funny or witty is fine as long as it isn't mean. I am not afraid to tank your speaks if you are rude.

Prep

keep track of it i won't

Misc

sIgNpOsT!!!!!!!!

don't delink your own case to escape turns just frontline them

You can enter the room and flip before I get there (when we're back in person that is).

If you want to take off your jacket/change your shoes/wear pajamas, go ahead!

If you're trying to get perfect speaks, strike me. A lot of my speaks end up in the 27.5-29 range.

In high school I primarily competed in the World Schools and British Parliamentary formats, though I spent a bit of time with Public Forum as well. I currently compete in the British Parliamentary and American Parliamentary formats, and I coach for the Urban Debate League.

I assess analysis or logical reasoning more heavily than pure use of evidence, unless the evidence presented is common knowledge (e.g. something a casual follower of international news publications would think to be intuitively true). This means, for instance, that giving an example relating to Donald Trump's border wall proposal or South Africa's history of Apartheid would generally be acceptable, but citing the example of a specific local policy in Des Moines would be less persuasive on face. One drawback of relying too heavily on examples is that such evidence can be circumstantial and fail to apply to many other cases.

Some other quick notes about what I consider good debating practice:
1. Be confident in yourself. In many many cases, debaters doubt themselves or their speeches and decide to stop and panic. Don't! Breathe, take a moment if you need to, and remember that no one is here to judge you. In every single case I've seen, debaters who get the jitters are actually doing quite well—they're just psyching themselves out. So don't!

2. Be sure to tie each argument (or contention) back to the motion/topic specifically. If the motion is "This House Supports racial Affirmative Action in higher education," you should not be arguing "racism is bad" (hopefully, this is assumed). Instead, you should explain why Affirmative Action policies in university are a justified and effective way of lessening racism.

3. Tell me what the most important one (or maybe two) issues in the debate are. Very few teams are able to win every single clash in a debate, so the best way to assure your victory (read as: make it easy for me to vote for you) is to explain why your strongest arguments are also the most consequential arguments. if your team convinces me that this policy improves the economy and the other team convinces me that the policy is harmful to the environment, you should try to convince me that your economic benefits are more important than their environmental harms.

4. BE KIND TO YOUR TEAMMATES AND YOUR OPPONENTS, AND ENJOY YOURSELF! Debate is a highly stressful activity that is in some sense inherently competitive, but it's more productive to think of it as a process of learning through discussion. We learn more and have a better experience with debate when we are able to hear from and think about perspectives that we do not initially possess. So for your sake and for others' sake, remember that we're here to grow together!

This is my APDA paradigm, just refer to that: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cYPIbMCi1CUjUJU-mEA1FLjQvEsRNDzOaw2Tqw32ijE/edit

My 2 most important preferences:

1. Please, please slow down. I suggest 1 to 1.5x conversational speed; I think ideal case length is 680-700 words. If you could imagine someone asking for a speech doc, SLOW down! Implications for you:

-- If your speed means I miss something important, it’s like it never existed. I’m not gonna be like, “Hmm, maybe I heard something kinda like that” when you extend it. It’s goodbye

-- If your opponent cannot understand and asks you to slow down (do this by loudly saying “clear”), you must do so. Within reason; I will intervene in obvious cases of abuse

-- This preference is also reflected in speaks. Selective vision >>> brute force coverage. Extreme speed = low speaks

2. I place a strong emphasis on warranting. Implications:

-- If you and your opponent disagree on something, I prioritize your comparisons in this order: 1. Warrant comparison 2. Warranted evidence comparison 3. Evidence comparison that is just: “dates”

-- If an arg is not warranted and your opponent mentions this, I won’t let you bring in new warranting. Don’t go for something that wasn’t warranted in case and expect me to vote off it. Only exception is commonly intuitive statements

Notes on the flow

--Theory/K's/progressive args: I consider them a barrier to entry in PF and probably won't vote on them. 99% odds I won’t buy theory about dates, speaks, disclosure, paraphrasing, etc. If you do it in combination with extreme speed, consider it an auto-drop. If it's something you're genuinely concerned about, you impact it convincingly, and you make it accessible, you can give it a try. I seriously and strongly recommend against it, but you can

--I’m not super picky about extensions (e.g. if you extend a paraphrased version of your impact in summary and one specific impact card in FF, that’s fine). But ofc any argument in FF should be in summary

--1st FF can extend defense from rebuttal if it isn’t frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. But I’d still recommend extending a couple of your favorite responses in summary

--2nd rebuttal doesn’t need to frontline their voters, though it must frontline major turns/ offensive overviews

--2nd rebuttal shouldn’t go overboard with disads; > 1 minute on them is too much. If a ton of your speech is disads and it feels abusive I may drop you. Even if I don’t, the speaks will suffer and I’ll allow blippier responses in 1st summary

--if there’s no offense in the round that I can see, I default first speaking team. (I realize this is unusual, I personally think it's fairer)

Please be kind to each other. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me at beginning of round. Good luck!

PF Paradigm

I'm a tech judge. Speed should be fine as long as you slowdown on taglines. If you are going to spread, I want an email chain in round as I am out of practice. I will call clear a couple times if you are really unclear, and after that point I’ll just stop flowing.

I did policy a little and did pf for two years so feel free to run kritiks, theory, and other progressive arguments as long as they are well warranted and explained (I will not vote on disclosure in pf, so please don't run it, I also won't vote on friv theory either).

I am sort of a stickler for extensions so please extend all offense you want to be considered in summary and final focus. Also, please extend the impacts to turns, i won't do it for you.

Second rebuttal has to cover all of the other team's offense, whether it be turns, case, or overviews.

Extend terminal defense in summary, no need to talk about it after that unless it becomes a main voter.

I also stop flowing once the time stops, any new arguments made after the speech time won't be evaluated.

If i find that the round is essentially a wash, or if there is no weighing done, I will most often default to the easiest form of offense to vote off of, but sometimes I might not. The point is that you probably won't like my decision if you leave it up to me to decide what's the most important point in the round, so please weigh/extend.

Also, if evidence is heavily contested, or if it just seems really suss in round, I'll probably call evidence at the end, so please cut cards truthfully and portray them correctly. If I find that a card was clearly fabricated or miscut, it will result in 20s and it will be struck from the round.

Finally, offensive arguments (racist, xenophobic, sexist, homophobic) and behavior will most likely result in 20s at the very least so please be respectful to every one in and outside of the round.

Most importantly, have fun! Debate is an amazing activity that can teach so many important lessons.

P.S I would really appreciate it if you preflowed before round.

LD Paradigm

Most of the same stuff for pf applies here.

Kritks: I am familiar with the basics, but in round I need more explanation of the links, role of the ballot, and the literature base (if it’s outside cap, sett col, or anti blackness). Be wary of running it in front of me if you can’t explain it well. I’ll do my best to understand the arguments you’re making but I don’t have a deep enough content knowledge to understand everything if the application of the K doesn’t make immediate sense.

Theory: I’m decent with theory, please just read shells, no paragraph theory.

Phil: My phil knowledge is not as deep as other ld judges, so please explain your value/criterion if you have them, and why they are important. Also, make sure you link your contentions back to your framing.

In general, debate the way you want to, I don’t really care what you do as long as you have good warranting and explain things well. I will evaluate everything the way that the round dictates it.

My email is: bradley.tidwell@yale.edu

Lake Highland Prep ’19

email: wuxjulia@gmail.com

I debated for Lake Highland for five years and went to the TOC my sophomore, junior, and senior year.

Overview:

I don’t really have a preference towards judging any particular type of argument. As a debater, I read a lot of high theory, phil, theory/T, Ks, and sometimes I read tricks. You should read arguments in whatever style you are most comfortable with and I will do my best to evaluate the round. I'll always try to take the route of least intervention when I'm judging. As long as an argument has a claim, warrant, impact, I will vote on it. However, I will drop you for reading anything blatantly racist, misogynistic, ableist, anti-queer, etc.

If you're reading a confusing or dense position, make sure that you explain it well. Don't assume that I'll fill in the blanks for you if you make half-baked arguments just because I read something in that literature base as a debater. Also if you are reading blippy tricks just make sure you slow down enough that I can flow a warrant for all of them.

Misc:

1. I will no longer evaluate "give me a 30" arguments unless you have an exceptionally good reason for why I should give you a 30. I will just give speaks based on how well I think you debated.

2. I will not vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the [insert speech] if the argument is made in the speech mentioned in the spike. For example, I won't vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the 2nr" if it's made in the 2nr. This is because any answer to the spike is technically a theory argument, making it unclear if even evaluating answers to the argument are legitimate. I will also not vote on this argument in any speech absent a clear articulation of what constitutes the theory debate and just generally have a low threshold for responses.

3. If you are debating someone who is obviously a novice or significantly less experienced, try to win in a way that still allows them to engage with the round. Those rounds should not become an opportunity for you to win on cheap shots.

Here are my defaults (I will only use these if there is literally nothing said about these issues by either side):

• truth testing (what it means for something to be "true" or "false" can be determined through a rob or framework)
• my presumption default works the same as Grant Brown’s: “I default presume negative, unless there is an alternative advocacy (counterplan, kritik) in the 2NR without the choice of the status-quo, in which case I presume affirmative.”
• permissibility negates
• layers (theory, t, rob) can be weighed against each other

Speaks:

You'll get higher speaks for good strategic decisions, smart args, and knowing your positions well. You'll get lower speaks for being rude or patronizing to your opponent.

Here are some judges that I aspire to be like: Tom Evnen, Becca Traber, Grant Brown, John Staunton, Madi Crowley, and Vishaal Kunta.

If you have any specific questions, email me, facebook message me, or ask me before the round starts and I’ll be happy to answer them!