Westwood Novice Inhouse
2021 — Online, TX/US
CX Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show Hidewestwood high school
don't take me for policy vs policy debates
this is not because I dislike them, rather I'm incompetent at judging them
Hi
My name is Kevin.
I am not a very good CX debater so treat me like a lay judge and don't report me to tabroom.
I'll try my best to understand arguments I'm not familiar with. DA, T, and K's are fine just make sure it's clear about the thing.
I'm a sophomore cxer at westwood.
I will listen to all arguments, do whatever you want.
(Parts shamelessly stolen from Joon, Yao Yao, Azja, and hundreds more I've learned and pulled from indirectly "Nothing is original")
James! Not judge :/
Westwood 23'
Northwestern 27'
Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "TOC - Round 1 - Westwood CC (AFF) vs Westwood BS (NEG)".
Top Level Thoughts:
Policy Oriented for 2 Years, K Oriented for 2 Years (Do what you want!)
Hold my hand! The top of the 2NR/AR should be verbatim what my RFD is.
Tech > Truth - That said: truthful arguments will naturally have a lower bar
Organization is key - Both beneficial for me and you. Label, compartmentalize, number, whatever you have to do
Please don't clip - happens more often than it should.It won't lose you the round, but shitty speaks will be inevitable. Also, please mark your own cards. I'm not here to be a referee, only to decide who wins.
Have fun! 
<3 music! Play good music only >:(
Don't be mean
Argument Specifics:
Framework
- Feel very comfortable evaluating these debates. Having ran a K-Aff for 2 years, I also went for FW almost every debate. I do not think I have significant ideological preferences for either side and have spent an absurd amount of time strategizing arguments for both sides.
- “Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison” – Yao Yao Chen.
- TVAs should make sense (the more attached to the debate meta is, the better). Please impact out TVAs.
- SSD should also be impacted out. Please connect SSD with the rest of the arguments presented.
K - Affs
Top Level
- "Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base." - Azja
- Please explain your argument CLEARLY by the 2AR. There's no need to explain in the same rhetoric the original literature is written in. Keep it simple.
- Explain what I'm supposed to do by the end of the round. Ballot? Role? Debate? All should be abundantly clear by the end.
Strategy
- "[The impact turn] is only particularly persuasive if you win an argument aside from competing interpretations for how a debate should be evaluated. Unless your argument is debate bad, I will struggle to find a way to vote for no topic at all against a competent negative team. However, if you do win an argument that reduces the question of my ballot to an individual debate, the impact-turn only approach becomes much more viable." - Joon
- You know exactly what the neg is going to go for. Pre-empt that starting from the 1AC.
- I feel like I've seen (and been guilty of) too many Aff teams just having totally incoherent strategies. Explain how I weigh the impact turn along with the CP/CM.
K v K
- Fine for these.
- Most K v K debates just have no argument interaction. Don't make debate boring and harder for me to evaluate.
- Please. I beg. I think this could be sooooooooo interesting.
- "If technical debating and argument comparison is not lost, I will enjoy the debate. These debates are incredibly difficult, but rewarding to engage in." - Joon
- "It will be difficult to convince me that your K aff does not have to defend something. You got to pick and choose what to defend and should be held responsible for those choices. This becomes less true as the neg's criticism becomes more trivial, but I will have a relatively lower threshold for link explanation." - Joon
K v Plan
- As a 2N, bread and butter :)))
- I've gone for a majority of the common ones or at least comfortable in the literature base.
- I love stories, you love stories, everyone loves stories! K debate is about storytelling. Frame the K, think about the round holistically, strategize cross-x, and package your arguments well.
- Evaluate how much framework matters to your K. Cap K? Maybe less so. Techno? Maybe more so. However, if framework is essential to the neg strat: "A vast majority of judges seem to arbitrarily intervene and decide to take a middle stance on the framework debate and generate their own justifications for why this “middle stance” is preferable. I will avoid doing this at all costs and only decide between the interpretations present in the 2NR and the 2AR." - Joon
- Although high link specificity will be rewarded and are SUPER interesting and amazing debates, I probably care about this a lot less than most other judges. Run your generic state links >:), just be ready to defend it.
- I've always been a big fan of reps work. Pull quotes, make the aff nervous :))
Topicality
- I personally don't think that the evidence or the quality of the evidence is that important. As long as you have an intent to define and it's about the word or phrase that you are trying to define, then it's probably fine. That said, make sure you're ready to defend a terrible interp.
- Go for whatever impact you want. I really don't care. Although I'll evaluate whatever you decide to go for, I do think that it is important that you know I almost exclusively went for debateabilty over anything else.
Pointers
- Limits/Ground: I think that this is a pretty convincing argument as long as you have a few key aspects in the block: a caselist, version of the topic, and a clear explanation of why their interp is bad for limits. Also win the overlimiting/underlimiting arg.
- Precision: If you go for precision in the 2NR, please make sure that your evidence is thoroughly explained. Also, your evidence in this context is actually important. If you're actually going for a LEGALLY PRECISE or PRECISE argument, your 1NC evidence has to be good.
Counterplans
- Good with these
- Tend to get boring. Please make it interesting :) (no strategic reason, just makes me happy)
- Specificity (including PICs) make everything so much more interesting and fun. "Well-researched strategies (especially PICs) will be rewarded. Topic/aff-specific advocates go a long way." - Joon
- Default judge-kick
- Don't have huge biases toward functional/textual competition. If this crucial, can be convinced in any direction.
- "Sufficiency framing is asserted without an implication in most instances. You should set a threshold for how much the CP needs to solve i.e. “1AC ev says we need to meet the 2 degree threshold – if the CP gets there it’s sufficient to solve and deficits do not matter past that”. Otherwise, this seems to be intuitive and just an assertion that serves as a poor substitute for impact calculus." - Joon
Disads
- "I generally care more about link defense than impact defense. Link framing is especially important because it can start argument resolution in your favor." - Joon
- I like turns case but I feel like these debates always get muddled by the end of the debate. Although war causes structural violence is intuitive, please make it clear to me.
- Use analytics! Underutilized for sureeeeee.
"Case
- Like everyone else, I like good case debating. 2Ns that show they know the aff better than the other team will especially be rewarded with higher speaks.
- I will be very strict for the 2AC and 1AR on case. The 2AC needs to actually answer the 1NC case arguments not just re-explain your advantage. I will also be deeply skeptical of new 1AR/2AR arguments on the case especially if your explanation of the aff shifts.
- Everything from the DA section apply just as much here." - Joon
Junior in policy debate at Westwood High School.
Email: rnemawarkar@gmail.com
Novice CX:
- Use the 2NR and 2AR for weighing and tell me how to vote
- Don't read K affs if you don't know how to
- Time yourself
Intro
I debate for Westwood High School in Austin, Texas in policy.
email: billruan888@gmail.com
pronouns: he/him
just call me William
Speaker Points
On top of evaluating the round for speaker points:
I will doc major points if you:
- Are being a jerk (depends how much of a jerk you were being, speaker point deductions vary)
- Trying to win a round cheaply, such as "hiding" a theory shell, or having some tricks. It ruins the point of debate, if you're here to just win and not learn. (-3 or 4 speaks)
I will bump points if you:
- Signpost (+1)
- Speak clearly in rebuttals, and talk to me directly, like I'm a human, and not treat me like a fax machine, trying to have me process everything you throw at my way. I "reward kind debaters who are enjoying themselves in the activity." -Aden Barton (+2)
- Say that James Li is bad at Valorant at the end of your rebuttal (you can say it after time is up) (+0.1)
- Say Warren Huang is short at the end of your rebuttal (you can say it after time is up) (+0.1)
- Say that Sean Xue cannot do basic division at the end of your rebuttal (you can say it after time is up) (+0.1)
Topicality: Explain why T matters to me in this debate, and why I should evaluate it. "If you read T at full speed during NR/ARs, is going to be really hard for me to hear you, so please be clear." -Sean Xue
Counterplans: Explain your CPs as much as you can. They provide a lot of ground for clash, so just flesh them out. They can be pretty nice.
Counterplan Theory: Well said by Sean, and I agree with him:
"I will buy theory if the counterplan is super sketchy. However, it’s still up to the Affirmative to prove to me why I should reject the team."
Theory: I default theory to be abusive, but as long as you can change my mind and prove to me why it matters, then I can accept it. As long as you can defend your theory position, it's fine. I will buy theories that are well structured and developed in a debate, again it's up to the aff/neg to prove to me why to reject the team, and I do not like cheap short theories, especially if you are “hiding” the theory shell. It's dirty and cheap to win like that. I wouldn't vote on it even if a team won with that kind of tactic.
RVI's: Stop it. Get some help. I no longer see you as a debater. I see you as clinically insane and need to see a psychotherapist.
Disads: Be specific. Make sure your cards and warrants are good and strategic. I prefer overviews over underviews.
Kritik: I'm on the same page as Sean Xue here:
"I’m mainly a policy debater, I understand the generic Ks (set col, abolition, etc), but again, the more specific the better. When it comes to Ks like Baudrillard, I will try my best to understand them, so the more specific and explanation the better. K flows tend to get messy, so please be clear and signpost if needed while reading K. Overall, it is up to the debaters to prove and teach to me within the round, if you cannot explain the K and your position at the end of the debate, most likely I will not vote for it."
If you read a K Aff in novice... just don't. Please don't. There is a high chance that I will just vote you down. Even if you try to read a k aff, it'll be super messy for me to try evaluating, and you have to explain your k aff to me the best you can. But don't read a k aff as a novice, unless you just want an L and low speaks.
Case: Please debate on case stuff… Good args on case and some offcases > a bunch of offcases with barely anything on case since case is pretty much the only aff offense. A good dropped case turn will likely win Neg the round. I’m open to any kind of argument you have as long as it is intelligent, arguably true, and not problematic.
Going into case itself, here are some standards that I generally follow as a rule of thumb developed by Daniel Shi:
"I evaluate stock issues.
Inherency is important to me because if your aff isn't inherent - you lose.
Solvency is also important to me because if your aff doesn't solve - you lose."
Cross:
I don't flow cross, but if there is a piece of information that you want me to flow, mention it in your speech after cross.
Other Things:
I’m new to judging, so it might take me a while to make a decision and give the RFD, so please understand. I prefer writing my rfd over talking about it, since I can think better and more clearly while writing, so please note that too.
email chain: xiao.tori@gmail.com
novice inhouse ---
i understand a ptx da more than a psychoanalysis k
be nice and have fun!!
Westwood HS
2022-2023 Season Update:
Senior at Westwood High School this year.
Most of the things below still apply when I evaluate a round. However, I have switched to mainly judging PF, and I have more topic knowledge on PF topics than CX since I have not debated CX for quite a while now.
If I do get put in the CX judging pool, yes, I will still know how things work, but when it comes to more complicated arguments such as Kritik or Theory, It might take me a while to process these arguments. So, please be careful when you choose your strat and be clear in the round.
He/Him, you can also just call me Sean
Put me on the email chain before the round:
PF:
- 30% Truth, 70% Tech:I believe the nature of PF is a bit different than CX and that truth should be evaluated. However, it does not mean that you can just throw out random truths in the round and call it a day. Empirical evidence is important in any debate and should be evaluated first. It is your job to prove to me why these truths matter in the debate and how they should be evaluated.
- Disclosure (Sending Docs/Open Sourcing): I will not make you send your case docs to each other, but I do strongly encourage disclosure on both sides. The consequence of not disclosing will be reflected in your speaks. I would appreciate it if you do choose to disclose, but please DOWNLOAD your docs from whatever software you use and then send it. I do not want to see a live shared google doc in my mailbox.
- Speed: you can go as fast as you want, but again, If you do choose to not disclose your document, I would not be able to flow your speeches if you are not clear. Also please give a roadmap before every speech.
- Theory: I have a good knowledge of the different types of theories and how they work, at least in CX. Here are some thoughts on theory:
1, Topicality (I guess you can put it under "theory"...) GO FOR IT! Topicality is definitely underused in PF and should definitely be an "official" argument in the future. I will evaluate it if it's used correctly, but If I see some randomly copied CX blocks on T...it won't go well:)
2, I am biased in some ways...If you debate theories such as "disclosure bad", "paraphrasing good", or "sweater theory", I most likely won't evaluate them in the round.
3, Perf con always exists
4, Go look at AMOGH MAHAMBARE's paradigm, he's cool.
- Kritik:To put it in short, I know what a K is, I have some knowledge on specific Ks and philosophies, I have some knowledge on how it can be used in round (in CX), and I have no idea how it's used in PF.
- Speaks:same as CX, except if you choose to not send out your docs, speaks will cap at 29.
CX:
- Generic Thoughts:
P L E A S E time your own prep time and speeches.
Tech > Truth, don't rely on "common sense"
Don't be overly aggressive in c-x, if you turn c-x into an interrogation I will take away ur speaks.
For more info, James Li has a pretty good paradigm.
- Speaker Points:
Please do not do things like disabling the navigation pane by doing special formatting in your word document, I will destroy your speaks.
I take off speaks with a .25 increment.
- Topicality: It is up to the debaters to determine how I evaluate topicality. Explain to me why T matters to the debate space, and if you read T at full speed during NR/ARs, is going to be really hard for me to hear you, so please be clear.
- Counterplans: The more explanation the better, I know most of the generic CPs.
Counterplan Theory: I will buy theory if the counterplan is super sketchy. However, it’s still up to the Affirmative to prove to me why I should reject the team.
- Theory: I do think that sometimes the neg just gets too much “cheat”, but I’m not gonna just vote Neg down if they run multiple contradictory arguments if the Aff doesn’t do anything about it. However; I will buy theories that are well structured and developed in a debate, again is up to the aff to prove to me why to reject the team, and I do not like cheap short theories, especially if you are “hiding” the theory shell. Most likely I will not vote for cheap short theories even if they get dropped.
- Disads: The more specific the better. I prefer 1 or 2 good cards to 10 bad cards, warrants of the cards are also very important. Analytical arguments under DAs are fine.
- Kritik: I’m mainly a policy debater, I understand the generic Ks (set col, abolition, etc), but again, the more specific the better. When it comes to Ks like Baudrillard, I will try my best to understand them, so the more specific and explanation the better. K flows tend to get messy, so please be clear and signpost if needed while reading K. Overall is up to the debaters to prove and teach to me within the round, if you cannot explain the K and your position at the end of the debate, most likely I will not vote for it.
I think reading K Aff in novice yr is abusive.
Case: Please debate on case stuff… Good args on case and some offcases > a bunch of offcases with barely anything on case since case is pretty much the only aff offense. A good dropped case turn will likely win Neg the round. I’m open to any kind of argument you have as long as it is intelligent, arguably true, and not problematic.