Marist Ivy Street Invitational
2021 — NSDA Campus, GA/US
Non-Varsity Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
If you have any questions: message me on Instagram or email me at email@example.com
I debated in high school in LD for 4 years at the local, state, and national circuit, and 2 years in PF. I did policy debate for two years at UT Dallas and now have graduated.
I'm fine with speed just please be clear. I'm not going to be timing you, so make sure to time yourself and keep track of your opponent's time.
I think the quality and explanation of arguments matters more than the amount of arguments. When you are extending/explaining your arguments, make sure to name the argument, not the author. Your speech is just as important as what you are reading. Don't just throw a bunch of cards in the air and assume I'm going to put it together for you. Your job is to show me at the end why you won, not mine.
Framework/K v K debates/Framework v. K debates/Topicality
I did run a lot of framework/T debates so I do enjoy watching that. Up to you though on what you want to run and how you want to do it. I'll do my best to evaluate it with the best of my ability. I'm predisposed to topical aff positions in policy because I have mostly debated with topical policy cases. That is not to say that I won't vote on them, just that I am not the best judge to evaluate K v. K debates. However, I do have experience running/understanding those arguments because my partner and I ran a nontopical aff for half a semester. I never think you should run arguments you are unfamiliar with, so don't stop running those arguments, just make it easier for me to understand the method by which I should evaluate/weigh the round. Framework is always a voting issue and a criticism of the affs method to play the game of debate. I default competing interps. You need to win that your definition/interpretation/model in a t/framework debate is better for debate unless you give me reasons for why I should default to reasonability. I don't think lots of fairness claims are super persuasive. However, if there is a true unfairness that maybe has to do with privilege/some sort of horrid in round experience (don't make stuff up for the ballot please), then you may be able to persuade me to vote on it.
Ks need to have a link, impact, and alt (though you may convince me you don't need to have an alt). If you’re going to go for the K, explain the link, why they can’t perm (if they try to), why the aff can't solve/is bad (ex. policy failure, vtl) and other aspects of the K. K's in my mind are similar to disad, but just function on a different level with a more critical lens.
LD Frameworks/Value-Criterion stuff
I believe you need some sort of framework/way for me to evaluate the round. Don't assume that because I did policy that I default to a consequentialist/magnitude impacts. For framing, you need to have a value/criterion/ROB/ROJ that says that I should evaluate arguments by x. I ran different philosophical frameworks when I did LD and enjoy listening to unique ones and the way you justify your position through it. I don't care for disclosure debates in LD. I think disclosure is good in policy, but I honestly couldn't care less either way in LD. If you really feel that you were disadvantaged by not asking what the aff was before round/previous 2NRs, then feel free to go ahead, but I won't be pleased.
Counterplans are fine. They are important to test whether the aff is a good idea. For CPs, they should have a cp text and some sort of net benefit. I think you need to win a link (not a risk of a link, I mean a LINK) in order for me to vote on any disad. I believe counterplans should be conditional, so there's a low probability of me voting off of this.
- Debate is a game
- I default to reasonability
- Presumption flows neg
- The point of debate is to be persuasive, so I think that as long as you persuade me on something, and have some good cards (even if they're untrue) then I'll vote for you. I love people that can answer arguments using a few logical responses. Quality over quantity.
- I will vote on mostly everything in round if it's explained well and you win the argument. However, I don't care about out of round impacts or voting for you immediately because you're discriminated against if they aren't explained with some sort of fw in mind.
- To those who like to spread really fast through analytical theory arguments that haven't been written up that are blippy, I'll probably miss a lot of those arguments, so it's on you for me missing those.
- Simplify, simplify, simplify
updated fall 2021.
call me sohan not judge.
Debated at Cathedral Prep High School, class of 18'.
University of Toronto 22'.
Email - firstname.lastname@example.org
** My knowledge on this year's topic is quite limited. Explaining abbreviations and phrases would set up the round well. If i'm not flowing or have a quizzical look on my face, I'm likely lost **
- Clarity over Speed
- There is never one specific "way" to debate. Develop a personality within this activity. If that feels stressful, just do you. Always be respectful.
- Have a strong link to the aff, just like DAs.
- Take some time to explain everything a little bit more if you have me as a judge. That's a good way to attain some speaker points so I know you actually comprehend what your saying.
- My school was primarily Most familiar with Afropessimism, Queer Theory, and Neoliberalism.
- The Role of the Ballot is my way of assessing the debate. It would be good to hash that out.
Politics was my go-to 1nr. For any DA, links are important. The more comprehensive and nuanced, the better the debate.
Critical Affs/Framework -
I'd prefer if there was some sort of advocacy text for the negative to have some sort of stable target to defend; not necessarily connected to a plan or policy. I don't buy into the arguments that Framework should dictate the form of argumentation. Please try to make your impact arguments relevant to the round, otherwise, it just gets repetitive. I'll vote either way.
T is a voting issue. I think meeting interpretations is a yes/no option. If the negative isn't persuasive enough to state the aff meets, then there's no reason to reject the aff. I usually prefer explanations over evidence. However strong debates by the negative usually intertwine really good evidence with strong impacts.
I won't kick the counterplan unless I'm explicitly told by the negative.
Any other questions feel free to ask before the round.
Yes I will vote on your ASPEC and your bad T if you argue it better than they do
I have no topic knowledge about water beyond what I remember from AP Chem
You should probably at least skim the long (or don't it really is quite long and I sort of hate it. Just know that I'm a policy leaning judge and I'm generally going to vote for the argument that has been argued more skillfully except in edge cases)
I used to be a debater for University School of Nashville. Then I graduated and now I’m a freshman at Boston College. I've been a 2N since Gerald Ford Impeachment DA was all the rage.
Here are the reasons I like debate:
1) It's fair
2) It's educational
3) It's fun
I like to have fun, I'll talk to you if you talk to me before and after a round or while someone is using the restroom or getting water and no-one is taking prep.
The opinions below are mine but they aren't written in stone - if you're good at something and you win it I'll probably vote for you.
With that in mind here are my thoughts on various debate arguments so that my paradigm looks more professional and has a small sliver of utility.
DA: These are my main game and they're great. Know your scenario, you need to be able to explain it because I probably won't vote on it if I don't know what it is I'm voting on. That said if they drop it then obviously you don't need to walk me through it.
CP: Also safely in my realm of enjoyment. I like ADV CPs best but I understand that some people prefer process or conditions. Aff, if you plan to go for theory here you need to do a very good job of it - that means slowing down and actually line by lining their responses from the block and 2NR. I'm pretty sympathetic to the neg on most theory questions as a 2N myself so don't try to go for Process CP as a reason to reject the team.
K: Be careful here. The only K I have successfully deployed in a round is the Ahmed 12 Security K (BTW he is not a 9/11 truther). I also have become less partial to framework debates as I continue to debate. With that said if your strat is one off Bataille Death K, don't expect me to just ignore your speeches, but I like to understand what I'm voting for and sometimes K teams expect me to fill in the gaps - I have neither the knowledge nor motivation to explain the K for myself to vote for you.
T: I love T but I don't love most T debates. I'm not going to throw out any interpretation on face just because I think it might be overlimiting. Try to spend your time comparing your vision of the topic with their vision of the topic not just reading your generic T blocks. A caution to Aff teams, I find reasonability to be pretty unpersuasive in debates, I would far prefer you just win by proving your interpretation is better.
"Kritical Affirmatives": You might guess I'm not a massive fan of these. In most rounds I'm more likely to side with my fellow nerds saying you broke the rules rather than voting on the epistemic cartographic lense of violence DA. Does this mean you're screwed if you read a K aff and they read Ericson 03? Not necessarily but you are going to need ace explanation of your DAs to framework and why I should prefer your method and vision of a topic without the USFG. View framework as a larger version of the T flow and compare your vision of the topic with theirs. Aff; what could the neg team conceivably read in your version of the topic? Neg; how could they access the harms they address within your interpretation of the resolution?
ASPEC, OSPEC, USPEC, etc: Don't. If this is your 2NR don't expect to win. The only way these could possibly be good in a round is if they supplement another argument you're reading like a Politics DA or Agent CP. Unless you are killer at explaining these and the Aff refuses to touch the flow the whole debate, you are not going to win.
Swearing: It's fine, I understand it's how some people express themselves. I'm not your mom so it's fine to swear. Let's avoid slurs though, it's just not cool in an academic (or really any) environment. However, I find especially in debate that some swear because they can't think of a more descriptive or interesting verb or adjective. "The US economy is f-ed" seems a load less persuasive than "The US economy is moribund." On that note if you can correctly use a word I don't know in round I'll throw you 0.1 extra speaks.
Topic Knowledge: I would hope to have a pretty substantial grasp of it. If a small operational difference is the key to your argument you should probably make sure that I know what it is. However, I know the F-35C has the largest range of any of the F-35 series because it has larger wings and fuel tanks to generate sufficient lift to take of from Navy air craft carriers so I’m no slouch with knowing about the Military Industrial Complex.
Speaker Points: These are really fiddly and it's hard to know what to evaluate. I fall into the category of judges the old guard complains about for inflating speaks. I'm pretty sympathetic to debaters so don't expect to get terrible speaks unless you do something truly egregious. Impress me in how well you know your arguments and/or can articulate them and I'll reward you with higher speaks. Have fun and I'll reward your speaks as well, debate should not be a monotone yelling activity. You are a real person, not a robot, you have a personality - don't mask it away beneath blocks and a laptop screen.
Clipping: Everyone says don't. I agree with everyone here. If I catch it you lose mad respect and speaks, if they catch it and have evidence you lose.
Reason for Decision: At the end of the round I'll write and tell y'all who won and why. I will try to reconstruct the debate from what the 2NR and 2AR highlight as key points. I'm a big fan of judge instruction. I'll go off my flow and I'm unlikely to read evidence unless you ask me to in your speech. I'm going to try and give speech by speech comments for every round I judge - we'll see if I keep doing that as I judge more rounds. Ask me any questions you have about my decision or how you could have made something better or more persuasive.
Glenbrook North '21
Please add email@example.com to the email chain, and please give the email chain a relevant name (e.g. "Round 1 Viking Rumble: GBN XX [AFF] v. GBN YY [NEG])
Qualifications: Debated at Glenbrook North for four years as a 2A and mostly read extinction impacts. Champion and 4th speaker at the Cross River Classic Invitational, qualified to the TOC, etc.
Novices -- don't adapt to me. I'll adapt to you. Please be respectful, especially during cross-ex. There is no need to be overly rude, defensive, demeaning, etc. Everyone's learning.
My ideal debate to judge is one where teams go substantially slower, engage with and collapse to truthful arguments, and make bold strategic decisions. I would much rather judge a debate where the NEG reads four developed offcase positions than one where the NEG reads eight or more scattered offcase with no clear strategic vision. However, I do understand the strategic necessity of reading large amounts of offcase, so feel free to do whatever you please.
I largely agree with this section of Anthony Miklovis's paradigm: You do you. I'll do my best to not be ideological. Below are my predispositions that I'll usually err towards when debated equally. None of these are absolute truths and can be easily reversed through technical debating. BUT, my familiarity with certain arguments might affect my ability to adjudicate claims in round, so do be mindful of that when I say "you do you."
Sending analytics is good for clash.
Please speak slower and clearer, and watch my facial reactions to your arguments, as I tend to be rather expressive.
Please respect your opponents.
Rounds judged on the water topic: 21
I encourage you to read kritiks that function as disadvantages (e.g. Neolib/Cap K).
I find that the aff should get to weigh in the plan in almost all circumstances.
It will be very difficult to convince me to vote for high theory or post-modernism.
I do not find most ontology claims persuasive.
Perf con makes sense versus epistemology claims.
Generally not the judge for you.
The aff should be related to and in the direction of the topic.
Fairness is an impact, but I find clash and education-based arguments to be more persuasive.
Counterinterps are usually self serving, so I would rather you impact turn T.
NEG teams should impact turn (cap good, heg good, etc.)
Please do not go for a K vs a planless aff unless you can explain it extremely well.
I would rather you not go for topicality in front of me, but I understand if it's the only option you have versus an abusive affirmative.
Precision > everything. I think most interpretation evidence is atrocious and aff teams should exploit that more.
I have never seen an affirmative team reasonably explain reasonability, but that does not mean that it is a bad argument.
I'll judge kick if the 2NR makes the argument. Sufficiency framing seems to be a waste of breath because I will always evaluate if the counterplan solves enough of the case.
Process counterplans are probably illegit (oftentimes dependent on literature), but I would rather affirmatives go for a solvency deficit and net benefit takeout than a tricky permutation or theoretical objection.
Intuitive analytical advantage counterplans are strategic. Advantage counterplans + impact turns seem to be underutilized strategies that are killer.
Counterplans that are probably bad: international fiat, object fiat, delay fiat, 'going through legal deficits' fiat.
If you want to go for theory, make more specific theory arguments to filter NEG offense.
The preferred 2NR. When I debated, I read politics, rider, case-specific, etc. Neg ground is atrocious, so I understand and would absolutely enjoy if you decide to go for politics. I think that turns case is usually the deciding factor in disad debates. Please do multiple levels of turns case (e.g. link turns internal link, link turns impact, AND impact turns internal link, etc.)
I think no risk is possible but difficult if the NEG executes correctly.
Most disad internal links make little sense, so smart analytics can always lower disad risk.
The 1AR seems to get away with a lot of murder here.
Conditionality bad is severely underutilized. I don't think neg teams explain why conditionality good well.
I have yet to see a team go for ASPEC, but I think it's a competent strategy given all the agent abuse affs seem to do these days. Same with vagueness, I guess.
"Troll" arguments are interesting thought experiments, but I'm unlikely to vote on them.
Debaters should time themselves during the round. I'll try to keep track of time, but I'm not perfect.
I naturally look disgruntled and tired. If it looks like I am uninterested or upset in the round, that is likely just my face. That being said, I'm very reactive during debates and you'll be able to tell if I like an argument.
I want to judge impact turn debates (dedev, please).
Read a plan-x-----------------------------------Do whatever
Read no cards----------------x-------------------Read all the cards
Conditionality good-------------------x----------Conditionality bad
PIC's good---x-----------------------------------PIC's bad
States CP good-----x-----------------------------States CP bad
Go for T-----------------------------------x------Don't go for T
Politics DA is a thing-x-------------------------------Politics DA not a thing
Always VTL-x--------------------------------------Sometimes NVTL
UQ matters most--------------------x-------------Link matters most
Not our Baudrillard------------------------------x- Yes your Baudrillard
Clarity-x--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity
Presumption------x--------------------------------Never votes on presumption
Resting grumpy face--x---------------------------Grumpy face is your fault
Longer ev--------------------x--------------------More ev
"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------x-I only read what you read
Fiat solves circumvention-----x---------------------LOL trump messes w/ ur aff
2017 speaker points------------x-------------------2007 speaker points
CX about impacts---------------------x-----------CX about links and solvency
Fiat double bind------------------------------------------x-literally any other arg
My name is Ben Coval.
I am currently a freshman at Boston University. I debated policy debate at Johns Creek High School where I was the captain and am now the assistant coach. Critics and topicality are fine if they are used appropriately. Use your prep time appropriately and don't waste it.
Extra speaks if you are dressed appropriately. Plz flow. Please have a very clear final speech and 'write my ballot for me'.
Have fun debating and please learn something from it.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any questions.
Please include me in the email-chain: email@example.com
2022 Senior at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart. Been debating for 6 years now (since 7th grade).
TL;DR/Important: I haven't been debating on this topic, so do your best to explain things to me. I have done some topic research but in pretty niche areas. Additionally, the hardest thing I find about judging novices is not knowing how to weigh certain things. So the biggest thing for me (no matter the argument type) is to impact out your arguments in the last two rebuttals and compare them to your opponents'. It's definitely one of the harder things to do in debate, but just try to work on this skill in front of me and I'll likely reward you.
*Note - these are my biases and preconditions. I'll likely try to reward the team that did the better debating, but the following are good things to keep in mind as debate is about learning to convince people no matter their biases and since no judge is a blank robot.
Longer rantier version for specific arguments:
DA's: Love 'em. Especially politics. Give me a good politics disad over a kritik any day (emphasis on good). I think one of the best and easiest ways to win on the neg is doing some good turns case arg's and having the 1ar drop them. If you're aff, don't drop them and make some case turns DA arguments. I love seeing DA's and case interact.
CP's: Yes! I love case-specific ones but generic ones are great too, especially on this topic (I feel your pain 2n's). I am NOT a good judge for process CP's. I'll likely side with the aff on theory here. Condo is good for 1-2 options, any more than that and it gets iffy.
Kritiks: In the words of DHeidt, "A kritik is just a bad DA with a CP that doesn't solve the case." If that doesn't tell you my attitude towards kritiks as a whole, I don't know what will. Don't be scared to read them in front of me though - I think flex teams are the best. If you read a K please please please contextualize the links to the affirmative (recut 1ac evidence, use cross ex) and don't just label everything and anything a "link".
T: I think on this topic, this is a way more common winning 2nr. I deeply sympathize with 2n's on how massive this topic is and I don't want you to be scared going for T with me. And for aff's, I've lead a non-topical policy aff in the past and loved it so don't be scared defending a larger interpretation. For both sides, just make sure you paint a picture of what the topic looks like under your AND your opponents' interpretations. Make me terrified of the other interpretation.
K-aff's and TUSFG: I side with the negative here. I think affirmatives should instrumentally defend the resolution and that it creates better debates overall. Procedural fairness is definitely an impact and I think education from this topic would be a lot better under the neg's interpretation. That's not to say I don't appreciate critical literature or education, I just think it can be done on the neg just as well.
Name: Santiago (Diego) Duarte. Refer to me however you want, I really don't care. "Judge", my name, whatever.
Pronouns: He/him. Remember to ask your opponents or use they/them if unsure.
School: Glenbrook North
PLEASE PUT ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN
Experience: Debated for GBN on the Immigration topic and the Arms Sales topic. Judged on the Criminal Justice topic.
Former speaker position: 2N
Don't over-adapt to my paradigm. I'm willing to adapt to your styles. Debate how you want to debate and I'll try to keep up.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The long version of this paradigm is, as advertised, LONG. It is also quite boring to anyone who is not me, and was written more as a self-indulgent essay than a helpful guide. You won't miss much of value by only reading the short version, and if you need more detailed information on my views on specific topics, make use of the command+F function.
Paradigm (Short version) :
As a judge of novices, my goal is to educate and provide an enjoyable debate experience. Your first year is meant to be a learning experience, not a stress-filled environment. I am willing to make reasonable accommodations within debates to fit this - please ask before the round if there's anything that would make the debate more comfortable for you.
Don't be rude to your competitors, don't read racist arguments, if you have tech issues let me know and I probably won't take off speaker points.
Read any kind of argument that's allowed by the tournament rules, check with me and your competitors if it's potentially a triggering argument. K affs suck for novice debate but if the tournament lets you do it then I'll judge them fairly.
Be nice in cross-ex, don't speak over each other, don't dominate your partner's cx time.
I'm personally somewhat in the middle of the tech vs. truth spectrum
I'm fine with any speed personally, but be careful over zoom. If i tell you to slow down, I expect you to actually slow down.
0% risk exists and is actually fairly common
Ask if you have questions at any time.
Paradigm (long version):
As a judge of novices, my goal is to educate and provide an enjoyable debate experience. Your first year is meant to be a learning experience, not a stress-filled environment. I am willing to make reasonable accommodations within debates to fit this - please ask before the round if there's anything that would make the debate more comfortable for you.
With regards to digital debate: I will not take speaker points off for technical issues, with the exception of problems which you could reasonably be expected to prepare for, or egregious and unverifiable ones. I will be lenient with prep time when it comes to tech issues - as novices, you can't be expected to be able to instantly format and send files and such.
Cross examination: I am okay with open cross examination - HOWEVER - if one partner is clearly dominating another and abusing the concept of open cross-ex, I will stop that immediately and deduct speaker points. You will not earn brownie points with me by being an "aggressive cross examiner." I would prefer polite and low-volume cross-ex. Things said in cross examination are binding to a certain extent, however of course you and your partner can ask me to strike something you just said from my record of the debate, as long as it's within the same CX or speech.
Tech vs. Truth: I think that the inherent believability of arguments does matter in debate. While it is a game, you should be bringing arguments that make at least a modicum of sense, and not rely on overwhelming speed or speaking ability to swamp your opponent. That being said - ultimately, I am judging a competition and the better technical debaters should almost always win.
Speaker points: I will likely award slightly higher than average speaker points. I believe that there's no real reason to hurt new debaters by assigning a low numerical value to their speaking skill, barring extreme circumstances.
Situations in which I will stop a debate: Any accusation of cheating of any kind is the end of the debate, with the winner depending on the truth of the accusation. Any accusation of harassment or bullying will also cause me to end the debate - in any of these scenarios I will notify tournament staff and we'll go from there. Extreme rudeness to your competitors will cause me to at least pause the debate, and maybe award you a loss depending on the situation.
I am generally okay with any kind of argument, as long as it fits within basic standards of human decency. Arguments which are truly inherently racist and read with bad intent will at the very least not be counted, and may result in me automatically submitting my ballot against the offending team. I think that arguments which have a significant chance of triggering debaters should be mentioned before you read them - things like Death Good for example, I will allow if it isn't a significant trigger for the other team. (this is a general point - novices really shouldn't be reading these arguments)
I don't understand topicality. You, novices, definitely don't understand topicality. The people who wrote your T blocks probably do, but that doesn't make hearing them any more interesting. I will not be happy if I have to judge a novice debate that comes down to the nuances of topicality. This is even more important at the start of the year.
If this does end up being important - I find negative ground to be an unpersuasive impact, although I'll vote on it if it's argued well. Legal and grammatical precision is my personal preference for evaluating T.
Kritikal arguments: As long as it conforms to the rules of the tournament, go ahead and read K's, I'm relatively friendly to them. If it's a convoluted and unintuitive Kritik, I do expect you to slow down for the benefit of both me and your opponents. My personal political biases lean towards a lot of kritikal arguments - particularly Cap Ks. I will do my best not to let this affect my judging of these arguments, but I'll probably be happy to hear them.
Performative contradictions are real and I will vote on them. The threshold is high, but if it's blatant then don't be afraid to call it out. The traditional ex.s would be something like Cap and the econ DA, or a hegemony DA and Security.
Counterplans: Go ahead, any kind. I'm from GBN. Counterplans are probably my favorite kind of argument, don't be afraid to go all in on the CP in the 2nr.
I like theory. I think it's the most unique part of debate, that the rules are only norms unless you prove that they should be rules in the round. I am willing to vote on theoretical questions, and open to all kinds of arguments in this area.
My counterplan theory stance is pretty neutral. I am happy to vote on good aff theory against cheating counterplans - I view theory as a totally legitimate and skill-based form of debate. If the neg abuses conditionality, go for condo and if you're better at arguing it I'll vote for you. Conditionality can be a voting issue for me, if you make it one.
Disads: Most basic kind of neg argument. Read as many as you want. Can't think of any unusual takes I have for this section. Please don't read DAs that have racist premises, I won't like you.
A lot of disads aren't really intrinsic to the case - I love this argument, I think it's often true and I give many generic DAs a high threshold if you mention it.
Go ahead and read politics disads - they're a lot of the neg ground on this topic. Don't bother running one in front of me unless you understand the uniqueness inside and out though - these disads are won or lost in the uniqueness section most of the time.
Kritikal affirmatives: These are almost certainly bad for novice debate. If the tournament allows them and you genuinely out-debate your competitors with one, I'll vote for you, but it's a high bar to clear in front of me. Even though I'm personally sympathetic to the ideas behind them, they're not cool for novices.
Case: Case debates are my favorite kinds of debates. Offcase are fun, but the core of debate is meant to be around the plan. Negative teams: don't be afraid to spend huge amounts of time attacking the case. If their affirmative doesn't make sense, go all in on that. I'm perfectly happy to vote on presumption if their case doesn't exist by the final rebuttals. If their affirmative is really strong and does make sense, then trying to frame the debate towards focusing on offcase is a good idea. Affirmative teams: don't let them do that last part. Keep the debate focused on whether your aff is good or bad. Convince me that that's all that matters. You get a huge advantage in picking the focus of the debate, use it wisely.
HOT TAKES: I mentioned earlier that I'm happy to vote on presumption - this is a sort of complicated issue for me. On a debate mechanics level, I think the presumption argument is cool and not used enough by negative teams. On a personal level, I've never agreed with the fundamental idea that "if the aff doesn't prove that they're good, then assume change is bad because it's risky." I think this is a reactionary and conservative way to view argumentation and debate. I am open to affirmatives making this argument in the 1ar if they feel that presumption is a likely strategy for the 2nr. Despite all that, if the affirmative doesn't make this argument, I will go with the debate community standard and say presumption goes neg.
Again, don't over-adapt to what is written above. I am happy to do what you tell me to do on this issue unless the other team contests it.
My second hot take is with regards to permutations: I absolutely hate the way permutations are usually done. If you stand up for the 2AC against 3 or less conditional alternatives and say "perm do the cp perm do both" three times, I will flow them, but these are not real arguments and if the negative says so I will agree with them. Explain your permutations. What do they mean, what does doing both look like? Do not force whichever neg debater is taking the counterplan to respond to 6 possible variations of a 3 word permutation because you couldn't be bothered to make a real argument. I will however be more sympathetic to rapid-fire permutations against 4+ conditional worlds - the 2AC is already a time-intensive speech and I give leeway because of that.
My third and final hot take is that the 1AR will get a ton of leeway in front of me when it comes to making new arguments. I think that the block usually overdevelops one-offs from the 1NC to the point of making effectively new arguments, and when that happens I'm totally cool with letting the 1AR shoot a half dozen new offensive arguments in their faces in return.
Jargon: I am not an active debater on this topic. I have a passable knowledge of the main arguments and ideas underlying them, but some jargon might be outside of my understanding. Please don't abbreviate words that you think there's a good chance I wouldn't know the shortened version of. Use your best judgement.
If there's anything you want to know that's not on this paradigm, just ask before the round. Have fun!
Add me to the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
DAs - have good turns case, pref better ev over a lot of it,
CPs - kinda neg on theory, condo is probably good, love a good CP that truly solves an aff
T -need to really focus on impact and what debate looks at under both models
Ks: I like links most if they are specific and tied to the plan. The alternative needs to do something. I'm not super deep into k lits so you need to explain things
Please include me on the email chain: email@example.com
2023 Junior at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart. I've been debating for 3 years now.
Important: I haven't debated on this topic very much so please try your best to explain things.
If you're reading this you are already on the right track! Novice debate is difficult at first, but I know you'll get it! All it takes is practice!
Don't be rude during cross ex or clip cards. Making racist/sexist/etc comments during cross ex is NOT something I will tolerate. Debate is supposed to be fun for everyone involved :)
BE CONFIDENT! Read what you know and answer arguments the best you can. It's also important to keep in mind that it's not the end of the world if you don't answer a cross ex question or don't know how to answer an argument. As long as you learn, I would consider it a successful round. Remember that a dropped argument is a true argument, so try to answer every argument.
Make sure your arguments are flowable. I make my decision based on the 2NR/2AR flow.
You may be worried about not getting through your speech, but remember that clarity > speed. You may be able to speed your way through a speech, but if I can't flow/understand you it defeats the purpose.
If you have any questions after the debate, feel free to email me!
1n/2a for all 3 years
please put me on the chain:
most importantly (in order):
1. be nice to each other, flow, have fun
2. don't be rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. - i'll vote you down and deck your speaks
3. tech > truth (but truth makes it easier to win tech)
4. these are my predispositions -- they can all be changed with good debating (see the line right above this)
5. arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact -- if you do not have all 3 i don't care if it's dropped
6. impact calc and framing really matters -- top of your 2nr/2ar should tell me what i'm voting on and why
7. tag team cx is fine but don't speak over your partner
8. you don't need a card to make an argument (see #5)
-if middle school or novice, they should definitely have a plan, others should probably have plans but i can be convinced otherwise
-case debate is good debate
-impact turns are fun but probably a high threshold if you're just reading cards (will not tolerate anything ethically or morally terrible like racism good or death good)
-i will evaluate framing first so debate with that in mind -- extinction probably outweighs but only if you win it does
-i read questionable topical affs all 3 years of high school so 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
-competing interps > reasonability (i literally do not know what reasonability means -- like do you reasonably meet? or solve a reasonable amount of their offense? no idea and nobody has ever explained it)
-love politics disads and case specific disads
-specific links are incredibly important
-0 risk is a thing
*counterplans & theory*
-everything 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 and the bar for the aff winning that is lower (only exception might be concon, its bad)
-perms are tests of competition, not advocacies
-solvency is not a net benefit
-condo is probably bad (i know, hot take) but that won't matter if both sides just spread blocks at each other
-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
-i am quite familiar with a lot of literature (security, neolib, antiblackness, set col, high theory, psychoanalysis, etc) but that doesn't mean i want to hear baudrillard blocks spread directly into your computer at 400 wpm (nobody does)
if you have any specific questions about my preferences, feel free to ask before and after the round :) im happy to help and novice/jv year is all about learning and improving!!
good luck, have fun !!
"ion like to fight until i'm fightin" ~ Chris Breaux
speech doc email go here: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
TL;DR - aside from the generic 'dO wHaT u Do BeSt AnD i WiLl ChEcK mY bIaS' [revealing tangent: are blank slates kind of a scam? methinks yea] let me just say I am gonna need to see ****DEPTH OVER BREATH**** in your second rebuttals!!!!!
This applies in terms of both argumentative (a) category & (b) number:
-- (a) specific scenario > general condition
-- (b) a singular warranted + impacted claim > stuttered collage of blips
this is for the 2XR, regardless of if we are talking T, policy or Ks.
Some other significant biases that I most certainly will bring into the room:
* tech + truth = means + ends . . . offense/defense is my default means | ethical agonism is my one & only end
* grounding speeches in the resolution is V important to me but im super game for advocacies that dont fiat shit
* also here for nutty theory debates . . . do Topical cps meet the burden of rejoinder? i won't make assumptions
* off case positions are for cowards !!! >:( but if you must -- probably enjoy T or K most but love a good DA/CP
Personal Philosophy and/or Proprietary Paradigm:
* SPEECH ACT >>> SPEECH DOC | I am of the pre-paperless age . . . One big change in this regard is that, today, there is a complete and total transparency/accessibility of cards & blocks. Not saying it is good or bad -- just that, when I debated, the judge was unable to read along (they could, if need be, call for cards after the round). And I do think there's something to be said for "just listening" !
* I VOTE FROM THE FLOW ALONE | [see above re: speech docs]. If you want a "line" on that flow to affect my decision, it MUST SATISFY all four of the following:
1. appear in >1/4 of your speeches . . . more air time = more weight generally
2. summarize your opponent's response and provide some counter-argument
3. fit into the larger story of what my ballot is doing in this round . . . another way to say this is that EVERYTHING needs to have an "impact" whether it be to establish the uniqueness of a situation, articulate the internal link between phenomena, or explicitly compare ethical priorities
4. have concrete warrant(s) drawing upon a form of history , science , or logic
~ [5.] & get extra speaker points for spinning a yarn and/or cracking a joke !!! ~
* DOCENDO DISCIMUS | Debate is this crazy place where the students profess while teachers pay attention -- a dramatic reversal of the situation that defines our educational system. In other words, this is an activity where the instructor takes instruction. You should make the most of this dynamic and, rather than worry about "if I will listen" to your case, simply move me to sign the ballot in your favor. Make me laugh, make me cry, make me think!
__________[[Experience & Education]]____________
** Debated four years on the midwest / nat'l circuits (2x TOC)
** been out the game since 2011 but I still got some love for it
** ask me about: Silicon Valley; Micronesia; South Side Chicago
2A/1N - Alpharetta HS '23
---email title should provide useful information. Ex. Tournament---Round #---Team A v. Team B.
---I am not ready when my camera is off.
---debating and judge instruction matter way more than personal preferences.
---generally good: more cards, predictability, conditionality, judge kick.
---I would prefer if everyone had their webcams on (though I understand if you cannot).
---debates already move slow, let's pick up the pace with technology.
---tech > truth
---I will flow and vote on things said in the debate. Ideological considerations are irrelevant and I will value judge instruction more than anything
---asking for what cards were read is CX
---stop hiding ASPEC or other dumb stuff. You'll lose speaker points.
---flowing is great---if I can tell you are not at least sufficiently, it will not go so well.
---condo is good
---don't say buzzwords and I am not as comfortable with these arguments---does not mean I will not hear these arguments but will need more explanation
---specific > backfile.
---have links to the plan > links about reps
---do case debating
---good framework debating and links don't usually need an alternative
---competing interpretations > reasonability.
---vagueness in any form is almost always not a voting issue but can implicate AFF solvency.
---better interpretations and more cards are always good
---impact comparison will heavily shape my decision
---DA/CP---love them, most comfortable with these debates
---default is judge kick. theory is an uphill battle and winning that condo is bad is an uphill battle
---solvency deficits need impacts tied to the ADVs
---sufficiency framing seems intuitive based on cost-benefit analysis.
---intrinsic perms are fine, but they need a justification like texual legitamacy
---pretty NEG on most theory---competition probably decides if it's legit
---framing pages are mostly silly. Ks of things the NEG has said > “but the DA has internal links.”
---im down for politics DAs in most variations---please explain what is going on for UQ
---impact turns are fun BUT plz make them coherent
---good impact calc will be rewarded and is always good
---not voting for death good
---stealing prep, clipping cards = auto L + speaks nuked
---anything very unethical = auto L + speaks nuked
Email chain: email@example.com
Do whatever you want, don't make me vote on theory, I am probably better for K v K or K v policy.
I have a lower tolerance for K affs that just summarize or describe a theory without any sort of normative approach. K affs are better when they can explain/solve something larger than just “framework bad”.
I follow the same formula as Colin Mcdonough -
"To rectify the subjectivity of speaker points I will use a simple formula which calculates your score using your Twitter following count, weighted GPA, and superscored ACT (if available). If you have a cool social security number, I will add 0.5 speaks up until a perfect 30. If it is just so-so (lots of 3s, for instance), I will not add speaks but I will also not take any away, so it is no risk to you. It is up to the debaters if they would like to share this information, however, refusal to disclose will be taken as an indication of your mistrust in me, which I might reciprocate. Despite ample complaint, this is still my policy at time of writing. Do I look like an identity thief? give it a rest."
All that matters is that we have fun right??? :D
Call me Ryan, "judge" is weird. Don't be weird. (you can do it if you want lol i'm just saying)
I'm down for K's, but just make it stupid simple. I'm not really down for convoluted, borderline obnoxious K's (do with that how you will).
K aff's are kinda dumb to me.
I doubt I'll err a team over aspec, 50 state fiat, whatnot
Tech > Truth
Go for a T debate if you nice with it (fairness is goated)
Condo is good to me, but condo debates and theory in general is also fun if you nice with it
I'm against racist, sexist, or generally hurtful statements or arguments, however, I'm probably going to be one of the most lenient judges you will ever get in terms of that. Just don't do it, though, for the sake of everyone debating.
Don't be scared of looking or sounding dumb. You're here to learn. Do your best and pop off.
Email me if you want ig lol: firstname.lastname@example.org
Full Disclosure: I won't vote for "edgy" arguments such as racism good, sexual assault good, suicide good, etc. It will result in the lowest speaker points available, coach and tabroom notification, and an immediate loss of the ballot. It's never been funny nor will it ever be.
I consider myself tabula rasa, I'll listen to any style of argument. I've debated policy, but I've debated K more frequently. I graduated on the CJR topic in 2020-2021, so don't expect me to be up to date on literature related to water. I'm a relatively new judge but was an avid debater in high school. My paradigm is pretty vague right now but I will need more judging experience to narrow it down.
I believe that T really comes down to the presence of in round abuse instead of predicted abuse. If you claim abuse and nothing has happened, it devalues the standard massively as a voter.
Fairness: I do believe that this standard can go both ways due to the over limiting argument and, if the T is won, aff abuse. Please explain the arguments that you lose.
If the T interpretations aren't extended by both sides than its not really a voter for me.
I don't feel like I need to say much here. I'm not sure how outrageous a DA debate can be. Tech > Truth though.
I think too often the Aff lets the Neg get away with too much in terms of CP.
I really don't like when the Neg runs a topical CP. I'll listen to anything, but I just genuinely don't enjoy this debate.
I have quite a bit of experience in K, so I probably am at least mildly familiar with whatever literature you choose to read, that being said, if you're reading something bizarre like Deleuze I cannot guarantee I will understand the alt. Take the time to explain the alt.
Specific links are pretty important but the link being generic doesn't mean they lose automatically. The aff needs to explain why the K doesn't link to their specific action.
What does cost the neg the round is biting their own link, if you're running a K against ableist language and you use ableist language, I don't see why I should vote for you. Best-case scenario you don't get that as a voter.
I'm perfectly fine with performance and K affs.
I think that case gets ignored a lot, and it costs the aff more debates than it should.
Important Side Notes:
I do not take to rude debaters very well because of their prevalence during my year. Be assertive, but excessive interruption or unnecessary pettiness will get your speaks massively dropped, if not cost you the ballot.
Decatur High School, Decatur Ga
You can put me on the E mail chain: email@example.com.
Current Urban Debate League coach (Atlanta/AUDL) but a long time ago (when we carried tubs, no one had a cell phone, and the K was still kinda new) I used to coach and judge on the national circuit. I took a sabbatical from coaching (had kids, came back, things have changed). I still flow on paper and probably always will. FYI -- I have not judged national circuit varsity debates consistently since 2008. I've been told I'm more tech over truth and although I enjoy listening to K debates I don't have a K background and tend to judge the K in a more technical sort of way.
My other "job" at Decatur High School is teaching English, so be aware that I don't have the time to really know the lit (especially on the neg) so I depend on YOU the debater to clarify your positions. I don't want to be the ONLY one in the room flowing. Please. Flow.
Crystalizing the round in rebuttals is an important skill - especially in front of a judge like me that did not spend 8 weeks at camp nor has read all of the lit. Or maybe any of the lit. You absolutely will be more familiar with your evidence than I will so please don't expect that kind of deep dive into the post round discussion. There was a point in my life when I could have those discussions, but I'm not there anymore.
Edited to add: in this virtual environment, please slow down. I tell my own debaters to take about about 20% of what they were planning to read while we are online, label things clearly on the speech doc, and send out analytics you are clearly reading but most especially theory. There are so many variables in our virtual world (dogs barking, leaf blowers, car alarms) that you have to be twice as clear as you would in the *before* times.
I was involved in both policy and LD debate in high school, although I have been out of the activity for many years. Since I have not been involved in researching this resolution, I would encourage you to take that into account when explaining the nuances of your arguments. I'd describe myself as a "truth over tech" kind of judge. I tend to find the resolution of major issues and "big picture thinking" more persuasive than shallow and unsubstantiated arguments.
Ryanpmorgan1@gmail.com for the email chain.
I spend 95% of my time judging policy, but I have some brief notes on LD / PF at the bottom, just in case.
If you read nothing else - just know that I probably have some biases from being older (33), and from "growing up" with debate as it was in approx. 2003-2010. I probably retain some biases from the era in which I learned how to debate.
- (Almost always) reject the arg except for exceptions like condo
- Yes, you can win condo, but specific abuse stories always beat "X number of advocacies is one too many"
- I rarely if ever vote on terminal defense
- Judge kick is assumed to be an option unless you tell me otherwise
- I almost never read cards unless a cite and a warrant is in the 2NR/2AR
Basic bio / what you can run in front of me
I debated in high school and college in the early 2000s. I judged and coached a little bit, and then left the activity for a decade before returning to judge about 80 debates last year, including 3 majors.
I will vote for non-topical affs, including identity/personal experience/debate activism arguments. I will also vote for T-USFG/framework against those affirmatives.
The only positions I am unlikely to vote on are joke arguments (without any deeper meaning behind them) and ridiculous extinction good-type arguments.
Ways I'm different from most judges:
- I take the wording of texts super seriously. If your text is intentionally vague so that you can perm your way around every counterplan, I'm not going to be happy.
- I vote on procedural arguments more frequently than a lot of judges.
- Terminal defense needs to be at the level of "Congress literally already passed the bill your politics DA is based on!" for me to vote on it.
- I'm more vulnerable to gut check "we all know it when we see it" claims than a lot of judges, particularly when it comes to T and competition questions.
Speed / online debate
I was never the best at flowing extremely fast and technical debates when I debated and that is even more true when I judge.
My problem is less about speed (my fingers can keep up just fine) but clarity. If you normally go extremely fast, either take special effort to be more clear than usual, or just slow down like 10%.
Things I look for:
- Outstanding preparation / research - a case-specific PIC you cut just for this team will get you better points than a 1-off topic generic K.
- If one team is crushing the other team, don't run up the score. Slow down and help the other team understand your argument.
- Gutsy strategic decisions will be rewarded. The only 29.7 I gave last year was to a 2AR who went for condo because they were behind on the perm.
As explained above, I'll vote for these and have done so in the past.
Some other notes:
- Your argument should stand up to basic questions about its internal logic. If you can't explain what you want to change (about debate for instance) or how your advocacy would operate in practice, you may lose me.
- T is always an option, and I'll even vote for it on fairness grounds alone. However, having some offense besides that will make it a lot easier for me to vote for you.
- TVAs are usually pretty persuasive to me if the aff answer boils down to "but did you hear our 1AC, though?"
A good rule of thumb with me is this: the more work that was required to research out your argument, the less likely I'm going to be convinced to vote against it on theoretical grounds, and that includes competition questions.
Case-specific PICs that show you researched the aff and found a DA to a thing the plan obviously does, plus a solvency advocate to back it up?You've ticked all my boxes.
Delay/consult/other generic process counterplans you can run against every aff and which compete on "we defined 'should' and 'resolved' as immediate" - I'm not a fan. I'll vote on them, but for me it's the exact opposite of the case-specific PIC.
I'm unlikely to be persuaded that entirely new affirmatives should have to be disclosed. You should be rewarded for cutting a new aff.
I am more willing to entertain "reasonability good" as a core part of the 2AR than a lot of judges.
I don't think the topic is aff biased because of its size, meaning I'm unlikely to vote for a T interpretation that boils down to "there should be like 6 topical affs."
I've only judged like half a dozen PF debates. Speed is fine, but be clear. I don't know a lot about the "rules" of the event. Apparently counterplans are explicitly outlawed? That seems silly!
Anyways, bottom line is that I'm generally going to look for the same things I'd look for in a policy debate - impacts and a way to weigh them.
If the debate comes down to theory, it's still just a set of impacts for me: fairness, predictability, education, what's good for growing the activity, etc. Show me how to weigh those impacts, the same as you would do for the non-theory impacts in the debate.
Because of my policy background, I'll probably be more permissive of so-called "progressive" arguments, but I should note that I'll happily vote on "the rules say you can't run a counterplan" or whatever, if you show me why those rules are valuable.
Because I did LD and judged LD a lot back 15 years ago, when there really weren't any Ks or counterplans, the easiest way to get me to vote for you is probably to read a traditional value/criterion and filter the arguments in the debate along those lines.
That said, I'll happily evaluate counterplans, Ks, whatever you want to run. I just am going to be less predictable because I'm more likely to look at those arguments from a policy perspective. If there are intricacies to how a counterplan works in LD that are different from policy, I'm blissfully unware of them, so you're going to have to explain that to me.
Other than that, impact analysis is important. If both sides just line up a bunch of impacts and abandon the value/criterion debate, I'm very likely to just vote on the biggest nightmare scenario in terms of body count. That's only if there is literally no comparative impact analysis; give me anything else and I'll vote on that.
I'm a first-year out who debated at Marist. I've done two years of policy and two years of public forum.
Weigh and warrant arguments.
Tech > Truth
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
If you don't cut cards, strike me. I won't drop you if you paraphrase, but you must have cards available if called for and it will hurt your speaker points. I usually won't call for cards myself, but if your evidence is terribly misconstrued, I won't evaluate it and will tank your speaks.
2nd rebuttal must frontline defense and turns
Summary and FF must extend all parts of an argument if you want me to vote off of it
I've done policy for 2 years, so I'm fine with speed, but clarity is always more important
I have some experience with K lit. (mostly cap and race), so I'm open to hearing K/soft left arguments. A lot more warranting and explanation needs to be done though as I'm not the most experienced.
I'll usually vote for paraphrasing and disclosure theory unless it's handled atrociously. If your opponents do something terrible in round, I'll also evaluate some sort of shell explaining why it's unfair.
Things I will never vote for: Paraphrasing good, disclosure bad, frivolous theory
Have fun! Debate is really competitive and intense at times, but you will make rounds better for you, your opponents, and judges if you actually seem to be enjoying yourself.
If you have any questions you can ask me in round or just email me.
Julia Pearson (Kaufmann)
You do you.
Most of this is probably stolen from my influences
Judges should not be fascist or biased.
If you have any questions, ask me before the round.
I'll do my best not to be biased or let any dispositions interfere with the ballot.
If you tell me to read a piece of evidence, I'll read it - chances are I will read it anyway.
Influences : Matt Cekanor, Pranay Ippagunta, Juliette Salah, Joseph Tierney, Ayush Potdar, Rohit Menon, Ashley Heo
"What is conceded is true but only has the implications you say it has. I evaluate what's on my flow and nothing more." ~ Joe Tierney
No matter what dispositions I have, I will do my best to fairly evaluate the arguments that have been made in the debate.
I would like to see some impact turn debates - no matter how stupid the card is (if it's that bad then just win the argument)
I also would LOVE to see a novice go for 5 minutes of presumption.
PLEASE READ case turns - reading DA's as a case turn is absolutely amazing. I think that impact calculus and framing the debate for the judge is amazing i.e. - explain what implications x argument has in the debate, explain why x argument is better/worse, explain the implications of doing x, etc.
I can roll with this. All debate is just impact calculus. Do it, do it well, and most likely you will win.
I was told to say that topicality is one of the only things you should run in front of me - but it's my least favorite argument. Still, don't feel compelled to change your strat because of that, I'd just much rather listen to any other argument (except an industry DA or the federalism DA). I feel like a lot of the AFFs so far on this topic are pretty topical, but overall i think that the evidence so far this year isn't the best. But if you're good at debate i'll vote for you :)
Especially for GFCA novices, I think that you should read a cp with a solvency advocate. I'm open to voting on theory if you win that there's abuse. I'm pretty chill with any type of counterplan. The states cp's gotten kinda boring. I think condo is overall good to test the AFF but i can be convinced otherwise in round. I think PICs are great unless you just read it as a time skew. PLEASE don't read space elevator cp in front of me but I do have experience with it.
I'm not a fan of DA's either - again, don't change what you read for that. As far as politics goes, I think that you need good evidence and I definitely think that fiat solves the link is a true argument (doesn't mean i'll vote on it every time). DA's should have a uniqueness, link + IL, and impact card. Also, if you straight turn a DA, i'll give you higher speaks. And if you're going to read a DA at least make it somewhat case specific.
"Your ability to spin and explain your cards and how they interact with your opponents' will always come first but in a close debate where both teams just throw cards at me, I find myself leaning towards the side with better evidence." ~ Pranay Ippagunta
The federalism DA bothers me, overall I agree with Juliette here in thinking that it shouldn't be a thing in the first place but i'll get over it -
stolen from Juliette Salah:
interact with the resolution, idc how just have a topic link uk
take that above sentence with a grain of salt, if you can successfully get me to vote on a baudrillard debate bad aff, I will be happy
Novices, if you debate a K-aff well, you will be rewarded.
Flipside, please don't debate a K-aff bad, its really annoying
Tell me what the aff does, have an advocacy. Or something to defend.
I'll vote on straight impact turns or a counterinterp
Also cool with K v. K debates
stolen from Juliette again:
procedural fairness is an impact not just an internal link
it can also be impact turned
framework teams are often technically ahead but lack impact comparison, that is what the 2AR is heavy on so like, do that.
Read a TVA: abolition, divestment, etc.
Not many teams go this route but education is not a bad impact.
Clash is not an impact, come on.
Read whatever you want, and i'll go with the flow.
I'll vote on fiat bad, i'll also vote on links specific to the plan, debate it out well.
This is where I've spent the most of my time in debate
Shamelessly stolen, this time from cekanor:
"I think that the best critiques are critiques that directly engage the action of the affirmative, however, criticisms or the representations of the aff are also fair. Most rounds on the K are won in front of me when the 2N explains how the K turns the case or is somehow a prerequisite for the aff. I do find permutations persuasive when this sort of analysis is lacking, however. I also find that I will give higher speaker points to the team that explains links to specific lines in their opponents' evidence or to the logic within cross-x answers etc.
I will say that I think the strategy of going for the K with case defense is an argument combination that is rarely taken advantage of. I think that case defense allows you to provide substantive ways in which I can call into question the assumptions of the aff. I think that it is very difficult in high school debate for an aff team to come back from a block that consists of the K and case defense exclusively (NOTE: This is not me encouraging you to exclusively debate like this in front of me, I just think that it is an under used strategy)."
I don't lean either way on FW, if you win that your model of debate is better or if you win the ROJ/ROB, i'll evaluate that to the extent that you tell me to.
I think that there's two types of K's : K's of representations (framework Ks) and Ks of plan action. I don't think that a FW K needs an alt in order to win. The aff should be suspect of alternative claims because most of the times they don't do anything or its just an alternative research paradigm, in which case, just go for framework and nothing else matters. Most of the 2NC's that I've seen are always filled with jargon and buzzwords, in reality they just don't make any sense -- therefore why they use all those words. I agree with Pranay here :K's have to win that the affirmative makes the status quo worst not describe the status quo and say the affirmative is part of it.
Also, I don't have a problem with grouping the perms - to the aff : just please don't read 500 different perms, it gets annoying to flow.
1) Set Col, Generics (Security, Abolition), Psychoanalysis, Academy, White Reconstruction (or any Rodriguez)
2) Capitalism, Queer, eh some Baudrillard
3) Bataille, Afropess, Deleuze, Agamben, more POMO people
AND if you read racial capitalism in front of me --> -0.3 speaks
but if you go for it --> -0.5 speaks
I like theory debates, I dislike generic theory debates that have no clash, but rather only use backfiles and blocks. I can be convinced that anything is a reason to reject the team if the other team just straight-up drops it or you've proven a large extent of in-round abuse. As far as procedurals go, I think A-SPEC is dumb but i'll still vote on it (same thing with O-SPEC).
I find myself giving speaks on the higher end - especially for novice debates
Ways to improve your speaks include: being funny (doing one of the things in misc.), making smart arguments, having fun, being clear, not saying your opponent conceded/dropped something when they didn't, talking about penguins, making fun of french people.
please don't clip cards -- lowest speaks i can give + loss
I'd like your camera to be on during speeches.
be good at debate
make fun of anyone I know-+0.1 (+0.3 if it's Pranay Ippagunta)
Diss any/all Kanye songs -- +0.1
Praise Georgia Bulldogs in any way -- 29.6
Bama = greatest college football team of all time= as low as the tournament allows me to go
Trigger Warning : it's listed on my wiki but for novices, Please talk to me before bringing up descriptions of gratuitous violence against indigenous people. -- again, as a judge, i will still do my best to judge the debate to my best ability.
Please tell me your preferred pronouns if it doesn't say on tab.
"My role as a judge precedes anything else. I will err on the side of letting stuff play out. For example, if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is is entirely up to me. Any disagreement with way I handle things should be taken up with coaches who fail to develop a team culture that precludes nasty behavior." ~ Joe Tierney (of whom i completely agree with)
if you're a small school, reach out to me, I'll answer any questions. We're a small school in a state with a boat load of big schools so, I'm sympathetic.
I'm fine with inserting rehighlightings/quotes
Read what you want in front of me, I am a strong believer that although debate is a space where argumentation is vast and expanding, it can be exclusive of certain arguments. Just don't say anything offensive (racist, homophobic, that kinda stuff) and we're all good. If an argument is "controversial" but you think there's nothing wrong with it and deserves to be brought up than by all means make the argument.
All predispositions I have will be left outside of the debate
Call me Ayush not Judge, it's a debate not a Court Case
The best way to get my ballot is judge direction and framing questions at the top of the 2AR/2NR. In better words: When debating, always ask the question "Why?", such as "If I win this argument, WHY is this important?", "If I lose this argument WHY does this matter?". If you start thinking in these terms and can explain each level of this analysis to me, then you will get closer to winning the round. In general, the more often this happens and the earlier this happens it will be easier for me to understand where you are going with certain arguments. This type of analysis definitely warrants higher speaker points from me and it helps you as a debater eliminate my predispositions from the debate.
If you think the arguments that the other team are making are stupid, I probably also think so, but just explain why and don't just say it's dumb.
For the Affirmative: Please please please explain your internal link chain. I find that a lot of policy affs tend to have nuclear war impacts or extinction impacts, which is fine, but to get my ballot you need to explain what builds up to those impacts (internal link chain) for me to vote for you. Extinction outweighs is a thing but be aware, I have a high bar of expectation that needs to be met in terms of explanation for me to vote on this.
For the Negative: As I mentioned above, the policy affs being read usually don't have the best internal link chains, which means targeting these internal link chains is a very good strategy in front of me as the neg team. I love block splits where the 2NC takes all the off-case positions and the 1NR comes in and absolutely demolishes the aff on the case debate, whether it be impact d, case turns, or just simply poking holes in the aff (cough cough the internal link chain).
CP: I really only have experience going for the States CP but I've still been in several CP debates ranging from the NGA CP to the Space Elevator CP (don't read the space elevator cp). I still do enjoy a well developed counterplan but keep in mind I do hold a higher bar for CPs as I think they get away with saying things that don't actually make sense. Just make sure you have a solid and well developed net benefit and explain why the CP solves better.
DA: I love a DA where the neg team has really specific links that are well developed throughout the debate. I don't like generic links and on the aff if you think they're generic, I probably do too, so just out-debate them on the links. DA shells should have a uniqueness, link + IL, and impact card. Turns case arguments are probably key. 2As should impact turn DAs- those are fun debates. Affirmative probability framing when you have a K aff with a plan text is super interesting.
K: This is the primary argument I go for on the negative. That being said, there are two main ways I see Ks- K's of representations (framework Ks) and Ks of plan action. Both are fine. 2Ns should explain how the affirmative links and how the link turns case- this can be by quoting 1AC evidence or rehighlighting. When it comes down to the 2NR if it boils down to a framework K, there doesn't need to be an alternative. Affirmative teams should be suspect of alternative claims because most of the times they don't do anything or its just an alternative research paradigm, in which case, just go for framework and nothing else matters.
Stolen from Matt Cekanor: I will say that I think the strategy of going for the K with case defense is an argument combination that is rarely taken advantage of. I think that case defense allows you to provide substantive ways in which I can call into question the assumptions of the aff. I think that it is very difficult in high school debate for an aff team to come back from a block that consists of the K and case defense exclusively (NOTE: This is not me encouraging you to exclusively debate like this in front of me, I just think that it is an under used strategy).
Familiarity in Ks: Psychoanalysis, Psychosecurity, Security (yes these are basically all I read on the neg), but I am decently familiar with SetCol, Abolition, Academy, Foucault, and Capitalism. I have a bare minimum understanding of Logistics.
K Affs: Not much experience with them, have read them in about 10 debate rounds. However, I tend to agree with Pranay Ippagunta on them: Fine with them. There are some categories that I'm seeing K-affs in. 1. they try to be close to the topic, in which case they're usually solvable by the TVA- more negative teams should go for these 2. They are an impact turn of debate 3. Theory of power is an impact turn to governance but authors probably think debate is bad. The more I think about counterinterpretations, the more I believe that they should be used as defense in the 2ACs. Most persuasive 2ARs are just the impact turn- it makes the debate easier without having to spend time doing all the CI work. That being said, if you have a lot of offense predicated on just the counterinterp, go for it but make sure you have a coherent explanation of your model of debate. You probably also get perms but the debate will decide.
FW vs K AFF: FW: Again I agree with Pranay: 2Ns give 2As too much leeway on DAs. Most of the time the DA links to the counterinterpretation or can be answered by one debate doesn't impact subjectivities, debate is a game, IL to clash, etc. Procedural Fairness is an impact, so is clash if debated right. A lot of times not having the ability to clash in the first place turns the affirmative's counterinterp.
Thanks to Juliette Salah I now advocate for reading Cap K against K affs, so please do
Topicality: You can read it in front of me but just know I never really go for it but if you are substantially ahead in the debate I will vote for you. That being said in any round where the neg team reads topicality, there is always a better strategy than T.
Theory: It's whatever. Highkey boring but if you really have to than ig its cool with me.
Make music references and you get extra speaker points
Make fun of people I know
Humor gets you extra speaker points
Just treat the debate as a learning experience, I know that at times it can make you nervous but at the end of the day a debate is just a debate. If you lose the round, you're getting better and that's important.
Also if I vote you down and you are conflicted on my decision please feel free to ask me about it (just don't be arrogant and be polite about it) and I'll do my best to explain.
Add me to the email chain email@example.com
For the subject just put the name of the tournament and the round number. If there is anything else you want to add go ahead. I don't care so much as long as you have those 2.
I'm in my Junior year at Northview High school
Make sure when you come to each have the mindset of just learning something new with each debate and having fun at the end of the day.
Be nice to everyone. We all give up free time on our weekends to come to tournaments and compete/judge. Please don't ruin that experience for yourself or others.
I'm a 2A so I like to see a lot of arguments made from the 2A. There should be plenty of responses made from the 1NC. If you make analytical arguments make sure they fully respond to the neg answers
As neg Im cool with whatever you read with your CP's, Disads, but I do like some K arguments.
I also think Cross-X are really important. You don't need to flow Cross-X, but I think its a time you can use to clarify things up and find the weak links in your opponents arguments. So make sure you use your Cross-X time wisely. Many teams concede many arguments in the Cross- X.
NO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE DIDN'T GO TO CAMP
NO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE DIDN'T GO TO CAMP
NO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE DIDN'T GO TO CAMP
Alpharetta High School '23
1A/2N 3 year policy debater
Time your own speeches
Don't be rude
Do whatever you want/ have fun
tag teaming is fine
If you want me to ask about argument specifics ask me in the round and I will tell you each argument specific.
if you're funny adds +.5 speaks
Explain why if the opposing team dropping your argument is good for you instead of saying "The neg/aff conceded "
Any other questions ask me
-- You should speak more slowly. You will debate better. I will understand your argument better. Judges who understand your argument with more clarity than your opponent's argument are likely to side with you.
-- You can't clip cards. This too is non-negotiable. If I catch it, I'll happily ring you up and spend the next hour of my life reading Cracked. If you're accusing a team of it, you need to be able to present me with a quality recording to review. Burden of Proof lies with the accusing team, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is my standard for conviction.
-- If I can't understand your argument -- either due to your lack of clarity or your argument's lack of coherence, I will not vote for it. The latter is often the downfall of most negative critiques.
-- One conditional advocacy + the squo is almost always safe. Two + the squo is usually safe. Any more and you're playing with fire.
-- I like to reward debaters who work hard, and I will work hard not to miss anything if I'm judging your debate. But I'm also a human being who is almost always tired because I have spent the last 12 years coaching debate...so if you seem like you don't care about the debate at hand, I am unlikely to try harder than you did.
- Anything else? Just ask....
please include me in the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org (bonus speaks if you do so without me asking!)
i don't believe in long paradigms, so here are just a few reminders/suggestions:
- you can call me judge or by my name - i'm fine with both
- tech > truth
- i'm familiar with the more common k's (cap k, set col, security, abolition, etc) but you'll have to over-explain high theory for me
- tag teaming during cx is fine with me as long as you're not talking over each other
- speed is fine as long as you're clear
- i love cp's and da's
- t not so much but i'll vote on it if you explain it well
- please don't run k's just because a varsity team member gave you their files
- practice flowing! using paper! please!
- remember: it's not the end of the world if you lose
bottom line: don't be rude and have fun! :)
for online debate:
feel free to keep your cameras on/off!
Put me on the chain- email@example.com
I like all sorts of arguments - I go to MBA and am the most well versed in policy, however Ks are pretty cool too- I don't have too much background knowledge on anything other than Cap, Agamben, Set-Col, Anti-blackness etc. I heavily prefer specific links to the aff.
Condo is cool, it's a debate to be had, but i will likely vote on the better extended interp
put me on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
be nice and have fun
don't be queerphobic, sexist, racist, ableist, etc. - i will dock speaks and vote you down
don't assume people's gender(s)
flow and do line-by-line - skill development is more important than reading perfect arguments from a script
don't call me judge, calling me by my first name is cool
prioritize clarity over speed
tech over truth
judge instruction at the top of 2nr/2ar
tag team cx is cool but only if you're not interrupting your partner
the second u start speaking after the timer goes off, all i hear is nails on a chalk board - don't do it!
Add me to the Email Chain: Bryan.Zhang22@montgomerybell.edu
Contact Info- email@example.com
Assistant Coach, Glenbrook North
Blue Valley Southwest, 10-18
1. I'm working with novices this season, so take that into consideration in terms of what I know about the topic + the quality of debates I regularly see. If it's not the NDCA evidence packet for novices, I'm probably not familiar with your arg.
2. I give higher points to people that care about the quality of speech docs and the clarity in which your audience (other team, judge) receive them.
3. I give lower points to people who don't know when to slow down or those that still have not practiced how to speak/sound clearly on a Zoom call.
1. A debate should be centered around topical action.