Tabroom.com

Sunvite

2022 — NSDA Campus, FL/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Jason Alford Everglades High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 11, 2024 at 10:35 AM EDT

Background

I’ve been a debate coach since 2011, first at the middle school level, then managing debate operations as an assistant principal, and since 2020doing what I love as the proud coach of Everglades HS forensics from Miramar, FL. I have a B.A. in English / B.S. in Biology and a Masters in Ed. Leadership. I’ve judged everything from locals to NSDA Nationals. Four time NSDA national finalist coach. NSDA Speech school of excellence 2023. Follow us on IG @evergaldesdebate

Rule #1 – Play Nice.

If cross gets ugly and rude, I will destroy your speaker points. Debate is about building community and showing others that we don’t have to be as vile and divisive as those holding political office. Seriously, you all are the future. Make it awesome.

Argumentation & Evidence

I will be flowing your arguments and I do not want to be part of an email chain. I will judge off your flow. Having said that, please sign-post and don’t spread. I’m fine with rapid talking, but honestly, it is all about quality of argumentation over quantity.

Having solid warrants is great; but warrants without extension or analytical impact is fail. Just because you can rattle off stat after stat doesn’t show me you are an excellent debater and should win a round.

While it is very doubtful that I will be calling for cards, make sure you have exchanged cards with your opponents prior to the round so we don’t need to waste time with that in session. If you are unable to provide a requested card within 15 seconds, speaker points will drop and I will strike that piece of evidence from your argument.

Lincoln Douglas

I've seen a trend recently where competitors try to spread five or six contentions. If you elect to do this, be prepared for me to either a) review written case (time permitting before decision deadline) or b) not penalize your opponent for "dropping" Cs. Again, quality over quantity for me as a judge.

I am comfortable with counter-plans in most cases; however, I don't coach kritik's or "Ks" specifically; although I do my best to read the literature contained in topical case briefs. While I would never outright fail a position for running a "K", you will more than likely need to be super-awesome to win as I prefer traditional LD rounds. If you plan to run straight theory, please strike me.

World Schools Debate (WSD)

I'm thrilled to see WSD being brought to more and more tournaments. Having said that, many don't have a clear understanding of the format. Please make sure you have reviewed the NSDA guidelines, FFL Rules (if Florida), and / or tournament specific rule-set for the event.

As a judge, great cases for me will begin with defining and contextualizing the motion from the prop / opp's position. Furthermore, if the motion does not specifically give us what "this house" represents, define / clarify it for me. Make sure you introduce a clear, believable framework,before beginning the body of your case. As the case moves forward, all substansives, observations, and evaluations should be presented with specific, concrete examples. I don't by hyperbolic, generic, or slopply linked pieces of evidence. Having said that, do not turn WSD into a PF round, I'm really not interested in seeing how many cards you can (prepared motion) throw into your case.

As the round moves on, both sides have a duty to settle the framework debate, by either furthering clash over framework or moving on and accepting your opponent's framework. Don't weight til the reply speech to attempt to resolve framework issues or I will ignore your response and pref the team that provided a clear framework weighing mechanism earlier in the round.

Having listened to all three speakers, your content score will be reflective of how well your team not only presented your case, but how you chose to respond to your opponent's position. Again, I prefer specifics with well-thought out analytics, then simple summary of an opponent's substansive and then telling me (with non-specific or simply summarized evidence) how they fail to meet the metric of your framework. Dig deeper then that.

To earn maximun style points from me as a judge, speakers should be engaging and passionate about their assigned position. The speaking delivery style of this event is much closer to OO and Congress then it is to more traditional debate formats. Inclusion of rhetorical devices, proper speaking tone / inflection, and stage presence will have a huge impact on my ballot. Also, if you spend your time with your head in your case and not engaging with the round, you'll bore me and your speaks will suffer.

For strategy points, make sure to make use of PoIs outside of protected time. This should be spread around the team and not just be one person. Furthermore, how you respond to PoIs to further develop clash within the debate and use as a opportunity shift course mid-speech is total win.

Judging

I give significant weight to how debaters handle cross, summary, and final focus (PF) or rebuttal in LD. I’m sure you all have meticulously prepared constructives / cases and rebuttals. However, I want to see what you can do when presented with your opponent’s case that is unique and entertaining.

Please make sure to weigh your arguments; but do so with thorough explanation. Please don’t tell me “aff outweighs on magnitude of impact” and leave it at that.

Also, if you've read this far, congrats! You get to hear my judging pet-peve - climate / nuclear war / extinction arguments. They feel like such an easy out. I'll certainly consider them, but I'm thinking we can be more original than that.

I will disclose results at the end of the round as per tournament directions on disclosure. Feedback will be on ballot, and if I have time and you'd like oral feedback (if disclosure is allowed) I will give oral FB.

Bonus Points

If you can slide in a reference to any of the following, I’ll give your speaker points a little bump:

- Rick and Morty - Must be a Season 7 Reference ... or something involving Mr. Nimbus.

- Bad / Silly / Campy Horror Movies

- Why Dune was seriously phenomenal and your expectations or thoughts on Part II (Either movie, or better yet, the novel)

I like to be entertained. This is my weekend I’m giving up so you all can participate in a great tournament. Make me laugh and keep me engaged when you speak and the world will be an almost beautiful place.

Vishnu Anand Nova High School 4 rounds

Emily Atamov Lincoln East High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 22, 2024 at 9:32 AM CDT

Add me to the email chain: atamovemily@gmail.com

I was a policy and congressional debater with a bit of speech experience.

I'm pretty open argument-wise (except disclosure theory). Go for anything and as long as you lay everything out for me, you should be fine. Don't make me do the work that you should be doing in the round.

Keep your own time please :)

I probably won’t know what the resolution is till the 1ac. Do with that what you will

TLDR: Go for anything. Weigh your args. Be nice. I hate disclosure theory do not read it in front of me

LD: I don’t prefer a specific style but know I am not well-versed in tricks and high-level theory. I see this type of theory more during online tournaments so it shouldn't be that big of an issue during local tourneys. I'm fine with phil and trad rounds. I tend to be a bit more engaged during non-trad rounds.

PF: I never did PF nor do I judge PF that often. I don’t care about performance in pf. You could spread and I wouldn’t dock your speaks (as long as your opponents are cool with this and have the case etc). Just give me clear, concise overviews and thoroughly explain why you won my ballot. I enjoy it when teams make it easy for me, especially in PF. Strike me if you disagree with this

Congress: Kinesics and presentation are important to a certain extent, but if your content is subpar then it won’t matter as much to me. I love good clash in congress and hate rehash with a burning passion. I don’t want to hear three aff speeches back to back about xyz issue because then, instead of being a debate event, it becomes a speech event. I encourage you to be aggressive (yet respectful) during cx!

Flow: I will flow everything in the round and base my ballot on what I see on my flow. I don't flow cx unless you tell me to. Tag team cx is cool with me.

Quality > Quantity

Tech > Truth

Give a bit of explanation on your extensions

Kritiks: I have some experience with k's (biopolitics, necropolitics, set col, cap). I would prefer you to treat me as a lay judge with your kritik, though. Meaning, you flesh out every link. Also, if you have any sort of narrative or poem or something along those lines, please don't spread that. It makes me feel icky !

DA: Explain your disad thoroughly. Fully explain how your opponents link and why it matters. If there's no impact then what's the point?

Speed: I'm fine with spreading. Slow down on analytics or I won’t catch everything. If I yell clear once or twice and you don’t comply, I’ll stop flowing.

Theory: If your opponent doesn't answer this then you win the round just give your voters and I'll flow it. I will not vote on disclosure theory because my jurisdiction begins with the 1AC and ends once I’ve submitted my ballot.

Speaks: Speaks are incredibly arbitrary; I have no set measurement for speaks. I tend to usually give the highest speaks to individuals that I felt were genuinely respectful throughout the round. If you’re rude, you may win the flow but you and your opponent's speaks will prob be like .1 away from each other. Aside from being a decent person, if you give me organized rebuttals that make it easy to write my ballot, you’ll get high speaks. Just make it easy for me and you’ll do well

Basically, just be precise, do all the work for me when explaining your argument, weigh your arguments, and be nice!!

Have fun :)

Saied Beckford Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2024 at 7:45 AM EDT

About Me

I attended and debated for Rutgers University-Newark (c/o 2021). I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Coach @ Ridge HS in Basking Ridge, NJ.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjaye (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu

COLLEGE POLICY: I skimmed through the topic paper and ADA/ Wake will be my first time judging this season. Do with this information what you wish.

GENERAL: If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the debate based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging. One recent pet peeve of mine is people just asserting links without having them contextualized to the aff and well explained. Please don't be that person. You will see me looking at both you and my flow with a confused face trying to figure out what's happening. Additionally, do not tell me that perms cannot happen in a method v. method debate without a warrant.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average. While I am a flow centric judge, be it known that debate is just as much about delivery as it is about content.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth! It would behoove you to employ some impact calculus and comparison here.

Save the friv theory, bring on those spicy framework and T debates. Please be well structured on the flow if you are going this route. Additionally, be warned, fairness is not a voter 98% of the times in my book. It is an internal link to something. Note however, though I am all for T and framework debates, I also like to see aff engagement. Obviously these are all on a case by case basis. T USFG is not spicy. I will vote on it, but it is not spicy.

For CPs, if they're abusive, they are. As long as they are competitive and have net benefits, we're good.

On theory, at a certain point in the debate, I get tired of hearing you read your coach's coach's block extensions. Could we please replace that with some impact weighing?

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points, and depending on how egregious your bigotry is, I just might drop you. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once - purely a flow decision)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

I'm gonna have to pass on the RVIs too. I've never seen a more annoying line of argumentation.

In general, give me judge instructions.

On average, tech > truth --- however, I throw this principle out when people start doing or saying bigoted things.

Grant Brown Lake Highland Preparatory School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 10:43 PM CDT

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

Millard North '17, currently a PhD student in Philosophy at Villanova University^

Head of Debate at the Brearley School

^ [I am more than happy to discuss studying philosophy or pursuing graduate school with you!]

Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com

Conflicts: Brearley School, Lake Highland Preparatory

Last Updates: 9/26/2023

Scroll to the bottom for Public Forum

The Short Version

As a student when I considered a judge I usually looked for a few specific items, I will address those here:

1. What are their qualifications?

I learned debate in Omaha, Nebraska before moving to the East Coast where I have gained most of my coaching experience. I qualified to both NSDA Nationals and the TOC in my time as a student. I have taught numerous weeks at a number of debate summer camps and have been an assistant and head coach at Lake Highland and Brearley respectively.

2. What will they listen to?

Anything (besides practices which exclude other participants) - but I increasingly prefer substantive engagement over evasive tactics, tricks, and theory cheap shots.

3. What are they experienced in?

I coach a wide variety of arguments and styles and am comfortable adjudicating any approach to debate. However, I spend most of my time thinking about kritik and framework arguments, especially Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Deleuze.

4. What do they like?

I don’t have many preconceived notions of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like and I greatly enjoy when debaters experiment within the space of the activity. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate I will enjoy whatever you have to present.

5. How do they adjudicate debates?

I try to evaluate debates systematically. I begin by working to discern the priority of the layers of arguments presented, such as impact weighing mechanisms, kritiks, theory arguments, etc. Once I have settled on a priority of layers, I evaluate the different arguments on each, looking for an offensive reason to vote, accounting for defense, bringing in other necessary layers, and try to find an adequate resolution to the debate.

The Longer Version

At bottom debate is an activity aimed at education. As a result, I understand myself as having in some sense an educational obligation in my role as a judge. While that doesn't mean I aim to impose my own ideological preferences, it does mean I will hold the line on actions and arguments which undermine these values.

I no longer spend time thinking about the minutia of circuit debate arguments, nor am I as proficient as I once was at flowing short and quickly delivered arguments. Take this into consideration when choosing your strategy.

Kritiks

I like them. I very much value clarity of explanation and stepping outside of the literature's jargon. The most common concern I find myself raising to debaters is a lack of through development of a worldview. Working through the way that your understanding of the world operates, be it through the alternative resolving the links, your theory of violence explaining a root-cause, or otherwise is crucial to convey what I should be voting for in the debate.

I am a receptive judge to critical approaches to the topic from the affirmative. I don't really care what your plan is; you should advocate for what you can justify and defend. It is usually shiftiness in conjunction with a lack of clear story from the affirmative that results in sympathy for procedurals such as topicality.

Theory

I really have no interest in judging ridiculous tricks and/or theory arguments which are presented in bad faith and/or with willfully ignorant or silly justifications and premises. Please just do not - I will lower your speaker points and am receptive to many of the intuitive responses. I do however enjoy legitimate abuse stories and/or topicality arguments based on topic research.

Policy Arguments

I really like these debates when debaters step outside of the jargon and explain their scenarios fully as they would happen in the real world. For similar reasons, good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence - I am a strong judge for spin and smart extrapolation. I tend to like more thorough extensions in the later speeches than most judges in these debates.

Ethical Frameworks

I greatly enjoy these debates and I spend pretty much all of my time thinking about, discussing, and applying philosophy. I would implore you to give overview explanations of your theory and the main points of clash between competing premises in later speeches.

If your version of an ethical framework involves arguments which you would describe as "tricks," or any claim which is demonstrably misrepresenting the conclusions of your author, I am not the judge for you.

Public Forum

I usually judge Lincoln Douglas but am fairly familiar with the community norms of Public Forum and how the event works. I will try to accommodate those norms and standards when I judge, but inevitably many of my opinions above and my background remain part of my perception.

Debaters must cite evidence in a way which is representative of its claims and be able to present that evidence in full when asked by their opponents. In addition, you should be timely and reasonable in your asking for, and receiving of, said evidence. I would prefer cases and arguments in the style of long form carded evidence with underlining and/or highlighting. I am fairly skeptical of paraphrasing as it is currently practiced in PF.

Speaks and Ethics Violations

If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused. If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C. However, less serious accusations of misrepresentation, misciting, or miscutting, should be addressed in the round in whatever format you determine to be best.

Abhilash Datti Cardinal Gibbons 3 rounds

Jose Denis Nova High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 1:01 PM EDT

About Me:

I'm a 6th year Speech and Debate Coach. I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

I don’t mind different forms of argumentation in LD. Ks, Plans, Counterplans, etc are all ok in my book. Not a fan of progressive cases in PF, but I will still listen to them.

Not a fan of Theory-shells in Debate at all. Unless there was a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS violation in the round, do not run it.

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you pull a House of Pain and "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

At this point I would consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical), and I value tech over truth more often than not.

More "techy" stuff:

Frameworks should always be extended. If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(Impact card) means we outweigh on scope,” then move on to the next point. I love details and contextualization, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. Please. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and clash that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side. Voter Issues are always a good thing, and can possibly win you the round in a close debate.

LD Stuff:

If your plan is to spread, and I cant follow on the flow and miss things, that is on you. LD's purpose was intended to separate itself from Policy tactics and allow argumentation that anyone off the streets can follow. Call me a traditionalist or whatever, but spreading just to stack arguments is not educational and hurts the activity. You cant convince me otherwise so dont try.

Im perfectly OK with any kind of case, but my preference is this order: Traditional>K>Disads/Plans/CPs>Theory (only run if there is perceived actual abuse in round, dont run frivolous stuff)

Not super knowledgeable on all the nuances of LD, but I do enjoy philosophical debates and am vaguely familiar with contemporary stuff.

Add me on the email chain: josemdenisjr@gmail.com

Matthew Doggett American Heritage Broward HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 6:44 PM EDT

Email- mmdoggett@gmail.com

Background:

My college career started back in the 90s when CEDA still had 2 resolutions a year. I have coached in CEDA, NFA, NPDA, IPDA, and a little public forum. I am now coaching mainly in NFA LD.

General:

First, you should not assume that I know anything. This includes your shorthand, theory, or K literature. If you do, given our age differences, you might be shocked at the conclusions I'm going to come to.

Second, if you don't offer an alternative framework I will be net benefits and prefer big impacts.

Third, I presume the aff is topical unless the negative proves otherwise. I don't necessarily need proven abuse either. What I need is a clean story from the final negative explaining why they win and why I'm voting there. T is a voter, and I'm not going to vote on a reverse voter (vote against a debater) unless it is dropped or the carded evidence is really good. I am more willing to ignore topicality and look elsewhere than I am to vote the negative down on it. In rare instances, a negative can win without going all in on it, but that is very, very unlikely.

Fourth, I tend to give the affirmative risk of solvency and the negative, a risk of their DA.

Fifth, I'm probably going to need some offense/risk of offense somewhere on the flow to vote for you.

Sixth, if your K links are non-unique (apply to the status quo as well), you are only going to win if you win your alternative.

Seventh, on conditionality (LD specific)- I will probably vote conditionality bad if you have more than one conditional position.

Eighth, I will vote on them, but I'm not a fan of tricks. Tricks are usually a good indication that you know that you have done something pretty shady but if the opponent let's you get away with it, I'll vote for it.

In closing, I think that pretty accurately describes who I am but just remember I try to vote on the flow, but I tend to only look at the parts of the flow the debaters tell me too. Good luck!

Bennett Dombcik Isidore Newman School 4 rounds

Henry Eberhart Lake Highland Preparatory School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 3:25 AM CDT

FOR ONLINE DEBATE- please please please go 70% of your top speed and send all analytics- it is very difficult to catch blips and high tech clash over zoom.

My pronouns are he/him. I'd love to be on the email chain. henry.t.eberhart.24@dartmouth.edu

If you are an inexperienced debater, WELCOME! Do your best, I believe in you. I'm here to help and provide feedback! Do your best to explain why your impacts are more important than your opponents, and you will do well!

Now for the Nat circuit nerds,

TLDR: As a debater my goal was to go into every tournament reading something that nobody else is reading. If you are a debater who thinks the same way pref me. I will listen to and evaluate fairly rounds with a common recycled aff vs the camp politics da, they just aren't the rounds I've had the most experience with.

I was a performance and k debater in high school. I went 1 off k basically every single round my sophomore -> senior year. I won't front and say that I'm some magical "blank slate" judge. My internal biases will probably lean me toward arguments I read, but this bias is extremely easy to overcome if you debate clearly and explain why I should vote for you.

Truth> Tech. Let me explain myself. If one debater spits some truth, and your response is to spew off 10 blips from your block file that aren't responsive, and they drop 7 of them, I will be very likely to vote for some truth, and not for 7 conceded analytical blips. But if your opponent concedes an argument, and you spend time to develop it, flesh it out, warrant, impact, weigh, then I will vote for it. That's what I mean when I say Truth>Tech.

critical arguments: These arguments are important. It is my personal belief that kritik literature ought not be run for the sole purpose of strategy. The violences that you speak of in round impacts many in the debate community and the world at large. Please approach these arguments with care and respect.

Theory/tricks: *UPDATE* I have been judging worse and worse theory rounds and am now willing to gut check shells if I do not think they are legitimate abuse. If your strategy is running 1ar thoery and random 1nc shells for the sake of out tech-ing your opponent, I am not the judge for you.

I do not vote on skepticism.

You should probably disclose if you have the ability to do so ("ability to do so"= your school won't threaten your program due to the arguments you make, your parents won't react negatively if they see your arguments, etc, etc)

I'm cool with speed if I have a doc, do slow down a little in rebuttals, or I will miss arguments.

High speaks if you make me laugh.

If you use actively oppressive argumentation or argue for oppression in any light (racism, sexism, classism, hetero-patriarchy, settler colonialism, ableism, etc), I will stop the round immediately, vote you down and give you the lowest speaker points I can.

If you have any questions on my paradigm, ask me before round!

Natalie Fernandez American Heritage Broward HS 5 rounds

JonPaul Fleurantin American Heritage Broward HS 6 rounds

Delon Fuller Hire 6 rounds

Josh Gavsie Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun July 30, 2023 at 8:26 PM EDT

Cypress Bay '20 | Georgetown '24

Put me on the email chain: Gavsie.joshua@gmail.com

Top Level Stuff:

I did policy debate in HS and I'm currently competing at Georgetown.

Do whatever you want. I'm as happy to judge a K v K debate as I am a nuanced CP/DA debate. This round is for you all, not me. Most of my opinions about the activity can be overcome by good debating so just be smart and you can probably win my ballot.

That being said, there are obviously the standard non-negotiables. For example, "racism good" or anything else of the sort gets you an L with 0 speaker points. I feel like shouldn't have to say much more here just please don't be a bad person.

Good speaks for good debating, great speaks for being funny.

A significant amount of the following stuff is taken from Tessa Harper. I think they articulated their thoughts on this stuff really well and it mirrors how I feel about these issues.

How I Evaluate Debates:

I'll evaluate arguments as per the execution on the line-by-line unless told otherwise. Dropped arguments are true but that doesn't mean it's the best argument or the winning one. Explain why concessions matter and why they should frame my ballot.

I'll have the speech doc open but I'll be following YOU so please be clear (especially in online debate)!! I'll be looking at cards if I really need to or if specific pieces of evidence are flagged.

Clash Debates:

- I'll vote for framework but it's not an excuse to not engage with the affirmative. Negative teams that fail to do this usually sound like block-reading robots and will not fare super well in these debates unless they grapple with specific parts of aff offense.

- That being said, there is a difference between T and framework. If you want to take the aff up on some other part of the topicality debate outside of focus on the USFG, I'm definitely down for that.

- Critical affs should probably have a model of debate. This means that impact turns to T should be coupled with a good counter-intepretation and that the aff should counter-define words in the 2AC. A 2AR that is impact turns alone without a vision for what we are doing in this activity or in a debate will be much harder for me to vote for than a warranted vision for debate that provides at least some defense/link turns to their standards.

- Examples/history matter a lot and will influence how I evaluate competing theories of power -- whether it is techy IR debate or a high theory discussion of psychoanalytic black feminism, I think that theories draw their explanatory power from material realities of the world and I tend to be be more easily convinced by debaters and scholars who tie their theory to that world. This doesn't mean I need you to be empiricists or defend a materialist conception of history, just that having a knowledge of how your theory is related to the world around you will make the arg far more persuasive to me than floating buzzwords.

- TVAs are usually not super important to me. At best, they're fine defensive arguments but not what you really need to be winning in these debates to get my ballot.

- Critical affs should ideally have a relationship to the topic that is inherent and significant. I will be more persuaded by T against affs that don't do or say anything about water than I will be against teams that read an affirmative which answers a core question of the topic.

- K's v policy affs -- the good ol' framework tricks like fiat bad are nice and works far too often (ehem affs) but I also enjoy in-depth link and alt work. The affirmative tends to lose these debates when it doesn't leverage the case beyond "we have a big impact" -- timeframe args, comparative arguments about alt solvency, etc. are all very helpful when adjudicating these debates and the negative should prepare for them beyond simply the frame out, even if it is a useful trick. These are the kind of debates I'm the most well versed in if that's something that's important to y'all.

K v K debates:

- These debates can be a lot of fun to watch - if both sides demonstrate a good understanding and application of the literature they're reading I'll be very satisfied.

- I like critical affs that defend material praxis. Advocating for grounded praxis will always get me interested in a debate. Don't let this mean you abandon theory -- theory is extremely important for controlling the direction of politics, subject formation, praxis, etc. but when I have a soft spot for critical affs that are able to combine theory with praxis. (See above about using history.)

CPs:

- Advantage counterplans with impact turns as the net benefit are underutilized in the debates I judge.

- I get annoyed when teams let counterplans absolve them of the need for good case debate. Solvency deficits to the aff matter as much as the aff's solvency deficits to the counterplan.

- PICs -- I like these. The more substantive the PIC's relationship to the aff, the less I will be persuaded by theory.

DAs:

- Specific DAs are always good but politics can be good too and get the job done when debated well

- The relative magnitude of the uniquness/links determine what the direction of things are. Be comparative.

- 2ACs/1ARs that impact turn disads strategically are cool

Topicality:

- Not super familiar with the T norms on the water topic - do with that what you will

- I do really enjoy T debates - creating distinctions between the kinds of ground/affs that are allowed or denied is the sort of comparative work that makes decisions easier.

- Precise and predictable limits are good!

- Functional limits exist and are persuasive to me but you should be clear about why and how.

- Evidence is either extremely important or largely irrelevant depending on how it is framed - you should control this framing.

- I default to competing interps but reasonability arguments paired with a strong push on arbitrariness/precision can be persuasive.

Pet Peeves in no particular order:

- Not flowing speeches. There shouldn't be a minute and a half of figuring out what cards were skipped before cross-ex. (Especially in varsity debates lol like cmon pay attention)

- Bastardizing revolutionary history and/or reading ev written by reactionaries will lower your ethos and speaker points - there are so many better ways to debate the cap K than reading imperialist propaganda about communism. Please do better.

- Don't call me "judge." Josh is fine.

- Profoundly untopical policy affs written only to beat critical teams but never to be read against policy teams (ehem, "sabotage")

- Being mean for no reason in cross ex.

- Reading the cap K as a root cause/state good double whammy, rather than, ya know, a real argument.

LD Things

Everything above still applies but it’s worth noting that I think tricks/friv theory is an absurd form of argumentation. If this happens to be your thing, strike me and move on. If you primarily read anything else, I’m probably a fine judge for whatever you want to do lol.

I’m not super familiar with the heavy philosophical aspects of LD but am not unwilling to vote for it, I just may require a higher threshold for explanation in these debates.

PF Things

My background is in policy debate but I'm familiar with the structure and style of PF rounds. That being said, I'm really not trying to watch kids in PF attempt to spread through their case and adapt to me in a way that is clearly not their preferred style of debating. What this does mean is that I have a higher standard for evidence comparison, line by line, and actually answering arguments. If you do these things, you're in a good spot. If you don't, you will likely lose. Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

ALSO, the evidentiary standards in this activity are wild. If someone calls for a card and it takes you five minutes to send out a link to a 60-page PDF, I will not be terribly happy. Please actually cut cards and have them readily accessible in the debate.

Eric He Lexington HS 4 rounds

Shweta Kondapi Lexington HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 29, 2022 at 10:03 AM EDT

hii i'm shweta

policy/pf/ld Love Parrot

- quick notes: i debated policy for 4 yrs @lexington high school, have next to no pf/ld/policy topic knowledge (for these topics), am comfortable with speed, and am probably going to be fine with whatever you do (generally tabula rasa).

specifics

policy

- i generally lean tech>truth

- From Andrea's paradigm: Just please clearly delineate a ballot for me in the 2A/2N. Don't just extend arguments, explain why they're important to the round and weigh.

- I love framework debates and probably lean neg (55-45). However, I have also voted on/read kaffs so please don't let this scare you off of reading them. i'd much prefer familiarity w/ your kaff (esp if it has a creative/strategic topic connection! big fan of those affs) than reading a rando policy one. Fairness is an impact.

- tabula rasa for everything else

- i'm generally fine for arguments that overlap with policy (k's/larp)^all of that holds true

- phil: not familiar with them in the context of debate but i'm a phil major so i'm generally familiar with the arguments! feel free as long as you're linking args and weighing back to your framework, to quote andrea

- not super familiar with theory but can judge it

- tricks: please do not/if you do please please explain them. theoretically wouldn't mind judging them but i don't really have experience with/really understand them.

- anything is fine, genuinely tabula rasa

- clash!

- add me to the email chain- kondapidebate@gmail.com

- stole this from andrea's paradigm but *IMPORTANT* - I expect debaters to give trigger warnings before reading material with graphic and/or sensitive content (sexual assault, graphic descriptions/images of racial violence, etc.). If you defend not giving a trigger warning, I won't hesitate to auto drop you and give zero speaks. also pls don't use racist/sexist/ableist language because i will tank your speaks/will not hesitate to vote on discourse. Also, please be polite to your opponents- do not be rude in the name of being assertive.

Jesse Laitman CR North High School

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 9:44 AM EDT

I am a traditional style judge. Debates that are too "progressive" in nature undermine the entire tournament and are unfair to other competitors participating.

PFD: The most important thing to do prior to actually participating in PFD is preparation. One should know not only the current facts of the issue but also the continuity of the issue of time and its possibly complex history. This way, you can weave this history into your arguments by using EXAMPLES related to the historical ramification of the issue to strengthen your own argument while at the same time refuting the opponent.

LD: What I look for in LD is the hard drive of facts fueled by the passion of the debater. Passion does not equal emotion and while debaters tend to conflate the two LD is based in facts and most times statistical data.

Policy: What I look for in an effective Policy debate is fluidity of facts and a clear concise argument that does not get lost in spreading.

Congress: Parliamentarian: I look for proper etiquette when introducing motions. KNOW YOUR MOTIONS!!!! THERE ARE A PLETHORA OF MOTIONS THAT ARE NOT USED!!! I also look for the passion behind one's speeches. If someone is telling the story of George Floyd for example, the story should be told with pathos and passion rather than reading from a script. Know your speeches like the back of your hand in order to present yourself as a powerhouse on the congress floor.

The Presiding Officer: KNOW YOUR MOTIONS!!!! THERE ARE A PLETHORA OF MOTIONS THAT ARE NOT USED!!! The PO should have an in depth understanding of the common and uncommon types of motions in order to guide the session through both turbulence and lulls to preferably keep neither from happening. If one does not know this, refer here: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Congressional-Debate-Frequently-Used-Motions.pdf

Important Note: If you find yourself tripping over words when spreading, try slowing down. When faced with these obstacles, slowing down will equate to the same amount of facts in the same amount of time had you continued with speed but stumbling.

Nethmin Liyanage Durham Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 4:05 AM PDT

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Iris Luo Buchholz High School 3 rounds

T.J. Maher Lexington HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 4, 2022 at 3:44 PM EDT

tjclarksonmaher@gmail.com

CHS 2020/UVA 2024

Experience:

I lone-wolfed for a school called Chantilly in Northern VA. I qualled to TOC my senior year (2020), but did not attend because of COVID. I went to six tournaments total in my career and broke at the four I went to my senior year. I am currently a physics major at the University of Virginia (Wahoowa!)

General Debate Philosophy:

I care about technical execution more than argument content. But part of good technical execution includes providing strong warrants for your arguments. I will do my best to be tabula rasa and ideologically neutral, but that doesn't mean I'll vote for an incoherent, unwarranted, blippy argument just because it was conceded and quickly extended.

That being said, I have no problem voting for things I personally do not think are true so long as they are well-supported in round. Fields like analytic philosophy, formal logic, and pure mathematics have a long history of rigorous justification for strange and counter-intuitive, seemingly paradoxical ideas. I’d say, if you can find an academic literature base for a wacky philosophical idea, go for it. I'm probably a better judge than most for the out-there stuff in debate.

Decision Philosophy:

Debate is a game. It's a game with a lot of potential educational value (depending on how you approach it), but it's a game nonetheless. At the end of the day, I have to submit a ballot and pick a winner. I don't want to do this arbitrarily, so I will vote on the flow and only on the flow unless there is an ethics issue (offensive language, evidence ethics, etc.)

Miscellaneous Stuff:

I obviously don't care if you spread but I do actually need to hear/understand your arguments. I have zero qualms about voting on arguments I don't understand and if I have to keep calling clear I'll eventually just give up. I'll give you a little more leeway for arguments that you're reading and have sent to me (can go a bit faster for 1AC/1NC offs, pre-written analytics, etc.). I also have a minor hearing disability so I'd really appreciate it if you could be louder than your baseline volume.

RFDs are cleanest when one side is winning offense on the highest layer linking to some framing mechanism. Do explicit analysis sequencing, preclusion, weighing, impact calculus, and clear interactions for maximum resolvability. The less of that you do, the more my RFD sounds like me rambling about my own intuitions. I don't like giving those RFDs because they make me feel like a bad judge. Debaters don't like those RFDs because they feel very arbitrary. Please make life easier for everyone by making the debate resolvable.

I'm not super picky but I prefer arguments to be extended by content (as opposed to label, i.e. "sub-point A"). I have a pretty low threshold for extensions if an argument is cold conceded. It can help rhetorically to re-explain a warrant in a dropped argument; if you're using it to take something out in a way that's not blindingly obvious you absolutely need to explain the interaction/implication. If you do not extend an argument I'm ignoring it in future speeches.

I try to default to paradigms implicitly accepted by both debaters because sometimes lack of extensions make debates nonsensical, unless I assume some kind of framing mechanism. For example, if both sides go for theory and no reads or extends their voters, I'm just going to assume its fairness/education or both (depending on the context

Please no new 2NR/2AR arguments. If you read RVIs bad in the 1NC and the 1AR concedes that, then the 2NR does not get to suddenly change strategy and go for RVIs good.

I did debate, and continue to participate in the debate community, because it is fun. It is not fun when people are mean and rude to each other. I really do not want to be dragged into blood feuds, so please try not to read arguments about debaters out-of-round conduct. (Disclosure shells and things like round reports are fine since theory is distinct from casting aspersions on someone's character).

I don't like blippy independent voters that are not linked to some framing mechanism. I actually think Reps Ks/Word PICs can be interesting, the impact just needs to be linked to a coherent framework, preferably of a normative nature. I really don't like voting on arguments that claim that a loss is a punitive measure against someone's behavior: I think

Speaks:

Speaks are arbitrary. Trying really hard to standardize them but I'm a human and fundamentally not programmed to think numerically. Basically I'm shooting for:

30 = no note, perfect; 29.5+ = near flawless; 29-29.4 = very good, going to break for sure; 28.5-28.9 = decent, some errors, may break; 28-28.4 = mediocre, still developing; 27.5-28 = major technical/strategic errors; 27.5 = weird/bizarre things happened that baffled me

(once watched a debate where the 1N ROB was "vote for the debater who does a TikTok dance,” and the aff conceded after the neg did a TikTok dance; that gets something around a 26.5)

Heaven Montague Bergen County Academies 6 rounds

Jacob Nails Apple Valley High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 9:31 AM CDT

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Jacob Palmer Durham Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2024 at 8:38 AM EDT

Overview

Hi, I am Jacob Palmer (he/they). I do policy at Emory. I debated for and now coach at Durham. If you will be on the Emory debate team in the fall you should put me as a conflict.

Feel free to ask questions about my paradigm before the round. It's better to hop into the competition room early as opposed to email me since I might miss your question.

Add me to the chain: jacob.gestypalmer@gmail.com. Sending docs is good. It lets both me and your opponent verify the quality of the evidence you are reading. Sending docs is not an excuse to be unclear. I won't backflow off the doc, and I will yell clear or slow if needed. Docs should be sent promptly at the round start time. If we reach the round start time and you are just starting to set up the email chain, I will be very sad. Even if I am judging on the local circuit, I would like a card doc since I like to look over evidence and just sending cards out from the beginning is easier than me trying to call for cards while the decision time ticks away. On a somewhat related note, although I do think disclosure is good, I'd rather not watch debates about this. This is especially true if your opponent does disclose in some fashion, even if it's not what you consider the best norm.

Feel free to read the arguments that interest you. I find many of the ways that people classify themselves as debaters, such as being policy or k or traditional or circuit, largely artificial distinctions. I similarly don’t particularly care whether your arguments are properly formatted in line with whatever norms exist in various local, regional, or national circuits, such as if you read a standard or a value and a criterion. I do care that you make warranted arguments and tell me why they matter in the broader context of the debate. Smart arguments will win rounds.

I will evaluate any argument that has a warrant, clear implication, and isn't actively exclusionary. I am tech in that I will keep a rigorous flow and evaluate the debate solely off that flow, but I think the distinction between tech and truth in debate is largely silly. That means there are some limits to my tech-ness as a judge. I will always evaluate every speech in the debate. I will not evaluate arguments made after speech times end. I think arguments must be logically valid and their warranting should be sound. I think lazy warranting is antithetical to technical argumentation. As a logical extension of that, spamming arguments for the sake of spamming arguments is bad. Reading truer arguments will make your job and my job substantially easier. I won't vote on something not explained in round.

Lastly, be a good person. Debate often brings out the worst of our competitive habits, but that is not an excuse for being rude or disrespectful. Respect pronouns. Respect accessibility requests. Provide due content warnings.

TDLR: Don’t cheat. Be a good person. Make real arguments. Do those things, and I will adapt to you.

Since other people do this and I think its nice to respect the people that helped me in my own debate journey, thank you to the all the people that have coached me or shaped who I am as a debater: Jackson DeConcini, Bennett Dombcik, Allison Harper, Brian Klarman, DKP, Ed Lee, Becca Steiner, Gabe Morbeck, Mikaela Malsin, Marshall Thompson, CQ, Nick Smith, and Devane Murphy. Special thanks to Crawford Leavoy for introducing me to this activity and teaching me most everything I know about debate.

Specifics

Policy – Plans, CPs, and DAs are great! Advantages and DAs shouldn’t be more complicated than they need to be. Plan and counterplan texts should also be specific and have a solvency advocate. Spec is fine against vague positions but the sillier the shell the harder it will be to win an actual internal link to fairness or education. I'm generally fine with condo counterplans, but the more condo you read the more receptive I'll be to theory. To win the 2ar on condo the 1ar shell needs to be more than a sentence. Judge kick is fine, but I won't do it unless you tell me to. I lean negative on most competition issues, and I think I am better for process counterplans than most other LD judges. The 2nr is not a 2nc. If your 2nr strategy relies on reading lots of new impact modules or other new arguments, I am not the judge for you. To an extent, carded 2nr blocks are fine, e.g. when answering a perm, but all the evidence you should need to win the 2nr on most positions should just be in the 1nc. If you sandbag reading your CP competition cards until the 2nr, for example, I will be sad.

T – I love a good T debate. Don't be blippy. Weigh between interps and show what Affs, Advantages, DAs, etc. are actually lost or gained. The worst T debates are an abstract competition over ethereal goods like fairness. The best T debates forward a clear vision of what debates on the topic should look like and explains why the debates based on one interpretation of the topic are materially more fair or educational than others. I think affirmatives should generally be predictably limited. I think functional limits can solve a lot of neg offense if correctly explained.

K – K debates are great, just know the literature and be ready to explain it. If I don't understand your argument, I won't be able to vote for it. These debates are also probably where I care the most about quality over quantity. Specificity matters - Not all Ks are the same and not all plans are the same. If your 1nc shell doesn’t vary based on the 1ac, or your 1ar blocks don’t change based on the kritik I will be sad. I generally think I should vote for whoever did the better debating, but y'all are free to hash out what that means. Alternatives should be tangible, and you should have examples.

More often than not, it seems like I am judging K debates nowadays. Whether you are the K debater or the Policy/Phil debater in these rounds, judge instruction is essential. The 2nr and 2ar should start with a clear explanation of what arguments need to be won to warrant an aff or neg ballot and why. The rest of the 2nr or 2ar should then just do whatever line-by-line is necessary to win said arguments. I find that in clash debates more than other debates, debaters often get lost in extending their own arguments without giving much round-specific contextualization of said extensions or reasons why the arguments extended are reasons they should win the debate. Whether you are going for an impact turn to the K or extending the K itself, you need to tell me what to do with the arguments you think you are winning and why those specific arguments are sufficient for my ballot.

Non-T/Planless Affs – I am happy to judge these debates and have no issues with non-t affs. Solvency is important. From the 1ac there should be a very clear picture of how the affirmative resolves whatever harms you have identified. For negatives, T USFG is solid. I’ve read it. I’ve voted on it. Turn strategies (heg good, growth good, humanism good, etc.) are also good. For T, I find topical versions of the aff to be less important than most other judges. Maybe that’s just because I find TVAs to be largely underdeveloped or not actually based in any real set of literature. Regardless, I don’t think the negative needs the TVA to win, but it also won’t hurt to make one and extend it. Cap and other kritiks can also be pretty good if you understand what you’re doing. I no qualms evaluating a K v K or methods debate.

Phil – I love philosophical debates. I think phil debates benefit greatly from more thorough argumentation and significantly less tricks. Explain your syllogism, how to filter offense, and tell me what you're advocating for. If I don't know how impact calc functions under your framework, then I will have a very hard time evaluating the round. If your framework has a bunch of analytics, slow down and number them.

Theory – Theory should be used to check legitimate abuse within the debate. As with blatantly untrue DAs or Advantages, silly theory arguments will be winnable, but my threshold of what constitutes a sufficient response will be significantly lower. Slow down on the analytics and be sure to weigh. I think paragraph theory is fine, but you still need to read warrants. I think fairness and education are both important, and I haven’t really seen good debates on which matters more. Debates where you weigh internal links to fairness and/or education are generally much better. I think most cp theory or theoretical objections to other specific types of arguments are DTA and really don’t warrant an RVI, but you can always convince me otherwise.

Tricks – If this is really your thing, I will listen to your arguments and evaluate them in a way that I feel is fair, granted that may not be the way you feel is most fair. I have found many of the things LDers have historically called tricks to be neither logically valid nor sound. I have no issue with voting on arguments like skep or determinism or paradoxes, but they must have a sufficient level of warranting when they are first introduced. Every argument you make needs to be a complete argument with a warrant that I can flow. All arguments should also be tied to specific framing that tells me how to evaluate them within the larger context of the debate. Also, be upfront about your arguments. Being shady in cx just makes me mad and sacrifices valuable time that you could spend explaining your arguments.

Independent Voters - I think arguments should only generate offense through specific framing mechanisms. Somewhat tied into this I feel incredibly uncomfortable voting on people's character or using my ballot to make moral judgements about debaters. I also don’t want to hear arguments about events outside of the round I am judging. If something your opponent did truly makes you feel unsafe or unable to debate, then you should either contact me, your coach, tab, or the tournament equity office. We can always end the round and figure something out.

Asha Patel Lake Highland Preparatory School 6 rounds

Donny Peters Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 1:39 PM EDT

Donny Peters

20 years coaching. I have coached at Damien High School, Cal State Fullerton, Illinois State University, Ball State University, Wayne State University and West Virginia University. Most of my experience is in policy but I have also coached successful LD and PF teams.

After reading over paradigms for my entire adult life, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

For Water Protection: I am no longer coaching policy full time so I haven't done the type of topic research that I have in the past. I have worked on a few files and have judges a few debates but I do not have the kind of topic knowledge something engaged in coaching typically does.

For CJR: New Trier is my first official tournament judging this season, but I have done a ton of work on the topic, judged practice debates etc.

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Loyola: I have done significant research on the topic and I have judged a number of rounds for camps.

Debate how your choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

Jagdamba Prasad CR North High School 2 rounds

Glenn Prince Trinity Preparatory School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 28, 2023 at 4:21 AM CDT

I judge multiple formats of debate, so I will try to provide a baseline for each of events. You can always reach out with questions at glennprince3@gmail.com.

LD:

I think LD's continual move to a poor version of 1 on 1 policy debate is probably not for the best, but we are where we are. If you want a traditional V/C framework, great. If you want to have a plan, that's fine too. My background is policy debate, so it's not that I'm unable to evaluate these arguments, it is that I find that there are too many tricks, RVIs, and barely warranted theory arguments that debaters want me to vote for. I will not vote for those arguments unless they have a clearly articulated interpretation, violation, standards, and a voting issue.

Really, I love debate, but I don't like blippy, unwarranted, "crafty" arguments. If your strategy is dependent on tricks or badly formulated theory arguments, strike me. Also, I won't vote on disclosure theory. I find I won't be offended.

I do believe the affirmative should affirm the resolution, but when you are negative you can do whatever you want that negates in whatever way that means to you.

Most importantly, have fun, say smart things, and I'll do the best to evaluate the debate you present to me.

PF:

Most important note: If it doesn't appear in summary, it won't be evaluated in final focus.

2nd important note: I prefer FULLY cut cards over paraphrasing. I find that too many cases are a series of citations without warrants. I'm a great judge for you if you cut cards that have warrants. I'm a less than great judge for you if you think stringing together 10-15 word "cards" makes a fully developed argument. Also, tag lines are your friend. All of your evidence should have a tagline.

Having said that, I think the rate of speaking should be moderate to moderately fast. I'm not sure what you are accomplishing in PF with anything faster. If your opponent asks you to slow down, you should make reasonable accommodations to that request. You can look to me to see whether or not I think the team making the request is being ridiculous.

The pro should feel free to affirm the resolution in whatever way you'd like as long as you are actively talking about the resolution.

If you only have defense in the debate, it will be difficult to win my ballot. For example, on the Medicare for All topic, the negative has to prove that the affirmative makes the world worse in a world where it were to become law.

Other than that, be sure to start narrowing the debate in summary. I prefer more line by line until the Final Focus, but I understand that many people will start weighing in summary. That's fine, but your summary should NOT just be weighing.

POLICY: I'm fairly old school when it comes to this event. I think the affirmative should probably be an example of the actual resolution, although kritikal affs are welcome. I was more of a DA/CP debater, so take that for what it is worth. On the negative, feel free to do whatever you want because I think that's the freedom you get being negative. On specific arguments:

Topicality: I don't think you have to prove abuse to win. You can just prove that they aren't topical. Whoever wins the interpretation controls the direction of this debate.

CP: I think everything is conditional, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You can run multiple Cps if you'd like. Have fun.

K: I think if you are running on the aff that it should still be a discussion of the topic. On the neg, I think you should indicate and make as many links to the affirmative as possible and make those known in the most meaningful way possible.

Besides the affirmative being topical even when kritikal, I'm not quite the dinosaur I may appear. You should have fun and make arguments and I'll do my best to evaluate them.

Rajashekar Reddy CR North High School 4 rounds

Alex Rivera American Heritage Broward HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 13, 2024 at 7:05 AM CDT

CX @ Newton High School 2012 - 2016

NFA LD @ WKU 2016 - 2020

Coach @ Ridge 2018 - 2021

Email: alex.mckenzie.rivera@gmail.com

To me, debate at its core is a game of strategy and persuasion. I have some personal predispositions that are difficult to sway me from (offense/defense paradigm, death is bad) and a few hard commitments (speech times will be followed, no audience participation, arguments are true if they are dropped, etc.). Most of my other preferences only matter when core pieces of the round have been unresolved by the debaters themselves.

In my 10/10 round:

The AFF would read a plan text making some demand for action from the US federal government
The NEG would primarily read PoliSci/Economic focused Ks with contextual links to the case that demonstrate a mastery of the resolution and mechanisms of the topic
Topicality would contain lots of topic evidence and not be used as a strategic out from substance when the NEG loses in the rebuttal
Plan texts would be much more specific than minimal policy shorthand
Overviews would not contain a ton of implicit clash I am supposed to unbox
Most cards would be from peer reviewed journals/sites (not relevant if it's news events like politics)
Evidence would not be built on moralism or personal anecdotes
"Framework Affirmatives" would have more substantive responses to DAs than cards about causality or structural violence

You can certainly pref me much higher than "no plan no win" judges, but probably slightly below judges who have no true preference.

There are few examples of terminal defense, such as a card that says the agenda politics bill already passed. There are a lot more examples of mitigating the relative probability of something so low that I don't care much about it.

I am sympathetic to specification arguments that are rooted in evidence which addresses the consequences of how the plan is written. I am not very sympathetic to specification theory arguments.

Speaks are awarded based on good strategy, clever argumentation, persuasiveness, time allocation, quality research, slick CXs, and not saying things that are egregiously offensive. Speaker point begging is likely to get you a 25.

NFA-LD 2024

I am new to judging/coaching the topic, but I do have a reasonable base knowledge of nuclear policy from my Political Science MA program a few years back and past debate topics. Just keep in mind to minimize acronyms and short handing where possible.

Sierra Romero Albuquerque Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 25, 2021 at 6:58 PM MDT

Hi! My name is Sierra, my pronouns are she/her/hers, and my email is sierraromero002@gmail.com for the email chain.

Bio: I've done 3 types of debate (ld, cx, pf), but most of my judging has been in LD. In high school, I competed at Albuquerque Academy and I got an at-large to the TOC in LD senior year. I also coached at Academy 2020-21 season and ISD summer 21. I'm a sophmore at Columbia prob studying math and african-american studies (idk), and I've done parli once.

Basics:

1. truth > tech. I have no tolerance for racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist etc. and I will comfortably vote you down if these arguments are made. I also think that you should be mindful of the impacts you are talking about if you do not belong to that group of people. Debate has material impacts for the people in it, and winning tech arguments will not change that.

2. Layering sets up my ballot. The top of the 2NR/2AR should start with layering. Framing/ROTB is one of the best ways to do this. impact calc is also very important with layering

3. Speed- Please don't spread through analytics if you aren't flashing them (flash your interps too). Go with the speed your most comfortable with.

General: (these are somewhat in the order of what I prefer to evaluate)

I am most persuaded by links to the specific action that the aff takes. If the neg proves that the action the aff takes links to the K, then it makes it much harder for me to grant the aff a permutation. For the alt, I need a clear explanation for how it solves for the impacts of the K. Winning your theory of power/having a clear explanation of your lit is really important.

For K/performance affs, tell me why your interpretation/rejection/framing of the topic comes first. I also need to know what the world/methodology of the 1AC is for me to vote for it which entails a clear explanation of your lit. For T/FW vs K affs, it's most strategic to go for education as your impact in front of me. I don't recommend going for procedural fairness bc I will be very hesitant to vote on it.

For affs hitting Ks, win the perm debate and explain the world of the permutation. For me to vote on a perm you need to 1) win the link debate, 2) win impact calc on the perm. I am hesitant to grant perms on performances/methodology. The other route to go would be disproving the K's theory of power. If you are going this route, I would expect that you are very familiar with the lit in order to understand its specific problems.

Policy/LARP

I feel pretty comfortable with anything except theory debates (I am not the best judge to go for theory in front of). If you are going to read more than 4 off, don't do it for the time suck. I enjoy policy debates that are built with good strategy, where any off case position could be in the 2NR. Good DAs/CPs are some of my favorite arguments to hear. DAs should have a clear link to the aff and internal link story in the 1NC and good impact calc/weighing throughout the round.

T/FW

I am most persuaded by arguments that tell me why your model of debate is better for education. I love, love, love, impact turns on T, and I think that that is one of the most strategic answers to T. BUT you have to be winning the fairness debate for me to evaluate the impact turn or tell me a reason why your impact turn layers before fairness does on my ballet.

For T vs LARP affs, I need a very clear explanation for why your interp produces better clash and why that's better for education. In T/FW vs K affs, I want to hear why your model of debate is better and doesn't exclude the aff's education. If you want to go for T in front of me, make sure to warrant all of your arguments really well/sequence how I should evaluate the round (i.e. tell me why T comes first or smt).

Phil

I am not too familiar with phil authors, but a clear explanation of your author and weighing will make the round much easier for me to evaluate. This means that you have to be winning your framing, but also contextualize it to the rest of the impacts in the round. Tell me how to weigh specific impacts through your framing or why specific impacts come first.

Theory

I definitely have the least experience with theory/tricks. If you go for either of these in front of me, you need to tell me why procedural arguments come first (i.e. why does it come before fiat, pre-fiat, etc.). Please explain what the impact of your shell is and weigh it against the model of debate that your interpretation excludes (impacts are very important for me if you want me to vote on the shell). Lastly, if you're going for theory make sure to extend the entirety of your shell, meaning that you should extend your interpretation and violation, otherwise I won't feel comfortable voting on it.

Haven't judged debate in a minute, but do whatever you are comfortable with, and I'll do m best to evaluate.

Isaiah Salgado Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:31 PM PDT

email:

Isaiahsalgado24@gmail.com

About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Afropessimism K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.

Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.

Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.

Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.

In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.

Evidence Reading: I will read your cards if you urge me to look at them, or if they are contested during the round. Otherwise, I am assuming they say what you tell me they say. IF you don't mention the evidence outside of the 1ac/1nc, they most likely wont stay in the forefront of my mind during the debate. This means reading the evidence will a clear voice will give you an advantage with me, because I will most likely understand the evidence better.

Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame

MISC:

Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.

I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.

Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.

FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.

K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.

I'm way more truth than tech.

Dianne Sanders Everglades High School 4 rounds

Daniel Shatzkin Durham Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 15, 2024 at 6:22 AM MDT

They/Them

Programming & Operations Coordinator for Denver Urban Debate League / Editor-in-Chief Champions Brief LD

For online rounds please put me on the chain. Email: DSSQ62@gmail.com

Been around debate for 20 years (4 years as a competitor the rest coaching). I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. I can understand spreading at high speed unfortunately time is catching up to me and I can’t write/type as fast as I once could so I'll say clearer or slower a few times as needed in order to make sure I can actually flow what’s necessary.

*Slow down a bit for online debates. I flow off what i hear. Sound issues inevitably pop up and while I may have the doc just in case; this isn't an essay contest.

Lincoln Douglas

I'll evaluate the round based on how I flow it so run what you want for specifics see below. Please ask me questions if you want to know more.

Framework

I judge a lot of util debates which is fine but I'm up for any kind of framework debate. I like a good complicated Phil heavy round. Skep debates are sorely lacking nowadays so I'm all for them. Haven't heard a good skep round in awhile. Don't be afraid to run nihilistic frameworks in front of me. If you can warrant it and defend it I'll listen to it (so long as it's not racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic).

K's:

Run them please. Admittedly I'm more familiar with classical K literature like cap, bio power and some psychoanalysis. I enjoy a good postmodern Phil round but that doesn't mean I won't listen to other K's. Identity K's and stuff like that are totally fine but make sure you're really clear on the link and alt level. K aff's are fine as long as they can win reasonability on T.

Topicality:

I default to reasonability it's hard for me to say there is an objective limit on the topic when language has multiple meanings. Have good interps. Warranted interps that have an internal justification for why they're true will probably be better than a random dictionary. Random violations that you know your opponents meet but you run them anyway as a time suck are bad. I likely won't buy a contested RVI but a good I meet is probably enough for aff's to avoid any offense on T for me. T violations function as a gateway issue. If the aff isn't topical they likely will lose especially if there is a topical version of the aff. If the aff can give me a good warranted reason why they don't need to be topical I'll vote on it. The standards debate is important if you're gonna go for T you need to go all in and spend time here really explaining why your interpretation creates the best model/the aff isn't debatable.

Theory:

Not my favorite but necessary at times. It's structured the same as topicality and starts with a "T" but theory isn't T. I default to drop the argument in less you tell me otherwise. Theory comes immediately before the layer in which it is criticizing unless you tell me otherwise. Frivolous theory is real, it's when you could easily answer arguments but decide to read theory. This shouldn't be your go to in front of me but I will vote on it if you win it. I'll listen to RVIs on theory but it takes an awful lot of work or the other debater just dropping it for me to vote on them. Better route is just answer the theory quickly and get to substance.

CPs & DAs

Yes please. Make sure you have an explicit CP text with a solvency advocate. Debaters jump from links to impacts really quick nowadays. Don't forget about internal links. They help tell stories in the 2AR/NR. Conditionality is probably fine in front of me but I think anything beyond testing the aff once methodologically and once pedagogically (one CP and one K) is getting abusive.

*Tech over truth only goes so far. If your technically true argument is morally repugnant don't expect me to vote for it. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or transphobic that's likely gonna be an auto loss.

Vani Shimoga Strawberry Crest High School 6 rounds

Praphulla Suryawanshi Unionville 3 rounds

Sohum Tiwary Eden Prairie High School 3 rounds

Becca Traber Lake Highland Preparatory School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 7:07 PM EDT

My email is beccatraber (at) gmail (dot) com. I want to be on the email chain. I don't disclose speaks.

I am a debate coach and former teacher at Lake Highland Prep school. I help run NSD Flagship on site. I'm currently a law student at Texas.

Added Nov 19, 2022: Several recent rounds made me think I needed to make something clear. I probably won't find your arguments that funny--I am old, I've certainly seen it before. Please don't waste my time with meme rounds stuffed full with things like shoes theory or other outrageous offs. Particularly don't run things where the joke basically depends on it being funny to care about something related to social justice. I have no aversion to tricky or clever arguments, but I do strongly care about argument quality and if it's something that's been floating around since 2004, I've definitely seen it too many times to actually find it clever. Your speaks will suffer if you don't take this seriously.

MJP Shorthand:

I predominately coach k, phil, and theory debaters. I'm comfortable judging any given round. I regularly vote for every type of case/debater. If you want to know what my preferences are, the following is pretty accurate:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below, in the circuit section)

(My debaters told me to add those numbers, but it bears repeating: I can and will judge whatever round you want me to have. This is just what makes me happiest to judge)

Traditional LD Paradigm:

(If you are reading this at a CFL, this is what you should focus on. You can read the circuit thing if you want, but this overrules it in a very non-circuit context.)

Overall, I want to judge the debate you want me to judge, so you do you. A few thoughts about what I think on things:

Please don't go new in the second speeches, especially the 2AR. I will not evaluate new evidence or new framing that your opponent doesn't have a chance to answer.
If an argument is dropped and unresponded to in the first chance it has to be responded to (eg, the NC doesn't respond to something in the AC), I consider it true. You can't respond to it directly, but you may frame the argument or weigh against it. You can contest the implications.
I flow the whole round on my computer. That's how I make my decision. That's why I am typing the whole time.
I would prefer if you time yourself--I am very out of the habit of time signals. Tell me if you want them.
In general, I think the value/criterion is crucial for LD. You must normatively justify a criterion that is capable of serving as a measuring stick for what impacts matter in the round. This means that ideally for me, your criterion should be warranted in terms of why it is the right way to think about morality, not just defining it. This has the effect of me generally preferring criteria that are specific actions ("not treating people as a means to an end") than broad references to the intellectual history of the idea ("Kant's categorical imperative.") To generalize: criteria should have a verb.
I am willing to exclude consequentialist impacts if the framework is won explaining why I should.
Comparative impacting is very important to me. I want to know why your argument is good/true, but I want to know that in terms of why your opponent's argument is bad/false.
Be extremely clear about what you think is aff ground and what is neg ground and why. I've judged a lot of CFL debates lately where there has been intense disagreement about what the aff could defend--be clear when that's happening and try to explain why your approach is more consistent with the literature. Part of that involves looking for definitions and sources in context: avoid using general dictionaries for technical terms.
If you raise issues like the author qualifications or any general problem with the way that your opponent warrants something, I need an argument from you as to why that matters. For instance, don't just say "this evidence is older than my evidence," point out the intervening event that would make me think the date matters.
I am fine with speed in theory, but it is very important to me that everyone is on the same page. If your opponent is not used to flowing full spreading, please don't. You may speak quickly, you may sit down, you may do whatever jargon you like--as long as you prioritize sharing the space and really think about explaining your arguments fully.
I don't mind you reading progressive arguments, but it is very important to me that everyone understand them. What that means is that you are welcome to read a k or topicality, but you have a very high burden of articulating its meaning and function in the round. I'll vote on T, for instance, but I'm going to consciously abandon my assumptions about T being a voting issue. If you want me to vote on it, you must explain it in round, in a way that your opponent understands. The difference between me and a more traditional judge will mostly be that I won't be surprised or off-put by the argument, but you still have to justify it to me.
I tend not to be allowed to disclose, but I will give oral feedback after the round. You don't have to stay for it, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have!

Circuit LD Paradigm:

Qualifications: I debated on the national circuit for the Kinkaid School, graduated 2008. It's a long time ago, but I finaled at the TOC and won several national tournaments. I've been coaching and teaching on the national circuit since. I am finishing my dissertation at Yale University in Political Theory. In Fall 2020, I started working as a full-time teacher at Lake Highland Prep in Florida. I've taught at more camps than I care to think about at present, including top labs at NSD and TDC.

Shorthand:

K - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 2

Tricks - 3

Policy - 3** (see details below)

Some general explanations of those numbers & specific preferences, roughly put into the categories:

I am well-read in a wide variety of critical literature. I'm familiar with the array of authors commonly read in debate.

I like k-affs, both topical and non-topical. I generally buy method links, method perms, advocacy links, advocacy perms, and so on. I can and do buy impact turns. That being said: I also regularly vote against ks, and am willing to hear arguments about acceptable and unacceptable k/link/perm/alt practices.

I think it is important to be able to articulate what the alt/advocacy looks like as a material practice, but I think that's possible and persuasive for even the most high theory and esoteric ks.

The critical literatures I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): ableism, a variety of anti-capitalisms/marxisms including Jodi Dean, anthropocentrism, a variety of anti-Blackness literatures, Baudrillard, semiocapitalism, ecology critiques, securitization/threat construction, nationalism critiques, a variety of queer theories, Heidegger, Deleuze, Laruelle, Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Bataille, and others. I'm old and I read a lot. I'm comfortable in this space.

Ontological Pessimism: I am uncomfortable with debaters reading ontologically pessimistic positions about identity groups that they do not belong to. I won't auto-drop the debater reading it, but I am an easy get for an argument that they should lose by the opponent.

As a general thing, I would like to strongly remind you that these are positions about real people who are in the room with you, and you should be mindful of that when you deploy narratives of suffering as a way to win the round. And yes, this applies to "invisible" identities as well. If you're reading an ontologically pessimist position, especially if the thrust of the debate is about how things that are or are not consistent with that identity, and things that identity cannot or can do--I completely think it's fair game for your opponent to ask you if you identify in that way.

If you're not willing to answer the question, perhaps you shouldn't be running the case. I've sat through a lot of disability debates recently and I'm starting to get very frustrated with the way that people casually talk about disabled people, without any explicit accountability to disabled humans as people in the space and not just figures of Lacanian abjection. I will vote on it, but try not to be a jerk. This isn't just a debate argument.

If you read a slur or insult based on an identity that doesn't apply to you (race, gender, ability, class...anything), I am not voting for you. You lose. There's no debate argument that I'll listen to justifying it. Even if it is an example of a bad thing: I don't care. You lose. Cut around it. Changing letters around isn't redacting it if you still read it.

Policy FW/T-Must-Be-Topical: I regularly vote both that affs must be topical and that they don't have to be. I regularly coach in both directions. I think the question is very interesting and one of my favorite parts of debate--when done with specific interaction with the content of the aff. I particularly like non-standard T-FW and TVAs which aren't the classic "must defend the hypothetical implementation of a policy action."

Accessibility note for performances: If you don't flash the exact text of your speech, please do not play any additional sounds underneath your speaking. If there is sound underneath your speaking, please flash the exact text of what you are reading. I do not want to undermine the performance you want to engage in and whichever option you prefer is fine for me. It is fine to have part of your speech be on paper with music underneath and then turn the music off when you go off paper. I struggle to understand what is being said over noise and I'm uncomfortable being unable to know what is being said with precision.

Phil

I am well-read in a variety of philosophical literature, predominantly in the post-Kantian continental tradition and political theory. I also enjoy a well-constructed phil case. Some of my favorite debates are k v phil, also--I see them generally as dealing with the same questions and concerns.

For phil positions, I do think it is important that the debater be able to explain how the ethical conception and/or the conception of the subject manifests in lived human reality.

I am generally more persuaded by epistemic confidence than epistemic modesty, but I think the debate is usually malformed and strange--I would prefer if those debates deal with specific impact scenarios or specifics of the phil framework in question.

I prefer detailed and well-developed syllogisms as opposed to short and unrelated prefer-additionalys. A good "prefer-additionally" should more or less be a framework interaction/pre-empt.

In general, I've been in this activity a long time. The frameworks I've coached or read the authors myself include (but aren't limited to): Kant, Hegel, Marx, alienation, Levinas, Butler, Agonism, Spinoza, Agamben, Hobbes, contractualism/contractarianism, virtue ethics, testimony... I'm really solid on framework literatures.

Theory

I'm willing to listen to either reasonability or competing interpretations.

I don't assume either fairness or jurisdiction as axiomatic voting issues, so feel free to engage on that level of the theory debate.

I'm suspicious of precision/jurisdiction/semantics as the sole thing you extend out of a T-shell and am generally compelled by reasonability in the form of "if they don't have any pragmatics offense, as long as I demonstrate it is compliant with a legit way of interpreting the word, it doesn't have to be the best interpretation."

I do really enjoy a well-developed theory argument, just make sure you are holding to the same standards of warranting here that I demand anywhere. Internal links between the standards and the interpretation, and the standards and the voter, are both key.

I love a good counter interp that is more than defending the violation--those result in strategic and fun rounds.

I'm willing to buy semantic I-Meets.

I find AFC/ACC read in the 1AR annoying and unpersuasive, though I have voted for it.

I am willing to vote on RVIs. I don't generally think K-style impact turns are automatically answered by RVIs-bad type arguments, unless there is work done.

Disclosure: Is by now a pretty solid norm and I recognize that. I have voted many times on particular disclosure interps, but in my heart of hearts think the ways that most people handle disclosure competing interps tends to lead to regress.

Tricks

I enjoy when debaters are substantive about what it means to prove the resolution true/false and explain how that interacts with the burdens of the round. I am more inclined to vote for substantive and developed tricks/triggers, and even if you're going for a short or "blippy" argument, you'd be well-served to do extensive interactions and cross-applications.

I want a ballot story and impact scenario, even with a permissibility trigger. (Even if the impact is that the resolution is tautologically true, I want that expressed straightforwardly and consistently).

I have a fairly high gut-check for dumb arguments, so I'm not your best bet if you want to be winning on the resolved a priori and things that are purely reliant on opponents dropping half-sentences from your case. But if you can robustly explain the theory of truth under which your a prior affirms/negates, you're probably okay.

Also: you know what an apriori is. Or you know what they mean. If you want to hedge your bets, answer in good faith -- for instance, instead of saying "what does that mean?" say "many of my arguments could, depending on what you read, end up implying that it is impossible to prove the resolution false/true. what specifically are you looking for?"

"Don't Evaluate After The 1ar": Feel free to run these arguments if you want, but know that my threshold is extremely high for "evaluate debate after [speech that is not the 2ar]." It is very difficult to persuade me to meaningfully do this. A better way to make this argument would be to tell me what sort of responses I shouldn't permit and why. For instance, new paradigm issues bad, cross-apps bad, no embedded clash, no new reasons for [specific argument] -- all fine and plausible. I just don't know what it means to actually stop evaluating later speeches. Paradigmatically, speech times are speech times and it makes no sense to me why I should obviate some of your opponent's time for any in-round reason. If you have a specific version of this argument you want to check with me, feel free to do so before round.

Policy Debate

I have policy as a 3 only because I often find myself frustrated with how inane and unsubstantive a lot of long impact stories in LD are. If you have good, up to date evidence that compellingly tells a consequentialist result of a policy: I'm all in, I love that.

I really enjoy specific, well-researched and creative plans. I find a well-executed policy debate very impressive. Make sure you're able to articulate a specific and compelling causal story.

Make sure you know what all the words mean and that you can clearly explain the empirical and institutional structure of the DA/plan. As an example of the sort of thing that annoys me: a DA that depends on a Supreme Court case getting all the way through the appellate system in two weeks to trigger a politics impact before an election will make me roll my eyes.

There's also a disturbing trend of plans that are straight-up inherent--which I hate, that doesn't make any sense with a consequentialist/policymaking FW.

I am absolutely willing to buy zero risk claims, especially in regards to DAs/advantages with no apparent understanding of how the institutions they're talking about work.

I find the policy style affs where the advantages/inherency are all about why the actor doesn't want to do the action and will never do the action, and then the plan is the actor doing the thing they'd never do completely inane--that being said, they're common and I vote on them all the time.

I am generally compelled by the idea that a fiated plan needs an actor.

Assorted Other Preferences:

The following are other assorted preferences. Just know that everything I'm about to say is simply a preference and not a rule; given a warranted argument, I will shift off of just about any position that I already have or that your opponent gave me.

Speed: I have no problem with spreading -- all I ask is that you are still clear enough to follow. What this means is that you need to have vocal variation and emphasis on important parts of your case, like card names and key arguments.

Threshold for Extensions: If I am able to understand the argument and the function of it in the context of the individual speech, it is extended. I do appreciate explicit citation of card names, for flowing purposes.

CX: CX is really important to me, please use it. You have very little chance of fantastic speaker points without a really good cross-x. I would prefer if y'all don't use CX as prep, although I have no problems with questions being asked during prep time (Talk for at least three minutes: feel free to talk the rest of the time, too). If you are getting a concession you want to make absolutely sure that I write down, get eye-contact and repeat to me what you view the concession as.

Do not be unnecessarily mean. It is not very persuasive. It will drop your speaks. Be mindful of various power-dynamics at play in the room. Something I am particularly bothered by is the insistence that a marginalized debater does not understand their case, particularly when it is framed like: [male coach] wrote this for you, right [female debater]? Or isn't there a TVA, [Black debater], you could have used [white debater's] advocacy. Feel free to mention specific cases that are topical, best not to name drop. I can't think of an occasion when it is appropriate to explicitly challenge the authorship or understanding of a particular argument.

When debating someone significantly more traditional or less experienced: your speaks will benefit from explaining your arguments as straightforwardly as you can. I won't penalize you for the first speeches, but in whatever speech happens after the differences in experience level becomes clear, you should treat them almost as a pedagogical exercise. Win the round, but do so in a way where you aren't only trying to tell me why you win the round, but you're trying to make sure your opponent also understands what is happening.

Presumption: I don't default any particular way. I am willing to listen to presumption arguments which would then make me default, given the particular way the round shakes down, but my normal response to a round where no one meets their burden is to lower my standards until one person does meet their burden. Now, I hate doing this and it makes me grumpy, so expect lower speaker points in a situation where nobody meets their burden and nobody makes an argument about why I should presume any which way. This just points to the need to clearly outline my role and the role of my ballot, and be precise as to how you are meeting it.

Jasmine Zhang CR North High School

Login to Tabroom

Sunvite

2022 — NSDA Campus, FL/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

Judges