Tabroom.com

Peninsula Invitational

2022 — Rolling Hills Estates, CA/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Joseph Barragan Damien High School 4 rounds

Sohan Bellam Glenbrook North 3 rounds

Gershom Chan Niles West High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 9:44 AM CDT

Background:

I debated for Niles West in high school and West Georgia in college.
BA in Philosophy.
Currently coaching at Niles West.

Email:

gershom000@gmail.com

Top level things:

If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is.
If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
I’m extremely hesitant to vote on arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.
Absolutely no ties and the first team that asks for one will lose my ballot.
Soliciting any outside assistance during a round will lose my ballot.

Pet peeves:

Lack of clarity. Clarity > speed 100% of the time.
The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start.
Email-sending related failures.
Dead time.
Stealing prep.
Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team.
Asserting things are dropped when they aren't.
Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards.
Marking almost every card in the doc.
Disappearing after the round.
Quoting my paradigm in your speeches.
Sending PDFs instead of Word Docs.

Ethics:

If you are caught clipping you will receive a loss and the lowest possible points.
If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points.
If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.

Cross-x:

Yes, I’m fine with tag-team cx. But dominating your partner’s cx will result in lower points for both of you.
Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions, and I will run the timer accordingly.
If you fail to ask the status of the off, I will be less inclined to vote for condo.
If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate:

I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting.

Affirmatives:

I’m fine with plan or planless affirmatives. However, I believe all affirmatives should advocate for/defend something. What that something entails is up for debate, but I’m hesitant to vote for affirmatives that defend absolutely nothing.

Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
The most important thing for me in T debates is an in-depth explanation of the types of affs your interp would include/exclude and the impact that the inclusion/exclusion would have on debate.
5 second ASPEC shells/the like have become nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans:

For me counterplans are more about competition than theory. While I tend to lean more neg on questions of CP theory, I lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps.

Disads:

If you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn, it should go on its own sheet. Failure to do so is super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders.

Kritiks:

The more specific the link the better. Even if your cards aren’t that specific, applying your evidence to the specifics of the affirmative through nuanced analysis is always preferable to a generic link extension.
‘You link you lose’ strategies are not my favorite. I’m willing to vote on them if the other team fails to respond properly, but I’m very sympathetic to aff arguments about it being a bad model for debate.
I find many framework debates end up being two ships passing in the night. Line by line answers to the other team's framework standards goes a long way in helping win framework in front of me.

Theory:

Almost all theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, condo is usually the only exception.
Conditionality is often good. It can be not. I have found myself to be increasingly aff leaning on extreme conditionality (think many plank cps where all of the planks are conditional + 4-5 more conditional options).
Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Framework/T-USfg:

I find impacts about debatability, clash, and iterative testing to be very persuasive.
I am not really persuaded by fairness impacts, but will vote on it if mishandled.
I am not really persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.
I am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.
I don't think debate is role-playing.

If the aff drops SSD or the TVA and the 2NR extends it, I will most likely vote neg.

Diego Duarte Glenbrook North 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 7, 2022 at 11:13 AM CDT

Name: Santiago (Diego) Duarte. Refer to me however you want, I really don't care.

Pronouns: He/him. Remember to ask your opponents.

Cancer sun, Scorpio Moon, Cancer rising

School: Glenbrook North (formerly), University of Oregon (not active debater)

Email: 224029@glenbrook225.org Please put me on the email chain without asking

If you read this paradigm, integrate the word "lasagna" into any speech once and I will give you +0.3 speaks

Experience: Debated for GBN on the Immigration topic and the Arms Sales topic. Judged debates on the Criminal Justice topic and the Water topic.

Former speaker position: 2N

Don't over-adapt to my paradigm. I'm willing to adjust to your styles. Debate how you want to debate and I'll try to keep up.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The long version of this paradigm is, as advertised, LONG. It is also quite boring to anyone who is not me, and was written more as a self-indulgent essay than a helpful guide. You won't miss much if you only read the short version, and if you need more detailed information on my views on specific topics, make use of the command+F function.

Paradigm (Short version) :

As a judge of novices, my goal is to educate and provide an enjoyable debate experience. Your first year is meant to be a learning experience, not a stress-filled environment. I am willing to make reasonable accommodations within debates to fit this - please ask before the round if there's anything that would make the debate more comfortable for you.

Don't be rude to your competitors, don't read racist arguments, if you have tech issues let me know and I probably won't take off speaker points.

Read any kind of argument that's allowed by the tournament rules, check with me and your competitors if it's potentially a triggering argument. K affs suck for novice debate but if the tournament lets you do it then I'll judge them fairly.

Be nice in cross-ex, don't speak over each other, don't dominate your partner's cx time.

I consider myself centrist on the Tech vs. Truth question, but I'm probably leaning more towards truth being important than the average judge.

I'm fine with any speed personally, but be careful over zoom. If i tell you to slow down, I expect you to actually slow down.

0% risk exists and is actually fairly common

Ask me if you have any questions, at any time.

Paradigm (long version):

With regards to digital debate: I will not take speaker points off for technical issues, with the exception of problems which you could reasonably be expected to prepare for, or egregious and unverifiable ones. I will be lenient with prep time when it comes to tech issues - as novices, you can't be expected to be able to instantly format and send files and such.

Cross examination: I am okay with open cross examination - HOWEVER - if one partner is clearly dominating another and abusing the concept of open cross-ex, I will stop that immediately and deduct speaker points. You will not earn brownie points with me by being an "aggressive cross examiner." I would prefer polite and low-volume cross-ex. Things said in cross examination are binding, however of course you and your partner can ask me to strike something you just said from my record of the debate, as long as it's within the same CX or speech.

Tech vs. Truth: I think that the inherent believability of arguments does matter in debate. While it is a game, you should be bringing arguments that make at least a modicum of sense, and not rely on overwhelming speed or speaking ability to swamp your opponent. That being said - ultimately, I am judging a competition and the better debaters should almost always win.

Speaker points: I will likely award slightly higher than average speaker points. I believe that there's no real reason to hurt new debaters by assigning a low numerical value to their speaking skill, barring extreme circumstances.

Situations in which I will stop a debate: Any accusation of cheating of any kind is the end of the debate, with the winner depending on the truth of the accusation. Any accusation of harassment or bullying will also cause me to end the debate - in any of these scenarios I will notify tournament staff and we'll go from there. Extreme rudeness to your competitors will cause me to at least pause the debate, and maybe award you a loss depending on the situation.

ARGUMENT SECTION

I am generally okay with any kind of argument, as long as it fits within basic standards of human decency. Arguments which are truly inherently racist and read with bad intent will at the very least not be counted, and may result in me automatically submitting my ballot against the offending team. I think that arguments which have a significant chance of triggering debaters should be mentioned before you read them - things like Death Good for example, I will allow if it isn't a significant trigger for the other team. (this is a general point - novices really shouldn't be reading these arguments)

Topicality:

I don't understand topicality. You, novices, definitely don't understand topicality. The people who wrote your T blocks probably do, but that doesn't make hearing them any more interesting. I will not be happy if I have to judge a novice debate that comes down to the nuances of topicality. This is even more true at the start of the year.

If this does end up being important - I find negative ground to be an unpersuasive standard, although I'll vote on it if it's argued well. Legal and contextual precision is my personal preference for evaluating T in policy rounds.

Kritikal arguments: Go ahead and read K's, I'm relatively friendly to them. If it's a convoluted and unintuitive Kritik, I do expect you to slow down for the benefit of both me and your opponents. My personal political biases lean towards a lot of kritikal arguments. I will do my best not to let this affect my judging of these arguments, but I'll probably be happy to hear them.

Performative contradictions are real and I will vote on them. The threshold is high, but if it's blatant then don't be afraid to call it out. If you're reading Cap and an Econ DA, that's pretty weird and will make a lot of philosophical arguments much less compelling.

Counterplans: Go ahead, any kind. Counterplans are probably my favorite kind of argument, don't be afraid to go all in on the CP in the 2nr.

Theory:

I like theory. I think it's the most unique part of debate, that the rules are only norms unless you prove that they should be rules in the round. I am willing to vote on theoretical questions, and open to all kinds of arguments in this area.

My counterplan theory stance is pretty neutral. I am happy to vote on good aff theory against cheating counterplans - I view theory as a totally legitimate and skill-based form of debate. If the neg abuses conditionality, go for condo and if you're better at arguing it I'll vote for you. Conditionality can be a voting issue for me, if you make it one.

Disads: Most basic kind of neg argument. Read as many as you want. Can't think of any unusual takes I have for this section. Please don't read DAs that have racist premises, I won't like you.

Go ahead and read all the politics disads you can think of - they're a lot of the neg ground on this topic. Don't bother running one in front of me unless you understand the uniqueness inside and out though - these disads are won or lost in the uniqueness section most of the time.

Kritikal affirmatives: These are almost certainly bad for novice debate. If the tournament allows them and you genuinely out-debate your competitors with one, I'll vote for you, but it's a high bar to clear in front of me. Even though I'm personally sympathetic to the ideas behind them, they're not cool for novices.

Case: Case debates are my favorite kinds of debates. Offcase are fun, but the core of debate is meant to be around the plan. Negative teams: don't be afraid to spend huge amounts of time attacking the case. If their affirmative doesn't make sense, go all in on that. I'm perfectly happy to vote on presumption if their case doesn't exist by the final rebuttals. If their affirmative is really strong and does make sense, then trying to frame the debate towards focusing on offcase is a good idea. Affirmative teams: don't let them do that last part. Keep the debate focused on whether your aff is good or bad. Convince me that that's all that matters. You get a huge advantage in picking the focus of the debate, use it wisely.

HOT TAKES: I mentioned earlier that I'm happy to vote on presumption - this is a sort of complicated issue for me. On a debate mechanics level, I think the presumption argument is cool and not used enough by negative teams. On a personal/political level, I've never agreed with the fundamental idea that "if the aff doesn't prove that they're good, then assume change is bad because it's risky." I think this is a reactionary and conservative way to view argumentation and debate. I am open to affirmatives making this argument if they feel that presumption is a likely strategy. Despite all that, if the affirmative doesn't make this argument in the 1AR, I will go with the debate community standard and say presumption goes neg.

Again, don't over-adapt to what is written above. I am happy to do what you tell me to do on this issue unless the other team contests it.

My second hot take is with regards to permutations: I absolutely hate the way permutations are usually done. If you stand up for the 2AC against 3 or less conditional alternatives and say "perm do the cp perm do both" a few times, I will flow them, but these are not real arguments and if the negative says so I will agree with them. Explain your permutations. What do they mean, what does doing both look like? Do not force whichever neg debater is taking the counterplan to respond to all the possible variations of a 3 word permutation because you couldn't be bothered to make a real argument. I will however be more sympathetic to rapid-fire permutations against 4+ conditional worlds - the 2AC is already a time-intensive speech and I will extend some understanding because of that.

My third and final hot take is that the 1AR will get a ton of leeway in front of me when it comes to making new arguments. I think that the block usually overdevelops one-offs from the 1NC to the point of making effectively new arguments, and when that happens I'm totally cool with letting the 1AR shoot a half dozen new offensive arguments in their faces in return.

Jargon: I am not an active debater on this topic. I have a passable knowledge of the main arguments and ideas underlying them, but some jargon might be outside of my understanding. Please don't abbreviate words that you think there's a good chance I wouldn't know the shortened version of. Use your best judgment.

If there's anything you want to know that's not on this paradigm, just ask before the round. Have fun!

Axel Garcia Damien High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 6, 2024 at 4:42 PM EDT

Hello my name is Axel Garcia

I'm currently attending GCU (Phoenix, Arizona) and Majoring in Forensic Psychology. I debated in high school for 3 1/2 years as a debater/competitor. I am a debate Coach/Judge (3 years now) for Damien High School if they need help. I debated in public forums and policy debates in high school. I mostly Judge Policy.

Please add both emails

damiendebate47@gmail.com

and

aagarcia22@damien-hs.edu

Please add to the email chain. Thank you

I am 100% honest, really don't know a lot about the topic this year, focused on school. What you can do is this, Explain... ---> https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/71257ee5-18d7-461e-b39b-3277361953dc

-- I am a policy judge

Policy

- I prefer Policy

- I allow tag team CX

-I like any type of argument you run!

- I Love and huge fan of Spreading as long as you articulate and are clear.

- Don't like K's, I will try my best to flow it.

- Everything else I'm good with.

- I rarely do LD debate, Spend a lot of time contextualizing your card/s if you're relying on it to win the round. Even if it was already constructive, it's a good habit to cover it thoroughly a 2nd time just in case I missed something.

- Sometimes I would do PF but not always. I prefer PF

- Remember to Spread as long as you articulate and are clear.

- I rebuttal speeches show me the most important issues and why they favor your side, we already had rebuttal speeches and 2 crossfires (PF).

- I appreciate puns in rounds.

- Tag team cx is allowed

Big Question

Big questions once during high school don't know much about it. Except to do your best and I value one overarching argument that's successfully upheld throughout the round over winning on the flow. Big picture analysis

Random bonuses like things that would boost your points

- Using your time wisely. ( not just sit there and do nothing. Think about what you are going to do next )

- Try to act confident, even if you're not, by making eye contact with your opponent and standing up straight, which can make your argument appear more believable.

- Remain calm at all times, and never shout or get angry since it will only make your argument seem weak.

- Always have your camera on when speaking and stand up when speaking

What not to do:

- If you intentionally make any racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory comments, I will give you extremely low-speak and notify your coach.

- Try not to clip, if you do and other teams catch it. you lost the ballot, if you are wrong another team loses. But the debate will keep on going.

- Don't play games when you are done speaking or when your opponent is speaking

- Don't go on your phone, to call, chat, or play games, ( you can use your phone to be in call your partner and or if you are using prep time ) <--- on only zoom

-Have Fun!!!

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=171692 Other Profile can see my record and past judging if needed

Leon Garcia Damien High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 24, 2023 at 7:10 AM PDT

email (yes, include both): lpgarcia19@damien-hs.edu; damiendebate47@gmail.com

LD: policy pls (below should still be applicable)

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

TL;DR Go for what you're most prepared for and can execute the best because that's what really makes debate fun and productive. I'm not very familiar with the topic.

My Beliefs:

Debate is good

Tech > Truth

Clarity above all else

Clipping is bad

My leanings:

Util good

I, as the judge, am a policymaker

Fiat is a good thing

A couple Great cards + explanation always beats 10 pieces of mediocre ev

There's not an excuse to avoid line by line

Topicality

I don't think fairness isn't an intrinsic impact, same as education. It can be an internal link to other things but simply ending your impact calculus with "They KILLED FAIRNESS" won't do it for me. Just treat your extensions and impact work like you would any DA. (I WON'T EVALUATE T AS A DA. TOPICALITY IS A YES OR NO QUESTION. RISK ANALYSIS FOR T IS ABSURD). I also lean heavily towards competing interpretations; the quality of your ev does matter.

Kritiks

If your entire strategy solely centers around the K, I'm not a great judge for you. I can certainly understand your generic Cap and Security K but any high theory requires a whole lot of explanation for me. Just because I might understand what you're saying doesn't mean you can weasel your way around with generic links if it's even somewhat contested. If you're aff I'd down to see an impact turn (obvious exceptions, of course, are: racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, etc.) I really do not want to hear Death Good, please do not do that in front of me.

K-Affs (Includes Framework)

I have written my disdain for K-Affs before. I am not going to just dismiss it; even as I maintain a reluctance to vote on them, I am not one you should just breeze through your blocks and force me to do work for you. I will be the first to admit that I need a lot of explanation as noted above in "Kritiks". Given all this said, framework is an uphill battle for the aff. I am not very sympathetic to generic "fairness bad/your education bad" impact turns; I think policy education is generally a good thing.

Theory

The only theory I feel even remotely comfortable voting aff (TO REJECT THE ARGUMENT) on are utopian fiat bad, object fiat bad, riders DA bad, delay cps bad, and floating piks bad. Condo is generally a good thing and I personally think you're better off not reading that 30 second shell if the neg is running just a single conditional advocacy but I understand time skew. Also, in principle, I judge-kick. I think that as I default to Condo being a good thing, and the status quo always being a logical option, it would be illogical for me to choose a plan of action when doing nothing would be better.

Also, I doubt I'll ever vote for Word Piks. This certainly doesn't excuse excessively disrespectful behavior.

Disads

I like politics a lot and I like engagement and clash at the link level even more so. Turns case analysis (vice versa for the aff) is always a good thing and should be a must have. Straight turns are fun.

Impacts

I love impact turns and my personal favorites are: Heg Good, Warming Good, Cap Good, Dedev, and CWG. It will take a lot for me to evaluate 0 risk of an impact. It can happen but your cards need to be far better.

Sarah Gaskov Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 5:33 AM EDT

seva.gaskov@gmail.com - please add me to the email chain!!
she/they

Mamaroneck High School '20, Palos Verdes Peninsula High School '23, Arizona State University 27', 5th year debater

Spreading
Go ahead, I am fine with high speed as long as you are clear. I will try my best to flow everything but if you're unintelligible, I can't guarantee that I will be able to hear everything.

Tech vs. Truth
I am a tabula rasa and tech judge and I will vote on whatever is on the flow as long as it's not offensive.

Policy vs. K
I am fine with most kritiks. If I don't understand what your K says, I won't vote on it, so if you run Baudrillard, explain it well.

In K aff debates, I will usually prefer neg on framework unless it's debated poorly. Also, I want you to make it clear how an aff ballot solves.

Impacts
I am fine with either big stick or soft left impacts, just make sure to prove why your impact outweighs.

T
I am fine with T debates but unless the aff is clearly abusive, I will prefer reasonability. Either way, make sure to have a lot of good evidence and comparison.

DAs
Make sure to have all parts of your DA - uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. I will treat the takeout of any single part of the DA as the takeout of the entire disad. So if the aff proves you don't link or that your DA is non-unique, I will vote aff on the DA. Give a clear story and do impact calc to explain why your DA outweighs.

CPs
I am fine with any CPs as long as there is a net benefit. I will disallow a type of CP only if the aff proves it's bad on theory.

Theory
I will vote on any theory but explain your standards and impacts well.

Speaks
30: You did something that really impressed me and I really enjoyed listening to your speeches. I have no doubt that you will win the tournament.

29 - 29.9: You did really well and your speeches were very interesting. You will most likely win the tournament or at least get to semifinals.

28.5 - 28.9: You did well and you had good speeches that made you win. You will likely break.

28 - 28.5: You did average and there are a lot of improvements to be made. Perhaps you were not clear or your speeches were messy. You could break.

27-28: You did badly and you need a lot of improvement. I will usually not give those speaks unless I really think that you messed up really badly in your speech. You would also get those speaks if you were unintelligible or if your speech didn't make sense.

27 and less: You probably said something that was offensive and made the debate really unpleasant for either me or your opponents.

Kelton Keck Notre Dame High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue December 21, 2021 at 7:49 AM CDT

put me on the email chain: keck.kelton@gmail.com

Hellgate highschool `21

Rice `25

I am a tabula rasa judge and view my job as that of a policymaker unless instructed otherwise convincingly. I will be open to any properly defended argument.

I prefer well-paced and well-founded argumentation over spreading. On that note, I will not flow your speech doc. If I can't discern your argument because you are speaking too fast, then I won't go to your speech doc and assume you covered it.

With that out of the way I have a few more things you things that I am looking for in a round.

1. Brink - one of the most overlooked parts of a disad is the brink. If you claim [opponents plan] will cause gridlock which results in [critical legislation] failing to go through, you must prove why any other legislation won't cause the impact to happen. That being said, if the aff brings up the lack of a brink I will give that point heavy consideration, but if the aff fails to point out the lack of a brink, I will believe the neg's disad.

2. Don't make up rules of policy debate. debate theory is not policy rules

3. Burden of proof lies on the one presenting the argument. If person X says that person Y's plan could cause problems for Z reason. It's not Y's responsibility to prove why X is wrong. X must prove they have evidence or a strong common sense reason, until then, all Y has to do is point out the lack of Z reason proof and move on.

4. Common sense is valid argumentation. It's valid to say that dropping bombs on X country will hurt their relationship with the sender. Don't say "can you prove dropping bombs on them will hurt the diplomatic relationship??". It's not valid to say "a spike in housing prices will lead to a bubble, so X is a bad plan", regardless of whether that statement is true, it's not common knowledge and needs to have evidence to back it up.

This paradigm has gone on for a bit too long, if you've made it this far, I just hope you can see my pov and we can all have a fun and productive debate. If you haven't noticed by now, I debated in a traditional state. Im not against anything fun like Ks and CPs, I just want to see it done in a way that is persuasive, not just a race to "win the flow".

Michael Kloster LOGYC 3 rounds

Bao Lei New Designs Charter School-University Park 4 rounds

Carmine Miklovis Glenbrook North 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 18, 2022 at 10:12 AM EDT

Carmine Miklovis (he/him)

American University '26

cmiklovisdebate@gmail.com

Who Are You?

I did policy debate for Glenbrook North for 3 years, and stopped debating at the start of my senior year. I had a little success, but am probably unsuited to judge in the late elimination rounds of the larger tournaments of the year.

Top Level (Non-Negotiables)

Any behavior that is actively violent or otherwise harmful to anyone in the debate will not be tolerated. Default to gender-neutral pronouns (they/them) if you don't know your opponent's specific pronouns.

My ballot will not (and cannot) be a referendum on out-of-round behavior.

Debate is a game.

Tech > Truth, but the original argument has to be complete and not incoherent.

Cross-applications are never new.

Evidence should be highlighted to make actual arguments and shouldn't look like haikus. Teams should call out other teams for extending warrants that weren't originally highlighted in their cards.

If I'm unable to draw a line between an argument made in a final rebuttal and an earlier speech, I won't evaluate it.

Pen time is important. Don't expect me to flow 4 perms in a row. If you're spreading analytics at full speed, don't be mad if I miss the 11th 10-word subpoint you made about why weighing the aff is bad.

Clarity > Speed (you should spread, so long as you're clear)

Clipping is an auto-loss. Accusations of it must stake the debate on it and would benefit from audio proof.

If your primary strategy relies on attempting to win the debate by confusing your opponents, you should strike me. I'll probably end up being confused too.

The age of your blocks is inversely proportional to your chances of winning.

The more judge instruction you do, the less I will have to intervene.

What follows is a list of predispositions that I have about certain arguments. All of the following can be overcome by good debating, but are important to note when preffing me or debating in front of me. Given equal, or unclear, debating, the following predispositions will guide how I resolve the debate.

Topicality

--T v Policy Affs

I have no predispositions about which standards are good, and which ones are bad, or whether to prefer competing interps or reasonability. Don't assume I know the "community consensus" about which affs are and aren't topical, or about what "egregiously untopical" aff MBA reads.

I dislike plan text in a vacuum, but will still vote on it.

--T v K AFFs

I'm not the best for K affs, but if you have me in the back, there are a few things to note.

Your 2ar should have a lot of judge instruction. Given that I ran almost exclusively policy arguments, in the absence of robust judge-instruction from the aff team, I might resolve the debate in a way that favors the team whose arguments make more sense to me.

Aff teams should impact turn the neg's standards on T (and definitely shouldn't read a counter-interp that links just as much to their own offense).

Don't expect me to vote on buzzwords unless you actually explain them.

Additionally, I think any K aff that is not explicitly critiquing debate should always lose to a combination of switch-side debate and a topical version of the aff. K affs that aren't explicitly critiquing debate tend to instead have a reason why defending the USFG is bad, in conjunction with a reason why advocating for their scholarship is key. However, the reasons why the USFG is bad can easily be read on the neg, as a K, and the "advocacy key" warrant is not an "affirmation key" warrant, so the neg only needs to win a small risk of any of their offense on T in order for me to vote neg. That being said, this predisposition can be easily overcome by good debating, and will not substitute for insufficient negative topicality debating.

Kritiks

I'm not terrible for these, but I'm not amazing. You should err on the side of over-explaining your arguments, especially if they're more complicated. I'm good for certain Ks, such as cap, security, settler colonialism, and kritiks of IR, and you shouldn't substantially alter your level of explanation or strategy if you have me in the back for those, but anything else will require a lot of judge instruction.

A simple way to know whether or not you've met the threshold for explanation that will allow me to vote for your argument is to not only explain the concept, but explain the implication of it for the debate, and try to do so using as few buzzwords as possible. For example, "Dropping that antiblackness is ontological zeros all of their state good offense because it proves the state will never actually change, which means engagement is futile and means any risk of a link is sufficient to vote neg."

If you really think an argument is so important that winning it means you should win the debate, it should be more than a one-liner. Otherwise, don't expect me to vote on it, and don't post-round.

Links should be more specific than "any action by the United States federal government is bad."

If you have a new style of K, with completely never-before-seen elements, that you think will revolutionize debate, I'm probably not the best judge for it.

Perm: double bind should just be a way of explaining perm: do both, not a separate argument.

Counterplans

Counterplans that compete off of words that are always in the resolution (resolved, "United States federal government," "should," "substantial" or "substantially," et cetera) are unpersuasive to me, and should lose to theory or the intrinsic perm.

Counterplans that compete off of normal means (also known as "process counterplans") shouldn't be prolific on the NATO/emerging tech topic. Instead, I think plan-inclusive counterplans and advantage counterplans should fill that deficit in the negative's strategic arsenal.

Intuitive solvency claims don't need advocates, but you should have an advocate for why, for example, building a space elevator would prevent the collapse of U.S. hegemony.

Disads

Not much to say, they're great, especially specific disads. While I would prefer specific links, I'm fine with generic links if you can contextualize the link story to the aff.

Aff teams should take advantage of dropped straight turns, and neg teams should stop dropping straight turns (usually in the 1nr).

Evidence should tell a coherent story. If the uniqueness evidence says the bill passes because of bipartisanship, the link shouldn't be about political capital.

Theory

Like most other theory arguments, whether conditionality is good or not is a debate to be had.

"No neg fiat" is a joke.

Most theory arguments against kritiks are nothing more than a time skew for the 2nc, as opposed to a viable 2ar option.

Case

Impact defense is fine. I'm persuaded by the aff explaining why the specificity of their internal links means the impact defense isn't responsive.

Aff internal link chains and solvency mechanisms are suspicious, and should be poked at in cross-ex and in neg speeches.

Comparative impact calculus goes a long way in helping me resolve the debate, and, in conjunction with turns case arguments, can make close debates significantly easier to resolve.

Turns case arguments would benefit from (but don't necessarily need) cards. The level of explanation of your turns case argument is proportional to the likelihood I will vote on it if it is dropped and properly extended.

Closing Thoughts

Email me if you have any questions/would like additional feedback. I will listen to any redos you send me and give you feedback.

Otherwise, good luck and have fun.

Miriam Mokhemar Woodward Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 5, 2024 at 10:03 AM EDT

A few things about me (TLDR version):

Former debater at University of Georgia

Plans are good

Impact calculus is important. Tell me how to write my ballot.

Clarity > Speed

Cross-ex is binding

Have fun and don't be rude!

Long version:

Framework - I'm a good judge for framework. Debate is a game and framework is procedural question. I’m persuaded by negative appeals to limits and I think fairness is an impact in and of itself. I don’t think the topical version of the aff needs to “solve” in the same way the aff does. If there are DA's to the topical version of the aff, that seems to prove neg ground under the negative’s vision of debate. Tell me what your model of debate looks like, what negative positions does it justify, and what is the value of those positions.

Kritiks - I think it's really hard for the neg to win that the aff shouldn't get to weigh the plan provided the aff answers framework well. I've got a decent grasp on the literature surrounding critical security studies, critiques of capitalism, settler colonialism, and feminist critiques of IR. The aff should focus on attacking the alternative both at a substance and theoretical level. It's critical that the 2AR defines the solvency deficits to the alternative and weigh that against the case. Negative debaters should spend more time talking about the case in the context of the kritik. A good warranted link and turns the case debates are the best way for negative teams to get my ballot. Tell me how the links to the aff uniquely lead to the impacts.

Counterplans - They don't have to be topical. Whether you have a specific solvency advocate will determine if your counterplan is legitimate or not. There's nothing better than a well-researched mechanism counterplan and there's nothing worse than a hyper-generic process counterplan that you recycle for every negative debate on the topic. I generally think that 2 conditional options are good, but I can be persuaded by 3 condo is okay. PICs are probably good. Consult/Conditioning/delay counterplans, international fiat, and 50 state fiat are bad. Typically, if you win theory I reject the argument not the team unless told otherwise.

Disads- I love a good DA and case debate. I've gone for the politics DA a lot in my college career. Normally uniqueness controls the link, but I can persuaded otherwise. Impact calc and good turns cases analysis is the best!

Add me onto the e-mail chain, my email is miriam.mokhemar@gmail.com. If your computer crashes, stop the timer until you can get your doc back up.

Luke Nelson Glenbrook North 3 rounds

Kate Ortiz Notre Dame High School 4 rounds None

Lily Ottinger ADL 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 31, 2024 at 8:18 PM CDT

Email chain: lily.coaches.debate@gmail.com

About:

Currently based in Taiwan and coaching debate for the ADL. That means I am staying up all night when I judge at US tournaments. Please pref accordingly
Debated in college at the University of Kansas, 2017-2022 (Healthcare, Executive Authority, Space, Alliances, Antitrust). I majored in math and minored in Russian if that matters.
Debated in high school at Shawnee Mission Northwest, 2013-2017 (Latin America, Oceans, Surveillance, China).

Top:

If I can tell that you are not even trying to flow (eg you never take out a piece of paper the entire debate, you stand up to give your 2NC with just your laptop and no paper) your speaks are capped at 27.
Please don't call me "judge." It's tacky. My name is Lily. Note that this does not apply to saying "the role of the judge."
In the words of Allie Chase, "Cross-x isn't 'closed,' nobody ever 'closed' it... BUT each debater should be a primary participant in 2 cross-xes if your goal is to avoid speaker point penalties."
I would prefer to not judge death/suffering/extinction good arguments or arguments about something that happened outside the debate.
I might give you a 30 if I think you're the best debater at the tournament.
High schoolers are too young to swear in debates.
Don't just say words for no reason - not in cross-x and certainly not in speeches.
If you are asking questions like "was x card read?" a timer should be running. Flowing is part of getting good speaker points.
The word "nuclear" is not pronounced "nuke-yoo-ler." If you say this it makes you sound like George Bush.
Shady disclosure practices are a scourge on the activity.

Framework:

I judge a lot of clash debates. I'm more likely to vote aff on impact turns than most policy judges, but I do see a lot of value in the preservation of competition. Procedural fairness can be an impact but it takes a lot of work to explain it as such. Sometimes a clash impact is a cleaner kill.
TVAs don't have to solve the whole aff. I like TVAs with solvency advocates. I think it's beneficial when the 2NC lays out some examples of neg strategies that could be read against the TVA, and why those strategies produce educational debates.

Topicality vs policy affs:

Speaker point boost if your 2NC has a grammar argument (conditional on the argument making sense of course).
If you're aff and going for reasonability, "race to the bottom" < debatability.
Case lists are good.
The presence of other negative positions is not defense to a ground argument. The aff being disclosed is not defense to a limits argument. This also goes for T-USFG.

Counterplans

When people refer to counterplans by saying the letters "CP" out loud it makes me wish I were dead.
As a human I think counterplans that advocate immediate, indefinite, non-plan action by the USFG are legit, but as a judge I'm chaotic neutral on all theory questions.
Conditionality: I'll give you a speaker point boost if you can tell me how many 2NRs are possible given the number of counterplan planks in the 1NC.

Disads

Read them
Politics DAs are fun. Make arguments about polling methodology.

I feel like I have a higher threshold for Ks on the neg than some. I'm not a hack and I will vote for your K if you do the better debating, but I also think arguments that rely on the ballot having some inherent meaning are ~~corny~~ unpersuasive.
I dislike lazy link debating immensely, primarily because it makes my life harder. Affs hoping to capitalize on this REALLY ought to include a perm/link defense in the 2AR.
Explain how the alt solves the links and why the perm doesn't.
Affs should explain why mooting the 1AC means that the neg's framework is anti-educational. Negs should explain why the links justify mooting the aff.
Case outweighs 2ARs can be very persuasive. The neg can beat this with discrete impacts to specific links+impact framing+framework.
Speaker point penalty if the 1AR drops fiat is illusory - at the very least your framework extension needs an education impact.

Lincoln-Douglas:

If there is no net benefit to a counterplan, presumption flips aff automatically.
I do not think permutations are cheating.
An argument is a claim and a warrant. If you say something that does not contain a warrant, I will not necessarily vote on it even if it's dropped. In the interest of preventing judge intervention, please say things that have warrants.
Most neg theory arguments I've watched would go away instantly if affs said "counter interpretation: we have to be topical."
RVIs are not persuasive to me. Being topical is never an independent reason to vote affirmative. The fact that a counterplan is conditional is never offense for the negative.

DJ Parker Hire 4 rounds

Rose Pelham Woodward Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 4:53 AM EDT

Last edited on 5/27/23 to rewrite the sections on experience, Statement on Racism, and K Affirmatives.

Pronouns: she/they

Experience: I have spent my entire life in the debate community one way or another. That said, I spent five years debating middle school/high school, took a break from debating in undergrad, then came back to judge and coach for a variety of schools.

Statement on Racism (& other Prejudices) in Debate

Debate should encourage students to see themselves as agents capable of acting to create a better world. We will not achieve this vision for our activity so long as we pretend it is in a realm separate from reality. Judges have an ethical obligation to oppose prejudice in round including but by no means limited to: racism, queerphobia, antisemitism, sexism, Islamophobia, ableism, and classism, among others. Debate, as an activity, has its fair share of structural inequities. We, as coaches and judges, need to address these and be congnizant of them in our decisions.

General Philosophy

I see the role of the judge as that of an educator concerned primarily with what teams learn from the experience. Therefore, the most important aspect of being a judge, to me, is to provide good constructive criticism to teams about their arguments and performance, and to promote the educational qualities of debate. When teams are using prep time, I am usually writing speech by speech feedback for my ballots––which I very much hope teams and their judges will read. As a judge, I want you to come out of the round, win or lose, feeling like you learned something worthwhile.

As an educator concerned with what can be learned from the round, I think the quality of arguments are much more important than their quantity, and whenever possible prefer to reward well researched and articulated arguments more than arguments will few warrants that might be read in the hopes of their being dropped. I prefer to decide rounds based upon the meaning of the arguments presented and their clash rather than by concession.

I flow the round based on what I hear, preferring not to use speech documents. For this reason, clarity is more important than speed. For an argument to exist in the round, it needs to be spoken intelligibly. Rounds that are slower typically offer better quality arguments and fewer mistakes.

Argument Specific preferences:

Plan-less critical affirmatives: I am happy to judge and vote on them. K affs are a useful tool for contesting the norms of debate, including those which are the most problematic in the activity. Over time, I have changed my threshold on their topicality. These days, my position is that so long as they are clearly related to the topic, I am happy to consider them topical. When aff teams argue critical affirmatives, I strongly prefer there be a specific solvency mechanism for their interpretation of the role of the ballot. For negative teams arguing against K affs, I have a strong preference for specific case answers. Given that K affs are a fixture of debate and are generally available to find on open evidence and the caselist wiki, prepping to specifically answer them should be possible. While I am unlikely to vote in favor of arguments that would outright eliminate K affs in debate, counter kritiks are a strategy I am amenable to.

Kritiks: At its most fundamental level, a kritik is a critical argument that examines the consequences of the assumptions made in another argument. I love well run kritiks, but for me to decide in favor of a kritik it needs a specific link to the assumptions in the 1AC and a clearly articulated alternative that involves a specific action (as opposed to a vague alt). Experience informs me that K's with generic links and vague alternatives make for bad debate.

Framework: Lately this term seems to have become a synonym for a kind of impact calculus that instead of focusing on magnitude, risk, and time-frame attempts to convince me to discard all impacts but those of the team running this argument. Framework, as I understand it, is a synonym to theory and is about what the rules of debate should be. Why should it be a rule of debate that we should only consider one type of impact? It seems all impacts in debate have already boiled themselves down to extinction.

Topicality: Please slow down so that I can hear all your arguments and flow all their warrants. The quality of your T arguments is much more important to me––especially if you argue about the precedent the round sets––than how many stock voters you can read. I may prefer teams that offer a clear argument on topicality to those that rely on spreading, however tactically advantages the quickly read arguments may be.

Counter plans: The burden of demonstrating solvency is on the negative, especially with PICs. PICs are probably bad for debate. Most of the time they are just a proposal to do the plan but in a more ridiculous way that would likely never happen. So if you are going to run a PIC, make sure to argue that changing whatever aspect of the plan your PIC hinges on is realistically feasible and reasonably advantageous. Otherwise, I will do everything I can to avoid deciding the round on them.

Conditionality: I have no problem with the negative making a couple conditional arguments. That said, I think relying on a large number of conditional arguments to skew the aff typically backfires with the neg being unable to devote enough time to create a strong argument. So, I typically decide conditionality debates with a large number of conditional arguments in favor of the aff, not because they make debate too hard for the aff, but because they make debating well hard for everyone in the round.

For rookie/novice debaters:

If you're reading this, then you're already a step ahead and thinking about the skills you will need to be building for JV and varsity debate. What I want to see most in rookie/novice debates is that teams are flowing and clearly responding to each other.

Lukas Rhoades Hire 4 rounds

Zoe Rosenberg Damien High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 9:43 AM PDT

Lowell '20 l UCLA '24

Yes, email chain: zoerosenberg [at] gmail [dot] com, please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

Background: I was a 2N for four years at Lowell, I qualified to the TOC my senior year and was in late elims of NSDA. I don't debate in college due to a lack of policy infrastructure. I judge somewhat frequently on the west coast so I have a good sense of arguments being read on the circuit.

GGSA/State Qualifier: I will still judge rounds technically, as one does for circuit debate. However, I believe adaptation is one of the most important skills one can get out of debate so I encourage you to speak slowly, especially with parents on the panel.

Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. All of the below can be changed by out-debating the other team through judge instruction and ballot writing. Unresolved debates are bad debates.

Speed is great, but clarity is even better. If I'm judging you online please go slightly slower, especially if you don't have a good mic. I find it increasingly hard to hear analytics in the online format.

Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards. I generally think in-round explanation is more important than evidence quality.

I'm very expressive, look at me if you want to know if I'm digging your argument!

Call me by my name, not "judge".

Debnil Sur taught me everything I know about debate so check: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=debnil&search_last= for a better explanation of anything I have to say here.

Longer Stuff

What arguments does she prefer? I went for mostly policy arguments and feel more in my comfort zone judging these debates. That being said, I moved more to the left as my years in high school came to a close and am down to judge a well-defended kritikal affirmative. I think debate is a game but it's a game that can certainly can influence subjectivity development. Note: I would still prefer to judge a bad policy debate, over a bad kritikal debate.

Online Debate Adaptions

Here are some things you can do to make the terribleness of online tournaments a little less terrible.

1 - I really would like your camera to be on, wifi permitting. Debate is a communicative activity and your persuasion increases by tenfold if you are communicating with me face to face.

2 - Please use some form of microphone or slow down by 20%. It is really hard to catch analytics with poor audio quality.

3 - The benefits of sending analytics vastly outweigh the cons of someone having your blocks to a random argument.

4 - If it takes you more than a minute to send out an email chain I will start running prep. I genuinely don't understand how it can take up to five minutes to attach a document to an email chain lmao

K Stuff:

K Affs: I read a kritikal affirmative all of senior year but on the negative went for framework against most K affs. I don't have a definite bias toward either side. However, kritikal affirmatives that defend a direction of the topic and allow the negative to access core topic generics jive with me much more than simply impact turning fairness and skirting the resolution.

Framework: Fairness is an impact. By the 2NR please don't go for more than two impacts. Having a superior explanation why the TVA resolves their offense and doing impact comparison will put you in a good spot. Switch-side debate is a silly argument, but feel free to convince me otherwise.

Neg: I know the lit behind security, neolib, psychoanalysis, and necropolitics. Make of that which you will. I'm not going to be happy listening to your 7 minute overview. Explain the thesis of the kritik and contextualize the link debate to the aff and I will be quite happy. Winning framework means you probably win the ballot. And as Debnil puts it, "I believe I'm more of an educator than policymaker, which means representational critiques or critiques of debate's educational incentive structure will land better for me than most judges."

Competing interps or reasonability? Competing interps. Asserting a standard like limits needs to be warranted out, explain why your impacts matters. Have a clear vision of the topic under your interp, things like case-lists and a solid understanding of arguments being read on the circuit are important. T before theory. Also a good topicality debate is my favorite thing ever.

Is condo good? Yes, most of the time. Things like amending stuff in the block, kicking planks, fiating out of straight turns are sketchy. But in most debates, unless it's dropped or severely mishandled I lean neg. To win condo the affirmative must have a superior explanation why multiple advocacies made that debate unrecoverable. Going for condo only because you're losing on substance is not the move. Hard debate is good debate. Other theory preferences (I-Fiat, Process CPs, etc.) are likely determined by the topic. However, they're almost always reasons to reject the argument not the team.

Policy stuff? I like it. Link centered debate matters the most, so focus on uniqueness and link framing. Do comparative analysis of the warrants in your evidence. I really dislike bad turns case analysis, link turns case arguments will sit better with me. I think most types of counterplans are legitimate if the neg wins they are competitive. I'll judge kick if you tell me to do it.

Kan Shimada Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 4, 2019 at 2:04 AM PDT

Peninsula '22

Email: kanshimada2004@gmail.com.

Second year Peninsula, I'm pretty policy oriented and though I'm interested in critique literature, I've never run one per se.

My judging and views will be based off of Scott Wheeler's Paradigm.

General:

1. Offense-defense, I don't believe in 'zero risk' -- it's always a 'risk of'

2. I'll try to think through a 'ballot story' on why each side wins, but the final rebuttals should do this. However, as hard as I try to be impartial, I lean neg on nontraditional/planless affs.

3. There needs to be more case debate, nuanced case debate is the best.

4. Make smart analytics, do ev comparison (if you need to), get in to the warrants - card shoving doesn't work.

5. Saying extinction! isn't enough. Flesh out the warrants, compare your impacts. I shouldn't have to do it before my RFD.

6. Tech > Truth, Clarity > Speed, Smart Analytics > Bad Cards

7. Be nice. Aggressive crossex is ok as long as you're polite and respectful. Point out flaws in their argument, not pointing out flaws in the debaters. Don't be West Georgia KT.

8. Have fun and learn. I find asking good questions after the RFD is useful.

Disads:

1. I guess I don't have any preference for this, and I weigh link debate more than uniqueness, except for maybe on politics disads.

2. The aff dropping the disad doesn't mean you automatically win. Flesh out the argument. Nuanced 'case outweighs' or 'turns case' debates are great.

3. If you have the same impact, impact calc becomes more important. It's better you do it in your final rebuttals than forcing the judge to do so.

Counterplans:

1. I lean aff on counterplan theory. But that doesn't mean just because you read theory on the CP means you won.

2. 2NC planks are good, and nuanced CP debates on stuff like processes, for example, are good. If you're going to point out solvency deficits, point them out well. Don't say 'they don't solve' and move on.

Kritiks:

1. I generally read generic K's, and have some degree of familiarity with the more common kritiques. Still, you should explain it as I don't run it and only have read the main literature.

2. You need a specific link. 'State bad/state actor' isn't a link.

3. Link debate is everything, unless you impact turn the K. Perm is usually just a link/link turn debate.

4. Aff teams should spend more time exposing K alts. Alts often don't solve, and affs should spend more time on them too.

5. Framework is very important. If parts of K framework isn't answered, it's a very easy place to exploit.

T vs Nontraditional Affs:

1. I lean neg on this. There's two instances which I don't -- the aff successfully impact turns T, or when the neg doesn't have an external impact ('we're better to discuss this'). Also have a defensible counterinterp.

2. Fairness is an impact. Education is too. Fairness isn't an internal link to education.

3. I enjoy K affs with plans, but just because it's a kritikal affirmative with a plan doesn't mean you don't have to answer disads and regular T, it's subjected to that also.

T vs Traditional Affs:

1. If T seems like a viable option, go at least 3-4 minutes in the block. Compare your impacts, answer their warrants, give good examples -- these often turn into fun debates if conducted well.

2. Different standards in the 1NC, or at least variations of the 'vote neg on limits and ground' would be preferred.

Nontraditional Affs:

1. Case debate often leaves something to be desired, and engaging with the aff in some way is good. Don't ignore case -- just because you read T-Framework doesn't mean you ignore case.

Theory:

1. Condo is generally good unless there's round-specific arguments. 2AR should go full-on condo if you want to go for it, and couple with in-round abuse.

2. I won't vote on theory usually unless there's real cheating, like 2NR CPs.

3. Clipping is bad, I'll vote on it if either one of two things happen: it's raised by the opposing team, or if the violations are so egregious it affects the debate.

Ayden Smith Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 4, 2024 at 4:05 PM CDT

Truman '22

Wichita State '26

Assistant Coach at Maize HS

(He/Him)

Email- aydebate22@gmail.com

Former 2A, reformed 2N

I think debate should be an opportunity to put research skills to the test. I highly value good evidence spin and think in many instances teams who tell me what their evidence says wind up better off than teams who just read what the evidence says.

I think the only ideological predisposition that affects me the most is my neg lean on a lot of theory questions. Condo is probably good and certainly doesn't outweigh T but I've recently been finding myself persuaded by condo bad a lot more. Edit: I have oddly enough recently become far more convinced that it's good for the aff to extend and go for condo despite making the switch to 2N. That isn't to say I am easy to win on the argument but rather that I can be persuaded either way. For it to be viable, however, aff teams need to start contextual analysis and interp debating in the 1AR and slow down so I can flow everything.

Evidence quality is something I've noticed decline at a shocking level. No author qualifications, shady websites, poor highlighting to the extent that there's no warrant highlighted, etc. Even though I noted above appreciation for evidence spin, that spin should incorporate indicts to bad evidence from the other team. If they read a card that's tagged, "BBB Passes." and the only words highlighted are "BBB" and "Passes" I feel no reason to consider that card in my decision.

Don't be needlessly mean to your opponents. Being blatantly racist/sexist/transphobic etc. will certainly tank your speaks and probably lead to an L. Making fun of bad evidence does not require attacking the character of who you're debating.

Most of my debate influence comes from Parker Hopkins.

General Scales

Teams should adapt---------------------------X----Judge should adapt

Policy---------------X----------------K

Tech----------X---------------------Truth

Counterplans aren't fair--------------------X-----------Counterplans are fun

Nothing competes----------------------X---------Summers 94

Conditionality good----------X---------------------Conditionality bad

Reasonability--------------X-----------------Competing interpretations

Death good is acceptable-----------------------X-------Not a good argument

Case Debate

Impact turns can be exceptionally fun but often times are full of terrible literature. Teams should point that out.

I think teams are scared to go for turns vs affs that aren't flat out impact turns and I think both evidence wise and strategically it's a good idea to put hefty link turn arguments on case.

A lot of affs are so painfully shady in their advocacy that I think the neg certainly gets to make assumptions and assertions about what the aff actually does.

Teams often do impact comparison exclusively at the terminal impact level without incorporation of vital solvency deficits implications to that calculus.

There's a lot of focus on reading an unnecessary number of cards in the block on certain arguments. If 1NRs cut UQ cards in half in favor of link cards I think the debate certainly winds up further in your favor.

If you are gonna read 2 minutes of UQ then my smallest request is to make the tags funnier. I'll give extra speaks if you make the worst part of the debate a bit sillier.

Politics is one of my favorite arguments but I think there comes a time when people should recognize that a DA is beyond repair. Sometimes truth can ethos wise outweigh tech in these debates that makes it feel displeasing to vote on a PTX DA.

Top of any neg speech with a DA after the 1NC should start with something like, "DA outweighs and turns case."

The Rider DA can be a lot of fun and holds an interesting implication for affs but I think it's almost always very flawed at an internal link level.

If an aff is really good enough you should be able to answer every counterplan just by winning it's different from the 1AC. Not being able to do that is not the fault of the negative.

Non condo theory issues are 99% of the time a reason to reject the argument, not the team so if you list them as a reason to do so in 2AC cross you should have a reason why that's true before I hold the neg to answering it with anything else than "reject the arg, not the team."

Clever PICs can be really fun debates but word PICs can be a little more lifeless than others and less fun to debate and evaluate.

Judge kick is usually my default. It makes since to me that the neg always defends the squo even if they introduce other advocacies because their role is simply to prove that whatever change the aff makes is the wrong one.

A lot of my first hand K knowledge is limited to Cap, set col, or Heidegger but I feel comfortable in a decent bit of these debates. I think the more abstract and post modern the K leans the more I find myself feeling confused and I'd hope for more explanation.

I think a good link debate is frequently a lost art. A lot of teams will just assert that there is one but I think there really needs to be an explanation of the direct effects of voting aff. That doesn't mean it has to be a disad style story of cause and effect but explain what the aff's theorization of things justifies and use their evidence and authors to prove it. I think that link explanation also requires a reason why the alt solves it. Good enough link debate gives teams a better chance of winning without the alternative and if a team chooses to kick the alt absent a solid link your chances of winning certainly go down.

A lot of framework interpretations that don't have an end point that allow the aff to weigh its stuff vs the K seem counterproductive to me. Framework should function not just to the advantage of the K's impact and solvency calculus but should also have relatively clear parameters for what an aff must do to weigh itself. I think usually framework interpretations are better the more simplistic and common they are (the aff should be an object of research that must justify its scholarship is typically a solid interp) Otherwise it ends up too self serving.

The alt should be able to be explained to tangibly do something. Alts that just "refuse" or "reject" something seem counterintuitive to political progress in a lot of ways because I don't think they can ever have an endpoint that solves the Ks impacts.

K Affs

I've only been on the negative in these debates but I don't think I've wound up as opposed to critical affirmatives as my coaches or even partner. There's no doubt that affirmatives that challenge the resolution are important to debate as a whole but since I've spent most of time thinking about neg strategies I think a lot of my views can be filtered through weighing traditional neg offense.

I think affirmatives are always best whenever they take advantage of the 1AC to leverage a counter model of debate that can access some of the negs offense. It's hard to convince me in a competitive setting that procedural fairness is outright bad whenever the affirmative is required to engage in some procedurally fair part of the activity before the 1NC even occurs, that said I think impact turns should be paired with reasons why the affirmatives model can avoid said offense.

Affirmatives really need a clearly defined theory of power and a reason why that should filter neg offense. Aff teams who read a bunch of authors who would probably disagree with one another and throw made up words into tags are more likely to lose my attention than win my ballot.

I should be able to explain what voting aff endorses and why the model that comes with it is better than whatever the negative proposes.

Neg teams in these debates should be more direct and willing to read a lot of off case positions. For one it can be effective against teams who are only ready to answer 2 or 3 off, but also I think it helps get a gage on what the aff actually does and helps point out contradictions in what they advocate for.

Topicality/Procedurals

T is one of the more fun arguments in debate because I think it's good to limit out bad or shady affirmatives in real time.

I feel like Extra and Effects T affs are more common and that's dumb. Aff teams usually just say "because there's extra stuff from the plan you get more DA links." That's ridiculous and neg teams should put a stop to it.

Impact debate on T needs to occur alongside a counter explanation of what the neg interp does to both solve it and create better debate as a whole. It feels like a lot of T debates suffer from serious disconnect.

Most procedural arguments are lost on me as legitimate reasons to vote against an aff team. Procedurals that require unorthodox things of the affirmative usually seem silly to me.

Sneaking in ASPEC is quite ridiculous and I will decrease speaks of any neg team who hides the analytic or sends out everything in the 1NC except for it. If it's short enough that the aff team doesn't notice it I'll guess that's because it's not warranted enough to justify voting negative and the 1AR will get new answers.

As far as I'm concerned there's only one procedural type argument that's of immediate value:

Disclosure is probably one of the most important things about modern debate. I come from a school where my partner and I were the only team consistently debating with a small coaching staff. Despite that, I think I'm opposed to the view that disclosing is even close to bad for smaller programs. I agree a lot with Chris Roberds here, "I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow / sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, new, or international schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive." Teams should disclose what stuff they read and open source docs on the wiki. If you tell me you open sourced the round I'll bump speaks. All of this comes with some caveats like the neg should ask for disclosure before the round before they make the argument in the 1NC, which requires that both teams come to the room (or zoom) shortly after pairings are released. I think if the aff team flat refuses to disclose anything (on the wiki or preround after being asked) than I can easily be convinced on the theory argument but the the neg did not attempt to get disclosure or if there are a reasonable set of interrupting circumstances for the aff pre round then maybe I will give leeway. Your best bet is to have some sort of physical evidence (ie a screenshot of an email which was not answered or if you ask for disclosure while I am in the room and the aff says no) and contextualize the violation.

Sanoja Sridevan Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 19, 2024 at 1:05 PM PDT

Berkeley '26

Peninsula Graduate

Please add me to the email chain: scsridevan@gmail.com

If it's more than 2 short cards or if the card is long, put it in a doc.

You can insert rehighlightings, but explain the argument you're making.

I'm tech>truth, but complete arguments need claim(s), warrants, and impact(s). "They dropped the impact" is not an argument or something I can vote on alone.

Speed is okay but you need to be clear.

I will probably protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments; there should be a version of the argument you are extending in the 1AR unless it is a new 2NR argument.

Cross-ex is important.

Please do impact calc/argument comparison.

Theory: I will vote on dropped theory, if explained, and I think condo is good but can be persuaded otherwise.

CPs: I will judgekick counterplans if there are no arguments about it, and the 2AR can have new judgekick bad args.

T: Fairness is a impact and fairness>skills/education. Reasonability is a question of how I evaluate the interpretation debate, not the we meet.

Disads: I don't think a disad can have zero risk (including when the aff makes framing arguments) (unless it's already happened) so you should debate as though the disad has a sizeable risk. Specific cards and arguments are best -- use evidence quality, if you have it, to your advantage.

Ks: I think the advantages of the hypothetical implementation of the plan should be weighed against the impacts to the links. I can be persuaded by framework arguments, but as with T, I think fairness>skills/education. Please do impact calc and make the links specific to the aff/case. I am very unlikely to vote for fiat is illusory type arguments or similar tricks.

K Affs: On framework, fairness>skills/education. I generally think that the aff should defend a hypothetical action of the United States federal government, but can be persuaded otherwise. Assume I do not know your theory, so you should make sure to explain your arguments clearly--I won't vote for you if I don't know what I'm voting for. For K v K, I am probably not the best, but if this debate happens, both sides should make the distinctions between the two Ks clear. I think the aff gets perms.

Definitely ask any questions you have before the round.

Be nice and good luck!

Matthew Stroud New Designs Charter School-University Park 4 rounds

Sumehra Taj Niles West High School 3 rounds

Jon Tarquinio Montgomery Bell Academy 4 rounds

Owen Williams Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 24, 2024 at 7:14 AM CDT

Coached:

2023-Present---Shawnee Mission East (Fiscal Redistribution)

Debated:

2019-2023---Truman High School (Arms Sales, CJR, Water, NATO)

2023-Present---University of Kansas (Nukes)

Background Information

He/They

Please call me Owen. Not judge.

I would like to be on the chain but will not read evidence during speeches. My email is owenwilliamsdebate@gmail.com

Pro-scrappy debate. Pro-small schools killing it.

I was taught debate by Parker Hopkins. My debate opinions have been heavily influenced by Maddie Pieropan, especially in the domain of critical arguments and framework.

T/L

Tech + truth > tech > truth

Clarity + speed > clarity > speed

You should make any argument as long as it's not something problematic. I'm very much in the camp that the judge should do 99% of the adaptation and that the debaters should do their thing. The only exception is that I would prefer not to adjudicate a death good debate.

Cross-examination is open. It was never closed. If you pull up to the round and request for/require it to be closed your speaks will be tanked. Stop evading clash.

Email title should be Tournament -- Round # -- Aff (School Code) v. Neg (School Code)

^+.1 speaker points to the 1A if you send the 1AC before I'm in the room/zoom

Cool charts

Teams should adapt------------------------------X-Judge should adapt

Policy-----------X--------------------K

Tech---X----------------------------Truth

X Counterplans aren't fair---------------------------X----Counterplans are fun

Nothing competes--------------------X-----------Summers 94

Conditionality good----------X---------------------Conditionality bad

Reasonability-----------------------------X--Competing interpretations

Death good is acceptable-------------------------X-----You might just be a bad person

Case

In-depth case debating is a lost art. Revive this art and your speaks and decision will most likely reflect such.

Impact turn debates are my favorite debates to judge.

A lot of affs are so painfully shady in their advocacy that I think the neg certainly gets to make assumptions and assertions about what the aff actually does. Defer to solvency advocates, 1ACs should have an advocate that says exactly what the plan does.

K AFFs/Framework

I've been on both sides of these debates and I don't think that I lean particularly far to one side.

Procedural fairness is an impact, but not in the way that teams are increasingly explaining it. If the fairness arguments that you're making are just a workaround to get to the clash impact, you should be going for clash in front of me. Buzz phrases such as "debate is a game" or "T is a-priori" to answer substantive framework arguments are not responsive and will earn you low speaks.

Affirmatives need a clear and obvious theory of power and a reason why that should filter neg offense. Aff teams who read a bunch of authors who would probably disagree with one another and throw made-up words into tags are more likely to lose my attention than win my ballot.

I should be able to explain what voting aff endorses and why the model that comes with it is better than whatever the negative proposes. I'm going to have a high threshold for 2AC/1AR/2AR consistency.

I agree with Maddie Pieropan here - "Competing interpretations are more important to me than most others. This isn't true of all critical AFFs, but if the AFF is a critique of research practices, pedagogy, or orientations towards either, I am generally of the opinion that your angle vs framework should be one that posits a new model of engaging the activity/research that resolves your offense. The threshold to win an impact turn vs framework when reading an AFF about research practices tends to be difficult because it requires winning a threshold of contingent solvency that I don't think is usually achievable, or at the very least are typically poorly explained."

I don't think teams should be reading planless AFFs in the novice division.

T/Theory v Policy

If you're reading a plan it should be a topical one. I prefer competing interpretations over reasonability.

Precision + predictability > debateability

I truly believe that conditionality is good but contradicting advocacies are bad. Punish those teams by going for condo.

Trying to sneak in a 5-second ASPEC shell will result in a major speaker point decrease and going for it will warrant new 1AR answers because even if the 2AC drops your theory shell, convincing me to vote on ASPEC will require much more block elaboration that "Interp: spec your actor, ASPEC is a voter for clash and fairness."

Extra-resolutional procedures are often frivolous and should most likely lose to a predictability/I'm sorry I'll do it next round argument.

1ACs should be built to beat the 5-10 most common CPs on the topic.

Conditionality is good, contradicting advocacies are bad. PICs are good and are one of the most competitive forms of counterplans. AFFs should have to defend the entirety of the AFF.

I lean NEG on: Condo, PICs, ADV CPs, agent CPs, 50 state fiat, condition CPs

I lean AFF on: Consult CPs, International CPs, multi-actor CPs

PICs out of substance are good, word PICs are probably bad.

I'll judge kick if you tell me to.

Non-condo theory issues are 99% of the time a reason to reject the argument instead of the team. Unless there is a warranted reason to reject the team in the 2AC or a cross-application to a different flow, I will often let NEGs get away with nothing more than "reason to reject the argument, not the team.

Specific links > generics. This should be pretty obvious.

Link turns case arguments are good. Like very very good.

Evidence comparison matters. It'll make me a lot happier, give you higher speaks, and make my decision cleaner if I don't have to sift through your card doc looking for warrants that you failed to make in the 2NR.

If you go for pomo/deeper theory, I'll most likely need some explanation.

Framework debate matters more to me than most. I default to weigh the aff vs the alt, but I can be easily convinced otherwise. I think most neg framework interps and ROBs are self-serving and probably detrimental to debate. " I usually think AFFs get to weigh consequences/impacts, but you get links to discourse/rhetoric/scholarship, this is easily changed with good framework debating.

Reject the aff is not an alt. I'm not interested in voting for a K that has no coherent alternative worldview/path to action. In the 2NR I don’t think you need an alternative, but you do need to either win framework or the links should have external offense and you should have substantial case defense.

Life has value.

If you read a K that you are not well-versed in it will be incredibly obvious. This is going to make the debate hell for everyone involved and tank your speaks.

How to get good speaks:

Being kind and inclusive to everyone in the round

Clarity

Smart concessions

Sending analytics

Going for the impact turn

How to get bad speaks:

Stealing prep

Being rude

"Can I get a marked doc?" / "Can you list the cards you didn't read?" when less than three cards were marked or just because some cards were skipped on case. Flow or take prep for it.

Refusing disclosure

Trying to shake hands with me (?) weird thing to do

How to get 0 speaks + L:

Any form of bigotry including but not limited to: homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism

Clipping: I will not be reading evidence during the speech. The opposing team will need a video recording of the clipping and will need to stake the round on the violation

Lexy Yeager The Meadows School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 5:42 AM EDT

Please add me to the email chain: lexyyeager02@gmail.com

I debated at Meadows for 4 years, qualifying to the TOC my junior and senior year. I'm currently pursuing my master's of public policy at the University of Virginia and continue to stay involved in debate - I've led labs at CNDI for the past two summers.

Top level: Be nice and debate arguments you are comfortable with! I especially don't appreciate being overly aggressive/rude in rounds. Debate is hard, and everyone is trying their best - so please be respectful. Judge instruction + impact calc + not re-reading blocks in the 2nr/2ar are key to my ballot.

Theory:

- Conditionality is good (but reading 4 cp's that don’t solve or compete with the aff doesn't help the neg)

- I am more likely to buy solvency advocate theory, multiactor fiat, etc than condo bad

- Both teams should point out when interps are arbitrary

- I think cps need to be functionally and textually competitive - cps that compete off certainty/normal means are probably cheating, but it's the aff's burden to prove that

- Word PICs - Read it as a K probably solves all your offense

- If you are actually considering going for theory at the end of the debate, don't just re-read 2ac theory shells. You need to engage with and answer the other team's offense

Topicality:

- I won't be familiar with every violation on the topic - so please clearly explain your interpretation and what a year of debating looks like under your interp

- Giving a case list of unpredictable affs that the aff's interp justifies is convincing

- Impact calc is really important. Just saying "limits" or "ground" isn't enough to convince me that I should vote down the other team

- Intent to define/exclude is important, but contextual evidence is also good

Ks:

- Almost all of my 2nrs were some version of cap/neolib/militarism/ideology/postpolitics k. Given that, I think generic ks that don't engage with the aff produce some of the least educational debates

- this includes teams that just make "state bad" or "reform bad" links

- Reading a k isn't cheating - I think it is better for the aff to make arguments like "weigh impacts the aff solves v impacts the alt solves" or "consequences outweigh epistemology" on fw

- I won't vote on a perm if I don't know what it is - aff teams should explain how a perm overcomes the links rather than reading 5 perms in the 2ac that aren't explained

- Winning framework isn't enough - k teams should have specific links to the aff (whether that's their plan, advantages, etc) and an alternative that resolves their links/impacts

- The aff should never ignore good root cause debating - I think it can serve as terminal solvency deficits to the aff and a reason why the alt is better

- K debates that are very specific to the 1AC are my favorite debates to watch - but if your 2nc or 2nr could be read for multiple different affs on the topic - that's a problem

CPs

- Cps that are competitive and actually solve the aff are great

- Aff teams should extend theory on cheaty cps more often

- Strong solvency deficits o/w a small risk of a net benefit

DAs

- DAs with strong link stories and good ev are great, but spending 4 minutes on impacts doesn't make sense if there isn't an i/L (this probably means topic da > politics)

- Aff teams - cross x of the 1nc is a good time to squash laughable da's

- Defensive arguments that are executed well can take out a da - uq overwhelms the link, no i/L, aff not key, etc are all good if you explain how those outweigh the neg's arguments

K Affs:

- I'm definitely open to planless affs, but you should be able to explain what you solve (otherwise presumption args can be very compelling)

- For the aff: the biggest problem I've noticed in the past few rounds I've judged is that the 2ar just re-reads 2ac/1ar blocks in the 2ar on framework - so make sure you are actually being responsive to the 2nr. I think impact turning the neg's standards is usually a good idea.

- For the neg: I think fairness can be an impact, but you should prove that your interp gives access to the type of education the aff advocates for (that's probably more of a portable impact). You should also explain how fairness is an i/L to other benefits that are unique to debate. I haven't been too convinced when teams go for fairness as an impact on its own. TVAs are good.

- I enjoy k v k debates, but only when both teams actually engage with each other's arguments. Strong links (about method, theory, or another aspect of the 1ac) are reasons why I'm less likely to buy a perm. Otherwise every k v k debate becomes both cap and racism are bad, etc. Explain how the alternative takes a different approach to resolving both team's impacts.

Bryan Zhang Montgomery Bell Academy 4 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Peninsula Invitational

2022 — Rolling Hills Estates, CA/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

Judges