Hello! I debated at WDM Valley for 5 years and graduated in 2020.

Email: lauren7717@gmail.com

As a debater, I debated framework and theory the most, but I will vote on any argument so long as it is not blatantly rude or offensive.

Some notes:

1) I would say my least favorite type of debate to judge is LARP v LARP. Don't not read LARP because of this if that's what you want to do, but if you find that the round is becoming very LARP-dense and you can figure out a way to make it less so, it'll probably be in your best interest.

2) On that note: read tricks with discretion. If you find yourself asking "is this tricks aff too much?", then the answer is yes and I would appreciate if you didn't read it. Same thing goes for paradoxes. If you're going for a trick, explain it and please don't just assume that I know what it means. I probably do, but I also hate voting on blippy, unwarranted tricks.

3) You should read some kind of a framing mechanism and link offense back to it.

4) I'm good with whatever speed you want, but we're online at the moment so maybe consider going 85% of your regular speed.

5) I like it when rebuttals aren't read off of a doc.

6) If you think that something is an independent voter, it probably isn't. If you want to change that, warrant it! Impact it! As I said above, however, I am most comfortable voting on arguments that link back to a framing mechanism. Independent voters don't, and are thus probably not something you should depend on.

7) As long as you explain your arguments well (whatever they may be), you're probably good. You'll be even better off if you a treat your opponent nicely :)

Hey y'all! I'm Shreya and I did L.D for five years from Valley High School. I qualified to the TOC and NSDA nationals multiple times and am able to judge both circuit and traditional debate. As a debater, I primarily went for phil or K's, but also went for theory and T a decent amount too.

As a heads up, I don't flow off the doc. For the initial speeches, I'll give you a bit more leeway but if in the rebuttal speeches, you're flying through blips, don't send the analytics, and I don't catch an argument on my flow I won't vote on it. If for example, the 1AR makes a new eval after the 1AR claim and the 2AR collapses on it, even if was conceded, I won't vote there if I didn't hear it.

Add me on the email chain shreya.ananya5@gmail.com

This is a quick paradigm for Blake

I like to think that I am a pretty tab judge. I can evaluate phil, K's, theory, T, tricks (not all tricks but most), and LARP to a lesser degree.

If you have me for a performance v performance debate or a LARP v LARP debate, I'm probably not your best bet. If by the end of the debate, I have to read the evidence and intervene, something went wrong.

If an argument is conceded, but I can't articulate what it means, what the warrant is, or how it affirms/negates, I will not vote on it.

Other miscellaneous notes

Please be comprehensible

I will say slow and clear

I won't vote on eval after the 1AC or 1N

I pay attention to CX

Things that will make me sad and potentially you sad as well

1. Being mean/sketchy in CX to novices or inexperienced debaters
2. Choosing to read only off the doc for rebuttal speeches (I think inventing new arguments on your feet is a good skill to cultivate)
3. Reading an unreasonable amount of offs instead of engaging with the AC
4. Headache inducing underviews
5. Not weighing or going for new arguments in the rebuttal speeches

Please collapse in rebuttal speeches and tell me how to vote. Judge instruction makes life easier for everyone. Your rebuttals should sound a lot like my ballot. Collapse and isolate a layer, explain why you're winning that layer, and why you outweigh your opponent.

This paradigm is for lay debate but applies to circuit debate too

I'm willing to vote on any argument insofar as it is warranted and not offensive. Here's the best explanation of how I'll judge lay debate.

First, I'll look to who's winning the value/criterion debate. If one debater is winning an entire contention and its impact (ex; nuclear war) but isn't winning that consequences matter than I won't look to that offense.

Second, I'll look to who's extending their contentions or arguments throughout the round. If the 1AR drops a really good argument and then brings it back up in the 2AR I won't vote on it.

Third, I won't evaluate new arguments made in the 2AR or completely new arguments in the 2NR because that isn't fair to your opponent, they don't have a full opportunity to respond.

Fourth, I know that persuasiveness and rhetorical choices are given great importance in lay debate and while those will definitely help if you have me as a judge, know that I ultimately vote based off the flow.

Finally, be nice! Debate can already be an exclusionary space and its important that as opponents (and judges) we work to actively make it better and that starts with being kind to your opponents.

I look forward to your debate, feel free to ask me any questions!

My name is Braedon Kirkpatrick (He/Him/His). I was an LD debater for 4 years at West Des Moines Valley High School and dabbled a bit into policy. I graduated from high school in 2019 and am currently in college. If you have any further questions regarding my paradigm, need to add me to the email chain, or just need to contact me for any reason, my email is braedon-kirkpatrick@uiowa.edu.

Notes on Speaker Points:

The easiest way to get good speaks out of me is to speak/spread as clearly as you possibly can and make good args that aren't just ctrl+c, ctrl+v -ed from a pre-written massive backfile. Managing to crystalize near the end of the round will also net you high speaks.

Also, if you are debating a novice or someone new to the circuit, please make the round as inclusive and as educational as possible, as we want to include people in this activity instead of scaring them off by being overly intimidating. I will reward high speaks if you do this.

I will plummet speaker points if there is any open hostility, bigotry, excessive rudeness, and/or aggression in the round. Just remember to be kind and we will get along just fine :)

Online Debate:

- I would appreciate it if you kept at a speed that is comprehensible on online debate, as the lack of audio quality can make it so when circuit debaters spread at top speeds half of the arguments are incomprehensible, and if I can't hear it I cannot vote on it. I would also appreciate you starting slow and ramping up speed for the first 10 seconds of your speech and slowing down on taglines and author names, as it makes it easier to engage with the case.

- If you know that you have tech issues, I would appreciate you keeping a local recording so if your speech cuts out, we can retrieve the arguments that were said, otherwise I will not be able to vote on what I did not hear.

- Signposting is really important for me especially in the online debate format as in order to flow your rebuttals and extensions I have to know where they are in the first place. If you don't do this it is likely I will miss an argument or 2 while I waste time attempting to find the argument, which may affect how I judge a decision.

-I really appreciate and your opponent appreciates it when you flash your case so please do it, especially in online debate.

The Core:

I believe that debate is, at its core, a game. I am willing to vote on pretty much everything (read my paradigm for exceptions) as long as the argument is explained well and it isn't offensive. All I require is for you to tell me why you deserve the ballot. In order for me to vote for an argument you make, however, I must be able to hear it. If you indecipherably mumble a turn in the 1NR that neither I nor your opponent can hear and then blow up on how it was conceded in the 2NR, I will be far less likely to vote for it than if you clearly and distinctly read the turn. If you have some reason why you cannot do so that's completely fine just notify me before the round starts so I can better flow your arguments. If you stand or sit, read from paper or computer, wear a suit or workout clothes, spread 350 wpm or speak like a political official, it doesn't matter. All that matters to me is the quality of your arguments.

For Prefs:

I'd consider myself to be a jack of all trades, master of none when it comes to familiarity with debate strategies, as I have a good level of exposure with Ks, Framework, Tricks, LARP, etc... but did not specialize in a single type during my time as a debater.

Specific Stances:

Defaults:

- If no ROB is provided, I will default to truth testing over comparative worlds

- I assume Tech > Truth unless proven otherwise

- I assume flex prep is A-OK

-I assume Theory > ROB > Framing unless weighed otherwise

-I assume all Plans, CPs, Ks, PICS, etc... to be unconditional unless specified otherwise

-I assume plans on the AFF to be whole-res unless specified otherwise

Framework: The only issue I normally have in framework rounds is a complete lack of clash. I really don't like to vote off of embedded clash arguments as I feel it opens up the door for a lot of judge interventions, so just be specific on how your cases interact.

K's: Don't have much to say on K's, other than please be explicit in your link and on what my role as a judge is. Also note that I have to understand something to vote off of it, and while I have some good experience with different types K literature, probably best to assume I have never heard of your lit before and I don't know what kind of arguments certain authors make.

NIB's: All I ask is that you clearly speak when reading NIBs so that it is possible for me to flow and for your opponent to have a chance to respond to them. Don't forget that arguments are claim, warrant, and impact, as I need NIBS to be arguments not just claims to be able to vote on them.

Spikes: Sometimes you need a good 4 min under view. Sometimes it isn't necessary. You do you. Your speaks won't suffer if you use them. Just as a good rule of thumb, list your spikes in some fashion so that your opponent and I will be able to write them down in some recognizable form and be able to engage with them. It helps us, makes it easier to signpost for you, and gives you more credence on the validity of the spike. The only spikes that I will not evaluate are in round spikes that affect speech and prep times and spikes that have "evaluate after the 1AR or 2NR", as I do not like spikes that attempt to alter the NSDA structure of debate especially since these specific spikes make the round super messy.

Disclosure: I hate disclosure arguments as I see them usually being used against new debaters and people just coming into the circuit, but I will vote on it if nothing is read against it and there is a particularly compelling case for why. For instance, if it is an elim round and you have screenshots of your opponent being shifty 15 minutes prior to the round and lying about their case, then I would consider a disclosure argument.

Theory/T: I have no specific paradigm issues with theory except I won't "gut check" against theory args. Got to provide an argument as to why the theory is frivolous and why that is bad. If a shell is extempt, please read it slower than you normally would, as it allows for both me and your opponent to be able to respond to the violation.

Evidence Ethics: I usually just default to tournament rules for this.

LARP: Please give me clear impact calc weighing with a clear link chain, that is all.

I did speech at Lansing KS 2013-2017... no debate. I consider myself to be a lay judge. I can't keep up with spreading.

I'm a secondary English teacher in the Iowa City Community School District. I have two undergraduate degrees in English/Creative Writing and Secondary English Education from the University of Iowa.

I'm interested in politics/social justice outside of NSDA so I understand issues to a degree. But, the art of the argument itself often confuses me. I try my best to stay on top of it as I flow.

Please feel free to ask me any questions about what I'm familiar with - I won't be offended! I'm here to help you make the best argument and have a good round.

Remember to be respectful to one another! I value civility above all else. :-)

email: cr30505@gmail.com - yes, add me to the email chain. please feel free to reach out by email/fb (I'm more likely to respond on fb) if you have questions.

I debated circuit LD at WDM Valley for four years and qualified to the TOC, receiving four bids, during my senior year. I have taught at NSD Flasgship (2018,2019), NSD Philadelphia (2018,2019), and TDC (2019) and I've been coaching LD since graduating in 2018.

tl;dr - it's your round, debate it how you want to.

I will evaluate the round on the flow, everything here explains my defaults but if you make arguments as to why the round should be adjudicated in a particular way I will evaluate debate through your lens. please make the round as clear as possible - weighing is your friend, give clear overviews, justify everything, and explain. tell me the implications of your arguments.

I have the most experience with framework debate, identity K debate, and theory debate.

defaults: (this only matters if no one makes arguments to the contrary)

• epistemic confidence
• competing interps, no rvis
• theory > k > substance
• pragmatics > semantics
• truth testing > comparing worlds

misc:

• I’ll say ‘slow’ or ‘clear’ if necessary.
• I am fine with flex prep.
• I love a good framework/identity k debate, it makes my heart happy (you will probably get good speaks).
• I very much think you need an impact mechanism (a standard text, a ROB, etc.) -- otherwise, i will be left to evaluate impacts as I see fit which probably won't make you happy.
• extensions need warrants and impacts, even if you are extending a conceded argument. If you are extending a case that is conceded, it isn't sufficient to say "extend my whole case."
• if you are debating a novice or someone who lacks a lot of circuit experience, please make the round educational and inclusive. this does not necessarily mean go full-on traditional (although that's definitely fine), but it does mean don't go full speed and a bunch of offs (your speaks will go way down).
• please be ready to debate when you walk into the room – this means pre-flowing during your opponent's prep if you need to and having the AC speech doc ready to send.

theory:

• theory violations need to be verifiable. just provide screenshots please! if someone makes an i meet to an unverifiable shell with no verification (i.e. a disclosure shell without screenshots or a coin flip shell that's just word of mouth), i will default to the 'i meet' being true.
• feel free to read theory for strategic reasons (i.e. friv theory) or because there’s actual abuse.
• if you go for reasonability, please provide a brightline. if you don't provide a brightline, or provide a brightline of gut check, i will probably gut check to competing interps.

Hi! I’m Sebastian Rutkowski. I’m a sophomore at West High School in Iowa City. I’ve got 1 year of LD experience from my freshman year. The Iowa City West One Day Tournament is the first tournament I'm judging.

Novice Paradigm

If you’re reading this, you’re competing at the Iowa City West One Day Tournament as a novice. That means that I want you to debate like a novice. This tournament should be a learning experience for everyone, and it’s difficult for people to learn if they don’t understand what their opponent is doing. With that in mind, try to keep things fair and educational for your opponent. Please don’t put an emphasis on spreading (if I think you’re speaking too quickly or not clearly enough to be understood, I’ll say “clear”), theory, a prioris, kritiks, etc. While these are important parts of debate, your rounds in this tournament should exist primarily to help you and your opponent learn, and people can’t do that if they don’t understand what’s going on. Additionally, I’ll be timing your speeches, prep time, and CX time, but you should be timing yourselves, too. It’s a very important habit to get into because in the future, you’ll have to time yourself, and it’s really important to know how much time you have left.

As a novice, there are a few key elements of debate that are incredibly important for you to be successful.

• EXTEND!!! There’s a reason I wrote that in all caps. I cannot stress enough how important it is to EXTEND! That means extending both your framework and contentions. When extending, make sure to 1) respond to your opponent’s argument, 2) say “extend,” and 3) make your extension. If you don't extend an argument through all of your speeches, I cannot evaluate it, so it is SUPER important to extend.

• Signpost. Signposting is simply telling the judge what argument you’re responding to or addressing. Just tell me what the argument is, who the author of your card is, and give me a very brief summary. Signposting is really important for extending and responding because if you try to extend or respond to something without signposting it, I might not be able to understand what argument you’re even referring to. Signposting helps me to organize my flow and be able to quickly evaluate lots of different arguments.

• At its core level, the winner of the debate is whoever has the strongest impact back to the winning framework, meaning that at the end of the round, the most important thing I’ll be looking for is who had the winning framework and who had the strongest impact connecting to that framework. That means that you could lose the framework portion of the debate, but if you leverage your offense to fit under the winning framework, you could still win the round. Since this is what I’ll be voting on at a base level, make sure to keep this in mind.

If this is your first tournament (which for many of you, it may be), just keep in mind that this is a learning experience first and foremost. This was the first tournament I ever competed in, and I went into it with little to no idea of what I was doing, but because everyone else competing was in a similar position to me, I was able to learn lots of the fundamentals of debate. If you’re nervous about your rounds, just take it easy. At the end of the day, this is just a game. If you lose a round, use it as an opportunity to learn from your mistakes and improve. Take a deep breath. You’ve got this.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or anything you need to clear up, make sure to ask me before the round starts. Good luck!

I'm currently a Senior at Iowa City West. I do LD Debate, the top paradigm is LD, scroll down for other events.

I want to be on the email chain: sptho24@icstudents.org

I want to think that I will be as objective as possible in round, but here are some arguments I know better than others. That being said, I'll vote on anything if it is won, with only very few exceptions.

CX is binding and I don't flow it, but I'll pay attention

Tech >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth

EXTEND PLEASE

Shortcut (this is just my familiarity with styles, not what I will and won't vote for):

Trix - 1

Phil - 1

Theory - 1

K's - 2

LARP - 2

Non-T K affs - 2

Performance K - 3

K V K - 2/3

--------------------------------------------

Defaults:

Metatheory > Theory = T > K

Truth Testing

Presumption and Permissibility negate

Theory Voters : DTA for arguments, DTD for whole positions, Competing Interps, No RVIs (Don't make me use these please)

Note: This is just my defaults, this changes the second someone reads literally any weighing on these things

-----------------------------------------------

Note for Novices: I don't care what you run. I do want you to understand it, otherwise I won't be happy. But I will vote on tricks, K's, theory, whatever. If you are reading stuff clearly just handed to you and you don't understand it, I won't be happy and your speaks will drop. But I will still vote on it.

-----------------------------------------------

Tricks -

I'm a tricks debater, so go for it man. I think they are fun. I don't love being super sketchy in CX, you don't have to tell them every implication, but like, answer their questions truthfully. I'll boost speaks if you give a new trick I haven't seen (i.e you read a new paradox and you do understand it). The only tricks I WON'T evaluate are "eval after X" I will evaluate the whole round, I think this leads to a paradox of regression, and it's stupid. I do enjoy if you understand what you are reading. And extensions are great, please extend. Also keep in mind, the dumber the trick the lower the threshold obviously, and have warrants please.

--------------------------------------------

Phil -

I love a good phil round. I'm comfortable with most frameworks, if you're reading some really out there stuff, just explain. Frameworks I know: Rawls, Kant, Hobbes, Contracts, Libertarianism, Polls, Ripstein. (Probably more I just can't think of them). Love engaging in frameworks, and hijacks are wonderful. The main thing is explain your framework. I'm also cool if you have hidden skep triggers, but if asked in CX for them, please give them, if you try to go for one you didn't give when asked I will still evaluate it, but your speaks will drop a lot, and I am going to be easily persuaded for new responses against them if you do it. Basically, don't be shifty and don't lie.

--------------------------------------------

Theory -

I'm good for theory. No matter how frivolous. Obviously the dumber the shell the lower threshold of responses. Defaults: DTA for arguments, DTD for whole positions, C/I, No RVIs. DON'T MAKE ME DEFAULT PLEASE!!!!! If you read like 26 shells in the AC your speaks will drop (note I'll still vote on it though). I'll vote on disclosure (begrudgingly). And again, I literally don't care if it's frivolous, you win the shell you win the shell. I'm not gonna gut check unless that ends up being how it is said I have to evaluate it. Also reasonability NEEDS a brightline.

--------------------------------------------

LARP -

I'm not a larper, keep that in mind. But it's not that complicated, and I can judge it. I think it's probably the most educational for the real world, but I also think they are kinda boring. I'm cool with CPs, PICs, DAs, Plans, whatever. WEIGH. Without weighing I can't decide which impact is worse and I might default to presumption or permissibility. I'm not joking, I'm not really gonna weigh for you.

I don't know what judge kick is and to me it sounds like intervention.

Must say you're kicking something if you kick it. Not extending isn't the same as kicking

--------------------------------------------

Speed -

I can handle some speed. But as a debater I found LARPers tend to approach light speed sometimes, and so if that's you. Know if I can't understand what you say I won't flow it. I try not to flow of the doc all the time, and I'd love to not have to.

--------------------------------------------

K's -

I'm cool with stock K's (Cap, Set Col, etc).

I can do High Theory (Nieztche, Camus, Baudrillard, etc) But EXPLAIN YOUR K. I literally am not qualified at all to judge a K round without you explaining it.

K-Affs - I can judge these, didn't run them very often, but I can judge them, just explain your K and why you aren't Topical if you aren't being Topical.

K v K - I'll try, but know I'm probably not the best judge for this. I'll do my best. But I NEED a lot of instruction for this. Also how hard this is for me to evaluate depends heavily on the K's that are clashing, ie Cap K V Set Col K will be easier to evaluate than Psychoanalysis V Baudrillard.

Performance K's - I'll again try, super unexperienced with this. I need a LOT of explaining as to why your K matters, is good, and why the performance is key to the K. Again, probably better strats than this

If you kick an alt, you gotta say you kick it. Not extending isn't sufficient

Floating PIKs must be hinted at in the 1n

--------------------------------------------

Postrounding -

I'm ok with it, but I'm also a person, so don't please don't get too aggressive or anything. But please, if you think I robbed you of a win, please postround me. I think this is a good norm. However, I also reserve the right to leave if I don't feel comfortable with the post rounding.

--------------------------------------------

OTHER EVENTS

Policy

I have no clue how your event works, and I'm kinda scared to ask. I don't know your lingo, and I don't know the norms, I can't do top policy speed, please be a little slower - To be clear, I'm fine with spreading, but like more of an 8/10, keep in mind my LD background, if you make a round similar to that, I'll be really happy and your speaks might rise a little. Besides that, most of the stuff from LD applies, but like, I'll need even more judge instruction than usual. I know literally nothing about your topic or what any of the things you are talking about are. Explain what your plans and counterplans are and what they do. Otherwise it'll be hard for me to vote on it. Check the LARP section for more specifics, all that stuff applies here.

--------------------------------------------

PF

I'll treat this as basically a trad LD round, because I feel that's the best way for me to judge it. I'll do my best way to judge as I can, but do know that my LD background is a thing. NOTE: This DOES NOT mean I'm cool with circuit arguments in this style, I know that they aren't cool in PF, and running them will NOT make me happy. Judge instruct as you can, I'll do my best

--------------------------------------------

Misc

1) Please extend

2) I don't flow author names, say where you are

3) Signpost for the love of the GCB

4) If you tastefully roast an ICW varsity in LD I'll boost speaks by like +.2

If you roast ICW Quincy Tate it's like +.3

If you prove monism is true and have the line "Monism is true - I am Joe Rankin" that's like +.1 - +.3

5) Have fun, debates a game and if we aren't having fun why do we do this?

Hi, I'm a parent judge. I've been judging for a long time with a lot of debates over time, but don't consider me a highly skilled varsity debate judge. I really prefer novice debates and slower, clear speakers. I am very good at keeping an open mind and a blank slate, so tell me how to vote, carefully follow the flow and we should do just fine. Thank you!

Anjali Tripathy

She/Her/Hers

Email: anjalitr415@gmail.com

Speed + Clarity: If you're not able to read fast while being clear and enunciating your words, then don't do it. I'm fine with spreading as long as I can understand you. If you are unclear to a point where I can't make out what you're saying, I will say clear. If I say this twice in one speech and it isn't fixed, I will stop flowing the speech. I am fine with you saying clear to your opponent if you can't understand them.

- Arguments that are racist, homophobic, etc will massively dock your speaker points. If you continue making these arguments and try to justify them, it will be an automatic loss.

- I will be flowing, but please signpost so I'm able to make sure I know where you are and flow everything right.

- I prefer extensions that directly say the word "extend" so I don't have to worry about deciding whether you extended an argument or not.

- Cross ex won't be flowed, if you want an argument to carry over from CX to the round, bring it up in a speech.

Novice specifics: I would prefer a well-written, traditional case you can understand rather than one with tons of varsity terms that someone else wrote. If you don't understand your case, and you just wrote complicated things to confuse your opponent, I'll take that as a negative. I would also highly recommend using up your speech times, because otherwise your opponent will have an advantage, especially in cx.

Speaks: My speaker points are usually going to be high, avg 27.5 with a range of 25-30. I'll take off speaks if I have to say clear multiple times/can't understand you or anything offensive is said.

Times: I will usually be timing the speeches, but I expect you to be timing as well. I'm fine with going a little over time to finish a sentence or argument, but if you start introducing new arguments or go overboard I'll let you know your time is up.

I'll give feedback after each round and disclose the winner if I'm able to.

Good luck, I look forward to seeing you debate!