Mid America Cup
2021 — NSDA Campus, IA/US
Round Robins Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
TLDR (Go to Spencer Orlowski's wiki if you want to see the sweaty technical part of my paradigm) -
I'll judge a chess round
I've done congress and LD, I currently do PF.
Y'all please don't postround me I have so much hrw to do and I don't have time to argue w you.
I was a tech debator but I also did equally as much lay debate in high school. Please do not feel you have to read tech arguments, I will happily evaluate a lay debate!
1: K Debate <3
2: Policy Debate/ Non-T Ks
3: Topical Phil Debate/ Topical Tricks & Theory
4: Generic Tricks and Theory
^^^Add me to the chain if you are bad at spreading (or just don't spread)
Facebook messenger is the best way to reach me for anything out of round/pre-round.
- wearing a GOOD fit (+1)
-A WELL-DONE carti lyric reference (+1.5)
- Silly case names (+1)
- Being funny (+2)
- Challenging your opponent to a dance battle in cross and actually wasting at least 90 seconds of your round doing it (+2 points for everyone involved but I WILL time you)
Doing the following (automatic 29 at least)
- Calling something Orwellian that really isn't Orwellian
- Referencing the infinite monkey experiment
- Dropping an InfoHazard on your opp
- Interrupting someone in cross by saying "I'm really happy for you, I'ma let you finish, but"
- Walking into the room really slowly while playing "Something in the Way" and referencing The Batman in a speech
- Randomly yelling "BINGO" during your prep time (has to be YOUR prep time)
Speaker Ls - Wearing Midas Dunks
LAMDL 2017 to present (cx) (Stern 2017-19, Bravo 2020-present)
Northwood HS 2017 to 2018 (cx)
Southwestern College 2014 to 2019 (CX)
San Marino HS 2018 to 2020 (CX/LD)
Mission Vista HS 2019 to 2020 (CX/LD/PF/Parli/whatever else)
Torrey Pines HS 2020 to 2021 (LD)
YBHS 2020 to present (LD)
Boise Senior High School (LD)
I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
for lders scroll down to the ld section
Performances and K Affs: I like em. I'd prefer you have a topic link but I've voted for teams before that were blatantly not topical. Adhering to the thesis of your k aff and/or performance is important. Please don't run a Fem aff and then proceed to misgender someone in the round. It can get infuriating at times. I'd like an explanation of the theory of power of the aff coming into the 2ac that has sufficient contextualizing to whatever k the neg is reading. Just extending your aff can be okay but more contextualization so the turns/alt debate can be cleaner is always preferred. Just because you run a K aff doesn't mean I'll vote for you though. I find pomo k affs to be harder to evaluate compared to others but if fleshed out during the round, I'll vote for it. Run your poem. Run your narrative. Run your music. Run your 15 card k aff dump. Whatever. just make sure it makes sense and I'll try my best to evaluate it as I would other positions
Framework T: Def run it. My personal preference runs more on the line that the aff must be able to defend their model of debate. If they decide excluding portions of the resolution within their position is a good thing, but can't defend that, they probably don't deserve the ballot. I lean more on epis impx and see procedural fairness as an internal link to something else but I'll default to whatever the debaters tell me and only intervene in that regard if no one wins the argument.
Having a case list of negs you can run and cannot run and why they're good or bad is convincing. Having a story around aff limits and why they matter in the context of the debate and your impacts matter. buzz words and blocks won't be enough. really explain it to me so I have a clear area I can circle on my flow (well put ** on my excel sheet) that I can pull the trigger on. FYI. TVA without a clear plantext with advantages and a solvency story is not sufficient to win that argument. Referencing other schools' affs also prob won't help you since I could care less about what most affs are and i'm not going to do extra research during rfd time to look up at the wiki. If it's important enough to reference, you can tell me how the tva functions to solve/allow for good ground for both sides of the debate. shrug.
Topicality: Go for it. I err on competing interps and have voted for wonky T's and aff's answers to t. Reasonability with really good warrants can also convince but i'd rather not vote on if it I can help it. Your interps need to be carded. I'm done with aff debaters who have counter interps that are not backed up by data. If you read that and the neg doesn't concede the we meet, you'll prob never get the ballot. As a side not for ld, please slow a bit down when ur on this flow as most debates centered on T are very light on cards and heavy on spreading and flowing analytics for minutes on end can be difficult. I'm not looking at the doc so if I miss a blippy arg that you go for? ooops.
Kritiks: I think K's are a good thing. I think running kritiques as a way to educate not only yourself but those around you is a good thing. Spend time during cx or the block (2nr in ld) to really develop a well articulated link story. Too many times the 1nc will just read generic link cards and never really give me portions of the aff that fit into those links and why they bite the theory of power. That's bad. If I can't see how the aff links, 0 chance will I vote on a K. If you're going 1 off K, please add framework. I'm okay with not evaluating the aff if they lead to a bad for debating. In that regard I think affs underutilized the potential spin they can use in order to have access to all portions of the aff.
Floating piks are probably bad. vague alts that shift between one speech and the next are probably bad. call it out please.
Perms are good. Running the K conditionally with a ROB is probably bad esp if you kick out of the K and there's a random link turn or perm argument coming out of the aff...
CP: I like counterplans. I err neg on condo theory to a degree unless the amount of conditional advocacies gets to the point the aff is forced to double turn themselves in order to answer all those off cases. I can be convinced to vote aff easily once the abuse occurs. But if the advocacies are fine with each other, then you're gtg. If no abuse and debate comes down to condo, I can pull the trigger for the aff, they just need to win the tech. I dislike multiplank cps but ld has been heavily leaning towards billions of planks so whatever. Run your abusive counterplans. adv cps are good. pics are generally good. private actor cps and the like are probably bad.
If you drop the perm. You'll probably lose. There's no excuse. don't drop it.
Prefer the Disad/NB be on another flow as it keeps my flows a little cleaner and allows the neg to be able to pivot out of the cp and go for the disad vs the case.
DA: Use it. the more the merrier. can't be conditional if you run 6 disads, right? keep your story on how the disad turns and out weighs case and you're good. problem for me on voting for disads has usually been the impact calc debate. some debates just get messy and I don't know how the impacts of the disad vs the aff work. At that point I'm sorta lost and will have to spend time being grumpy to try to clear the picture up as much as I can. I love good UQ debates. links and internal link debates, impact turns (to a degree). This is an election year so I know everyone will be running the presidential elections disad as well as some senate elections disads. That's fine. Just please keep your internal link chain concise. If the internal links are dubious at best to get to a terminal impact, my threshold for the aff answering it will likely be low.
Case debate: Go for a dropped case turn. So many debates could be resolved very quickly if the Neg would only look at the conceded case turns and solvency deficits and just go for it. In that same sense. Defend your case. If the neg undercovers case, what does that mean as a whole for the debate? If you solve the impx coming out of the 1nc... it should do so some interesting things in relation to other positions, right? ?
Online Debate: I have amazing hardware now for online debate. That doesn't mean everyone does though. If possible please don't go as fast as humanly possible because debate platforms are still limited on how clear communications can be. Coupled that with being in a panel with observers, it's even more important to think about access for the community and competitors/judges.
If the speech cuts out due to internet issues, depending on the length, I will either have you restart from that spot you cut off or will ask what you said (if less than 5-10 seconds). I trust that the people I'm judging will not do ethically questionable actions because of the online format. My tech is good enough that unless you're internet suddenly cuts off, I will be able to keep track through most of it and if I find out you're lying to me or the competitor about what you said, a 25/L will be in the future. I put my trust in the debaters I judge. Don't abuse it.
For LD debaters:
I coach a trad lder as well so I get how it works. Just do you and lets have a fun round.
On a mutual pref sheet this is how I would pref me.
1: Larp V K, K v T/fw +
2: larp v larp. K v K
3: phil, heavy theory debaters and heavy T debates
4: Pomo K's that look like gibberish to me
5: spark, overpop, death good, nebel, trix
update for the sept/oct topic: my threshold on theory vs cheaty counterplans is pretty low. keep that in mind.
Enunciate your claims and slow down a bit so I can actually flow it. When half the constructive is literally just analytics and you're 300+ wpm... that's lit unflowable and I'm not going to the docs to resolve that. If you lose because it's not on my flow? Shrug. Don't care.
Jasmine Stidham "You have the power to stop Nebel t in this activity" Mission accepted.
NO NEBEL. THE 1AR JUST HAS TO SAY "NO" AND WE ARE DONE ON THAT FLOW.
yes 1ar theory. no rvis.
Aff's are capped at 29.2 if they include underview theory about why they get rvis and 1ar stuff.
I prefer a substantive debate with 3-4 off to something like 13 off. I'll flow you regardless but I reserve the right roast you.
Tricks are not a viable strat in front of me. Not voting for it.
Theory is good if it isn't a blippy mess. Just saying a team is "condo" and they should lose without an interp, and why condo is problematic will not get you a ballot.
Lastly, please be nice to each other. LD is such a short event that to there's really no point to get toxic from 2 cx's. If the round gets toxic. Whoever initiated the toxicity will not be able to receive anything higher than a 27.5.
TOC CONFLICTS: American Heritage, Plano East, Princeton ML, Basis SK, North Valley JS, Perry JA (no relation), and ACCS JM. I don’t actively coach the vast majority of people on this list.
I'm Perry and I debated for AHS in Florida where I got to the Semis of the TOC, won an Octos and Quarters bid, and placed at a bunch of random tournaments. I now go to Bates where I do APDA and am relatively uninvolved in Circuit LD. I haven’t judged a lot this year so please be as clear as possible, I won’t pretend to flow incoherent mumbling just because you emailed me the doc.
As a debater I mainly read Phil, Tricks, and Theory but also dabbled in Postmodernism and Reps Ks. I have some experience and feel comfortable evaluating Identity Politics and Policy arguments, but I read these the least.
This paradigm is pretty long but the short version is I will vote on anything if it is won, but I am more familiar with “east coast” arguments.
I care a lot about non-intervention and making decisions based on the flow. I believe that you need to extend offense and won’t vote on blatantly new arguments, even if the 2ar doesn’t call them out.
I am extremely unpersuaded by rhetorical appeals to disregard the flow or ignore “silly arguments”, if you think an argument is stupid and bad just read theory or respond to it.
I think a lot of arguments people read lack internal links and real warrants. No warrant is a fantastic and incredibly persuasive response if you explain why, it presupposes some underlying assertion.
This is my favorite type of debate and I am very sad that it seems to be dying. I think Phil positions are very strategic and enjoy these rounds a lot, especially when it's something other than Kant or Hobbes vs Util.
Phil positions should have syllogisms, spamming random impact justified blippy warrants is not a great strategy.
I think case turns and hijacks are very underutilized and fun against these positions
Reading unique positions or going NC-AC well will result in very high speaks.
I anticipate judging a lot of these debates due to my reputation. Done well, they are very funny and somewhat educational. Unfortunately, these arguments are often poorly executed and messy.
Substantive tricks which apply descriptive philosophy to the topic in a cool way are probably my favorite arguments in debate. For example, free will burdens on the drugs topic, moral objectivity on drones, nuclear-half lives version of Zeno's paradox etc.
I am also a big fan of metaphysics arguments like Skep, Monism, Emotivism, Etc. I really really love Skep, and it was my go to NC whenever the judge would vote on it.
I also love creative framework tricks such as skep triggers and contingent standards (Automatic 30 if you trigger a contingent standard other than skep).
Aprioris are also fun and strategic. However, I definitely lean towards the ones either based in generic logical proofs with actual warrants (like condo logic or indexicals) or creative interpretations of the topic (can’t expose confidential sources identity, because identity doesn’t exist).
I absolutely abhor the trend of the neg intentionally misdefining the resolution to make it incoherent. All your opponent needs to do to respond to these is point out that “Words have different meanings listed in dictionaries, which are contextual to the sentence they are used in”. The NSDA did not intend “Space” to refer to the bar on your computer or “Health” to refer to a town in Wales. Wasting your time reading these is an insult to my, your opponents’, and your own intelligence.
I feel similarly with theory spikes. I love creative and warranted spikes (even if they are stupid) like can’t read both ROB and FWK, all neg interps are counterinterps, etc. I generally dislike spikes that mean the aff automatically wins if they are dropped like “evaluate the debate after the 1AC”. This is not because these arguments are abusive, but because they often lack warrants altogether and are some version of “Affirming was 0.1% percent harder at 2013 novice Blue Key so I get to win the round, chop my opponents arm off, and steal the judges car”. If you must read side bias arguments, then please contextualize and weigh what they actually mean for the debate and don’t just assume that they magically make things happen.
I think truth testing is true and the judge is an impartial adjudicator. That being said, I will not hack for it and will vote for alternative ROBS (whether they be critical or comparative worlds if they are won). I have dropped tricks affs to Pess K’s and Policy NC’s and will continue to do so if you win the round.
I think that debaters responding to tricks should generally try to do a few things:
1] Read some kind of ROB/Theory impact exclusion argument
2] Try to open up multiple layers (like reps or theory) so you don’t lose the round based on a 1NC drop and
3] Take an all or nothing approach to responding to different layers of the Tricks debate. Line by lining 14 aprioris is pointless if you drop 1. Make sure you are strategically prioritizing what arguments you respond too.
I am happy to vote on these arguments, but this is probably the type of debate I know the least about. That being said, most of these arguments are also very intuitive and don’t require me to have read 1000 pages of theory to understand them.
I have literally 0 topic knowledge, so err on the side of over explanation with topic lit.
I also really enjoy creative plans, PICS, and counterplans. I am not the biggest fan of advantage counterplans, but will vote on them.
Judge kick is literally incoherent nonsense. Unless you explicitly warrant it with theory arguments in the 1nc, I will not kick conditional arguments for you.
I love wild impact turns like SPARK, Warming Good, Wipeout, ECT.
Please for the love of god do weighing. These rounds are almost irresolvable if neither debater does weighing. Do link and impact comparison, do not just assert that something bad happens and pretend your opponent doesn’t exist.
I went for these more than my reputation suggested (something like 50% of my 2nrs my senior year went for Ks) but I am not super well versed in the intricacies of K debate.
If you are reading something besides a common K (Afropess, Set Col, Cap) or something I have background knowledge of (Nietzsche, Buddhism, Baudrillard) err heavily on the side of over-explanation.
I think that 1AR’s often fail to respond to K’s properly and end up just spamming generics that the 2nr has blocked out. Case outweighs is a great argument, but actually engaging massively increases your chance of winning.
Conversely, I am a terrible judge for K debaters who wish LD was a speech event. If you are really good at using ethosy overviews to strategically exclude arguments, winning warranted reps voters and impact turns, and simplifying the debate, I am a relatively decent judge for you. If you want to call every response your opponent makes violent for no reason, don’t provide warrants, and tell me to actively ignore the flow, then please strike me.
I am happy to vote on non-T affs but the aff should actively do something and link offense to the role of the ballot. This doesn’t mean you need to make change in the IRL debate space, just that you need to actually defend an unique theory of power or survival strategy that advocates change. I am unlikely to be persuaded by affs where the ROB and advocacy are identical variations of “X kind of oppression is bad”.
Similarly, K’s are much better if they have actual links into the aff or the aff’s framing. Three card K’s which basically just assert “every theory besides this K is bad and wrong” (looking at you Edelman) are not good arguments. I will vote on them, but I just think they are pretty bad.
I really enjoy K tricks when they are deployed strategically. Floating PICs are absurdly abusive, but very funny and pretty strategic.
I have been on both sides of this debate, and am pretty agnostic on if the aff needs to defend a policy or not.
I think the negs often underutilize policy making good/education/TVA collapses. That being said, fairness first is a great argument that affs often undercover.
Affs don’t need to read a counter interp (though this is cool and strategic), but they should establish a framing mechanism for weighing impacts. I genuinely have no idea how to evaluate impact turns if you just spam them, and never articulate why they are voting issues.
These debates often devolve into chicken or the egg comparisons between accessibility and fairness, and if fairness is a constraint on evaluating aff impacts. You have the best chance of winning if you make this layer very clear.
I really enjoy these debates when they are done well. This means that you should be weighing voters, standards, paradigm issues, etc.
I have a very low bar for frivolous theory compared to other judges and will vote on pretty much anything if you win it.
Reasonability is heavily underutilized in these debates and is likely a better response to shells relying on the risk of marginal abuse than bad counterinterps. I think a brightline of structural abuse is very persuasive as a lot of shells are really just complaints about how the aff or neg makes debate harder.
To shamelessly lift a part of Scopa’s paradigm, “for counter interps “converse of the interp” is not sufficient, if your opponent says “idk what the converse is so I can’t be held to the norm” I will buy that argument, just actually come up with a counter interp.”
I do not like frivolous disclosure theory. If your opponent refuses to disclose altogether go ahead and read the shell. However, I strongly believe that arguments like “must disclose analytics” “must disclose round reports” and “new affs bad” are terrible for debate and set bad norms. I will still vote on them, but you will not get good speaks.
I think these debates are interesting and will happily vote on T.
I find semantics impacts much more persuasive than most judges. It is unclear to me why the fact that I can ignore the resolution means I should. I could refuse to evaluate the 2ar too if I wanted. Pragmatics standards need to justify why non-textual interpretations of the resolution are better.
I think T is especially persuasive against plan affs that just blatantly affirm a policy that is very different from the resolution. I genuinely don’t understand how some people can militantly “defend truth and justice” by reading T framework against every non-topical aff and proceed to read plans with less to do with the topic than said K affs.
Updated 6/23/22 for Summer Update
Hi everyone! I’m Holden (He/They)
Jack C. Hays '20, The University of North Texas ’23 (Go Mean Green)
Please put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Most of this paradigm is geared towards LD, anything specific to other debate events will be near the end
The short version:
I truly do not have an issue in what style of debate you decide to partake in, I am dogmatic against dogmatism as I think it is a bad model of debate. That being said, I prefer debates not end up being very theory shell heavy (despite what my judging history might suggest otherwise. This is not to say that I will not vote for whatever shell you decide to run (barring some caveats that are mentioned below), but rather I would much rather judge debates that are centered around substance (namely a da/cp, a k, or an nc). Despite that, I have voted for just about every argument under the sun. Bad arguments exist, and I dislike them, but the onus is on you for calling out and explaining why those arguments are bad.
Respect your opponents pronouns or else. I have no tolerance for individuals not taking the time to respect people's personhood. You get one chance, with your speaks being docked that one time. If you do it again after that, then my ballot is gone even if there is no argument made. With that in mind, I am also extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells.
If a round gets to the point where it is no longer healthy or safe for the debate to keep going, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know. I try my best to be cognizant but I am imperfect and may miss something, it is my job as an educator to make sure that a round and debate is as safe and accessible is possible so I take these situations very seriously.
Yes speed, but clarity is important as well
For your pref sheets:
Clash debates (k v k, k v phil, k v policy, policy v phil, etc.) – 1
K – 1
Policy – 1
Phil – 1
T/Theory – 1/2
Tricks – 3
Trad – 4/Strike
I’m serious about these rankings, I value execution over content. I am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.
In terms of ideology, I’m a lot like Patrick Fox, so you can pref me pretty closely with how you pref him.
Triggers – please refrain from reading anything with in depth discussions of anxiety, depression, or suicide that way I can adequately access and evaluate the round. Please give trigger warnings so that debate remains a place in which everyone can participate.
I flow on my laptop, I would put me at a 8-8.5/10 in terms of speed. Just be clear, slow down on tags and analytics a little please
The long version:
Who the hell is this dude who I/my coach preffed?
Hi, I'm Holden! I did LD and policy throughout high school, I wasn't too involved with the national circuit because of financial constraints but I did well at a few big tournaments during my high school career. I now attend the University of North Texas, where I study psychology and philosophy. In addition, I compete in NFA-LD (literally a one person policy event), I have had some moderate success (qualified for and made it to octafinals of the national tournament). I currently coach and judge national circuit LD, where I have judged 400 debates since 2020. In addition, I have coached students to several bids, bid rounds, speaker awards, and late elims of national tournaments (including elims of the TOC).
Nowadays, most of my research is on the k side of the argument spectrum. However, I often say that politics updates are my catharsis, and have cut and coached students to go for arguments in every style of debate. This includes theory, policy, tricks, phil, and kritikal positions.
Call me Holden or judge (I prefer Holden, and judge will also do). Anything more formal (Mr. Bukowsky, Sir, etc.) makes me uncomfortable, and may result in your speaks being docked.
Conflicts: Jack C. Hays (my alma mater). I currently coach Los Altos BF, Perry JA, San Mateo AS and ZS, Sidwell SW, and Westlake AK
I have been previously affiliated with: Lynbrook, Plano West AW, and Village JN.
What does Holden think of debate?
Debate is a game with educational implications. I love this activity very much, and take my role in it very seriously. I think it is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I am not very ideological in a way that translates to how I evaluate the debate (barring some exceptions) because it's not my place to determine what is a valid argument and what is not. That means please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability, and I will do my best to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible (granted that violent or warrantless arguments are exceptions). As such, I consider there to be two concrete rules of debate - 1. I must choose a winner and a rules, and 2. speech times are set in stone. Any preferences I may should not matter if you make the argument for me, if I have to default to something then that means that you did not do your job.
What does Holden like?
I like good debates. If you execute your arguments well, then I will be impressed.
I like debates that require little intervention, make my job easy for me please I hate thinking.
I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this means labeling arguments (for example, giving arguments names, or doing organization like "1, 2, 3, a point, b point, c point, etc.), I can't vote for you if I don't know what the heck the complete argument is so making sure I can understand you is key
I like debaters that collapse in their final speeches, it makes nice room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.
I like it when I am given some kind of framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can take place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, impact calc, fairness v education, a meta ethic, I don't care. Just give me something to determine what the highest layer/impact should be
To summarize the way I feel about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does a excellent job at it, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, fair, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."
What does Holden dislike?
I dislike anything that is the opposite of above.
I dislike when people make problematic arguments.
I dislike when debaters engage in exclusionary practices.
I dislike unclear spreading.
I dislike messy debates with little work done to resolve them.
I dislike when people go "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."
I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, I don't care just tell me that you're taking it.
I dislike when people are exclusionary to novices, I am very much in the trial by fire camp but you shouldn't throw someone into a volcano. Yes, you can spread, run disads, counterplan, k's, and even phil as long as your explanations are accessible and in good faith. But theory and tricks is a no go and you WILL get your speaks tanked.
How has Holden voted?
Across all of my time as a judge, I have judged 413 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 54% of the time.
My average speaks for the 2021-2022 season have been 28.57, across my entire time judging they are at 28.51
I have been apart of 94 panels, of those I have sat exactly 10 times.
What will Holden never vote on?
Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.)
Arguments that say oppression is good.
Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.
Yes, I think these are cool, defend something and have a counter-interp that substantively does something in relation to maybe limiting the topic? I am increasingly becoming convinced that there should be some stasis for debate, I think that having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers more persuasive and makes me happier to vote for you
Presumption is underrated, most affs don't do anything and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should make sure to utilize that.
For those negating these affs, I think that the case page is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the 2NR develops a really good piece of offense from the case page then the debate becomes much easier for you to win.
Innovation is appreciated, I swear I've heard the same two or three affs twenty times each. If your take on a literature base is interesting, innovative, AND is something I haven't heard this year then you will most definitely get higher speaks
Framework isn't capital T true, but it also isn't an automatic act of violence. I find myself neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I do think that the resolution should be a starting point for the debate. How you interpret that is up to you
I am of the opinion that most framework debates take place on an impact level, with the internal link to those impacts most of the time never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.
I have voted on straight up impact turns before, and I have also voted on fairness as an impact, I think that the onus is on you to explain and flesh your arguments in a way that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging in the specific warrants of disads to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is often little to no engagement by either side in the debate
Counter-interps are more persuasive to me, and I think are underutilized, counter-interps that are well thought out and have good explanation of what your model of debate looks like does wonders
In terms of impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills
If you are going for fairness and your explanation is "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate their arguments so hack against them" 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose. If you have an explanation of fairness in relation to giving telos to debate, then I'm game for it (pun unintended)
Topicality (Theory is it’s own Monster):
I love T debates, absolutely some of my favorite. I think they've gotten a bad rep over the past four or five years because of the bare plurals stuff *shudders*, but interps that are based on words/phrases of the resolution and are gone for well will make me incredibly happy
My normal defaults for these debates are:
- Competing Interps
- Drop the debater
- No RVI's
Reasonability is about your counter-interp not your aff, people need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory shells
Arbitrary counter-interps such as "your interp plus my aff" are cringe and you are better served going for a more substantive argument
For all that is holy get over Nebel T and run topic contextual interps, I've heard the same limits v pics debate about 40 times and I'm tired of it
Slow down for me a bit in these debates, I can flow pretty well but T is monster in terms of how many warrants/separate arguments you're spewing out so give me typing time please
You need to read voters, some standards are impacts on their own (precision comes to mind) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits is an independent impact sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad
Weigh your internal links please and thank you
Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:
- Shells about the appearance and clothing of another debaters
- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this
Counterplan theory, here are my defaults:
- Counterplans with a solvency advocate, no matter what type they are = good
- PICs = good
- Process CP's = good
- Consult CP's = bad
- States CP's = good
- Actor/Agent CP's = good
Condo is good, but my leniency in LD goes down if there are more than 3 advocacies, more than 4 in policy
Contrary to my reputation of not liking policy arguments, I do quite a bit of research on the policy side of the argument spectrum and have cut large affs before. I love a good disad and case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. In my time in college debate, I read a plan about 75% of the time of my affs rounds and I went for policy arguments around 50% of the time in my neg rounds (gasp! Holden knows how counterplans work?). One of my favorite 2NR's to give is one on a disad and circumvention, I think it's great and really rewards good research quality
I reward good evidence, if you cite a piece of evidence as part of your warrant for a argument and it's not good/underwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that it often acts as a tiebreaker
I really appreciate judge instruction, how should I frame a piece of evidence, what comes first, I think that telling me what to do and how to decide debates makes your life and my job much easier
I enjoy really well researched process counterplans. Absolutely makes me smile when the evidence is topic specific, and has great solvency advocates.
Yes judgekick, but make an argument for it please
Explain what the permutation looks like, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you
For affs, having well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts is much preferred than the shot gun 7 impact strategy
Explanation of the DA turning case matters a lot to me, explain it please
A note on non-black engagement with afropessimism, I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. This also means that if you are disingenuous to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I'm feeling. This is your first and final warning.
This is where most of my research and thoughts are these days. I will most likely be good for whatever literature base you are reading, and have a very decent amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I have most likely judged or read the literature you are going for sometime in my years in debate, so feel free to read anything, just be able to explain it.
My ideal k 1nc will have 2-3 links contextual to the aff (one of which is a topic link), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.
I have found recently that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how that interacts with the affirmative and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alt does, your chances of getting my ballot go down. I find that examples from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense you're going for in relation to the alternative/the permutation, you should also explain the perm in the first responsive speech
I would very much prefer that you introduce an interesting new argument than recycle the same aff or the same 1NC you've been running for 2 years. At least update your cards every once in a while.
Don't run a k just because you think I'll like it, bad k debates make for some of the worst speaks I've given all year
K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC please so they can be floating
For you nerds that wanna know, the literature bases I know pretty well are: basic Cap literature, Security, Reps K's, Afro-pessimism Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Scranton/Eco-pessimism, and Settler Colonialism
The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Agamben, Cybernetics, Psychoanalysis, Queer-pessimism, Grove, Puar
I can judge these debates, and have coached debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not. I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again with little to no innovation. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1NC don't expect me to be happy about the debate. Carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am"
Slow down on your long underviews, yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory arguments like they're card text. Go at like 70% your normal speed in these situations
Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether or not I feel like evaluating them. This extends to disclosure practices.
Tricks versus identity-based affirmatives is violent, and bad. Stop it.
I love these debates! I find phil a really interesting part of debate that often goes unexplored. That being said, I prefer well developed syllogisms with pieces of evidence over analytical dumps, I find that analytical syllogisms are often spammy with extremely underdeveloped warrants.
Parts of your syllogisms should at least hint at what their impact is. I think that this becomes even more essential in later speeches where you should collapse and impact 1-2 justifications along with weighing
In phil v phil debates, both sides need to be able to explain their ethic more. These debates can either be super informational, or super messy, and I would prefer that they be the former rather than the latter. Explanation, clear engagement, and weighing is the way to my ballot in these debates
Hijacks are great! Just explain them well since they're often pretty complicated and I can't really understand the warrant if it's less than 10 seconds long
Please slow down a bit in these debates, they ore often very fast, technical, and blippy and I can only flow so fast
For those that are wondering, here are the literature bases I know pretty well: Locke, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Kant, Deleuze, Hume, Descartes, Nietzsche, Berkeley, Leibniz, and Spinoza
I know these literature bases somewhat: Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Moral Particularism, and Constitutionality
I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with deleuze ethical frameworks, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe a moral claim but makes a structural one which means that it doesn't make too much logical sense to force the literature to make an ethical claim.
- Comparative worlds > truth testing
- Permissibility negates > affirms
- Presumption negates > affirms
- Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty
Since these are becoming increasingly read in front of me, and are becoming a separate argument in debate, I thought they deserved their own section. I think that these are good arguments when executed well. That being said, I think that for these to be won, you need to win either some meta level framing (such as accessibility first) or linking it to an ethical framework. I often have to ask myself “should I abandon the flow if I think that this is violent” and here is the litmus test for how I will determine to abandon the flow, I will:
1. See if you won the flow proper to see if I can avoid intervening
2. If you did not win the flow proper, I will see if the action in question is a legitimate question of violence in the debate space, your explanation may help, your explanation may not. As much as your 2AR ethos may be good, if I do not think that this situation is an act of violence with reasonable malicious intent, then I will not abandon the flow. A few instances in which I will abandon the flow can be: misgendering, dead-naming, some sort of maliciously intended argument meant to exclude individuals from debate
This is not to say I won’t abandon the flow, but I feel like there has to be some outline for how I can reconcile this, or else this would justify me becoming increasingly interventionist for littler reasons which I think is a horrible model of debate.
Yes, I can judge this. But I often time find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. I think that given the people that pref me most of the time, it will be in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, both for your sake and mine.
I would much prefer these debates be executed as a shell rather than having the round staked on them. I hate adjudicating these debates because a. They deprive me of a substantive round and b. Are normally a cheap shot by an opposing debater. As such, if you stake the round on evidence ethics this will be the procedure for which things will go down: 1. I will look into the evidence that is in question 2. Compare it to the claim/violation that is being presented 3. Utilize the rules for which the tournament is using (NSDA, NDCA, etc.) to determine whether or not it is a violation 4. Check with the debater if they are sure they want this to be a drop the debater issue, or to drop the evidence. If it is a violation, then I will drop the person who committed such with 25 speaks if it's a drop the debater issue, if it's not drop the debater then I will not evaluate the evidence and we can debate as normal. If it is not a violation, then I will drop the accuser with 25 speaks if it's a drop the debater issue, if it's not drop the debater then your speaks will be capped at a 28.
Here is what I consider evidence ethics violations in the absence of guidance: 1. If the author concludes in opposition of what is cited 2. If worlds are deleted or inserted in the middle of a sentence 3. If a debater misrepresented what the author says
For the policy kids-
- I judge circuit LD a lot (and I mean A LOT), on there I judge nothing but T, cp/da, and k debates. I can handle speed, and I will understand the intricacies of whatever argument you want to run
- Sign post please
- Weighing early is how you get my ballot (best case scenario is starting in the 2AC)
- Yes open cross
- Yes K-Aff's
- Yes T-FW
- Fairness is an internal link and not an impact
- in terms of pref ratings:
Any sort of clash debates (both policy aff v the k, and k aff v t-fwk) - 1
K v K - 1
Pure policy rounds - 2
An addendum to how I dish out my speaks, any additional speaker points you get via my challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to earn/work for
Across over 100+ prelims at bid tournaments, I have averaged at a 28.45 in terms of speaks, which means I'm not necessarily a speaks fairy or stingy
A 30 is very hard to achieve in front of me, and the only ones I have given out is because of the utilization of the challenges
I don't evaluate "give me x amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad utilize the ways to get extra speaks I have below
They're adjusted according to the tournament, but here's a general scale -
29.6+ Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament
29.1-29.5 Great round, you should be in mid to late elims
28.6-29 You should break or make the bubble at least
28.1-28.5 About middle of the pool
27.6-28 You got some stuff to work on
27-27.5 You got a lot of stuff to work on
Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it
Challenges (Max up to 1 point):
- Come into the room and shout "rev up those fryers" loud enough for people outside the room to hear = +.3
- If you send pictures of your cute pets in the doc, +.3 (no snakes please, I have a phobia of them and this will get your speaks docked half a point)
Other ways to just boost your speaks:
- Be pleasant (not in the artificial "hi judge how are you doing" way, but like just be vibey i guess??)
- Humor inserted into your speeches in an organic way
- Good strategic choices that make my job easier
If you have anymore questions about my paradigm, please don't be afraid to email me or ask me in the room.
Random Sliding Scales that I think are Fun (Stolen from Patrick Fox)
Voting for policy----X----Voting for the K
Researching/coaching policy-------X---Researching/coaching the K
Good evidence-X---------Bad evidence + spin
Will read ev without being told------X----Tell me what to read
Asking "did you read X card"-------X--- Learn to flow or run prep/CX for this
Yes RVIs-------X---No RVIs
Fairness is definitely an impact-------X---Fairness is definitely not an impact
Alternatives/K affs should solve things or lose--X--------Alternatives/K affs can not solve things and not lose
"It's pre-fiat"--------X--Actual arguments that mean things
Debate good---X-------Debate bad (the activity)
Debate good-------X---Debate bad (the community)
Creative, alternative models of the topic + offense---X-------Impact turn everything vs framework
Yes ur Baudrillard/Kant-X---------Not ur Baudrillard/Kant
Feelings and jokes--X--------Debate robots
Mime-like expressiveness---X-------Statue-like poker face
Assume I understand the things--------X--Assume I do not understand the things
Speaker point fairy------X----Speaker point goblin
LD should be like policy-------X---(Some) LD stuff is cool
Capitalism----------X( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Bakersfield High School class of 2017
Cal State Fullerton Class of 2021
2x NDT Qualifier
NDT Quarterfinalist - 2021
CEDA Semifinalist - 2021
Damien HS Assistant Debate Coach Fall 2022-Present
Stockdale High School Debate Coach 2019-Spring 2022
Cal State Fullerton Assistant Debate Coach Fall 2021-Present
Previously Coached by: Lee Thach, LaToya Green, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Max Bugrov, Anthony Joseph, and Travis Cochran
If there is an email chain I would like to be on it: (if you could put both of these emails on the email chain)
College: firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
HS: firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
If you have any questions feel free to email me
Dont call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Jared
I did four years of policy debate in high school mostly debating on a regional circuit and did not compete nationally till my junior and senior year, debated at Cal State Fullerton (2017-2021)
New for 2021-2022:
Mostly going to be in the HS scene this year, I would say I have done quite a bit of research on the topic so I should know what most things are. For the college topic I will be cutting cards for CSUF CW and its mostly neg link cards and prepping against the policy affs so I should have some semblance of what the aff is saying.
Water topic: 50
K: Love the K, this is where i spent more of the time in my debate and now coaching career, I think I have an understanding of generally every K, in college, I mostly read Afro-Pessimism/Gillespie, but other areas of literature I am familiar with cap, cybernetics, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, Moten/Afro-Optimism, Afro-Futurism, arguments in queer and gender studies, whatever the K is I should have somewhat a basic understanding of it. I think that to sufficiently win the K, I often think that it is won and lost on the link debate, because smart 2Ns that rehiglight 1AC cards and use their link to impact turn of internal link turn the aff will 9/10 win my ballot. Most def uping your speaker points if you rehighlight the other teams cards.
For Critical Affirmatives: I like them, in college and in high school I have read them if you're going to read them though I need a clear understanding of the method that is the most important to me. I find that most K affs lose their method throughout the debate and most times I usually end up voting on presumption because I am not sure what the aff does. I think as ive gotten older this is really true and I really hate it when the aff doesn't have any tangible examples of what their method looks like to hang my hat on which is how i feel that alt/aff methods are won.
K affs VS Framework: I think that the aff in these debates always needs to have a role of the negative, because a lot of you K affs out their solve all of these things and its written really well but you say something most times that is non-controversal and that gets you in trouble which means its tough for you to win a fw debate when there is no role for the negative. In terms of like counter interp vs impact turn style of 2AC vs fw I dont really have a preference but i think you at some point need to have a decent counter interp to solve your impact turns to fw. If you go for the like w/m kind of business i think you can def win this but i think fw teams are prepared for this debate more than the impact turn debate
Plan Based Affirmatives: For teams in HS, some of you are not reading a different aff against K teams and I think you should, it puts you in a good place to beat the K, I have seen some teams do it on the water topic but for the most part you are just reading your big stick policy aff against K teams. I enjoy judging the heg good aff vs 7 off debate, policy aff you do you.
Framework: Yall need to go for what is the role of the negative (RotN) to me I think this is more persuasive than like any type of fairness argument because really RotN is the internal link to any impact argument you are going to make and it means that all of their offense that they are going to go for about their education being better and why your model is bad its all internal link turned by making the arg that they dont have a role for the negative so their revolutionary testing doesnt matter with out a RotN
DA: 1NR on disads have become card dumps and i hate it, explanation is better than just reading a ton of cards like yes read your uq cards on politics but use your link evidence to have a deep explanation of the link. The more specific the disad the better which is not to say i hate the politics disad brovero was my lab leader and drilled me on the ptx disad but I do enjoy the politics throwdown
CP: kind of the same notes for disads the more specific the better, planks are not conditional, condo most of the times is probably good, unless is like 4 or more
1. Clash of Civs are my favorite type of debates.
2. I will vote on death good
3. Counterplan should not have conditional planks -theory debates are good when people are not just reading blocks - that being said - theory cheap shots are not always persuasive to me but given they are warranted and isolate a clear violation then it means you probably win the debate
4. Who controls uniqueness - that come 1st
5. on T most times default to reasonability
6. Clash of Civs - (K vs FW) - These are fun debates, 2ACs need the standard meta DAs to policy making and policy debate of course counter interpretations and other specific offense vs their standards. FW teams yall always have these long overviews at the top of the 2NC which I do enjoy but yall need to do more work on the line by line in some of these debates because simply cross-applying from the overview does not answer the 2ACs args.
7. No plan no perm is not an argument
8. FW teams need a TVA - this is not necessary but affs need to have some type of framing question on the TVA
9. Speaker Points: I try to stay in the 28-29.9 range, better debate obviously better speaker points.
Ideal 2NR strategies
1. Topic K Generic
2. Politics Process CP
3. Impact Trun all advantages
4. PIC w/ internal net beneift
5. Topic T argument
Rounds Judged: 41
Been judging some LD recently just, a lot of the stuff still applies from above here are some more specific stuff - I was a K debater so take that as you will
1 - Larp/K
2. K affs
4-5. I do not like tricks or Phil
I debate currently at CSUF Until further notice
I debated for around 5.5 years and my background is mostly K args, but dont be afraid to run policy, I’m cool with both
Keep me on the chain por favor – firstname.lastname@example.org
If you have any questions for after the round or just need some help feel free to email, I’ll try to get back
- I will distribute speaker points based off the accumulated performance from y’all, I like hearing arguments more if you truly believe in what you’re saying, especially debating Kritiks, be funny tho I’ll probably laugh, try to have fun and be the chill ones, try not to be toxic and even more so do not be violent, no -isms
- I will try to keep up on the flow but do not hyper-spread through theory blocks or any block for that matter, I will most likely not catch it
- be chill with each other but you can be aggressive if thats just your style, try not to trigger anxiety though in other debaters if you’re going too far
———- some more specifics ———-
I run and prefer Kritikal arguments, I am more comfortable listening to Settler Colonialism, Afro-Pessimism and Marxist literature, but that does not mean you can just spew jargon and hope to win, explain what your theories mean and your arguments, it will go a long way for your speaker points as well
Speaking of, i will be in the range of 27.5 - 29.9 for speaker points, I will try to be objective as possible but you do you, if you can do that well the speaker awards will come too
On T/FW, please make sure that your standards are specific to the round and are clearly spoken, I am substantially less convinced if you do not argue how that specific aff loses you ground and/or justifies a bad model of debate, but I will not vote it down for no reason, argue why those skills are good to solve the aff or provide a good model that sustains KvK debate in a better way than the aff justifies. Just don’t try to read your generic 2NC blocks, it gets more obvious the longer the debate goes on, do it well.
On Counterplans, try to have a net benefit, be smart with it, try not to have a million planks, having a solvency advocate is cool too, not much here.
Disads - do your link work as usual, I will vote on who does the better impact framing, just make sure you still got that link :) p.s for affs, just dont leave it at the end of the 2AC with a 2 second “they dont link isn’t it obvious”, please explain your answers and divide up time strategically
on K’s, I love good 2NC/1NR link stories, try not to just extend some evidence and answer 2AC args, evaluate why your links implicate the aff and how their specific aff makes something problematic. I dont mind a 2NC only the K with no cards, just make sure you’re not reading prewritten blocks, please be as specific as possible
Please stick to your arguments and embody them, just tell me what to evaluate at the end of the debate, I will very much appreciate if you can tell me how that happens, be revolutionary if you want to, I would probably enjoy the debate more.
I am the LD coach at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx. I've been involved in debate since the year 2000. I judge a lot. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.
I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.
Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.
Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.
Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".
Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity.
Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during prep. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.
Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip.
Lexington High School 2020/Northwestern 2024
Before the round starts, please put me on email chain: email@example.com(no pocket box, and flashing is ok with no wifi)
Scroll down for PF paradigm
TLDR: tech over the truth but to a degree. (no sexist, racist, other offensive arguments) You do you, and I'll try to be as objective as possible. Aff should relate to the topic and debate is a game. Just make sure in the final rebuttal speech you impact out arguments, explain to me why those arguments you are winning implicate the whole round.
2020 season: I have absolutely no topic knowledge on this year's topic so expect me to know nothing and make sure you explain the stuff in a very detailed yet not convoluted manner. Yale will be my first tournament this year, but I will probably get better as the tournament goes on. I also never debated/judged online before, so pls excuse if I have tech issues or don't know some stuff.
The long paragraphs below are my general ideas about the debate
Top Level Stuff
1. Evidence -- I believe debate is a communicative activity, thus I put more emphasis on your analytical arguments than your cards. That being said, I do love good evidence and enjoy reading them. I think one good warranted card is better than three mediocre ones. I am cool with teams reading new cards in all the rebuttal speeches. A good 1AR should read more than 3 cards and don't be afraid to read cards in the 2NR. I believe that at least one speech in the block should be pretty card heavy, otherwise it makes the 1AR a lot easier. I will read the tags during rounds for the most part and read the text usually after rounds, but I won't do the extensive analysis for you because you should have already done that in the round.
2. Cross X is incredibly important to me and I flow them---I find it extremely frustrating when the 2N gets somewhere in 1ac cx, and then the 1N doesn't bring it up in the 1NC. Winning CX changes entire debate both from a perceptual level and substance level. Use the 3 minutes wisely, and don't ask too many clarification questions. You can do that during prep.
3. Be nice -- Obviously be assertive and control the narrative of the debate round, but there's no reason to make the other team hate the activity or you in the process. I am cool with open cross x but you should try to let your partner answer the questions unless they are going to mess up.
4. Tech over truth, but to a degree- If an argument is truly bad, then beat it. Otherwise, I have to intervene a ton, and I prefer to leave the debating to the debaters. However, I'm extremely lenient when one team reads a ton of blippy, unwarranted, and unclear args( quality over quantity). The only real intervention is when I draw the line on new args, but you should still make them and somehow convince they aren't new.
5. Pay attention to how I react in-round --I will make my opinion of an argument obvious
6. Make 1AR as difficult as possible. I know a lot of 2Ns want to win the round by the end of the block. However, that doesn't mean you should just extend a bunch offs terribly. In response, the 1AR should make the 2NR difficult- reading cards and turning arguments.
7. Please please have debates on case. I understand neg teams like to get invested in the offs, but case debate is precious. A lot of the aff i have seen are terribly put together, especially at the Internal Link level. Even if you don't have evidences, making some analytical arguments on why the plan doesn't solve goes a long way for you. I vote on zero probability of aff's ability to solve so even when you go for a CP, you should still go to case so I would have to vote you all down twice to vote aff.
8. Impact/Link Turns-- love them; i don't care how stupid the impact is(wipeout, malthus, bees etc), as long as you read ev and the other side doesn't argue it well, I will vote for you. As for link turn, I don't really need a carded ev for that, just nuanced analytic is sufficient for me to buy them.
9. Be funny-debate is stressful and try to light up the mood. Love a few jokes here and there, but since I am someone not invested in pop culture too much, some of the references I probably wouldn't get. If you do it well, your speaker point will reflect it.
10. Speaks- I am very lenient on speaks. I just ask you to slow down on the tags and author name and any analytical args but feel free to spread through the text of the card. I love any patho moments in the final rebuttal speeches on both sides. Here are how I give speaks
29.7-30: A debate worth getting recorded and be shared with my novices.
29.3-29.6: You are an excellent debater and executed everything right
28.7-29.2: You are giving pretty good speeches and smart analytics
28.5-28.6: You are an average debater and going through the process. I begin the round with that number and either go up or down.
28.0-28.4: You are making a few of the fundamental mistakes in your speeches or speaking unclearly.
27.0-27.9: You are making a lot of fundamental mistakes and you are speaking very unclearly
<27.0: You are rude ie being mean to your partner, opponents, or me (hope not).
Clipping card results in automatic 0 speaks and a loss, but I won't intervene the round for you, you have to call out your opponents yourself. If one team accuses the other team for clipping, I will stop the round and ask the team if they are willing to stake the round on that. If the team says yes I will walk out with the recording provided by that team and decide if the cheating has happened or not. A false accusation results in an automatic loss of the team that got it wrong. Spakes will be given accordingly.
Now on arguments
Yes, love them(Idk if there is anyone who doesn't like a good DA debate) -- go through their ev in the rebuttals; this is where i would like a team to read A LOT of evidence on the important stuff. You can blow off their dumb args, especially the links.
Zero Risk is very much a thing and I will vote on it.
If the 1ar or 2ar does a bad job answering turns case and the 2nr is great on it, it makes the DA way more persuasive -- and a good case debate would greatly benefit you as well.
Politics is OK -- fiat solves link, da non-intrinsic are arguments that I will evaluate only if the other team doesn't respond to them at all. However, I do want to see good ev on why the plan trades off with the DA.
I think it's best to have a CP and DAs together because there are just a lot more options at that point. If you really wanna just go for the DA, you need to have a heavy case debate up to that point for me to really evaluate the status quo since most of the aff are built to mitigate the status quo.
CPs and theory
I dislike process CPs-- I really don't like these debates -- I've been a 2n as well as a 2a, but I will side with the aff - this goes for domestic process like commissions as well as intermediary and conditional that lurk in your team's backfile. However, I have a soft spot for consult CP (my first neg argument). Just make sure you do a great job on the DA.
States, international, multi-plank, multi-actor, pics, CPs without solvency advocates are all good -- i'll be tech over my predispositions, but if left to my own devices, I would probably side with aff also
Condo -- all depends on the debating -- I think there could be as many condo as possible. but I also believe zero condo could be won. Still, my general opinion is that conditionality is good and aff teams should only go for them as a last resort.
I will read the solvency evidence on both sides. Solvency deficits should be well explained, why the solvency deficit impact outweighs the DA.
I don't like big multi-plank CPs, but run it as you like and kicking planks is fine
Judge kick unless the 2AR tells me otherwise.
I have some decent knowledge with a lot of the high theory Ks, but I am probably most well versed in psychoanalysis. That being said, I do want you to explain to me the story of the k and how it the contextualizes with the aff well in the block. Don't just spill out jargons and assume i will do the work for you. A good flow is important. What happens with alot of K debates is that at some point the negative team just give up on with ordering and it's harder for me to know where to put things. Any overview longer than 3 minutes is probably not a good idea but if that's your style, go for it, just make sure you organize them in an easy to flow manner. I probably will do the work for you when u said you have answered the args somewhere up top, but i would prefer the line by line and your speaker point will reflect how well you did on that.
FW should be a big investment of time and I think it's strategic to do so. That being said, you have to clearly explain why the aff's pedagogy is problematic and the impacts of that.
I am meh with generic links, just make sure you articulate them well. That being said, most of these links probably get shielded by the permutation.
Alt debate is not that important to me. I don't believe a K has to have an alt by the 2nr. I go for linear DA a lot, but make sure you do impact calc in the 2nr that explains why the K impact outweighs the aff. For the alt, I would like the aff to read more than just their cede the political block, make better-nuanced args.
I am probably not the best judge for these kinds of aff but I will evaluate them as objectively as possible
The aff should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan. At the very least, the aff has to have some relationship to the topic. I want the offense to be articulated well because many times I get confused by the offenses of these affs. I think fairness is absolutely an impact as well as an I/L. I default to debate is a game and it's gonna be hard to convince me otherwise.
I think the ballot ultimately just decides a win and a loss, but I can be convinced that there are extra significances and values to it. That being said, I have seen a lot of k aff with impacts that the ballot clearly can not address.
Not a big fan of these debates and never have been good at it.
From Seth Gannon's paradigm:
"Ironically, many of the arguments that promise a simpler route to victory — theory, T — pay lip service to “specific, substantive clash” and ask me to disqualify the other team for avoiding it. Yet when you go for theory or T, you have cancelled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debate and are asking me to validate your decision. That carries a burden of proof unlike debating the merits. As Justice Jackson might put it, this is when my authority to intervene against you is at its maximum."
On this topic specifically, I dislike effect Ts
These debates are boring to me and I will side with the aff if they are anyway close to being Topical
Reasonability = yes
I am a flow judge. Any speed is fine in the PF world, but don't try to spread when you never have spreaded before. I have come to realize that PFers power-tagged cards to an extreme, which means I will most likely ask for cards at the end of the round. Please provide me with the portion of the card you have read and the entire article. That being said, I don't believe every argument needs a card to absolutely support it-smart analytics and logics will earn you speaker points. Also, I abs love for you to try new unique arguments. I think public forum is way too restrictive, and if you are daring enough to run arguments from other forms of debate or just unorthodox arguments, I WILL ABSOLUTELY VOTE FOR YOU. Argument innovation is ALWAYS welcome.
Also, you don't have to ask me to do anything. You just do you, and I will let you all do whatever you want as long as it's not rude/offensive(and even then which I won't interfere, but it will impact ur speaker point). How I assign speaks are above.
I am also a huge huge weeb. My fav genre is slice of life romance and my fav anime is Oregairu aka SNAFU, so if you can make a reference to it during speech it will help your speaks a lot.
Lynbrook '21, UIUC '25
Send docs to firstname.lastname@example.org, whether or not you're spreading!
I think the most fundamental forms of disclosure are good, for example, the first three last three. Anything else is up to debate.
Conflicts: All of Lynbrook, West Ranch SV, Mission San Jose SR, Leland MN
Theory defaults: Reasonability with "gut check", No Rvi, DTA
I'm not a great judge for trad rounds. If you are hitting a novice just don't try hard.
I think I'll try to average 28.8 speaks, if you are at the level of a bidder I will probably give you a 29.2 or higher.
I mainly read K, Theory, and Phil and was pretty decent in terms of like results, Elim finishes, speaker awards, bid that kinda stuff.
I think I'm best for Phil v util and theory rounds, and worst for pure k v k (there are some exceptions) and dense larping.
Nearly everything about how I view debate is from Chris Wang (refer to his paradigm about tech issues and whatnot), with influence on specific things from Perry Beckett, Michael Harris, and Holden Bukowsky. (if you would pref any of them you can probably pref me). My favorite argument I read was my queer fabulation aff. The majority of my 1AR/2ARs as a senior were AFC or indexicals or a trick that did something similar, and most 2NR's were some shell or skep.
Read and go for whatever argument you want in front of me. I've tried nearly everything in terms of types of arguments from performance affs to tricks to util. Don't assume I have background knowledge in every argument but I will do my best to judge. I find k rounds with little explanation of the theory of power difficult to follow.
- Debate's not about the judge, my preferences should not make you decide what you read.
- I will stop rounds if someone is uncomfortable.
- Prep ends after the doc is sent (I will be lenient).
- Tech>truth unless categorically false.
- No new responses to dropped arguments, dropped arguments need to be extended, impacted, and weighed to win. Not just repeated.
- Clipping, and evidence ethics are L 20s, clipping I will intervene if I catch it, evidence ethics should be called out or in most cases resolved in a shell or a reason to drop the card.
- I don't care if cx is treated as prep.
- Marked docs should be sent right after the speech, if it takes an excessive amount of time it'll come out of prep.
- Asking about what was read or said comes out of your prep.
- I'll disclose speaks if asked
Pretty straightforward, read some framework or I'll default to not util. *FOR CAL: this will probably be a more larpy tournament, I should not be preffed very high if every round you have is larp v larp*
I have a decent grasp of Phil in the context of LD and outside. I would like actual Phil, not logcon and condo logic. I think other tricky stuff like skep that is a bit less trolly are actually quite interesting and enjoy these rounds. I feel like arguments like relativism are underutilized. I think modesty is silly and usually would hurt util more than it helps. I think well-structured Phil affs with offense that clearly affirms is one of the strongest positions. I'm tired of Kant, like seriously, I alr have enough kant from my phil professor.
K's are like cool, I know some literature not all. I'll be better for Deleuze, Baudrillard, warren, Hartman, genealogy, black nihilism, and puar than other stuff. I will still vote on arguments if they make some sense. Concrete examples and clearly knowing the lit will do wonders. When there is a ROB/ROJ please show why it's preclusive or why it doesn't need to be normative. K v K is incoherent a lot of times so if something makes more sense it'll probably win. I haven't touched anything related to K lit for a decent amount of time so I will be rusty on quite a bit of stuff here.
K affs v T
40/60 on K aff/fwk. I've read non t, topical k affs, and performance affs so I think a lot of T is easy to beat. I think I err on the side of fwk because I don't buy a lot of the claims from K affs either and generally, affs fall into this problem where it might come off as telling the judge to affirm their identity. You're probably reading this and thinking this isn't your aff, but if the round really gets like this I'm most likely negating. I think for the aff to win they should have a solid topic link and leverage that in the T debate along with impact turns, I meets, etc. The neg wins by proving the opposite. I think 2NRs need to still deal with case 90% of the time. Affs get away with a lot of nonsense if you don't deal with the 2-minute overview with 16 independent voters and 20 turns to T. I also would be willing to vote on a 2NR that is primarily on case instead of T.
I will vote on literally every shell, bad debating will hurt speaks not necessarily bad arguments. Set voters cuz my defaults are bad. Paragraph theory is fine, might need clearer signposting since I mainly did the big shell stuff. Weighing makes these rounds really easy, not weighing makes them a pain. In general, I enjoy well-done theory rounds with 1 shell more than rounds with 3 shallow shells that were 15 seconds of the 1NC and became 5 minutes of the 2NR.
I personally like Phil tricks more than theory tricks, but a lot of Phil tricks are also poor logic so be careful, I will vote on these if they are won, impacted, extended, and weighed. If I don't get the trick I won't vote on it. "Eval after" tricks are bad cuz there are too many questions about how to evaluate them, so I will only use them for tiebreakers absent adequate judge instruction.
Feel free to contact me on Facebook before rounds, prefs were always tough for me.
Hello everyone my name’s Alex. Email chain: email@example.com
I debated LD for 4 years in HS and graduated last year. Won and placed at some tournaments, but that’s all the background you really need. I was a flex debater, primarily k’s and larp though.
Go at 70% circuit speed. I have been out of debate for 4 months at least so take that into consideration, though I’m doing Policy in college at Georgia Tech. I will say clear, but I can't flow what I can't follow. I'll evaluate anything (besides obvious discriminatory arguments), topical or not, but I need warrants to consider them actual arguments. 2 off and answering case is way better than 6 off no case or little case. Likewise collapsing in the 1a and answering stuff is better than going for everything. Clash is nice.
1 - K’s, LARP
2 - Phil, Theory
3 - Tricks and Frivolous theory (I’ll vote on them I’m pretty tab but I won’t like voting on it and have a low threshold for answers)
LARP - WEIGH. I need to know why your impacts matter more than your opponent's. If there are two uncontested impacts and no weighing, I will have to intervene which will make me sad. For negs, strategies that have a lot on case are far more likely to be conducive to success than 5 off barely anything on case. CLASH. LBL the aff and make the 1ar hell. For affs, you need to collapse and go for what's most important. The 1ar is too short to go for every piece of offense. Evidence comparison is good, but warrants are better. Don't run an advantage counterplan if you don't have an advantage (duh), and be prepared to answer the perm. I won't judge kick cps.
K’s - I primarily ran Lacan, Berardi, Deleuze, Baudrillard, and Nietzsche, but I am familiar with most other k's on the circuit (Wynter, Warren, Wilderson, most other forms of pess and pomo, Security, Cap, and some others. I'm fine with any k, just be clear and be prepared on what model of debate you defend and what it looks like. The countermodel of debate is the internal link to what makes these arguments convincing and why we should endorse a departure from debate. I will evaluate the k without the alt but only if the alt is kicked. I won't judge kick alts. K's don't need a rob, but make sure they link under some framing mechanism (opponent's fw or otherwise) i.e. under what framing do they matter whether it's util or otherwise. 2NR's should signpost clearly, have an overview, and go LBL. Have a clear link story that is specific to the aff, even pull lines from the aff don’t be super general that would be sad. Implicate the links and weigh. ANSWER THE PERM. Standard stuff. Affs answering this will be most effective with link turns, perms, framing, and not conceding the theory of power because it's too hard to come back from that. Answering case with k args is super underrated and effective.
Aff K's - Framing is super important. Be prepared to answer T, it is almost always the same argument. Impact turns only matter if you win FW. Tell me how the t page is evaluated because fairness bad and t is a prior question is difficult to evaluate. Topicality is probably good but I can be convinced otherwise. If you are non t you need to win why your model of debate and departure from topicality is necessary or good, not just that topicality is bad.
K v K: These debates can be messy. Win your model of debate and WEIGH just as larpers would. Framing is probably most important and then obviously link stories and the perm debate.
LARP v K: Neg should have implications from link stories that outweigh, turn, or exacerbate aff impacts and weigh impacts against aff. Aff should weigh impacts too, use the AC to answer the k, and pressure the k on the specificity of the link story to the aff. Attacking the alt is good but the neg can still easily win with links outweighing even if the alt fails or is bad.
Phil - Did this in high school. Mostly Kant, Deleuze, Levinas, and developed util or structural violence frameworks. Most Phil debates are super blippy so be clear and tell me how to evaluate the Phil debate, what was dropped why it matters and outweighs. I NEED WARRANTS. Epistemic confidence is probably true but I can be convinced otherwise. Remember too either debater can win on offense no matter the fw! On the offense page, WEIGH in the case of competing offense.
Phil v K’s: Super fun! I love these debates and it’s very interesting to see what way we should look at the world. Framing is very important. Affs should leverage fw against the k and weigh, and negs should answer the fw warrants.
Trix - I was a Florida debater who ran trix Baudy so I’m no stranger. I will evaluate it but my threshold for responses is super low so take that at your own risk. Conventional trix are hilarious but boring most of the time. Interesting trix and ones tied into kritiks are super fun and will earn high speaks.
Friv theory - there isn’t a bright line for what makes demarcates this but just don’t be frivolous it will make me sad.
Theory - These debates can be super blippy, which is sad because theory can be a fun debate. Don’t make it sad. Be clear on your interp of debate, win why your interp is better for debate than the other person’s, and GIVE WARRANTS. Competing interps, no rvis, and fairness/education good are probably true, but I can be convinced otherwise. Reasonability can be very convincing especially in the 2n hedge against a 1a theory dump bright lines are not irrefutable monoliths. Condo is pretty fair though 4-5 condo shells is probably pushing it though again both can be convinced otherwise. Disclosure thirty min before rounds is good, but rich schools/debaters punishing poor/newer debaters for not disclosing is not a good look.
For PF - See LARP page. K’s probably shouldn’t be in PF though I will evaluate them.
I'm Jayanne. My name is pronounced “Jay-” (e.g. pay, hay, say) “-anne” ... if you can’t pronounce it, call me Jay.
Hello! I debated for Fort Lauderdale High School in Florida for 4 years in LD and Policy. I graduated in 2018 and I am a senior at Columbia University. I coach and teach at debate camps and do fun stuff outside of debate. I currently coach for Lake Highland Preparatory school.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org. Start an email chain or use file share on NSDA Campus or Speechdrop please. DO NOT share me to a google doc of your case, or send me a google doc link [use: File -> Download -> Microsoft Word] -- sharing your case to ~10-20 people each tournament is less preferable to just downloading and sending a doc that you've worked on.
- I don't disclose speaker points. I base speaks off the clarity of speech, the quality of arguments, and the strategic choices in the rebuttal.
- I don't flow off speech docs UNLESS I HAVE TO, I flow what you actually say, so speak clearly and slow down on author names (especially now that these debates are happening virtually). Explain your positions, be clear (pause between cards and slow down on tags), I will 9/10 understand and flow. Internet connections and computer breakdowns do not grant you extra prep time. Also, if you have bad connection and your speech cuts out and I can't understand what you're saying I will only be able to vote on what I was able to flow which means you have a higher chance of losing. To account for this, try doing a local recording of your speech (e.g. voice memo on your phone) and being prepared to reference the arguments missed.
- I also get annoyed when people in LD say "we" all the time, especially in cross-ex -- who is we? this is not a partner event....
- Lastly: please stop reading T and Framework shells without TVAs.... you need to have a "topical version of the AFF" when telling someone that they are not topical and don't meet your interp.........
** I get triggered by graphic depictions of anti-black violence (e.g. those very graphic examples of police brutality used to support Afropessimism).**
Read whatever but I'll note I'm not a big fan of very complex theory debates or skep or tricks or heavily pre-written stuff that you do not understand. If you read a unique position well that will benefit your speaker points. I love performance and identity politics, yet I encourage you to do whatever you are passionate about - do not read that stuff just because you think I will like it, do it because you want to.
I’ll note that I am not the judge for any complex LD theory debates because I find them boring, messy, and often hard to resolve but I really love GOOD T and T-framework debates (e.g. spicy TVAs, unique definitions and voters etc.). I am not going to put specific opinions on all arguments here, but you can ask before round if you want.
Last few things: if you say anything blatantly anti-black, xenophobic, racist, misogynistic, anti-queer, ableist, etc. and your opponent calls you out for the attack on them, I will drop you. Debate should be a home space for everyone and you are responsible for the things you say because it is a speaking activity.
If you plan to read afro-pessimism, please read a trigger warning or simply take out those horrific examples of modern day gratuitous violence. Black violence as a spectacle should not be normalized in debate or ANYWHERE.
I also don’t think that non-black and ESPECIALLY white debaters should be reading radical black authors (e.g. afropessimism, Black Nationalism, etc.). Read your social and racial justice positions sure, but please leave the voices of our radical black authors/groups (e.g. Black militant groups, the Black Panthers) out of your advocacies. This "strategic" practice of reading Black narratives and fake-woke alliances really needs to stop in LD... so if you're not Black and you read aforementioned positions I will drop you. If you say any racial slur written by the author (or just on your own whim) I will drop you and give you zero speaker points. I think there are productive ways to engage in this pessimistic critical race theory but those rounds are far and few.
Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. Have fun, learn a lot, and be great!
Hi! I am new to coaching PF specifically, I never debated it in high school but I have been coaching PF for almost a year now. With that being said, my experience in debate is mostly LD and Policy so I love great strategic choices, solid evidence, and I am comfortable with speaking faster than conversational. You can read anything in front of me and I will understand, but the onus is still on you to explain your arguments! Lastly, if you say anything blatantly anti-black, xenophobic, racist, misogynistic, anti-queer, ableist, etc. and your opponent calls you out for the attack on them, I will drop you. Debate should be a home space for everyone and you are responsible for the things you say because it is a speaking activity.
I'm open to most things and will evaluate whatever arguments you read, but here are some of my faves ;)
Policy arguments & T - 1
Critical arguments/Ks - 1 [non-topical AFFs: 2]
Theory - 3
Frivolous theory/trolling/tricks - 4/5/strike
Honestly kind of a wildcard, I find myself voting in ways I never would’ve thought of quite often. At one point in time, I was a well-known policy debater, now I might as well be anyone they just picked up on the way to the tournament.
I’ve judged everything from the finals of CEDA Nationals to pf finals at NSDA. Debate and music pays my rent and puts food on my table, this is a job for me, so take that seriously when trying to make something relatable to me. I am a member of the Cherokee Nation, I grew up in a suburban Chicano/Filipino American Household… I say this because Debates that most capture my heart occur in a similar fashion to the arguments we make at the dinner table.
POLICY: There aren’t a lot of arguments I haven’t seen/heard/smelled… I like clear-cut offense in policy debates. It’s very rare that I vote for anything along the lines of “gotta have a plan” or Topicality in general. I’ve coached both high school and college teams on the explicit premise that the topic and or community engaging the topic is flawed in some way. Ideal debates for me will be more about performance and method, I’m more intrigued by what you did/do than the hypothetical. Even when doing fiat style debate, you need to defend it like it has benefits. If heg/cap is good you gotta sell me on a unique enough reason why in THIS instance I NEED/HAVE NO CHOICE OTHER THAN vote for you. Uniqueness absolutely determines the direction of the link for me in more traditional debates. Although I believe in my heart that conditionality is bad, it's hard for me to vote for condo bad when it is debated so nebulously, I generally believe that the negative should have access to everything under the sun to negate the affirmative.
LD: The best LD debates for me are not some mutant reproduction of old policy arguments and styles. I’m a great judge for you if you read a plan text and go multiple off, but in the back of my mind, I wish more LDers would push arguments against fiat, against this way of debating. My ideal form of debate is based on evaluating performance and method… I.e. I think what you do/did is more important than what could potentially happen if x hypothetical policy were passed. Also after judging a significant amount of y’all on the national circuit I’d like to know who is “we”…A lot of top-level LDers are getting away with regurgitating policy arguments to the point where they don’t even think or change up the blocks. I can’t be the only one slightly concerned at the implications of debaters mindlessly reading whatever is on the page right?
PF: I want a copy of your evidence so I can look at it for myself, preferably a speech doc too… other than that these debates are all about uniqueness and terminal impacts for me. I want a clear and cut disadvantage to your opponents' case… it can’t just be a “here’s our side, here’s their side” type of thing. Challenge sources, challenge privilege, and bias. Don’t be afraid to think outside of the box.
Strake Jesuit Class of 2020
Email - email@example.com
Debate is a game first and foremost.
I qualified to the TOC Junior and Senior year and came into contact with virtually every type of argument
Summary of my debate style - I was a memer who just enjoyed the activity while reading all types of arguments with my own spin on it. I think debate is often boring with debaters just reading blocks and not being innovative.
Please note that I have strong opinions on what debate should be but I will not believe them automatically every round they have to be won just like any other argument. Tech>truth no exceptions unless under extreme circumstances which I don't think will happen, if they do then I will update this.
Triggers - French Revolution and Freemasonry
I am not a fan of identity based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponents identity.
How to get good speaks
- be entertaining either with good music good jokes etc
- explain something to me really well
- making arguments that I really like or agree with, this includes Catholicism and Monarchism.
- Reference something from Scooby-Doo
do any of these things and you will for sure get above a 28.5
How to get low speaks
- Having bad strategy choice
-being really rude or mean. Aggression can be a part of a good strategy but being aggressive to the point of making your opponent uncomfortable is what I mean.
- Swearing or cursing, try to keep it professional and respectful please.
Styles of debate -
Before I get into every style just know that I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them, this is just to say what my bright line for winning the arguments tends to be.
K - If you are one of the 10% who actually knows really well what you are talking about and you can show it to me, you will get very high speaks. Just make sure to explain it super well as I think well done explanation allows you to use the K in a more strategic way on other flows. I will not vote on something I don't understand. Be warned I will not walk into the round thinking an impact is true, I will vote on impact turns to any argument, you need to be ready to defend the impact of the K as I'm not going to accept it as true automatically.
Larp - This was my main Strat when I couldn't read theory and I do enjoy a good larp debate. Being a good larper requires knowing your evidence more than your opponent and CX is where this becomes clear. If you know your Aff and you have good evidence you will get good speaks.
Tricks -I read a lot of tricks but like most judges find them less interesting debates to judge. If you just blip storm a ton of aprioris I will probably miss some so please be clear with what you're doing. That being said if you are just reading some stupid generic aprioris or skep I will not be impressed and you will not get higher speaks. please be innovative.
Theory - Make sure to be clearly extending and weighing your standard and please read paradigm issues. I don't get this new trend of not reading voters it really makes me sad. I will vote on anything no matter how frivolous if its won. If the round becomes a messy theory debate with little to no weighing done I will be leaning towards fairness impacts first and default competing interpretations.
Phil - If you have skep or permissibility triggers make sure to do a good job explaining why they are triggered just saying "extend this card it says trigger skep in the tag gg" does not do it for me. Side note I really enjoy theological debate if it’s possible. I promise good speaks if you make the debate interesting. Do with that what you will.
Eric He -
Debated for Grapevine '19
Now debating for Dartmouth '23
Better than most for cp theory
Slightly neg on condo when equally debated
Kritiks are ok
Affs should probably be topical but will still vote for affs that do not have a plan text - I belive fairness is an impact
Wipeout and/or spark is :(
for LD -
really quickly - CP/DA or DA or CP+some net benefit = good, K = good, T/Condo = good, phil = eh, tricks = bad
I am a policy debater. That means I am ok with speed, and I much prefer progressive debate over traditional LD. Bad theory arguments are :( - that means stuff like no neg fiat
Offense defense risk analysis will be used
solvency is necessary
T is not a rvi
yes zero risk is a thing
please be clear
please do line by line - this is not something i should have to put in my paradigm
Plano Senior '20 (coached by Alex Yoakum, Adam Tomasi, Robert Shepard, Neal White, and Cheryl Potts)
Indiana University '24 (Coaches: Brian Delong, Jacob Bosley, Matthew Bricker, Jamie Davenport, and Ayoka Wicks)
2X NDT Qualifier (21,22)
Add me on the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
CONFLICTS: Plano Senior(TX), Clark High School(TX), Stanford Online MB, Saratoga AG
TLDR: I am fine with you reading anything if it is not offensive.
Largely agree with
NOTE FOR ONLINE: Record your speeches. If anyone's internet goes out you should immediately send the recording to everyone in the round. If you don't have a recording, you only get what I flowed.
Some Generic Stuff
1)I care a lot about evidence. I will read through most, if not all, of the cards at the end of the debate. I won't insert arguments into the debate based on what the evidence implies, but I can't vote for you if your explanation of the evidence is based on some misreading. I do this to encourage you to know your cards well and utilize them the best you can. Unpack your warrants and be comparative; use lines of your own and your opponents' evidence to flag important arguments that matter to my decision.
2)I can handle speed so feel free to go as fast as you want, BUT if you are hitting a novice or anyone who has a disability of which they can speak at a faster rate.
3)I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, and WEIGH and DEVELOP a ballot story.
4) Use all of your speech and cross-ex time. I will dock speaker points if you use cross-ex for prep, or if you end a speech early. I think that there's always more you can ask or say about an argument, even if you're decisively ahead.
5) Don't cheat - miscutting, clipping, strawmanning etc. It's an auto-loss with 0 speaks if I catch you. Ev ethics claims aren't theory arguments - if you make an ev ethics challenge, you stake the round on it and the loser of the challenge gets an L-0. (this only applies if you directly accuse your opponent of cheating though - if you read brackets with an ev ethics standard that's different).
6)I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself. For example, even if I know what the warrant for something like gratuitous violence if I don't think your explanation completes a logical warrant chain on why gratuitous is an accurate description of relationships, I won't vote for you.
8)Prep stops when speech doc is sent.
9)Please have pre-flows ready when you get in the round so we can start immediately.
10)If you are hitting a novice, please don't do something like reading 5 off and making the round less of a learning experience and more of a public beat down. It just isn't necessary. I will give you higher speaks if you make the round somewhat more accessible (ie going slower, reading positions that they can attempt to engage in, etc).
11)The quickest way to LOSE my ballot is to say something offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.)
12) If you harass your opponent (i.e asking them if they are single in CX), I will drop you with 0 speaks and contact tab. Absolutely zero tolerance of any forms of harassment in front of me. I will not hesitate. Any judge who is tech>truth should believe the same - since to be tech>truth assumes value in the game, and the game cannot exist without players. Players do not want to play if they are harassed while playing.
Theory: I will default to “competing interpretations” unless told otherwise. I will not make any presumptions on the voter level of the debate. This includes the voter (fairness/education/etc.) and the implication (drop debater/argument). Failure to present arguments in favor of a voter and its implication is to present an unwarranted argument. Instead of doing the work for you, I will not evaluate the argument, and I will default to truth testing. This also means you should be extending your voter and its implication properly and in every speech. I am fine with frivolous theory if executed properly. I believe that RVI is very illogical and non-sensical, thus I will not vote on RVIs.
Kritiks: I like good K debate a lot. Your impacts must link into a framework. They could link into a normatively justified framework, or they could link into a pre-fiat role of the ballot. An NR containing a well explained, and well impacted K that doesn't forget about the case is a good thing. An NR containing a K you've never read the lit for is very frustrating. Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category. Take time to clearly explain and implicate the links/impacts/framing arguments and contextualize them to the aff.
Philosophy/FW: I really like a good framework debate. Please make all framework arguments comparative. I will default to truth testing unless told otherwise.
LARP/Policy Positions:I love judging good policy rounds. Copied from Yoakum's paradigm: "Unsure why I have to say this but DA are not an advocacy and if I hear the phrase "perm the DA" you immediately drop down to a 28. If you extend "perm the da" then you will drop to a 27." If you read a plan please read specific evidence instead of general util offense for the topic. I am kind of ambivalent towards the whole "are perms advocacies or tests of competition" debate. Regardless, you must articulate either why a perm is net beneficial or how the CP is not mutually exclusive from the aff (or, ideally, both). I WILL NOT VOTE ON A PERM THAT IS NOT EXPLAINED OR DOES NOT DELINEATE HOW THE PLAN AND CP ADVOCACIES ARE COMBINED. If you read a billion perms and its like: 1. perm do both 2. perm do the aff then the CP 3. here is an intrinsic perm, then I probs won't vote on any of them unless you EXPLAIN. For god sakes please weigh!!!
Tricks (Stole from Yoakum's paradigm): Alright, so you roll up into the room and you got this really tricked out case with 100 different a prioris, so many theory spikes that they are literally jumping off the page to fight for fairness, and the classic incontestable descriptive offense, and you are ready to win. I just have a couple of requests:
1. I want the spikes clearly delineated. None of that hidden theory spikes between substantive offense bs. I won't catch it, your opponent won't catch it, so it probably doesn't exist (like absolute moral truths).
2. Slow down a little for theory spikes.
3. If you extend an a priori, lean more towards the side of over explanation rather than under explanation. I have a high standard for extensions, so I need to understand a) why the a priori means you affirm/negate b)the claim, warrant, impact of the arg
4.Do not make tricks is the only thing you do, your speaks will suffer heavily.
K Affs:I don’t care whether you read a plan or not, but affs should have a specific tie to the resolution and be a departure from the status quo that is external from the reading of the 1AC. Impact turning framework is more strategic than counter-defining words or reading clever counter-interps, but you should have a clear model of debate and what the role of the negative is.
Framework:Affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic, even if not traditional endorsement or hypothetical implementation of a policy. At the bare minimum, affirmatives should "affirm" something. I am much less sympathetic to affirmatives that are purely negative arguments or diagnoses.Teams should have a robust defense of what their model of debate/argument looks like and what specific benefits it would produce.Teams tend to do better in front of me if they control the framing of what I should do with my ballot or what my ballot is capable of solving. Whether it signals endorsement of a particular advocacy, acts as a disincentive in a games-playing paradigm, or whatever else, my conclusion on what the ballot does often filters how I view every other argument. Teams tend to do better with me the more honest they are about what a given debate or ballot can accomplish."TVAs" can be helpful, but need to be specific. I expect the block to actually provide an example plan text. Solvency evidence is ideal, but warranted explanation for how the plan text connects to the aff's broader advocacy/impact framing can be sufficient. If the 2NR is going to sit on a TVA, be explicit about what offense you think the TVA accesses or resolves.
Policy v K: Don't lose the specificity of the aff in favor of generic K answers. Reading long framing contentions that fail to make it past the 1AC and 2ACs that include every generic K answer won't get you as far as taking the time to engage the K and being intentional about your evidence. You should clearly articulate an external impact and the framing for the round. I'm more likely to buy framework arguments about how advocating for a policy action is good politically and pedagogically than fairness arguments.
K v Policy:Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category. Take time to clearly explain and implicate the links/impacts/framing arguments and contextualize them to the aff. Make sure to tell me why the impacts of the K come first and weigh the impacts of the K against that of the alt. Absent serious investment in the framework portion of the debate/massive concessions, the aff will most likely get to weigh the aff's impacts against the K so impact comparison and framing is vital. Framework arguments should not only establish why the aff's framework is bad, but also establish what your framework is so that my ballot is more aligned more closely with your framework by the end of the debate. K's don't have to have an alt and you can kick out of the alt and go for the links as case turns.
K v K: Affs should have an advocacy statement and defend a departure from the status quo. Affs don't have to have a clear method coming out of the 1AC, although I am more likely to vote neg on presumption absent a method. I have a higher threshold for perms in debates where the aff doesn't defend a plan, but just saying "K affs don't get perms" isn't sufficient for me to deny the perm.
Policy v Policy: Nothing much to say here, but please weigh!!
T: I enjoy a good T debate and think T is very underutilized against policy affs. Make sure you are substantively engaging with the interpretation and standards and aren’t just blitzing through your blocks. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
CP:Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates. 2NCs/2NRs should start off with a quick overview of what the CP does. Blazing through this at top speed will not contribute to my understanding. Fine with you reading PICS
DA:Framing is everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.
Theory: I love theory debate if executed properly. I will default to “competing interpretations” unless told otherwise.
I prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus.I am fine with Policy/LD arguments in PF.
1) The only thing that needs to be in summary and final focus beside offense is terminal defense. Mitigatory defense and non-uniques are sticky because they matter a lot less and 2 minutes is way too short for a summary. BUT, if you do not extend terminal defense, it doesn't just go away; it just becomes mitigatory rather than terminal ie I will still evaluate risk of offense claims.
2)First summary only needs to extend the defense with which 2nd rebuttal interacts. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech (and uniqueness if there is any).
3)2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- dont try to respond in a later speech.
4)Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.
5) If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and Final Focus.
6)I'm fine with progressive PF- I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my LD paradigm above.
7)You get a 1:15 grace period to find your PDF, and for every thirty seconds you go over, you will lose .5 speaker points. If you go over two minutes and thirty seconds, the PDF will be dropped from the round.
8)Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.
9)If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct 0.2 speaks each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.
10)Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I would love for an email chain to start during the round with all cards on it.
I evaluate speaker points purely based on strategy and whether or not you actually listened and slowed down when I yelled clear.
Speaker points will be arbitrary, but I will try to be as consistent as I can be.
[[ ]] LAST UPDATED: post-toc 2022. mostly changes for clarity no real significant content changes.
[[ ]] i realized that there are a lot of words on this paradigm. you can email me with questions or use ctrl + f because i mention a lot of specifics and you can probably find what you're looking for somewhere here.
[[ ]] About Me:
- i've heard pretty commonly that people cant find this so im putting it closer to the top and bolding it so people that dont read my paradigm (which is annoying and you should finish reading it so the round can be more enjoyable for the both of us) can find it: yes i want to be on the chain, my email is email@example.com
- 2 years of circuit debate at plano west, have been involved in debate in some capacity since 2015. graduated hs in 2021, now "debating" (we went to one regional last season lol) for UTD as a 2n. mostly read kritiks relating to poststructuralism and capitalism in high school, reading policymaking arguments more now.
- i judged a total of 125 debates in the 2022 season and all of them were LD but i really want to judge policy more and most of this paradigm is applicable there as well.
--- if you care: toc qualled 1x, bid 1x and at-larged. multiple bid rounds, rr invites, all of that stuff.
- big influences in debate are patrick fox and alexis antonakakis. read their paradigms, i agree with them both broadly. they coached me in high school. i think the paradigm i vibe the most with is zac's (who i dont know super well but we're twitter mutuals so we're basically besties).
- conflicts (22-23): westlake ak, los altos bf
- i really dont like being called judge. call me dylan. judge is better than being misgendered tho.
[[ ]] For E-Debate:
- dont record others unless they consent. preferably keep a local copy if you are comfortable, in case your speech cuts out.
- keep your camera on if you are comfortable. i understand there are a lot of reasons people wouldn't want to have it on, you wont be penalized if you dont. this is extra important for the toc - people are ending their careers and it's morbidly depressing to end it online and it's even worse when all the screens are blank.
- more pen time would be nice. i need you to add a little bit of space between cards either with a breath or a .5 second pause. my flow will get very messy otherwise, which isnt something you want.
[[ ]] For NON E-Debate:
- wear a mask when not speaking or its a 25. i will have a box to give you one if you dont have one. i will warn you once and politely ask you to put it on, after which i will give you the 25.
- you still should not be recording without both debaters consent. i will always be okay with you recording a debate that i'm involved in unless you're asked not to.
[[ ]] Top level:
- the tl;dr of the rest of this paradigm is that i want you to do you. i would much rather judge a good debate with arguments im unfamiliar with than a bad k v k debate. being blippy and trying to avoid clash is a good way to lose rounds in front of me. running away from debate, contestation, and clash makes me angry. nuanced and well-thought-out debate makes me happy and will be rewarded with higher speaks. i generally like debate in most forms, and will be happy to judge any debate you want to have.
- for quick prefs: best for k v k, clash, and policy v policy rounds (in that order). okay-ish for phil and theory. bad for tricks, meanness, and frivolous nonsense.
- zero tolerance for bigotry or violence. its an L0 as well as a conversation with your coach. if it affects you in round i err on the side of giving you the agency to decide what happens with the round unless its super egregious.
--- if something has happened to you outside of round that makes you uncomfortable debating it for whatever reason, email me and i will do my best to make sure you feel safe and comfortable. the only argument about out of round practices that i am comfortable voting on is that abusers should take Ls, and i will end the round early if it's made, HOWEVER i think that you should tell me about it beforehand so i can try to do something in tabroom as opposed to adjudicating the debate in this way because i think it's much easier to justify, more productive, and means that you dont have to interact with the person you're supposed to debate.
--- re: misgendering. 0 tolerance for it. if you misgender me i will be very mad at you and you will lose speaks. if its egregious i will hand you the L. if you misgender ur opponent and they mention it you will lose with 0 speaks. you probably wont do it again. email me or tell me verbally and preferably tell me what you want me to do if ur misgendered.
[[ ]] K:
- big fan of the k. i will vote on it. i know most about this kind of debate and its where i feel most comfortable. i like most forms of the kritik and do not understand why people draw a distinction between high theory and other literature since most if not all literature is interconnected and authors build upon each other frequently. i do think though that i have read the most post-structuralist literature compared to anything else because that's what im personally interested in the most.
- explain arguments. if i dont understand an argument, i cant really see myself voting for it. what i know about an author before the round should mostly be irrelevant because you should be doing the necessary legwork so that i know what im voting for. making actual arguments >>>> rambling about pre-fiat offense and saying nothing.
- specificity is good. this applies to links, contextualization, and explanation. pretty much every part of the debate should in some way be responsive and contextualized to the aff.
- non-black afropess/nihlism teams should strike me. i do not want to hear these arguments from non-black people. i will give you an L25 if the argument is made that you should not be reading this. i will give you no higher than a 27 independent of arguments being made.
- one thing that i will note is that i am deeply unsettled by the meta in K debate which seems to be recycling antiblackness arguments and changing them to fit other identity categories. "surrender to X" is what first comes to my mind here but there are tons of other examples. this makes me uncomfortable and unhappy. exploring ur identity in the debate space is a great thing, but i'll ask that you do it in a way that is unique to you and doesnt steal from antiblackness scholarship. it's parasitic and weird.
- re: performance: i really like performance and non-traditional weird strats in debate but i also often feel that performance is leveraged in a weird way by many teams. i think that, in order to access some sort of offense via performance, it needs to be a larger part of your speech than just a brief portion of speech time dedicated to a poem or something and then going back to spreading through cards in the way a traditional policy team would.
[[ ]] K (aff specific things):
- i like critical affirmatives and it's the type of aff i'm most familiar with. i will vote on them.
- these affs should do something and be able to articulate what they do. if 1ac cross ends and i do not know what your aff does, im gonna assume its nothing and have a low threshold for presumption.
- becoming increasingly convinced that these affs don't get perms in methods debates. defend something and this will change.
- you should read cards to respond to impact turns, doing otherwise is almost certainly a guaranteed L.
[[ ]] Policymaking:
- i like these debates. yes you should still explain your arguments, poorly explained scenarios are still hard for me to justify voting for and i feel like policy people have become convinced that their arguments are somehow less deserving of explanation as opposed to something like a kritik. this is, in my opinion, wrong and makes debates significantly worse.
--- the best debate i have judged so far this season was a policy throwdown. i enjoy these debate a lot.
- ghoulish impact turns teetering on violent will make me upset (high food prices good, disease/pandemics good, etc.) and your speaks are capped at a 26.
- i think that conditionality is good and i think that all forms of counterplans are probably good. i am hard-pressed to vote on condo or x type of cp bad. i have voted on both before, its not impossible to win in front of me, but it requires a near concession.
--- i do not think that condo has a limit but this can change based on the context. material in round abuse makes condo more compelling although i tend to think abuse is the result of a skill issue
- i've found that my decisions will often take 15+ minutes in these debates because i am reading evidence. this goes to show how much i think evidence quality matters and i truly think that the quality of your evidence will win/lose you debates in front of me.
- counterplans with manufactured exclusivity are bad [read] and i'll be much better for CPs that actually compete with the aff and are grounded in the topic lit as opposed to silly "kill the president" or "nuke russia if plan" counterplans.
- i've found that i really really like good case debate. like actually good case debating that is specific and nuanced. do with that what you will.
[[ ]] framework:
- yes i vote on framework. this means, i expect, i will sit in a lot of these debates which i'm fine with. on a capital T truth level i disagree with framework but i dont think this should discourage you from reading it because paradoxically i think my voting record is somewhere around 60-40 on the side of framework because K teams arent wonderful at responding. conversely i think framework teams lose often when they literally never talk about the aff which is super common in these debates and makes me really upset.
- for the negative: pick one argument and go for it instead of going for a smattering of impacts that never get robustly explained or contextualized to the aff. i tend to think the easiest way to get my ballot is to talk about the aff (fairness people take notes) and the people that lose it never do this.
- for the aff: i think that affs that discuss the topic are far better off in these debates than affs that never mention the topic. i think the reason k teams often lose these debates is because of lazy aff construction that avoids any sort of engagement with the substance of the topic. i do not care what you say about the topic but you should at least say something if you want my ballot. you should also probably tell me what the role of debate is in the world of the aff and what debates look like but i have voted on straight impact turns before and can see myself doing it again.
[[ ]] T:
- i am not a huge fan of T debates when they are vacuous (see: T whole res)
- having counter-definitions for words in the resolution and being able to compare different competing definitions is good. having a caselist is also pretty important - you should be able to articulate which arguments are/arent included in competing interpretations of the topic and why thats good/bad.
- any model of debate that only allows one or two affs to exist on a topic is a bad one. im most compelled by topic literature, and semantics is generally uncompelling to me. jurisdictional claims dont make any sense - i can do what i want with my ballot. i dont flow them.
--- (LD) re: nebel: i do not understand the upward entailment test and also greatly dislike cards written by debate coaches. if nebel is your a-strat you should strike me because i will almost always vote for the interpretation that allows for more than one aff to be read on a topic.
- will not vote on an rvi to topicality literally ever. dont bother.
[[ ]] Theory:
- once again vacuousness makes me frustrated. interpretations with no justifiable abuse story will make me frustrated which is definitely bad for you. if there is no provable in-round abuse my threshold will go way down.
- i often find that these debates get too technical and a lot of the abuse story ends up getting lost in the debate. i think having a top level explanation of the abuse story will help to clarify a lot of these issues that come up.
- i will evaluate every part of the debate. i do not flow evaluate after x speech for any layer of the debate. both sides get to make arguments in every speech.
- i flow rvis but i will not vote on an rvi unless it's straight conceded.
- re: disclosure. you should disclose. if i have to judge a disclosure debate i will be sad. new affs are definitely good. being from a small school is not a reason to not disclose on the wiki, but not knowing the wiki exists probably is.
--- interpretations like round reports, cites, etc. fall into the category of vacuousness and i am sympathetic to reasonability in these debates.
[[ ]] Phil (ld):
- i like phil (they're a nice person) when it does not include blippy arguments that are leveraged to avoid clash.
- im dumber than i thought. explain phil to me like im a 5 year old. im not hostile to phil i'm just stupid. when your arguments arent explained my decision gets worse and someone is unsatisfied.
- to restate the top of the paradigm: i like clash and i like robust and nuanced debate. thusly, i think these debates are better when there is good comparison between syllogisms and both sides give good explanations for what their framework entails and what is and isnt permissible under their framework. conversely, these debates are way worse when they spam independent justifications and extend concessions with 0 explanation as to what the argument means and why its capable to justify an entire moral theory on its own.
- theres a lot of arguments in these debates that i think do not make sense (emod, induction fails, tjfs, etc.) and the threshold to respond to these will almost always be low.
- extinction outweighs is compelling to me because i dont think there is a single framework that is read in debate that cares 0 about extinction. i think all of them say it's bad with different justifications.
[[ ]] Tricks:
- recycled arguments are bad. generic arguments that get read on every topic are bad. tricks, generally, involve both of these things with little to no innovation. consider this when preffing me.
- i do not have a hardline stance on these arguments, but i do think you should pref other people instead of me if this is your a-strat. for some reason people think tricky arguments are an acceptable response to affs about oppression. they arent. i will give you an L0 if you try to go for gsp, zenos, skep, or any of these arguments against affs that discuss oppression in a meaningful way.
- i figured out a while ago that indexicals means that i can decide under my index that you lost the debate and should get 25 speaks. i will consider this when evaluating your 2ar.
- no ethos no ballot. if i dont verbally laugh, i can and will vote you down just because you're boring to me.
[[ ]] Cheating (in the officially written rules sense):
- i used to have a bit here about evidence ethics being annoying but there was a round with actual tangible abuse where a violation occurred and someone was deterred from mentioning it when it mattered. i think evidence ethics are bad when there is no competitive advantage gained from the violation (ie a broken link to evidence that does actually exist) and you're staking the round on it because you want a free win/it's a round you think you wont win otherwise. i still prefer rehighlighting and debating the round out to staking rounds on ev ethics, but i am still happy to vote on a violation when its egregious and obvious that an advantage was gained from the violation.
- clipping loses you the debate with 0 speaks. no arguments have to be made for me to vote you down for it, if i catch you its sufficient.
[[ ]] Random Musings (these are still important imo):
- (ld) independent voters are usually not independent and i will usually just evaluate them as a turn to whatever they're read on. maybe if you spend 30 seconds-a minute on it in the speech it's introduced in and read a card i can be convinced, but otherwise dont bother.
- inserted rehighlightings are fine if its from a portion that was actually read. different parts of the same article (paragraphs later) should be read.
- speaks info is here: they are determined by strategy, clarity, ethos, and organization. i think speaks are stupid. i think preffing judges based on how they give speaks is even more stupid. and i think its even MORE stupid that minority debaters get less speaks on average. to compensate, gender minorities and debaters of color will have speaks adjusted upwards. this is a) to check any internal bias i may unknowingly have and b) because it would make me sad for you to get screwed by someone else in the pool. i try my hardest not to inflate speaks so if ur speaks from me are lower than from others its nothing personal.
--- i used to disclose speaks. i dont anymore unless theyre very good (think 29.5+ for both debaters)
--- (stolen from patrick) up to +.3 speaks if u show me music and i like it. this is 2 easy when i link my spotify, so for reference my favorite albums of all time r the lonesome crowded west by modest mouse and 1000 gecs by 100 gecs
--- bringing me a sugar-free monster = +.5 speaks.
--- sending docs on anything other than a word doc is -.1 speak
- i listen to cross. i dont flow it because im lazy but if you're blatantly lying ill probably pick up on it.
- i usually will read evidence for fun, but most of the time this wont really affect my decision unless someone calls for me to read it. if you’re blatantly lying, wrong about what your evidence says, or making grandiose claims your evidence never makes, the threshold for responses will go down. calling out bad evidence when you see it and asking me to read it is good, and will get you better speaks if its done meaningfully.
- i vote neg a lot because i often find that 2ar spin is too new to have possibly been predictable for a reasonable 2n. 2ars that explain and implicate out arguments that were already somewhat explained in the 1ar are the best imo..
- i will be annoyed if ur coach comes to post-round me based on your interpretation of what happened in the round. im all for post-rounding and i think it makes ppl better at judging, but if they dont know the content of the round, and only your interpretation of what happened, it will probably just get frustrating and wont be very productive. feel free to ask me whatever questions you have after the round though.
- i am annoyed by strategies that consist of 7+ offs since i find they are often poorly developed. i would prefer to hear a few nuanced and well developed positions as opposed to spammy arguments that arent developed and dont say anything. policymaking strats can maybe make it happen since disads and counterplans are usually pretty short, but other than that maybe dont try it.
- please learn to flow. there is no clarification time - if u want to ask what is and isnt read use cross for it but it gets annoying when i have to listen to 2 minutes of "was x read" and you will probably lose speaks.
no mask, no ballot. strike me if this is a problem.
chazkinz [at] gmail [dot] com
350+ VLD rounds since 2018
Conflicts: Durham AA and BT, Charlotte Latin EL and AP, Valley. Currently with Lake Highland.
Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically.
K debate: I love it. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. My academic focus in school is Frankfurt School critical theory and some Lacan. In debate, I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases.
Util debate: Love it. I like good analytics more than cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to explained and should not be arguments in and of themselves. Taglines should be descriptive of the warrants in the card. 2 or 3 condo is acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking.
T Debate: I’ve heard too much of it. If there is a topic-specific interp that you’re a fan of and execute well, go for it. I am so tired of judging Nebel T debates that come down to PICs every other round. For framework, I think that out of round impacts (advocacy skills, movement building) are more convincing than in round impacts (procedural fairness, etc.), especially when answering micropolitical affs.
Theory Debate: Increasingly okay with it. Disclosure is good but frivolous disclosure theory is annoying. See note about PF below.
1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.
2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot free. Examples include charts, spec details, and solvency details. This is a terrible norm and you are literally asking me to evaluate a card/analytics that you didn't read. If you think "it only matters if they ask in CX," then why did you include it in the doc?
3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.
- Tricks can be fun but also abusive and non-educational. I think that I am a bigger fan of philosophy-inspired tricks than theory-inspired tricks.
- please use verbatim to uni-highlight your docs into yellow
- be brief with sending docs
- have the email chain ready at the round's start time
- defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume aff; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; no RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR
- I’m a huge fan of well-formatted Verbatim docs
- I do not disclose speaker points
- All analytics should be included in speech docs
- Trigger warnings are good
- humor is appreciated!
- CX ends when the timer beeps
- Slam dunk 2NRs (esp on the K) are easily my favorite part of LD.
- Online debate is alienating. I am now more than ever impressed by high school debaters that continue to engage in this rigorous activity as we live through a mass death event. Take care of yourself and let me know if there is something I can do to better accommodate you in this virtual terrain.
- I'm now in the world of PF...so yeah. A few notes on this: 1] "Fast" PF is actually harder to flow than LD/Policy because of all the cards that PF cases throw at me 2] being able to analyze factual information and draw conclusions is one of the most valuable aspects of debate. "dO yOu hAvE a cArD fOr tHAt" as a response to an argument that scares you makes you lose a lot of credibility to me. 3] Disclosure is probably a good norm in PF, but I don't want to hear disclosure theory in PF rounds. I don't want to hear theory in PF rounds.
- I do not like theory in PF. However, I feel uncomfortable not evaluating arguments because I do believe that debaters should not be ignored in what they say and how they want to debate. Most times when I vote on theory (either the interp or, most often, the RVI) it is because the other team does not understand the technicalities of theory debate even though they may have initially started the theory flow. Don't read theory against teams that obviously don't know what it is. Don't read theory if there is a chance your opponents will out-do you on the theory flow. I am a fan of the RVI, especially in PF.
1. If you are a senior and don't want to hear the RFD for your last round ever, please tell me before the round AND remind me immediately after the round. I will email the RFD to anyone who wants it.
2. I will always keep my camera on when people are speaking. Your round will have my full attention (My phone will be on do not disturb, etc.). Feel free to hold me accountable for my judging or to share better norms with me. I will always appreciate it and might even boost or speaks (marginally).
3. I wish this was in person. Please make sure to record your speeches.
4. Instead of asking "Is anybody not ready" before your speeches, I'd recommend getting verbal confirmation from everyone. Since we're online, if somebody is not ready they might not be able to say so.
Kyle Kopf (He/Him/His)
West Des Moines Valley High School ‘18 University of Iowa ‘22
I want to be on the email chain (but I do my best to not flow off of it): firstname.lastname@example.org
Conflicts: Iowa City West High School
Bio: I debated LD for Six Years. Received one bid my junior year and 3 my senior year. I taught at NSD Flagship and NSD Philadelphia in 2018.
I don't like long paradigms so I did my best to keep this as short as possible. My opinions on debate aren't what matters anymore. I try to be as tech as possible and not intervene.
-(TOC Update: I know y'all are fast and I am pretty bad at flowing, especially online please take this section seriously. The more I catch on my flow the more confident I am in my decision.)Please speak at like 60-70% of your top pace (UPDATE: I am very bad at flowing online, I'll be much more likely to catch your arguments and therefore vote for you if you actually slow and don't rely on me shouting "slow" or "clear" a lot) Also, slow down extra on underviews and theory because I'm extra bad at flowing those.
-Please keep a local recording in case your speech cuts out to the point where I miss arguments. If you do not there is no way for me to recover what was missed.
-I find myself flowing off the doc more with online debate than I do normally
-If you think there are better norms for judging online I should consider, feel free to share before the round!
I won’t automatically ignore any style of argument (Phil, Theory, K, LARP, T, etc), I will only drop you for offensive arguments within that style (for example, using LARP to say racism is good). That being said, I am more familiar with certain styles of arguments, but that does not mean I will hack for them. Shortcut for my familiarity with styles:
K – 1
Phil – 1
Theory/T – 2/3
Tricks – 2/3
LARP – 4
Based on strategy, quality of discourse, fun, creativity etc. NOT based on speaking style. I will shout “clear” as needed without reducing speaks.
Don’t start speech at top speed, build up to it for like 10 seconds. Slow down significantly on author names and theory underviews (I'm bad at flowing these).
SPEECH IMPEDIMENTS, PRONOUNS, ETC:
I've stuttered for my entire life, including the 6 years I was in debate. Speech impediments will not impact speaks or my evaluation of the round whatsoever. I default shouting “clear” if needed (I always preferred being told to clear than losing because the judge didn’t understand me) so please tell me if you prefer otherwise.
If there is anything else related to identity or anything else that might affect the round, please let me know if you feel comfortable doing so. Even if it doesn’t affect debate but you just want to talk still feel free to let me know! :)
This is what I primarily read in high school. I’m familiar with K strategy, K tricks (floating PICs need to be in some way hinted at in the 1N), etc. I enjoy seeing a K executed well.
I read some theory although significantly less than Ks. People read T against me very often, so I am familiar with that too. I think the strategy behind Theory/T and the tech of Theory/T is cool and fun to watch. Assuming literally no argument is made either way, I default:
- No RVI
- Competing Interps
- Drop the debater on theory and T
- Text of interp
- Norms creation model
- “Converse of the interp/defending the violation” is sufficient
I went to Valley, so I started out reading phil. I enjoy the nuance of framework debate, especially related to competing moral theories.
I never read tricks and I haven’t seen them in action too much, but I will still evaluate them like any other argument. I think tricks can be fun. (Update: I basically coach a tricks team now lol)
I never LARPed and I rarely engaged in the LARP debate, but I will also evaluate it like any other argument. I think the depth and applicability of LARP makes it enjoyable to watch.
I think post rounding is a good norm for debate to encourage good judging, preventing hacking, etc. Always feel free to postround me. I'll be VERY strict about starting the next flight/round, allowing debaters to be on time, etc but feel free to find me or email me later (email at top).
*If you're kicking a CP or K, you need to explicitly say "kick the CP/K", not extending is not sufficient to kick
*All arguments must have some sort of warrant. The warrant doesn’t have to be good or true
*if an argument is new in the 2, I will disregard it even if it’s not pointed out. To clarify, you still should point it out in case I missed it.
*I won’t evaluate embedded clash unless an argument is made as for why I should.
*I will evaluate the entire debate regardless of what arguments are made that say otherwise.
UCLA '25, Claremont '21
Updated July 2022.
1. Debate is a research game. It would be a waste of your time to go for a "trick" or an unwarranted theory argument. I am a much better judge for you if you read policy arguments or critiques than if you read theory, tricks or philosophy arguments.
2. I think that the link matters more than the uniqueness and zero risk does not exist. Re-highlighting's may be inserted. Politics is fine, process counterplans are less fine but may win debates given that teams are going for theory instead of competition. Aff teams should say that counterplans must be both textually and functionally competitive.
3. Conditionality is good and judge kick is default. I am not persuaded by interpretations that draw the line at [x] number of conditional advocacies.
4. International/Multi-Actor fiat is probably illegitimate. Neg on most other theory but reversed by good debating and complete arguments. I care a lot about reasonability and arbitrariness, and I think these are good arguments. Drop the argument usually makes more sense than drop the debater.
5. In planless debates, the Neg should go for fairness. If you're Neg you should just go for framework, but if you go for a K win a link and don't rely on silly things like "no perms". If you're Aff, either defend an interpretation that solves limits and avoids your offense or just impact turn. Generally, I'd prefer that Aff teams read a plan.
6. The Neg team going for the K should win that the critique turns the case with some external impact that the alternative is able to resolve. Ideally, the Aff gets the case and the Neg gets links to the reps/research construction/whatever, but I could be persuaded that links need to be to the consequences of the plan. If the 2NR doesn't talk about the case, it is unlikely that I will vote Neg.
7. In topicality debates, the Neg should say their interpretation is most predictable or only limits matter. The Aff should go for arbitrariness and win that their interpretation is more predictable. There are some instances (like Nebel T) where over-limiting might be persuasive.
8. In philosophy debates, I will default to epistemic modesty. I don't know how to truth test. I compare worlds.
9. You can't say death is good.
1. 0 topic knowledge.
2. All the LD stuff applies (minus phil, tricks, etc.)
September/October in LD: If you refer to Africa as a country or participate in creating an ideology that the entire African continent is homogenous, I will decrease your speaker points. Please avoid preaching false stereotypes about other nations/groups of nations or making assertations about a country's access to resources or economic status without knowledge or evidence.
Hi, I am Triniti.
Simpson College (Studying Global Management & Political Science)
Public Forum Coach at Valley High School
I am on the Simpson College Debate team and have competed at the collegiate level in Parli, PF, and LD. I graduated high school in 2018 and since then, I've judged many debate tournaments, primarily LD and PF. In high school, I competed in WSD, PF, and LD, and Congressional Debate.
The Short Version: Run anything you want. Know what you are running. Explain and develop your arguments well. Interact with your opponent (pretty please). Don't be a jerk. Favorite debate to watch for LD: LARP. Favorite PF judge to watch: One where people know what they are talking about.
What I LOVE to see:
- Clash. Clash. Clash. Did I forget to mention clash?
- Impacts. Love ‘em.
-Tell me why I should prefer your warrants, impacts, and sources over your opponents.
- Tell me how I should weigh the round.
- Links - crazy right? I want to see the 'how' we get from the resolution to your case to your impacts.
LD Specific Paradigm:
If I have a trad Debater against a non-trad debater: Debate jargon is less important than responding to every component of your opponent's case. Example: If your opponent says "do both" instead of "perm," respond to the argument because I will still evaluate "do both."
Case Style: Run anything as long as you can run it well.
T: Go for it. I want to see a developed T-shell and I will vote on T. However, using T as a strat to time-suck is annoying. Because I think that it is annoying, I am happy to vote on an RVI. I would prefer that T be used when there is a very clear violation.
Theory: I’ll buy a well-developed theory shell.
Tricks: Not my favorite.
Kritikal Debate: Have fun. Show relevance/link to resolution.
LARP/CPs/DAs: Love it. Probs my favorite. Just make sure your links/impacts are there.
Speaking: Just speak clearly. Slow down when you read tags/authors of cards, please.
FOR THE LOVE - know what you are talking about - as in, understand the arguments that you are making.
Just don't be a jerk.
My name is Indira Lakshmanan. I am a parent judge with experience in speech, not debate; I was 2d in Extemp at NSDA Nationals two years in a row and three-time Pennsylvania state champ in Extemp in high school, and coached at the national speech and debate institute at American University when I was in college. However, I have never debated, nor coached debate.
Since my background is in speech, I understand traditional-style LD. I do not understand progressive or Ks.
I determine wins based on the logic, clarity, and organization of your arguments; the credibility of the evidence you cite; and your persuasiveness, smoothness, and clarity as a speaker.
If you must use acryonyms or jargon, please make sure to define and explain since I'm unfamiliar with debate jargon/shorthand. If you rely on complex philosophy, please explain.
Please don't spread as I won't be able to follow your arguments.
Best of luck, and I look forward to your rounds!
Hi! I'm Rose.
Pronouns are she/her.
I am a coach with the DebateDrills Club Team. Information regarding conflicts, team policies, and harassment reports can be found at Club Team Information. Should you have any questions or concerns, email email@example.com
Coach at Homestead High School 20/21-21/22
Coach with DebateDrills 21/22-Present
Harassment will not be tolerated. You know what I'm talking about, if you do it, you'll lose.
If you're in the middle of a debate and you at any time feel unsafe or uncomfortable, please contact me and I will stop the round and deal with it. Safety first, always.
Put me on the chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
K - 1
LARP - 1
Phil - 2/3
Tricks/Theory - 4/5
Don't send cards in the body of the email - this is a very strongly held belief of mine and I will ask you to resend cards if they are in the body. :)
I debated both Policy and LD in high school, and have coached and judged both. This paradigm is written for LD since its the majority of what I judge now.
One team wins, the other loses.
Racism, sexism, etc. will earn you a loss and the lowest speaker points I can give.
This includes misgendering - you get ONE warning and after that if your opponent brings it up you will receive an L and minimum speaker points. I know that this reads as slightly draconian but no one learns without any enforcement. I promise, not misgendering your opponents is actually not that difficult.
I will decide what speaker points you get. Arguments that attempt to manipulate your speaker points will lose you speaker points, not vice versa.
Go as fast as you want but be clear - please don't read analytics at the speed you would read a card, i will likely miss warrants.
Everything else is up to you.
Evidence quality is incredibly important and I almost always read evidence if the debate is even remotely close so please read good cards or it is likely to hurt you. Debaters tend to underestimate this part of my paradigm - I am pretty much always willing to hold the line on bad evidence if asked to so ignore at your own peril.
K Affs v Framework: This is the debate I judge most often and while usually I don't attempt to hide my biases I do truly think I come down about neutral on this question ideologically. Affirmatives typically win this debate in front of me when they defend a coherent model of debate that resolves some portion of the negative's offense while extending strong net benefits to said interpretation combined with defensive arguments that mitigate the impacts the 2nr goes for. Negatives typically win this debates by collapsing on one to two strong, warranted pieces of offense that actively criticize the specific model of debate the affirmative defends. Please do impact calculus in the 2nr/2ar.
LARP vs Kritiks: I like these debates a lot as well. Affirmatives typically win this debate in front of me by answering links and putting defense on the alternative to support a 2ar push on extinction outweighs, the permutation, or a link turn. Negatives typically win this debate in front of me by winning framework, specific, contextual links, and doing 2nr impact calculus. Specifically in setcol or pess debates, simply winning ontology on either the affirmative or the negative isn't sufficient to win the debate and you should stop treating it like it is. Ontology is a framing issue for how I view the offense in a debate, but unless contextualized as such, is not its own offense or a reason to vote for you. Explain why you are winning your side of the ontology debate, and then explain why this matters in the context of the debate.
Kritikal literature I have extensive experience with (have read a significant amount of literature about): Settler Colonialism, Harney and Moten, Beller, Baudrillard, Afropessimism, Marxism
(of special note is settler colonialism - I'm pursuing this area of study in college, have coached multiple setcol teams, read it all through high school, and have likely read 85-90% of what you are citing)
Kritikal literature I have moderate experience with: Bataille, Nietzsche, Security, Most Queer Theory, Feminism, Grove
Anything else I either don't have much experience with firsthand or forgot to include - feel free to ask preround
Deleuze is a work in progress - I'll do my best though
K v K: This is my favorite kind of debate. I find that these debates very often coalesce to a few key questions about the nature of capital, identity, language, race, communication, etc. The best debaters in these debates identify what those key questions are, answer them conclusively, and implicate them in the context of the line by line. This includes the theory of power debate but is not limited to it. Give historical examples, be specific, and explain why you are right about the world and how it functions. I lean heavily towards no perms in these debates, but thats contextual based on how competitive the alternative is with the aff - if I can't clearly articulate between the aff and the alternative in terms of function, purpose, and scope, I'm very likely to conclude the aff gets a permutation.
LARP vs LARP: I think that on both the affirmative and the negative evidence quality goes a long way - I'm mostly likely to read evidence in these debates, and that evidence will often make a large difference in my decision. This is not to say that arguments without cards are less good, but rather that having good evidence to support your carded claims will improve your chances of winning. To make life easier for yourself, do evidence/warrant comparison and analysis as early as the 1ar. Disads should be unique and have contextual link analysis. My ballot will start with an explanation of the argument I voted on - its in your best interests to write that explanation for me at the top of the 2nr/2ar. Impact calc is your best friend.
LARP vs Phil: After coaching some phil debates I have discovered I was unnecessarily pessimistic about my ability to adjudicate these debates - some of the arguments in phil debate are a bit detached from the philosophy they reference, but I feel comfortable adjudicating libertarianism, virtue ethics, Kant, contractarianism, agonism, and Hobbes, and will listen to and try to figure out anything else. Please slow down a little bit and don't spread overviews at me, but I actually understand these debates more than you (and I) think.
Phil vs K: Win your theory of the world is true and you will likely win the debate. These debates devolve to everyone ignoring each other too often - if you go for Curry and Curry and drop all of the reasons Kant is true you will probably lose, and vice versa.
Phil vs Phil: Not a lot of thoughts - don't rely on blips and coherently explain your theory of morality, etc. I haven't judged very many of these debates though, so once again worth slowing down.
Theory: If they didn't do anything wrong, stop whining. Debate should be hard. Two conditional counterplans isn't going to kill you. I'm going to default to reasonability. If your 1nc/1ar strategies are reliant on theory shells that are not topicality I am probably not the judge for you.
Topicality: Win that your model of debate generates better/more fair debates and I'll vote for you. I like Nebel T and am happy to vote for it. Topicality isn't an RVI 99.4% of the time.
Tricks: I don't like tricks debate. However, if this is what you're best at, do it and I'll vote for you if you win. I am more than willing to hold the line on 5 second blips if there wasn't a warrant in the 1ac/1nc.
IVIs: 99.5% of IVIs are tricks and should be treated as such. If you manufacture voting issues when you and I are both aware there isn't a legitimate reason to reject the team I will tank speaker points and be very unhappy with you even I vote for you. Please stop hiding from engagement.
I'm very emotive while judging. You'll know what I think based on my facial expressions. Do with that what you will.
As long as you aren't mean to your opponents, I'm fine with getting heated and passionate. Debate is an activity that means a lot to a lot of people. You don't need to treat it like it's not important.
I'm a Marxist, but I've voted for/gone for cap good and heg good multiple times. Conservative positions are totally fine as long as they aren't explicitly racist/sexist/etc. Debate is about testing ideologies, I'm not going to punish you for doing that.
Death good is fine. Idc.
I'm very very skeptical about nonblack pessimism. I read afropess a couple times in high school. I should not have. If this is your thing I will not intervene against it but I would suggest you critically think about your relationship to the argument and what it means for people in debate/what multiple black people in debate have said about their uncomfortability with you reading this argument.
Post-round away, but decisions are final and please do it yourself. I don't want to argue with another coach about a debate they were not in. If this is ignored I will get really frustrated very quickly - if you are an adult whose career is coaching debate you should respect other adults in the activity and their ability to make good decisions. You know the difference between asking questions and yelling at judges to feel better about the fact your team lost.
My speaker points have been super spotty in the past, so I made a scale to hold myself to:
More than 29.5+ - Some of the best debating I've ever seen. I've never given a 30 but probably will eventually.
29.0-29.5 - Great debating, good strategy and execution.
28.5-29.0 - Solid debating, some strategic or technical mistakes.
28.0-28.5 - Decent debating, a few mistakes but ok fundamentals.
27.5-28.0 - OK debating, your speeches need a lot of work but you're on the right track
27.0-27.5 - Subpar debating, needs significant work
Less than 27 - Something went seriously wrong.
I’ve bolded what you need to skim preround. There’s a preffing cheat sheet somewhere in here, a tldr of how I generally evaluate rounds, and a ctrl+f section for opinions on specific arguments. This paradigm applies to all events, but I judge circuit LD the most. My argumentative opinions are pretty much the same across all events. I hope this paradigm as a whole is helpful for preffing/education.
If you really don't want to read the paradigm:
1. record your speeches, no speech redos, send recording if tech difficulties
2. yes email chain email@example.com, i don't flow off the doc, but i'll check it periodically to make sure you're not clipping
3. will say slow/clear twice before becoming sad
4. read any args you want, just make sure they're warranted & implicated!
5. if you need to contact me, email is better than fb message during tournaments, fb is fine after tournaments
6. be nice be nice be nice be nice be nice
hi! i'm nethmin! i use she/her/hers pronouns!
The Hill School ’20, Pitzer College ’24.
I competed in LD on the local and national circuits and was fairly successful in both. Reached 5 bid rounds, championed a round robin, got a handful of round robin invites, championed local tournaments in the philadelphia region, qualified to ncfls and states, probably some other stuff. I'm now actively coaching both natcirc and traditional students in LD, as well as the occasional CX team.
During my debate career, I read a little bit of everything. During my junior year, I read more policy-oriented positions. All of my 2nrs that year were on a CP/DA, topicality, a common K (security, cap, orientalism), or T. My affirmative positions were policy or phil oriented. During my senior year, my 2nrs were a pretty even mix of standard policy positions, common Ks, and fem/performance. On the affirmative, I read everything from the indopak aff to creatively topical affs to a wholeres setcol aff. I would consider myself to be competent at evaluating whatever debate you want to have. My debate history should not dictate what you read in your round. I think people should stop treating debate as their immortality project and let the students in the activity do what they want.
judging history -- here is a link to a spreadsheet that has info about every round i've judged. it's a work in progress but i figured i'd publish it because i always found these sheets helpful. as a note -- i'm not including discord tournaments/student-run tournaments. some of the slots in the rfd column aren't filled out yet because i either haven't gotten time to look through old flows and figure out what the rfd was or i simply do not remember. but rfds starting with apple valley should be updated and accurate.
ideological flexibility is what i value most in debate. judges who say "i won't vote on the k" and judges who say "teams who read t-framework are horrendous human beings" are equally objectionable to me (all other things being equal). i do not believe that the arguments a team reads are a reflection of how good/bad of a person they are (unless they literally impact turn sexism or something of that nature). i strive to be someone who will vote on any argument as long as it's not delivered in a way that's morally abhorrent (bullying your opponent = bad) and it meets the minimum standards to be considered a complete argument (claim, warrant, implication).
Preffing cheat sheet!
1 – Good/inventive Ks, performance, standard policy stuff (i appreciate cool new disads and fun advantage CPs), & generic Ks (security, cap, etc.)
2 – if you read the above arguments but don't want me as a 1, i'm fine here as well
3 – Good trad debate (traditional format but does line-by-line, is not violent, engages in actual clash/argumentation). Theory (that's not frivolous) is also around here in terms of whether or not you want me as a judge. Phil is also around here if you're willing to explain/warrant args and not assume that I know Every Single Thing you're saying.
4 – Theory/procedurals (if your only strat is theory), Phil (if you're not willing to explain/warrant). Theory/procedurals are so low on the list mainly because I see people misuse these or use them to deny that oppression exists. I am far more receptive to “condo bad” against 3+ conditional CPs than I am to 4 theory shells against a whole res aff just because you felt like ROBspec was what we needed to experience at that moment in time. I'm a much better judge for you if you read good theory and theory isn't your primary strat. I don’t have any strong phil opinions other than that I’m not the most experienced in it, so explanation will go a long way.
5 - Tricks. This is both because I'm the least experienced in this style of debate and because I enjoy it the least. That being said, if you're a circuit debater at a finals bid, I'm probably higher than a 5 for you (but I don't need to tell you this, lol).
Strike – you intend to be a bad person, read arguments that police your opponent's presentation/appearance (shoes theory, formal clothes theory), or you intend to make debate unsafe. i'm here to judge the debate you want to have and render the best decision that i am able to, so i will only say that you should strike me if you actively make the debate space unsafe for other people. obviously, there are other reasons for which you're welcome to strike me, but this is the only thing i will actively suggest using a strike for. but then again, not sure how many judges you'll find who actively want you to pref them for unsafe/discriminatory debates.
actual paradigm/explanations of my thoughts and feelings about debate:
I have certain ideological preferences and experiences within the circuit that will make me more receptive to certain arguments and less experienced with others. Most of this becomes irrelevant if you do the better debating, which is to say, win the line-by-line, do good sequencing, and respond to your opponent’s main points of offense. I am a technical judge.
Email chains are good. Put me on the email chain – firstname.lastname@example.org . I think that everyone in the round (judge(s)/opponent(s)) should have equal access to the evidence being read. None of this “I’ll send the judge a doc and give my opponent a paper speech doc.” ** I don’t hate paper docs, I did this a lot in HS, just don’t be sketchy about it.
I will give +0.2 speaker points if you add a significant portion of your analytics to the speech doc and organize them such that they are easy to follow. I think this makes debate more accessible, and also just makes everyone more happy during online debate. On a related note, if someone asks for analytics and you say something rude or condescending along the lines of “it’s your job to flow,” your speaks just dropped by 0.3.
I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” debaters. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. If your opponent concedes something, that means you get access to uncontested warrants/I consider those warrants to be true. It does not mean I will vote on an argument with no warranting. It also does not mean your extension can be sans-warrants. I understand that the LD 1AR is awful and very short, but you need to reference the warrants in some way when you extend conceded stuff.
I value technical debate. However, I also think that truth matters. I do not default to dropping a team that reads untrue arguments (either for strategic value or out of lack of knowledge), however, I am receptive to this being argued as a “reject the team” issue by the opponent. Use your judgment on this – a novice with a bad politics disad is probably not the same level of egregious as someone who read 8 untrue disads because disproving an untrue DA takes longer than reading one.
Similarly, I think that independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they sequence before everything else. Debaters have been getting away with murder in terms of labeling random pieces of evidence or analytics as independent voters. You need to tell me why impact defense is somehow an “independent reason to negate.” Spoiler: it probably isn’t. This isn’t to say I won’t listen to args about reps or other independent voters. I made these args. Reps matter and I value these debates. I also value warrants, sequencing, and ballot analysis in these debates. Independent voters are arguments and they need a claim, warrant, and impact, along with a justification for how they sequence (just like any other argument). Calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.
Here’s how I generally evaluate debates (absent someone telling me otherwise – my views on sequencing can be changed):
1 – See if there are arguments (independent voters, for example) that debaters HAVE ARTICULATED as coming before any framing mechanism
2 – Find the winning weighing/framing mechanism, whether that’s a standard, value criterion, role of the ballot, or role of the judge. If you think your weighing mechanism sequences before your opponent’s, it is valuable to point that out.
3 – Locate warranted offense that is impacted back to the winning framing mechanism, and take into account any argument that might change who gets offense from it/nullify the arg (turns, terminal defense). You have to do some level of work to weigh under the winning framing mechanism – I’m willing to do some work for you here but I can’t create arguments that didn’t exist.
4 – Weighing between competing offense. This is usually done based on how debaters choose to weigh things. If you don’t weigh, I will just be left to “weigh” as I see fit. This is a good situation for nobody.
Some general notes
Policy stuff: I've found after a year of judging that I enjoy policy-style debate much more than I am perceived to enjoy it. If you're a policy-style debater wondering how to pref me: I'm not the judge you want if you're looking for someone to hack for you against K teams. I'm probably the judge you want if you're looking for a decent/competent evaluation + feedback to help you improve, and you want a judge who has a decent/good understanding of how policy positions interact with other styles.
K stuff: read the k, love the k, won't hack for the k. I'll give your arguments a fair shake against policy-style teams, which is more than a lot of judges will do (it makes me sad that judges will actively hack against a style of argument). I won't actively intervene in your favor/pass judgments on how good/bad of a person your opponent is purely based on their 1NC strategy.
Sequencing saves ballots!! Tell me which layer comes first and why. I will buy things like “case comes first because it has a value criterion and those are good for debate.” That is literally an argument I read and won. Just tell me why your offense comes first, give me a warrant, and tell me why your offense sequences before that of your opponent. If not … it’s up to me lol and that’s no good.
Framing is important. If your opponent concedes your ROB but reads theory, use the ROB to exclude their offense. Don’t concede framing.
Defense matters. No risk of offense is a thing. However, having some offense certainly helps you win the debate. I’m a big fan of impact defense.
My favorite 1NC against almost any type of affirmative is some kind of procedural, a counterplan/countermethod that resolves a substantial chunk of their offense, a disad/net benefit to the aforementioned cp/cm, and a good line-by-line of the 1ac. this is true whether you're debating a non-t aff or a policy aff. this isn't like some weird requirement i impose on all rounds i judge, it's just a thought.
Trad debater vs circuit debater -- I don’t think it’s anyone’s burden to shift their style of debate to accommodate anyone else. I do think it is the burden of both debaters to respect all styles of debate and not be rude or condescending. You should each debate how you debate best and I will evaluate the round you give me. If you are the circuit debater in this scenario, do not assume that you will win. Trad debaters can win these rounds by doing good analysis, comparing evidence/warrants, and utilizing framing to their advantage. NOBODY in this round (spectators, opponent, etc) should be patronizing or elitist. If you are elitist, I will be more than happy to give you awful speaks. We need to acknowledge that the circuit is elitist and doesn’t treat trad debaters well. Please don’t become a part of that problem.
Speed/clarity – I will say CLEAR two times before I just stop flowing. I will not yell clear if you are too fast (I will say SLOW) or if you are too quiet (I will say LOUDER). I think that opponents being able to slow/clear the other debater is key to accessibility, please be accommodating. I can handle a decent amount of speed, especially with cards. I am much worse at handling speed with blippy analytics (as most people are). Going slower on analytics is a good idea.
POSTROUNDING: i'm super friendly and receptive to questions after the round (even if the questions are delivered in a manner that's not always the most polite - i know what it's like to lose a close round). i'm generally willing to answer questions for quite a while, as long as tournament schedule/second flight permits and/or there isn't a pressing concern i need to address regarding a student of mine. however, my patience takes a NOSEDIVE when you have no idea what your positions say, your questions consist of "ok but how was this not evaluated" and then your coaches send me a long email/text an hour later to aggressively ask questions without seeing the round. to clarify, i'm fine with a few clarifying questions from coaches, but i get irritated when it's obvious that you've docbotted your coach's prep, you don't understand the round/why you lost, and your coach is trying to ask me questions that you should be able to ask if you have any understanding of the prep you're reading.
Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):
I am absolutely willing to vote neg on case turns. This is something not enough judges are willing to do.
If you read something on case that functions at a higher layer, note that when the argument is read and provide a warrant for it. Multiple layers of responsive engagement with the aff can devastate the 1ar.
You read a 1AC, please use it in the 1AR.
I did this a lot. I like this a lot. Do whatever, just give me a warrant.
Use the 1AC in the tfwk debate. I tend to think you can weigh case, but give me some warrants as to why you do so that the 2nr doesn’t ruin you.
Tell me why what you did for 6 minutes is good and valuable. Use it to sequence before things like disads.
If there is prefiat offense, I don’t think you have to flag it as such in the 1AC. I think you do have to in the 1AR. I need an explanation of why something is prefiat, and what that means in the context of the round. Does prefiat mean case>T and disads? Does it mean T>case>disads? You get to choose! But warrant it out pls.
T-fwk vs K affs/NonT affs:
My experience is as a K debater, but I have read framework before and I will definitely vote on framework if executed properly. Make sure you are respectful of the debaters and experiences contained within the 1AC – if your reading of framework ends with “queer debaters should never be allowed to advocate for themselves in debate,” that’s a massive oof, and probably a pretty hot L. To that end, I think that TVAs are very important – you need to find me/your opponent a model of debate that includes their aff and also meets your interp. Without a TVA, I’m much more inclined to vote on any number of aff arguments, from impact turns to “aff good.”
Make sure you answer counterinterps, impact turns, RVIs, and cross-applications. Make sure you answer any sequencing arguments and telling me why your offense comes first.
I don’t enjoy frivolous theory. I also tend to think CX checks. You can change my mind on this, but you can also substantively engage with your opponent’s args. Choose your own adventure.
Theory defaults: competing interps, yes rvi, drop the debater. These can definitely be changed, just warrant your args and you're good!
Topicality (not framework):
Same defaults as theory.
I find T to be a compelling strat against tiny larp affs, but I also am persuaded by affirmative answers to T -- no strong feelings either way in these debates. Don’t make T your only strat (this is probably just general debate advice, and isn’t specific to only me as a judge).
One note about grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. This isn't to say that you shouldn't go for these args in front of me (I actually find myself voting for them a lot) but rather, that you should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments more than anything.
I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:
1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)
2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented. 1NC warrantless blips + infinite 2NR sandbagging is not the move in front of me
3 - Don't be ableist! If your document formatting is intentionally sketchy/ableist and your opponent calls you out on it, I'm happy to vote you down
4 - Don't be sketchy in cx (this is also generally true no matter what kind of arg you're reading)
5 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument (claim, warrant, implication/impact)
I won’t vote for these if they aren't warranted.
I don’t know K literature as well as some K debaters do, but that doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate it. I value the explanation that you do in the round and the actual parts of the evidence you read, and I will not give you credit for the other musings/opinions/theories that I’m sure your author has.
Sequencing is important and you should do it.
Links of omission <<<<<<<< other links. But, I’ll vote on them. Give me warrants that I can explain back to your opponent if I vote against them.
Specific links >>>>generic links with explanation>>>>>>>more links.
Overviews are nice! Overviews that take up 4 minutes of the 2nr and make the debate messy are not nice!
Weighing is important!
I don't really have any spicy opinions on disads -- just weigh and warrant your args and you'll be fine.
You should probably have a text in the speech doc.
I think word pics can be interesting if executed well, but they need to be well-warranted and have good ballot analysis.
Pics are fun. Pics bad theory is probably going to be a thing. Be prepared to answer it.
Please have warrants, a speech doc, and clash.
I think that the value-criterion is a criminally underrated weapon when a trad debater is up against 7 off. Use the 1ac that you read to your advantage and make smart arguments.
I think that traditional debaters should be allowed to collapse to one contention. I know this isn’t the most common on all local circuits, but feel free to do this in front of me.
It is advantageous to weigh under your opponent’s framing mechanism in addition to telling me why yours is better.
I think that a short NC and then lots of case turns is the way to go in trad debate, but that’s just me.
NOTES FOR ONLINE DEBATE:
1. debate is still a communicative activity. this doesn't mean i think you should lay debate in front of me, but it does mean i think you should do things like check the zoom video so you can see nonverbal reactions, thumbs up/nods when you ask if we're ready, etc. this also means you should be doing things like signposting! and weighing! don't just read prewritten analytics at full speed and not engage with your opponent.
2. RECORD YOUR SPEECHES. i will not be allowing speech redoes. this is final. if i'm on a panel and another judge wants a speech redo, i will not flow the new version of the speech. this is the most fair way i can think of to resolve tech issues -- this isn't to say i think all debaters are malicious and trying to steal prep, but rather, a speech is almost always better (clearer, more efficient, more organized, has better weighing) when it's done the second time -- even if you don't intend for there to be any changes.
Public Forum notes:
I think that my paradigm is applicable to all debate events, but this section aims to clarify some things that PF debaters do in front of me. These opinions are not specific to Public Forum, I just find that debaters in LD and CX generally tend to do these things without much prompting.
-make an email chain. this isn't negotiable. you can either make an email chain or run prep while you "call for cards" (we all know you're just stealing prep). pf rounds should not be as long as cx rounds purely because you "can't find a card." if you choose not to make an email chain, you lose one speaker point for every 10 seconds past your prep it takes to share evidence.
-advocacies should have a delineated text in the constructive
-please answer independent voters before you kick a contention. just because you kick contention 1, that doesn’t mean the independent voter you flowed next to contention 1 goes away
-tell me the order before you start the speech. also, try not to jump around between sheets too much. or if you are going to, PLEASE tell me the order.
-make sure the card you read has a warrant. I know paraphrasing is a PF norm, but I don’t find it compelling when you say “this person who got published in some magazine somewhere tells you that you should affirm.” don’t strip the ev of its warrants when you paraphrase it.
-I give speaks based on strategy. if you sounded ReAAALLLyY persuasive while you conceded 4 link turns, you still aren’t getting a 30.
-my debate tech views are pretty applicable across events. the only pf-specific thing I would suggest to you is to use your 3 minute summary wisely, and don’t use it to extend random pieces of defensive argumentation that don’t serve any purpose other than making my flow messier.
Arguments I will NEVER vote for (this list might get longer as time goes on)
-ableist/racist/sexist/transphobic/classist/violent arguments. To clarify, if I am judging a round where it comes down to a racist argument and a sexist argument, I will vote on presumption, not one of the two arguments.
-shoes theory/formal clothes theory/any other argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present. If you are in front of me, these arguments should not be in the strat at all. Not even as a throwaway argument.
congrats on making it to the end of my paradigm! i this paradigm was a lot of info to process, but as long as you're nice/accessible and you don't actively make debate worse, we will be besties! feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round starts/via email! i really love debate and i'm glad that you're in this activity. please let me know if there's anything i can do to make the debate space better or more accessible for you.
CHS 2020/UVA 2024
(By the Numbers)
As of January 2021, I vote neg 55.81% of the time and vote aff 44.19% of the time. I have sat 3/18 elims this season, 16.67% of the time. On average, I give out 28.9 speaker points (28.8 to the average affirmative, 28.9 the average negative).
I'm not saying you should card this and have judge-specific side-bias warrants, but that would be kinda funny. Fair warning though, they're probably not statistically significant.
Hi! I'm T.J. I lone-wolfed for a school called Chantilly in Northern VA. I am currently a physics major at the University of Virginia (Wahoowa!). I qualled to TOC my senior year, but did not attend because of COVID. I went to six tournaments total in my career and broke at the four I went to my senior year. Because my career was so short, I didn't get to meet a lot of people or make a lot of connections, so I know you've probably never heard of me. I promise I know enough about debate to (hopefully) render a competent decision.
2. General Debate Philosophy
I care about technical execution more than argument content. But part of good technical execution includes providing strong warrants for your arguments. I will do my best to be tabula rasa and ideologically neutral, but that doesn't mean I'll vote for an incoherent, unwarranted, blippy argument just because it was conceded and quickly extended.
That being said, I have no problem voting for things I personally do not think are true so long as they are well-supported in round. I'm probably a better judge than most for some of the more out-there positions in debate, because a lot of them actually do have deep literature bases and solid justifications.
I'll list some examples. Trivialism is derived using formula logic and Paul Kabay is a respectable academic with genuine credentials. The principle of explosion (or principle of Pseudo-Scotus) was enough of a legitimate mathematical problem that Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory was invented to avoid it. Skepticism (linguistic, external world, moral, and epistemological) is a real issue in philosophy and well-worth debating. BUT these kinds of debates are better if you do your research and either card the relevant articles or articulate the relevant arguments analytically instead of spamming a bunch of silly nonsense about made-up things like "tacit ballot conditionals."
3. Style Familiarity
As I've indicated above, explanation, strategy, and technical ability trump argument content. I like to thing I'll evaluate any argument or style if executed properly and won. Just do what you're best at. That said, in the interest of transparency, I've described the types of debate I encountered most often as a debater below. They shouldn't bias my decision, but they might influence my understanding of the content and my comfort level with the relevant jargon.
As a debater, I mostly read phil positions and went for theory a lot. I was a bit of a tricks debater, but as indicated in the above section I'd like tricks to be substantively warranted and not blippy nonsense. I also regularly read policy-style arguments, but usually just so I could defend util against the NC or policymaking good against the K, so I don't have a lot of experience with policy v. policy debates. I have no problem with Ks, but its worth noting that I went for one only once in my entire career (and that time it was cap against a non-T aff).
4. Decision Philosophy
Debate is a game. It's a game with a lot of potential educational value (depending on how you approach it), but it's a game nonetheless. At the end of the day, I have to submit a ballot and pick a winner. I don't want to do this arbitrarily, so I will vote on the flow and only on the flow.
However, this does not give you license to be an unethical person. There are three circumstances under which I will not deliver a decision based on the flow:
A] A competitor feels that their opponent has cheated (i.e., by clipping cards or miscutting evidence) and asks to stop the round. If this occurs, I will confirm that the competitor wishes to stake the round on the issue. If they wish to proceed, I will analyze the violation in question. If the accusation is correct, I will award the accuser the win and assign speaker points based on my own judgement of the magnitude of the violation. If it is incorrect, I will award the accused the win and award speaker points based on performance in the round up until that point.
B] I feel that a competitor has done something to make the round unsafe. In this case, I will stop the round, drop the offending debater, and award speaker points I judge to be proportional to the magnitude of the offense. For example, if you deliberately say a racial slur in round, I will drop you with the lowest possible speaks I can give you, report the incident to tab, and recommend that you be removed from the tournament.
C] A competitor feels that their opponent has done something to make the round unsafe that I have not already identified. If they point out something that I would ordinary stop the round for, but simply failed to notice or didn't hear, then I will proceed exactly as I would in B. Otherwise, I will confirm that the competitor wishes to stake the round on the issue. If they do, I will listen to their grievance, then allow the accused to either apologize or offer a defense. I will render a judgement based on the reasons given. I will either drop the accused and award speaker points based on the magnitude of the violation or drop the accuser and award speaker points based on performance in the round up until that point.
5. Miscellaneous Preferences
-- Clarity is preferable to speed. Obviously I don't care if you spread, but I do need to actually hear what your argument are. I have zero qualms about not voting on things I did not hear. I will call clear 3 times, but if its obvious you're not listening I'll give up and stop flowing.
-- I will reference the speech doc when flowing, but I still pay attention to what you're saying. I won't miss any extemped arguments that aren't in the doc, and I won't flow things that are in the doc. I'm hard of hearing and deaf in my left ear, so I like having visual reference. Because of this, it's in your self-interest to flash pre-written analytics. I won't require you to, but be aware that refusing trades off with my ability to understand you and therefore with RFD coherence.
-- I vote for the side winning offense to the highest layer linking to some framing mechanism. Do explicit analysis of what impact filter I should be using, otherwise I have to use my own intuition
-- Sequencing, preclusion, weighing, and clearly delineated interactions are the keys to resolvability; I want my RFD to be repeating back arguments you've made. Please do impact calc.
-- Extend arguments by content (as opposed to sub-point #). I have low threshold for extensions if an arg is conceded. If an argument is not extended I ignore it.
-- I try to default to paradigms assumed by both debaters. For example, if theory is read with no voters and the response is just a counter-interp, I assume fairness and education are voters.
-- No new 2NR or 2AR arguments. If you read RVIs bad in the 1NC and the 1AR concedes that, then the 2NR does not get to suddenly change strategy and go for RVIs good.
6. Arguments I Will Note Vote For
-- Arguments that police the out-of-round conduct of other debaters. Please do not drag me into your blood feuds and resolve your disputes like normal human beings, outside the confines of an activity where it my job to pick a winner and loser. (Disclosure shells and things like round reports are fine since theory is distinct from casting aspersions on someone's character)
-- Arguments that require me to evaluate the debate after the speech in which that argument was made, since any response technically generates a contradiction. No evaluating the debate after the 1AC.
-- Blippy independent voters that are not linked to some framing mechanism. I actually think Reps Ks/Word PICs can be interesting, the impact just needs to be linked to a coherent framework, preferably of a normative nature.
-- I will not vote for arguments about the safety of the debate space on the flow. If you genuinely think someone is doing something offensive, refer to sections B/C in the Decision Philosophy section. Otherwise don't make accusations you don't believe as a cheap way to get a ballot.
I've adopted the following system and will try to stick to it regularly (adjusting for the tournament as best I can). Full disclosure, they're still fairly arbitrary since I'm human and not a robot.
≥29.5 -- Near flawless, would have absolutely destroyed me when I debated, making it to deep elims
29-29.4 -- Very good, will definitely break but might not make it deep into elims
28.5-28.9 -- Decent all around, some errors, will probably break or lose the bubble
28-28.4 -- Mediocre debate, not awful but still developing (don't take personally, I was a 28 for most of my career and I have no doubt you'll improve rapidly)
27.5-28 -- Some major technical errors and flaws in strategic vision
<27.5 -- Something bizarre happened (I once watched a debate where the 1N ROB was "vote for the debater who does a TikTok dance,” and the aff conceded after the neg did a TikTok dance; that gets something around a 26.5, just out of sheer confusion )
Rishi Mukherjee (he/him)
Lexington High School 20
UMass Amherst 24
I've debated in CX for 5 years: 4 in high school & I went to the TOC (eSports edition) my senior year - I also debated for 1 year in college and last year I went to the NDT and broke at CEDA.
email@example.com put me on the chain
If you have questions about debating as a hybrid feel free to hmu or ask me about it after the round if I judge u
(Scroll down for LD Paradigm)
Policy Paradigm (Updated for Cal RR)
Updated for Water Topic
- Judged like 50 camp debates and taught a lab so I'm familiar with many of the common affs, norms on T, & acronyms.
(Scroll down for LD Paradigm)
- I try to minimize intervention and as a debater I always despised judges I believed inserted bias into the decision. I understand that bias is inevitable but I will do my best to minimize it. I think tech determines and influences truth in debate. Everything I will say later on are solely ideological leanings that are easily swayed by good debating.
However! You have control:
- Judge instruction is paramount. Telling me what the consequence of winning a particular argument is on the debate will be formative in determining how I evaluate the debate. Argument resolution wins debates; explaining the interaction between your and your opponent's arguments & competing claims as well as why it favors you will win you close rounds. Absent any instruction from debaters I'm forced to make my own judgements on how to evaluate competing arguments. Many "JF's" occur because judges put the puzzle pieces together differently in their own head. Tell me how to think!
- I usually won't say "slow" or "clear" in the middle of a speech. I am not saying I will be lazy, rather that it is in your best interest to have me understand everything you say and I don't want to incentivize debaters spamming args until a judge interrupts. I would rather incentivize teams to over-compensate and debate carefully.
- You should also record your speeches; I have had many instances occur where a debater disconnects in the middle of a speech, and recording prevents issues that arise from this in the various tournaments I've competed and judged in online.
- TLDR: I'm very middling. You should put me above clash judges but below judges who lean for you because I'm good for policy-policy and K v K.
- I don't care about what the aff does unless the neg makes it an issue. I read both affs with a plan and planless affs in high-school and continue to read both on the aff in college and I also often read FW on the neg.
- I think fairness is an intrinsic good but I can be easily persuaded about whether or not that matters. I believe there's no one right way to run FW on the neg. It's strategic to be able to debate multiple styles of FW. I think that categorizing certain impacts as wholesale strategic or not viable is wrong. When you're debating you should go for whatever standards give you the best strategic orientation to the aff's arguments. You can run whatever FW arguments you want
- Debate is a "game" - but I can be persuaded what that game means is different for different people
- I'm a sucker for hard left/Kaffs with plans and read one my entire senior year.
Ks on the neg v Policy Affs
- I'm familiar with various literature bases and I read most high theory and identity based K's on the neg. However, even if I know the thesis of your theory of power that's not an excuse to substitute out explanation. I won't vote on arguments that aren't explained and developed.
- I think that the aff should get to "weigh" the aff, but what that means is up for debate.
- I find it easier to vote for K's that disprove the aff and/or have specific links.
- I think aff theory vs the K is underutilized.
- Neg teams will succeed if they can successfully externalize offense - that means having specific impacts for offense that you can make independent from the rest of the debate.
K v K
- The Role of the Ballot and/or the Role of the Judge must be very explicit and debated out.
- Presumption can be very persuasive especially by calling out double turns.
- Scholarship consistency tends to be good, but amalgamating strategies can be strategic.
- Explanation is critical, application and examples win rounds; buzzwords lose rounds.
- Impact comparison is super important. Telling me why your impacts access your opponent's and come first is highly influential in my ballot. Debates are hard to resolve when there's no concrete impact or just independent assertions on each side without comparison so I'll have to end up resolving it on my own.
- Interpreting and indicting definitions is often important and you should clarify legal jargon as much as possible to make a clear interp. I find it more difficult to vote for a team that hasn't developed a specific violation; I think of the violation like a link to DA, you can have all the impact calc in the world but if the link to the aff is sketch it's harder to vote neg.
- Links are pretty much the heart and soul of a DA. I need a good link story or I'm not voting for you. If you have good ev. point it out. Your speeches should tell me what cards to read.
- Comparison of any form including turns case or impact calc wins debates.
- Having a coherent impact scenario and good risk comparison helps the neg out tremendously.
- I don't judge kick unless instructed to do so. I will think about the status quo, but I believe debaters should control how I evaluate the debate.
- I lean neg on condo. Regardless, I think condo, despite its notoriety, is quite underutilized and strategic. Even though I've gotten condo'd a fair bit and feel the 2N pain of being ahead and mishandling condo I always will take condo seriously if properly extended.
- I lean neg on most CP theory, but I think that aff teams are just letting the neg get away with too much because they're too scared to take them up on answering the barrage of subpoints.
- I will judge and vote up process CPs that compete off of "arbitrary things" or should not certain/immediate as well as consult CPs, delay CPs or literally any other abusive CP, but that doesn't mean I won't vote you down if the aff has a good push on theory.
- I think definitions are given too much importance in these debates, for me it usually comes down to not who reads the best definitions but the offense/defense about which interp is better. I think both sides are best served when they treat competition debates like a T-Subs debate where the interp ev is trash on both sides and teams are just trying to access the best model of debate. Spamming definitions isn't as strategic imo.
- I give "modern" speaks and modulate based on the tournament "difficulty".
- I often flow CX. It's my favorite part of the debate.
- If I'm judging what you think could be your last debate ever let me know.
- Meme arguments are an art form - passion and skill are critical!
> Scroll for LD Paradigm Below
> Scroll for LD Paradigm Below
LD Paradigm (Updated for Blue Key RR)
1 for LARP & Ks
1 for Tricks & T/Theory
2/3 for Phil
Tech>Truth. I debated for 4 years in various formats and went to TOC in CX my senior year. I primarily did CX debate in high-school, but I've done LD also. I debated in many of the online LD tournaments this year around quarantine. However to be safe you should over-explain even if you think something is obvious. A more detailed section is under Top Level in my policy section.
- I do policy so I should be a 1, ez enough eh?
- You can win with both FW and a Kaff in front of me
- I have negligible ideological biases here, and I've debated on both sides of Ks and Kaffs often
- I'm familiar with most high theory and identity based lit, but you cannot win absent explanation
- Specific links make it easier to vote for you
- I default to T as a higher layer thank the K without any argumentation
- T args about the rez are fine and I'll be good for you, I'm just not familiar with the topic
- I lean aff on T Nebel - I do policy and having plans and not just debating whole rez is pretty fire
- I have a higher threshold than most for theory arguments, especially RVIs but you can still win on them
- I'll vote on theory, but I think neg flex in general is good and that usually people are just terrible at 1ARs
- I treat judge kick and condo as the same, but absent any instruction no judge kick.
- I default dtd on T and dta on Theory but you can just debate it
- I'm in the middle on truth testing. Intuitively I think it's true, but I think the model of debate that it fosters tends to be mediocre
- Paradoxes aren't voters without implications
- A prioris need justification or ev
- I default permissibility and presumption negates absent any instruction/debate
- I dislike voting on arguments that have only bare bones explanation, but if it's dropped you don't need to reinvent the wheel
- Slowing down and explaining implications/justifications for your args is far more important than diversifying/proliferating with a ton of different args
- I'm unqualified to judge this debate, but I for some reason I keep getting pref'd in these debates and I can flow so I need not be too low - just go slow for me
- You'll need to spend extra time explaining it to me
- You need a tangible framework or impact extension, without one I'm not voting for you
- I'm unfamiliar with many phil theories.
- I'm unlikely to care too much about your NIBs
- Spamming spikes with Kant is just boring
Online Debate means you need to slow down. At the eTOC last year teams who won rounds won off being coherent not forcing drops.
Record your speech if you're debating online. At the eTOC my opponents cut out for the whole 2NR and it was very awkward. Sh1t happens, be ready.
I won't tell you if you're being unclear, I just won't flow you.
Clipping or other ev ethics violations are a loss and 0 speaks, accusations need a recording/proof and will stop the round.
Don't steal prep I'll nuke your speaks
Make docs fast, even if I'm late, assembling a doc is prep
Flex prep is fine but it just looks bad for you.
Disclosure is good, if you open source all evidence you read consistently, tell me and I'll give you a modest boost in speaks. I don't auto vote on disclosure tho.
I often flow CX.
I won on memes often in high school but that doesn't mean you auto win if you read one in front of me. Winning a bad argument is very doable, but it's not free just cuz you have me in the back. I'll boost your speaks if you go for a meme somewhat competently in the NR though. I am the pioneer of the Wingdings CP and many other memes - I fully understand the struggle. Take the risk!
I'm not unwilling to give high speaks if you deserve it. I'll modulate based on the pool and the tournament.
If I'm judging what you think could be your last debate ever let me know.
Make fun of people I'm friends with for speaks.
"If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc" - Matthew Berhe
I am the Head Coach at Lakeville North High School and Lakeville South High School in Minnesota. My debaters include multiple state champions as well as TOC and Nationals Qualifiers.
I am also a history teacher so know your evidence. This also means the value of education in debate is important to me.
I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. I vote heavily on your ability to verbalize the links between your evidence and the resolution. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.
Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about a few key pieces of important evidence rather than doing a card dump.
If you plan to run off case that's fine just make sure that you articulate and sign post it well. Don't use narratives or identity arguments unless you actually care about/identify with the issue.
Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please take the time to learn your opponent's preferred pronouns. I expect you to take your RFD graciously-the debate is over after the 2AR not after the disclosure.
please add me to the email chain
New Paradigm 9/16/21
I have voted on pretty much everything. I prefer depth and clash to running from debate. Engaging will be rewarded.
Don’t be a jerk to your opponent or me. We are all giving up lots of free time to be here. I won't vote on oppressive arguments.
I think preparation is the cornerstone of the value this activity offers. The more theory you read, the lower your speaker points will be. Obviously there are some rounds when you have to, but you shouldn’t rely on theory to avoid reading. Topicality is not the same thing as theory.
I don't think it’s possible to be tab, but I try not to intervene. Arguments must have a warrant or they aren’t an argument. This applies to all debate styles. (Ex. 4-6-3 is not a full argument)
I shouldn’t have to have background on your argument to understand it. I understand a lot, but that will be irrelevant to my decision. I won’t fill in gaps for you.
I think most debates are way closer and more subjective than people give them credit for.
Collapsing is a good idea given all of the above comments.
I will not flow off the doc - if you choose to spread in a way I can't hear you risk me missing the argument.
FOR PF: I did PF for 4 years in HS and I currently coach it. I flow a lot. Any argument you want in the second FF should be in the 2nd Summary. The first summary doesn't need to extend defense as long as the second rebuttal didn't respond to it. I think the 2nd rebuttal should probably respond to the first, just seems strategic. I read a lot on each topic and will hold you to a standard of accuracy for the most part. Speaker points are based on skill in crossfire, strategy of collapse, and quality of evidence. If it takes you longer than a min to produce evidence, it doesn't exist. If I think you inappropriately paraphrased I will ignore evidence. Read cards to avoid me thinking your paraphrasing is bad. I will vote on theory and Ks.
Updated 4/10/22 - Very slight tweaks, 99% the same
Lindale '21 U of Houston '25
Conflicts: Roberto Sosa, Leah Yeshitila, Anastasia Keeler, Ben Freda-Eskanazi, Adeeb Khan, Armaan Christ, Andrew Tsang, Sophia Tian, and Alyssa Sawyer
Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible
Phil - 1
Theory - 2
Policy - 1
Tricks - 3
K - 2
History: I debated at Lindale for 4 years doing LD the entire time. I did traditional debate for a year and a half my freshmen year and the first semester of sophomore year. I was introduced to circuit debate my junior year and read some anti-cap lit all junior year with little to no success. Senior year though I read mostly phil and theory with the occasional DA 2NR or policy aff. I qualified to the TOC my senior year winning 2/5 bid rounds and broke at the FBK RR.
Senior year aff wiki - https://hsld20.debatecoaches.org/Lindale/Pittman%20Aff
Senior year neg wiki - https://hsld20.debatecoaches.org/Lindale/Pittman%20Neg
- Was my favorite when I debated
- Probably comfortable with whatever author you read
- Syllogism > Spammed independent reasons to prefer
- Dense framework debates should have good weighing and overviews to make them resolvable
- General Principle means nothing - just answer the counterplans lol
- default epistemic confidence
- I appreciate K debate and it's importance but it's not my personal cup of tea
- Almost all of my friends/co-working coaches are primarily K coaches so it's not like it's completely out of this world to me
- Not susceptible to K tricks (PREFIAT MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING STOP SAYING IT PLEASE)
- Please stop being cringe e.g copying Mich KM, edgy for the sake of edgy, being overly dramatic for *flare*, etc
- Do not read nonblack afropess in front of me. Just don't do it. Strike me if you plan on doing so.
- Alternatives should probably do something (eMbRaCe tHe DeAtH dRiVe means nothing) do material actions like joining the Communist Party or burning down the state
- Alt solves case/Link turns case are smart and I think underutilized
- I've grown more and more appreciation for policy debate as I've coached and judged - I think it's my favorite now
- Complex policy debates will be rewarded with speaks
- Weighing is how you get my ballot (sometimes my ballot is literally x weighed, y didn't so x wins).
- Will evaluate your wacky impact turns
- Please do more case debate
- Perms are tests of competition not advocacies
- Uncondo means, unless going for theory or a higher layer, the advocacy must be in the 2NR
- I will judge kick if instructed but I really don't want too since I think that forces the aff to debate both the world of the CP and the squo
- pretty comfortable with
- Basically Hacks for Disclosure
- Don't think voters are needed (every standard can be impacted out independently and probably connects to both fairness and education)
- I think RVIs are great, underutilized and important for debate to deter bad theory and force substance
- Will vote on friv theory but it should be related to the round i.e I like AFC but I don't like "must wear x clothing" because AFC has some connection to the arguments in round but clothing does not
- Default on drop the debater, competing interps, yes rvis
T-Framework v K Affs
- Middle of the road - not hyperfash but not autoaffirm
- Err neg
- Not at all susceptible to debate bad affs as I think it's intuitive that debate is good
- 1AR probably needs a counter interp
- TVAs are overrated and usually don't solve the 1AR offense
- the 1AR should still do LBL and the 2NR should not be 3 minutes of an overview that can be summarized in "I think clash is cool"
- I read tricks every once in a while and understand the strategic value in them but if your opponent missed something I probably did too.
- I'll evaluate it (sadly) but if you make me evaluate it please do it well and not just an old Testimonies aff from 2017 or something
- If you don't have too, please don't.
Make me laugh - I love making fun of crypto bros or elon musk fanboys or absurdly rich people
Do not perceive me - "Why should Phoenix affirm" legitimately makes me squirm and I hate it
Default/Average is 28.5 but I am called a speaks fairy
Just have a good time - at the end of the day, you are all high schoolers yelling at each other about random topics whether it be Kantianism or International Relations in random classrooms or zoom calls this isn't as serious as you think it is, just have a good debate and everything will be fine :) Also non-CX clarifications are fine - I'm not someone who will yell at you and say "grr questions only cx!!!1111!!" I do not care. Also, don't be rude to your opponent for no reason, no need to be hyper aggressive or anything it's just a debate round.
If you harass your opponent (i.e asking them if they are single in CX) I will drop you with 0 speaks and contact tab. Absolutely zero tolerance of any forms of harassment in front of me. I will not hesitate. Any judge who is tech>truth should believe the same - since to be tech>truth assumes value in the game, and the game cannot exist without players. Players do not want to play if they are harassed while playing.
Stolen from Patrick Fox who stole it from YaoYao - "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that."
My favorite debates so far:
JWen v Max Perin @ Emory Quarters 2022
Daniel Xu v Miller Roberts @ TFA Prelims 2022 (Only ever double 30)
JWen v Anshul Reddy @ King RR 2022
My name is Tajaih Robinson, and my email is Tajaihrobinsondebate@gmail.com
General information about me, do with this info as you please.
I debated in LD at Success Academy for 3 years, during that time I quelled to the TOC all three years but only attended the first two, I also won the 2020 Dukes and Baileys so I am pretty knowledgeable in circuit debate. During this time I read a variety of Ks revolving around critical race theory and socio-political understandings of anti-blackness, such as afropessism.
Now I debate for Wake Forest University in policy, of the 3 tournaments I attended I dropped in octas of the NDT, and I’ve read a plan aff in 9 of my 11 college policy rounds.
Conclusively I will evaluate mostly any argument in a round so long as it has a clear Claim, Warrant, Impact, and Implication. Often the implication of an argument gets overlooked, what is the relevance that an action leads extinction, what does that mean their framework/impact is bad etc. — this needs to be explained for any and all impacts for me to vote on them.
Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn
[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp
To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 4 if you like Ks and LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).
Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).
Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:
1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.
2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.
3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.
4. "Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.
Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.
Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I of course won't on face not vote on them, but please reconsider reading them.
5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.
Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.
6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).
7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.
8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.
9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.
10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.
For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)
*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.
**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.
Hi I'm Jalyn (she/her/hers), I'm a freshman at UCLA and debated for WDM Valley in LD for ~7 years. I have experience on both the nat and trad circuits. I've dabbled in pofo and policy but don't consider myself adept at judging those.
If there's an email chain, put me on it: firstname.lastname@example.org. In constructives, I don't flow off the doc.
TLDR - LD
Please note first and foremost that I am not that great with postrounding. To clarify, please ask questions about my decision after the round--I want to incentivize good educational practices and defend my decision. However, I really do not respond well to aggression mentally, so please don't yell at me/please treat me and everyone else in the round with basic respect and we should be good!
quick prefs (but please read the rest of the TLDR at least)
2- theory, id pol k/performance, stock k
3- pomo k, LARP
for traditional/novice/jv debate: I'm good with anything!
I am fine with speed. At online tournaments, please have local recordings of your speeches ready in case there's audio issues/someone disconnects. Depending on tournament rules, I probably can't let you regive your speech if it cuts out, so be prepared. I will say clear/slow.
I rate my flowing ability a 6/10 in that messy and monotonous debates are difficult for me to flow but as long as you're clear in signposting, numbering, and collapsing, we shouldn't have any problems.
I view evaluating rounds as evaluating the highest framing layer of the round as established by the debaters, then evaluating the application of offense to it. In messy debates, i write two RFDs (one for each side) and take the path of least intervention.
i assign speaks based on strategic vision and in round presence (were you an enjoyable person to watch debate?). However, if you make arguments that are blatantly problematic, L20.
Many judges say they don't tolerate racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc, but know that I take the responsibility of creating a safe debate space seriously. If something within a round makes you feel unsafe, whether it be my behavior, your opponent's behavior, or the behavior of anyone else present in that round, email me or otherwise contact me. I'll do my best to work with you to address these problems together.
LONG VERSION - LD
- If a debater stops the round and says "I will stake the round on this evidence ethics challenge" I will follow tournament/NSDA rules and evaluate accordingly (generally resulting in an auto win/loss situation). However, I usually prefer ev ethics challenges are debated out like a theory debate, and I will evaluate it like I evaluate any other shell.
- I really am not a fan of debates over marginal evidence ethics violations. like i really do not care if a single period is missing from a citation.
- I don't hold strong opinions on disclosure norms. Disclosure to some extent is probably good, but I don't really care whether it's open sourced with green highlighting or full text with citations after the card.
- reasonability probably makes sense on a lot of interps
- I strongly dislike being sketchy about disclosure on both sides. Reading disclosure against a less experienced debater without a wiki seems suss. Misdisclosing and lying about the aff is also suss.
- disclosure functions at the same layer as other shells until proven otherwise
- I strongly dislike defaulting. If no paradigm issues or voters are read by either debater in a theory debate, this means I will literally not vote on theory. I don't think this is an unfair threshold to meet, because for any argument to be considered valid, there needs to be a claim, warrant, and impact.
- You can read frivolous stuff in front of me and I will evaluate it as I would any other shell, but more frivolous shells have a lower threshold for response. For more elaboration, see my musings on the tech/truth distinction below.
- Paragraph theory is fine, just make sure that it's clearly labeled (i flow these on separate sheets)
- Combo shells need to have unique abuse stories to the interp. generally speaking, the more planks in a combo shell, the less persuasive the abuse story, and the more persuasive the counterinterp/ i meet.
- "converse of the interp" has never made much sense to me/seems like a cop out, if you say "converse of the interp" please clarify the specific stance that you're taking because otherwise it's difficult to hold you to the text of the CI
- overemphasize the text of the interp and names of standards so i don't miss anything
- you can make implicit weighing claims in the shell, but extend explicit weighing PLEASE
- RVIs make less sense on T than they do on other shells, so an uphill battle
- T and theory generally function on the same layer for me but I can be persuaded otherwise
- Good/unique TVAs are underutilized, so make them. best type of terminal defense on T IMO
- altho I read a ton of K affs my jr year, I fall in the middle of the K aff/TFW divide.
- if you're going to collapse on T, please actually collapse. don't reread the shell back at me for 2 minutes.
- see above for my takes on defaults
- I am more familiar with asian american, fem, and cap (dean, marx, berardi), but have a decent understanding of wilderson, wynter, tuck and yang, deleuze, anthro, mollow, edelman, i'm sure theres more im forgetting, but chances are I've heard of the author you're reading. I don't vote on arguments I couldn't explain back at the end of the round. if the 1ar/2nr doesn't start off with a coherent explanation of the theory of power, I can't promise you'll like my decision.
- buzzwords in excess are filler words. they're fine, but if you can't explain your theory of power without them, I'm a lot less convinced you actually know what the K says.
- some combination of topical and generic links is probably the best
- i find material examples of the alt/method more persuasive than buzzwordy mindsets. give instances of how your theory of power explains subjectivity/violence/etc in the real world.
- floating piks need to be at least hinted at in the 1n
- idc if the k aff is topical. if it isn't, i need a good reason why it's not/a reason why your advocacy is good.
- you should understand how your lit reads in the following broad categories: theory of the subject, theory of knowledge, theory of violence, ideal/nonideal theory, whether consequences matter, and be able to interact these ideas with your opponent
- the type of debate I grew up on. NC/AC debates are criminally underrated, call me old school
- I'm probably familiar with every common phil author on the circuit, but don't assume that makes me more amenable to voting on it. if anything i have a higher threshold for well explained phil
- i default epistemic confidence and truth testing (but again. hate defaulting. don't make me do it.)
- that being said, I think that winning framework is not solely sufficient to win you the round. You need to win some offense under that framework.
- i like smart arguments like hijacks, fallacies, metaethical args, permissibility/skep, etc.
- sometimes fw arguments devolve into "my fw is a prereq because life" and "my fw is a prereq because liberty" and those debates are really boring. please avoid circular and underwarranted debates and err on the side of implicating these arguments out further/doing weighing
- Rarely did LARP in LD, but I did do policy for like a year (in 8th/9th grade, and I was really bad, so take this with a grain of salt)
- All CPs are valid, but I think process/agent ones are probably more suss
- yes you need to win a util framework to get access to your impacts
- always make perms on CPs and please isolate net benefits
- please weigh strength of link/internal links
- TLDR I'm comfortable evaluating a LARP debate/I actually enjoy judging them, just please err on overexplaining more technical terms (like I didn't know what functional/textual competition was until halfway through my senior year)
- well explained logical syllogisms (condo logic, trivialism, indexicals, etc) (emphasis on WELL EXPLAINED AND WARRANTED) > blippy hidden aprioris and irrelevant paradoxes
- i dont like sketchiness about tricks. if you have them, delineate them clearly, and be straightforward about it in CX/when asked.
- Most tricks require winning truth testing to win. Don't assume that because i default TT, that i'll auto vote for you on the resolved apriori--I'm not doing that level of work for you.
- warrants need to be coherently explained in the speech that the trick is read. If I don't understand an argument/its implication in the 1ac, then I view the argument (if extended) as new in the 1ar and require a strong development of its claim/warrant/impact
TLDR - CX
I have a basic understanding of policy, as I dabbled in it in high school. Err on the side of overexplanation of more technical terms, and don't assume I know the topic lit (bc I don't!)
Misc. thoughts (that probably won't directly affect how I evaluate a specific round, but just explains how I view debate as a whole)
- tech/truth distinction is arbitrary. I vote on the flow, but truer arguments have a lower threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is round) and less true arguments have a higher threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is flat)
- I think ROB/standard function on the same layer (and I also don't think theres a distinction between ROB and ROJ), and therefore, also think that the distinctions between K and phil NCs only differ in the alternative section and the type of philosophy that generally is associated with both
- I highly highly value adapting to less experienced debaters, and will boost your speaks generously if you do. This includes speaking clearly, reading positions and explaining them well, attempting to be educational, and being generally kind in the round. To clarify, I don't think that you have to completely change your strategy against a novice or lay debater, but just that if you were planning on reading 4 shells, read 2 and explain them well. It's infinitely more impressive to me to watch a debater be flex and still win the round than to make the round exclusionary for others.
- docbots are boring to me. I just don't like flowing monotonous spreading for 6 minutes of a 2n on Nebel, and it's not educational for anyone in the round to hear the same 2n every other round. lower speaks for docbots.
- I will not evaluate arguments that ask me to vote for/against someone because they are of a certain identity group or because of their out of round performances. I feel that oversteps the authority of a judge to make decisions ad hominem about students in the activity
- pet peeve when people group permissibility/presumption warrants together. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.
- this list will keep expanding as I continue to muse on my debate takes