Nano Nagle Classic and Nano Nagle RR
2021 — NSDA Campus, CA/US
PF RR Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I competed in LD at University High School in Newark New Jersey, I was nationally competitive for three years.. I also compete in policy debate for Rutgers University.
Presumption: I think it highly unfair for me to presume to any side when debaters have NO control over which side they are going to be debating. So I don't have any bias toward Aff or Neg.
Speed: I don't generally have an issue with speed, however I do have a problem with monotone speed, unclear speed. I will yell clear if I can't understand you, but it will only be maybe once or twice, if you don't become clear by then, my ability to properly evaluate the arguments may possibly become impaired. Also, your speaks probably won't be awesome if I have to keep yelling clear.
-I would like you to significantly slow down when reading tags/card names so I can have a properly structured flow, but while reading the card you are welcome to go at top CLEAR speed(a few caveats to be explained later)
-When making analytical arguments, please be clear, because it's difficult for me to follow analytics when they are weirdly phrased and also being spread.
-I don't like speed for the sake of being fast, I prefer when speed is used as a catalyst for an awesome case or a multilayered rebuttal with really nuanced responses on case.
Evidence: Despite what happened in the round, I may call for the cites for cards read in round, I'll specify which specific cites I would like to see. I do this for two reasons: to ensure that there was no miscutting of evidence, and because I believe in disclosure and am from the school of thought that everybody in the round should have access to all evidence read in the round. I don't appreciate a denial to share citations, if citations are not readily available, I may choose to disregard all evidence with missing citations(especially evidence which was contested in the debate).
Cross Examination: I don't know how much I can stress it...CROSS EX IS BINDING! I don't care if you present arguments for why it shouldn't be binding or why lying in CX is ok, or any arguments with the implication which allows dishonesty in CX, there is NO theory to be ran to change my mind. Nevertheless, I don't flow CX, so its up to the debaters to refresh my memory of any inconsistencies between speeches and CX answers. On the other hand, CX can be the BEST or the WORST part of a debate, depending on how it plays out. A funny yet not disrespectful CX will score big when I'm deciding on how to assign speaks, while a rude and boring CX will negatively influence how I assign speaks. Clarification questions during prep is fine, but I'm not cool with trying to tear down an argument during prep, if it was that important, it should have been in the formal CX, rather than during prep. Don't be afraid to refuse to answer a non-clarification question during your opponents prep time.
Critical/Weird Arguments: I love well explained critical positions. With the caveat that these critical arguments are logically explained and aren't insanely convoluted. I have no issue voting for the argument. But if I can't understand it, I won't vote on it. Also, I am a fan of interesting debate, so if you have a neat performance to run in front of me, I would love to hear it!
Theory: I don't presume to competing interpretations or reasonability. The justification for either one needs to be made in round. I don't like greedy theory debates, which means that I generally view theory as a reason to reject the argument rather than the debater. YES, this means you must provide reasons in or after the implications section of your shell, for why this specific violation is a reason for me to use my ballot against the other debater. I'm not persuaded by generic 12 point blocks for why fairness isn't a voter, I prefer nuanced argumentation for why fairness may not be a voter. RVIs have to be justified but I'm willing to vote on them if the situation presents itself, but its up to you to prove why you defensively beating theory is enough for me to vote for you.
Prestandard: I don't like having preconceived beliefs before judging a round, but this is just one of those things that I need to reinforce. I WILL NOT vote on multiple apriori blips, and winning a single apriori is an uphill battle, a serious commitment to advocacy is necessary(you devote a serious amount of time to the apriori position.)
Speaks: I average about a 27, I doubt I'll go lower than 25(unless you do something which merits lower than a 25) because I personally know how disappointing the 4-2/5-2 screw can be, nevertheless I am more than willing to go up or down, depending on the performance in that particular round. The reason I average around a 27 is not because I generally don't give nice speaks, its because the majority of tournaments, I'll judge only a few rounds that deserve more than a 28. It's not difficult at all to get good speaks from me. I reserve 30's for debaters who successfully execute the following: speak really well, good word economy, good coverage/time allocation, takes risks when it comes to strategy, weighs really well, provides AWESOME evidence comparison, and adapts well to the things happening in the round. I really enjoy seeing new strategies, or risky strategies, I.E. I am a fan of the straight refutation 1N, attempting something risky like this and pulling it off, gives you a higher chance of getting a 30. Another way to get high speaks is to be a smart debater as well as funny without being mean or making any kind of jokes at the expense of your opponent(this will lose you speaks)
Delivery: I need evidence comparison! It makes me really happy when debaters do great evidence comparison. Also, I would appreciate for you to give status updates as the rebuttals progress, as well as giving me implications for each extension. When extending arguments which rely on cards, in order for it to be a fully structured extension it must contain: The claim/tag of the card, author/card name, warrant from the card, and the implications of that extension (what does it do for you in the round).
Miscellaneous: You are more than welcome to sit or stand, I don't mind people reading from laptops or being paperless as long as it doesn't delay the round. Also, I don't care if you are formally dressed, jeans and a tshirt will get you the same speaks that a shirt and a tie will. :) I also believe its impossible for me to divorce my judging from my beliefs, but I'll do my best to attempt to fairly adjudicate the debate.
P.S. I don't like performative contradictions...(just felt like I should throw that out there)
VIP '20 - PF
ech > truth, "tabula rasa" for what you mean by that
Make these rounds interesting. Debate is a game, have fun with it.
Cool with anyone speaking in cross.
If the tourney is online, send the speech doc if you go over 250wpm in the event something cuts out/my wifi is bad.
If you think there is something missing from my paradigm, ask me before round or make an argument in round for why I should follow a certain rule when judging.
Give me real extensions. "Extend our argument" is not an extension. "Extend Cortez who says M4A grows the economy" isn't one either. I don't need the card name, I need warrants.
Be quick with evidence or read off cards/send card docs, I'm hard docking speaks and just getting frustrated.
If I am on a panel and the other judges are super lays, I won't flow and I'll proceed to become a lay judge if I see everyone adapting to the other two.
Dump if you want, but at least be responsive.
Second rebuttal doesn't need to frontline defense, but yes to offense, including implications, and weighing.
First summary doesn't need to extend dropped defense.
Weigh. "Probability because [insert a response you forgot to read]" is not weighing. If an argument is won, the probability is high. Clear up mess, I'm not voting on unarticulated implications. Scrap weighing categories like "time frame" and "magnitude," tell me why your offense is more important.
Speech time is speech time.
Terminalize your impacts. "20% GDP" isn't an impact.
Anything is fine, just be clear with offs and actually make warrants, don't assume I'll vote on your short cuts.
Think through what you're doing.
If the other team didn't explicitly agree to have a prog debate and they make any abuse claim, I'll drop you. The exception is in-round violations that require theory, but in that case at least be clear pre-speech about what you want to do.
Speech by speech responses, extend in just the back half.
Paraphrase and don't disclose if you wan't. An absurd amount of judges are incredibly bias and basically auto-drop teams that don't paraphrase or disclose as long as any half-written interp is read because they think they're doing something good. It's sad to see.
I'll call for evidence that I think is important or if I am told to call for it. If you have terrible evidence ethics, I'll call you out, drop the evidence from the flow, and prob take speaks off depending on how bad the evidence is.
If you don't give the warrant in the round, I don't care how good the evidence is.
You don't need evidence for everything. The "arguments start with research and evidence" coach/judge mentality strangles creativity and free thought. If you have a logical claim, back it up with logic. If something requires evidence (pointing out quantifiable changes for example), then evidence will be needed. If one side has evidence and the other has bad logic, then the evidence will be weighed heavily. But the evidence element is often just a constraint put on debaters by big school judges with freshman-prep-lines that can pump out a billion cards in a day as a way of maintaining an edge. Use your brain, it's a good one. Evidence is very nice, and research is important (I was a research first debater), but don't let it be the cage of your mind.
If you care about this, here are some things you can do to up your speaks that aren't mentioned already throughout the paradigm:
1- make a good basketball joke
2- play calming music
3- dap up your opponents (sportsmanship!)
4- be nice (don't be not nice)
5- don't steal prep time, it's always obvious
6- have your evidence ready
7- play fair
I am a parent judge who is fairly well read on current events. I tend to vote for teams who focus on the big picture with realistic impacts rather than insignificant and poorly warranted impacts.
Please self govern your prep time. Speak clearly and make sure I can understand what you are saying.
Competed in LD from 2009-2013. Have been coaching debate in San Jose at Lynbrook High School since 2015 and at Silver Creek since 2020. I judge/coach all debate events.
I like smart, analytic debating. When deciding my ballot I especially look for whether comparison has been done between conflicting warrants, impacts, and the relative strength of link of scenarios.
When the round includes too many pieces of evidence I tend to get confused. I don't mind refutation strategies that primarily rely on analytics.
In general, don't expect me to have too much specific topic knowledge, as I split my coaching time between multiple events.
I'm not too familiar with critical literature, so please explain any jargon.
When I debated in high school, I went for a lot of theory arguments, so feel free to read those if you'd like.
In terms of debate technicalities, if it's clear your opponent doesn't know a term/hasn't heard of a concept before, please be good about explaining it to them during cross-ex. I'm not impressed by teams that try to win by confusing the opponent.
In general, please be respectful of one another.
Other than that, feel free to ask me any questions before the round. Also, let me know if you'd like an electronic copy of my flow after the round. I offer this because I think it's helpful to have an idea of what your judge did/didn't write down.
Hi! I'm a freshman at Stanford and competed on the PF national circuit as College Prep HO for 3 years. Feel free to reach out:
tldr - I'm a pretty standard tech judge, w/ tech > truth, and simply put the more work you do for me, the less likely I am to make a decision that you disagree with!
Heads up, I know damn near nothing about the topic lol so please spell out acronyms the first time around and all that to make sure there aren't any leaps you're taking that I miss.
For non substance arguments (e.g. theory, Ks, etc) while I've seen a fair amount of rounds and find them super interesting, I don't have a lot of direct experience myself. Basically just a quick disclaimer to proceed with caution and make your advocacy very clear for me if that's the direction the debate is headed, and it should hopefully make for an interesting round!
Tech > Truth
Make sure you weigh your arguments vs your opponents'! It'll make things a lot easier for me and make it so I don't have to intervene with my own biases/opinions.
An argument has to be fully extended in both summary and final focus for me to vote on it. That means every step of the link chain along with the impact should be in the back half of the round! If you're speaking 2nd, you also have to frontline it in 2nd rebuttal (respond to their responses from 1st rebuttal).
To re-emphasize, extending warrants is critical. Don't just throw out card names and dates. In fact, I'd rather you have warrants than just naming the piece of evidence from earlier in the round. Final focuses should have both though.
(like I said above...) Frontline in 2nd rebuttal!!
I'll vote off the flow based on what's said in speeches (not in cross). If you get a concession in cross, point it out in speech.
Defense is sticky, you can still make my job easier by extending it anyways. If you do want to read it in rebuttal and bring up that it was dropped later, please point out that defense is sticky as you implicate it however you will.
I won't call for cards unless you specifically ask me to within speeches.
Once again (because this is particularly important), PLEASE WEIGH!! Not just the numbers and impacts, but also the warrants, links, etc. Tell me why your argument is more likely, more clear, affects more people, and/or needs to be prioritized for any other reason.
Time yourselves please.
I'm ok with mild speed but definitely rusty so I might miss some things on the flow (especially online considering technical difficulties)... aka proceed at your own risk.
Be respectful, don't say anything hateful or offensive, and fill your time; you'll at least get a 28 from me if you do those things.
Best of luck, and have fun! Feel free to ask me any questions before and after the round, and even reach out to my email way after if you want :)
Overview: I was a policy debater from KCMO circuit with Pembroke (class of '19). Qualified to NSDA Nats in policy.
General: Feel free to run any args you want, as long as it's clear you understand what you're saying. I'll be able to handle it as long as you provide overviews and explanations. I won't vote for an arg without a warrant/impact. Quality > quantity. Don't think sending me a speech doc is a reason to stop enunciating. Tech > truth. You should be writing my ballot for me. CLASH IS KEY.
Speed: Speed is fine, but keep in mind that computers won't pick up on all of your words if you go too fast. I won't bother flowing if you aren't clear. Keep it simple and go down the flow. Pay attention to what I’m doing (having a computer doesn’t mean you can’t make eye contact). If I stop flowing, it’s because you’re spreading and Zoom is getting angry.
Affs: I don't have much experience with K affs, but I don't have anything against them. I've always prefered policy affs.
Disads/CPs: Love them. Down for anything (e.g. topical CPs) but be ready to debate theory on it.
T: Spicy stuff. Love a good T debate, as long as args are well warranted. Don't just yell "reasonability" at me.
Theory: Even spicier stuff. But don't just spread blocks to overload your speech.
*Ask if you want to know anything else*
IMPORTANT: I will automatically vote you down if you are rude, disrespectful, yell over your opponents, or act sexist/racist/discriminatory in any sort of way. I believe in morality in debate. Don’t be a horrible person just to win, because you won’t win my ballot.
high school = Kansas 2012-2016 (Policy and LD)
undergrad = Emporia State 2016-2020 (Policy)
grad = Kansas State 2020-present (Policy Coach)DO NOT RECORD MY VOICE OR IMAGE AND DO NOT TAKE PICTURES OF ME WITHOUT MY WRITTEN CONSENT. It's ridiculous this has to be said.
edited for the youth
Updated 2/27/21 (updates have a "---" listed before them)
---- Yes, put me on the email chain. Squiddoesdebate@gmail.com
---- Do a sound check before you start your speech. Simply ask if we can all hear you. I will not dock speaks because of audio issues, however, we will do everything we can to fix the audio issue before we proceed.
------------------- SEND YOUR ANALYTICS - if you want me to flow every word, it would behove you to send me every word you have typed. I am not the only one who uses typed analytics. Don't exclude folks from being able to fully participate just because you don't want to share your analytics.
--- the first thirty seconds of the last rebuttal for each side should be what they expect my RFD should be. I like being lazy and I love it when you not only tell me how I need to vote, but also provide deep explanation and extensive warrants for why the debate has ended in such a way to where I have no other choice to vote that way.
----My decision is most influenced by the last two rebuttals than any other speech. I actively flow the entire debate, but the majority of my attention when considering my decision comes down to a flow-based comparison of the last rebuttals. If you plan to bounce from one page to the next in the 2NR/2AR, then please do cross-applications and choose one page to stay on. That will help both of us.
I think debate should be an activity to have discussions. Sometimes these discussions are fun, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they are obvious and clear, sometimes they are not. Sometimes that's the point. Regardless, have a discussion and I will listen to it.
I don't like to read evidence after debates. That being said, I will if I have to. If you can make the argument without the evidence, feel free to do so. If I yell "clear", don't trip, just articulate.
--- If I call for evidence or otherwise find myself needing to read evidence, it probably means you did not do a good enough job of explaining the argument and rather relied on author extensions. Please avoid this.
Your speaks start at a 30. Wherever they go from there are up to you. Things that I will drop speaks for include clearly not explaining/engaging the arguments in the round (without a justification for doing so), not explaining or answering CX questions, not articulating more after I clear you. Things that will improve your speaks include being fast, being efficient with your words, being clear while reading evidence, demonstrating comprehensive knowledge of your args by being off your blocks or schooling someone in cross-x, etc. If I significantly hurt your speaks, I will let you know why. Otherwise, you start at 30 and I've only had to go below 26 a handful of times.
----- my range is roughly 28.7-29.5 if you are curious
Prep time, cross-x, in-between-speeches chats, I'll be listening. All that means- be attentive to what's happening beyond the speeches. If you are making arguments during these times, be sure to make application arguments in the speech times. That's not just a judge preference, it's often devastating.
I like kritikal/performative debate. I did traditional/policy-styled debate. I prefer the previous but won't rule out the latter.
---- ^^ this is less true as I judge more and more high school debate but it is still true for college debate.
slow down when reading the theory / analytics / interps
don't assume I know everything, I know nothing in the grand scheme of things
don't be rude unless you're sure of it
Ask me more if you want to know. Email me. I am down to chat more about my decisions in email if you are willing.
- theory is wild. i don't know as much about it as you think I do
- tell me how to evaluate things, especially in the later speeches because new things are read in every speech and its wild and new to me. tell me what to do.
- I love the k's that are in this activity, keep that up.
Overview: These are my defaults. Everything is up for debate. Please add me to the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
First, I consider myself an argument critic. By this I mean that I might vote on an argument that I do not agree with or one that I think is untrue because in the context of the round one team persuades me. This means that I tend to fall on the side of tech over truth.
Second, I understand debate by argument. There is a trend in debate to replace argument with author names. The community has begun referencing authors instead of the argument that the evidence is meant to strengthen. This is a bad trend, in my mind, and should be limited to necessity.
Third, I will not now, nor will I ever, stop a debate if I think that someone is clipping or cross reading. While I think this is cheating I think it is up to the debaters in the round to make an argument and then for me to judge that argument based on the available evidence and render a decision. However, if you are caught clipping when I judge I will give you a loss and zero speaker points. .
Fourth, Speaker-Points are dumb. Preffing judges based on the speaker points they give is even dumber. It has long been the case that weak judges give high speaks in order to be preffed. It is unfortunate that judges of color have had to resort to giving debaters higher points than they deserve to get into debates. I will do my best to maintain the community norm.
Topicality: Yes, I vote on it. It is always a voter. Topicality debates are about competing interpretations and the benefits of those interpretations. It is incumbent upon the debaters to do impact calculus of their advantages (these are the reasons to prefer aka standards) vs. the advantages of the counter-interpretation and the disadvantages to your interpretation. In other words, to win topicality you need win that your interpretation is better for debate than your opponents. This formula is true for ALL theory arguments if you plan to win them in front of me.
Framework: Yes, I vote on it. Framework is, to me, a criticism of the affirmatives method. What does this mean for you? It means that I am less persuaded by arguments like debate is a game and fairness claims. I tend to think of fairness, strategically, and my default is to say that fairness almost never outweighs education. I have voted on fairness as a terminal impact before and will likely do so again but the threshold to beat a team going for fairness is often very low and this gets even lower when the affirmative rightly points out that fairness claims are rooted in protecting privilege. If you are negative and you are going for framework my suggestion is that you make sure to have as many ways to negate the affirmatives offense as possible in the 2nr; this includes switch side debate solves your offense and topical version of your aff. If you do that and then win an internal link into education you will likely win my ballot.
I default to utilitarian ethics when making judgments about what action/vote is most beneficial. If you would like me to use some other method of evaluation that needs to be explained and it needs to be upfront.
Counterplans-You should read one. Counterplans compete through net benefits.
*Presumption never flips aff. I know there is a redefinition of Presumption as “less change” but this is a misunderstanding of presumption. Presumption, simply put, is that the existing state of affairs, policies, programs should continue unless adequate reasons are given for change. Now like everything in this philosophy this is a default. To say that presumption flips affirmative is just to say that the affirmative has achieved their prima facia burden to prove that the SQ needs change.
*Counterplan theory: My default is that conditionality is the state that counterplans naturally exist. Because I believe counterplans are merely a test of the intrinsicness of the affirmatives advantages it means that I also default to judge kick. This also means that there is little chance that I will vote outright on conditionality bad. Instead, I will assess that the Negative is now “stuck” with a counter-advocacy that alters the debate in corresponding ways.
Criticisms: Criticisms function much like counterplans and disads, insofar, as they should have an alternative and link and impact. I can be persuaded that K’s do not need an alternative. With that being said, if you are going for a K without an alternative then you are going to need to have a lot of defense against the affirmative. Some of that defense can come in the form of the k itself (serial policy failure or impacts are inevitable arguments) but some of it SHOULD also be specific to the plan.
Any questions just ask. Good Luck!
Lynbrook '21 qualled to TOC, captain my senior year.
run crazy stuffffffff i like squirrely arguments (theory, Ks, nuke war good) - debates boring
note: if im judging u in the morning im probably extremely tired. pls adjust accordingly :))
im not that well versed in the topic yet for palm classic: have not heard a single round on the topic
Conflicts: Potomac, Lynbrook
tech > truth
go for it
ask questions in round if ur unsure
make smart, strategic choices and youll get good speaks
if u buy me coffee auto 30
note: try not to be aggro (i don't care about cross anyways)
skip gcx if u please, but im only willing to make it 1 min of prep (not 3)
* Update for Jack Howe (and any tournaments after): please don't read eval after the x speech in front of me. These debates get very confusing since most debaters never articulate what evaluating the debate after x speech looks like.
*Update for Holy Cross: I did an extensive amount of traditional debate in my career, so I would consider myself a pretty good judge for traditional rounds. I am more than happy to listen to a standard v/vc debate. Also, if you are a traditional debater debating against a circuit opponent, please feel free to message me on Facebook or email me with any accommodations that you need. The National Circuit does tend to be elitist towards traditional debaters, so I want to do what I can to mitigate that environment.
Hey y'all! I debated for Mountain House High School for 4 years, one of them on the national circuit. Cleared at a couple of bid tournaments, Qualified to NSDA in Policy, and CHSSA State in LD.
add me to the chain - email@example.com
TLDR: you do you, and I'll evaluate accordingly. I'll vote on any argument with a warrant, given that it is not violent or oppressive (things like racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, etc.) - these arguments will result in an L20 potentially lower speaks. I will be recording rounds for the sake of clipping (with permission of course), and if there is a claim that someone in the round is clipping, I will look back at the recording and make a decision. If you are caught clipping, it's an L20, but if the accusation is false then it's an L20 for the accuser.
I average speaks at around 28.8. Things that will raise your speaks include good collapsing and good strategy (also humor! Debate is supposed to be fun!!). Things that will lower your speaks are overwhelming novices or just being unstrategic.
PF Paradigm's below the general one! If you want to read prog stuff, I have my general preferences in the PF paradigm, but more specific queries should be addressed in my general paradigm.
Phil - 2 (not excessive reliance on trix)
Policy/Theory - 1
K - 2 (never read one but trust me I'm really good at evaluating this)
Trix - 3 or 4
Things I went for: Policy and K affs (Speeced Plans and Agamben/Baudrillard), Phil NC's, Lots of 1AR theory and Topicality, CBW Disads on the JanFeb topic, Set Col (on the standardized testing topic), Truth-testing, A Rawls AC.
Yes RVI's (both sides get this)
Presumption flows neg
Yes 1AR theory
Any arguments will override my defaults.
Thoughts about arguments
I don't want to make this long, so I'll just list things that you should keep in mind while arguing K's and Trix in front of me (Policy args are p simple - just prove why the plan's a good idea, or why the plan is a bad idea).
K's - cool with K affs. I am a better sell for debate bad than you think. Explain your theory of power and what that means for the round. K tricks and Floating PIK's are cool, but theory on that is warranted. I will vote against a K on presumption if there's a warrant. Kick the alt of the K if you want, just tell me how to vote for you in that case. I definitely lean more towards k aff in a kaff v tfw debate, mostly cuz tfw debaters don't articulate their fairness impacts strategically.
Tricks - If you're shady in cross, you won't be happy with your speaks. Defend your aprioris and NIB's and win on them. I think theory against apriori's is fine, but I think TT takes out theory (you have to make that argument). Innovative tricks will earn you high speaks and a smile on my face.
Phil - Explain your syllogism and how it interacts with your opponent's framework/offense. If they don't get offense under your framework, explain why. Don't spam me with preclusion arguments, actually clash with the opposition framework. I'm a good sell for deontological frameworks and induction fails.
Ask me any questions if I haven't covered a topic you need to know. Good luck and let's have a fun round!!
PF Paradigm - NANO NAGLE RR AND OTHER TOURNAMENTS
I've debated a lot of PF on a local level and a couple of nat circ tournaments in my junior year. I would say that I evaluate PF in a similar fashion as LD with 2 major exceptions: No counterplans and a higher threshold on extensions (that being said, I'm open to reasons why counterplans can be in pf and my threshold on extensions is not too much higher -> I just want card extensions as well as a scenario explanation). Second rebuttal doesn't have to frontline, but it's much better. Anything I vote on has to be in final focus, and anything in final focus has to be in summary, so make sure everything important's in summary!
I think this is where the most questions will be so.... yes, I am very open to prog stuff. K's, Theory, even tricks and framework is cool in front of me. Just give me warrants and explanations for why that model of debate is good/allowed within the confines of PF. That being said, I'm not endorsing really bad prog debate - just cuz I'm your judge doesn't mean you should whip out that kritik you've never read before. I won't do any analysis for you, so make sure you warrant things well if you read prog stuff.