ADL Modernbrain middle school CX debates
2021 — CA/US
Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I'm tech. I default to reasonability in the absence of either side justifying comepting interps. I think people should push back on the falsifiability of their opponents arguments more often.
Mamaroneck High School '20, Palos Verdes Peninsula High School '23, 3rd year debater
Go ahead, I am fine with high speed as long as you are clear. I will try my best to flow everything but if you're unintelligible, I can't guarantee that I will be able to hear everything.
Tech vs. Truth
I am a tabula rasa and tech judge and I will vote on whatever is on the flow as long as it's not offensive.
Policy vs. K
I strongly prefer policy over Ks. I will still vote on Ks but I don't particularly enjoy K debates. If I don't understand what your K says, I won't vote on it, so if you run Baudrillard, explain it well and make sure to slow down.
In K aff debates, I will usually prefer T-USFG unless it's debated poorly. Also, I want you to make it clear how an aff ballot solves.
I am fine with either big stick or soft left impacts, just make sure to prove why your impact outweighs.
I am fine with T debates but unless the aff is clearly abusive, I will prefer reasonability. Either way, make sure to have a lot of good evidence and comparison.
Make sure to have all parts of your DA - uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. I will treat the takeout of any single part of the DA as the takeout of the entire disad. So if the aff proves you don't link or that your DA is non-unique, I will vote aff on the DA. Give a clear story and do impact calc to explain why your DA outweighs.
I am fine with any CPs as long as there is a net benefit. I will disallow a type of CP only if the aff proves it's bad on theory.
I will vote on any theory but explain your standards and impacts well.
30: You did something that really impressed me and I really enjoyed listening to your speeches. I have no doubt that you will win the tournament.
29 - 29.9: You did really well and your speeches were very interesting. You will most likely win the tournament or at least get to semifinals.
28.5 - 28.9: You did well and you had good speeches that made you win. You will likely break.
28 - 28.5: You did average and there are a lot of improvements to be made. Perhaps you were not clear or your speeches were messy. You could break.
27-28: You did badly and you need a lot of improvement. I will usually not give those speaks unless I really think that you messed up really badly in your speech. You would also get those speaks if you were unintelligible or if your speech didn't make sense.
27 and less: You probably said something that was offensive and made the debate really unpleasant for either me or your opponents.
Novices, make an email chain, do line-by-line, compare impacts, and give an order.
For online debate, I would prefer it if you turn your camera on.
Rarely zero risk.
Explain how the K interacts with the aff. Don't read Ks that rely on FW. K debates should be case debates.
Fairness is an impact.
Neg terrorism is good.
Case debates are good debates.
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please give an order.
Do impact calculus and line-by-line.
Yes, you may insert re-highlightings.
I lean neg on most counterplan theory.
I default to judgekick.
The link matters more than uniqueness.
Zero risk is almost impossible.
Sophomore debater at Peninsula(yes that peninsula) for 2 years and still going.
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Signpost well. If I don't know where you are on the flow, I'll be very sad.
No discrimination, racism, bigotry, etc etc. Should be clear enough.
Please don't be too rude to opponents in cross ex. Remember even if they're reading a cyberterror impact or "america is disneyland" you have speaks too.
Don't say 3-2-1 time starts now, just make sure everybody's ready and then give your speech
DAs: These are great but please have explanations of your link chains and do impact calc or you'll have a hard time convincing me your scenario's more important than the aff's
CPs: I like them. Read specific counterplans over generic ones. Unfair CPs should be answered with theory in the 2AC. If you have some really cool and specific counterplan that wrecks the aff I'll give you better speaks.
Theory/Ts/condo: like them but not as much as policy debates. Remember that I'm not as familiar with the aff as you are. please don't make me confused with all the legal jargon. Tech>Truth. Standards debate is a must.
Ks: the CRITIQUE!!!!! yes. yes. yes. War is bad, but capitalism is sooooo much worse(know your sarcasm). Go for the K at your own risk.
K Affs: read a plantext or you lose (joke). Role of the ballot = roll of the eyes (stolen from scott wheeler)
For Novices: Be clear when you’re speaking and don’t worry too much. Try your best and that’s what counts. Don’t steal prep or be mean. If you’re not supposed to read an argument, don’t read it. I’ll be much more persuaded by an argument that you know and debate well than an argument you don’t know as well.
bribes are encouraged (takis are a fan favorite wink wink)(for scott wheeler reasons this is a joke)
Email - firstname.lastname@example.org - include on all chains
Experience - I debated for McQueen for 4 years where I was fairly successful. I wasn't exactly a "jack-of-all-trades" as I stuck to what I did best, capitalism and settler colonialism, but attended three policy labs over the summer and the Michigan K lab twice so I'm not incompetent at evaluating policy debates. I have zero knowledge of the high school debate topic which I never found to be an issue when I was a debater being judged by people in similar positions, but I won't understand your acronyms or spreaded history lessons.
TLDR - My expertise lies in critical debate, but I am comfortable evaluating any form of argumentation. My favorite type of debates are thoroughly research case take-outs and smart analytical arguments. I think judges that refuse to evaluate a style of debate or are strongly against particular arguments most likely peaked in high school and now try and make everyone else suffer because they themselves found no joy in the activity. That being said feel free to run any argument at full speed. I love well-thought-out CP+DA, DA + case, T debating, K vs. K debates, Policy v. K debates, K affs v. FW, and every form of "high theory." The only arguments I may roll my eyes at are frivolous theory debates, that's not to say I won't vote on Condo but is to say multiple perms theory is not a reason to reject the team.
DA - Please Please do impact calculas, I will drench you in speaker points if this is done effectively on any flow becuase at the end of the day all that really matters is the impact.
CP - I don't default towards judge kicking a CP, If you want that to be a possibility it should come out of your mouth during the 2NR.
K - I feel like this is obvious but if you spread through a chunk of anayltics don't be upset when my RFD leaves out huge chunks of your argument,
FW - I see the merit of both sides of the FW debate here are some things that will influence my ballot
AFF - You should move away from the random offense dump, although I am always down for a pure impact turn towards FW you will have more success in front of me if you use your offense to generate inroads into the negatives offense, that could look like "our offense turns limits", "our model of debate still produces x,y,z skill", or having some defense to package your major impact turns in.
NEG - there needs to be more interaction between the affirmative and a limited vision of the topic. I have found that a lot of teams give case lists (both on the aff and the neg) but there is little to no clash over what those affirmatives are and why they are or are not good for debate.
Topicality - I like T debates. Limits isn't an impact in and of itself, I want to hear more explanation on how limits effects what should be your "vision of the topic" holistically, what affs and ground exist within it, and why those debates are good. Education impacts that are contextualized and specific will go a long way for me, whether it be in the context of the aff or the resolution.
I reserve the right to stop the debate if I view arguments or situations as uniquely harmful to the debaters in the room.
I am not your judge for condo, it's not that I won't vote on it, but if the condo debate is close fully expect my RFD to be a coin toss
Please keep your own time
I'm not always glued to the speech doc, if you want to make a claim about card clipping your best bet is to have some sort of audio recording, of course that not required but is to say that if I didn't catch it I'm bound to reject your claim.
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.
2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.
3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.
2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.
2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.
2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.
3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.
1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.
2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.
3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.
Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.
Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.
2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.
2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.
3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.
4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.
Plz put me on the email chain at Stevenyu0923@gmail.com
tech over truth dropped arguments are presumed to be true, but I do believe that true arguments are easier to defend.
Every argument needs a claim, warrant, impact.
Fairness is an impact.
I don't vote on atrocious theory unless dropped. If you think something might fit that criterion, don't risk it.
I am fine for any policy arguments, and extra speaks for teams who do detailed case debating. I am usually fine for CP theory from both sides. With the exceptions that process CP and PICs are bad.
I am fine for K debate, but with strong predispositions. First, kicking the alt and going for framework usually means an aff ballot. Second, link debate is half the battle, I need more than some poetic bs, I need a clear link story and detailed explanation on how the K operates. Third, you need to have mitigation on case.
Other than these three things, I am usually fine with any Ks. Although I prefer you stay away from race Ks or high theory.
Against an K aff I would advise everyone to go for T, and if it is a K v K debate, make sure the link articulation is especially good. Although I am most likely bad for resolving K v K debates.
If you insult Vivian Wang you get extra speaks.
don't steal prep