Tabroom.com

Lexington Winter Invitational

2022 — NSDA Campus, MA/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Kekeli Amekudzi Brooklyn Technical High School

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 2:54 PM EDT

Email Chain

Kekeli6504@gmail.com

Quick notes (Credit to Chelsea Hodgeson for this)

I’m only going to flow what you read, not what is sent on the email chain. The purpose of this is to provide an avenue in the event of contested evidence.

I do not flow cross ex/crossfire, it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding but the only way to execute this is to include it in a speech.

Background:

Hi, my name is Kekeli (She/Her) and I am currently studying Environmental Science and International Studies at Emory University. I've done policy debate for three years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, and Congressional rounds before. I've run antiblackness, cap k, policy args, and a decent amount of theory. I’m fine with spreading but it is to your benefit that you are clear and slow down on tags and analytical arguments.

If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me it's bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

TLDR:

I will vote for most things. This includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory.

I generally believe that you should do what you do best, just make sure that you guide the judge through your strategy.

(However, for PF do not run disclosure that requires more than the constructives.)

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe I haven't judged that many rounds on this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and performative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.

2) I will default to rejecting the argument not the team unless you tell me otherwise (see above)
3) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

4) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
5) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though my own experience was as a K debater (I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate my biases.

Zaniah Anderson Newark Tech High School

Last changed on Fri February 2, 2024 at 4:15 PM EDT

Email: niahdebates@gmail.com

Hi humans!

About me:

My name is Zaniah. I did policy debate for four years and recently earned my B.A. in Political Science from The College of New Jersey.

I am new to judging Speech but have observed rounds before and familiarized myself with the landscape through NSDA

Policy Debate

I am open to hearing just about anything as long as you know your argument well enough to explain it as if I was a child/ be thorough. Do not run arguments that you are not comfortable with as it will lower your speaker points and just ruin the debate. Keep the flow clean! Let me know when you are moving from one flow to the next. ( K, DA, Case)

In your rebuttals, give me a clear line on how I should frame my ballot. What does having the ballot mean for you? Do not say "we are winning every flow," instead tell me what offense you specifically have on that flow that I should evaluate.

I’m completely fine with voting on presumption. Just make a clear statement about what specifically your opponent is missing that requires me to vote that way

You can make analytical arguments, especially if you feel there is an obvious argument to be made in the debate. I’m fine with you drawing on personal experiences or current policy issues but these should not serve as your primary evidence
If your opponent drops an argument let me know why it is important that I evaluate the argument they dropped. “They dropped it” is not an extension.

Be sure to engage in framework throughout the round and let me know reasons to prefer yours. I will not do the work for you.

Spreading

You can speak at a moderate speed. I will not pretend that I know what you are saying. If you are not clear I will put down my pen. I will say clear three times then stop flowing.

“Slow” means you’re going to fast
“Clear” means you need to annunciate clearer

Speaker Points

Use your evidence to answer arguments and do a line-by-line, you do not have to read 1000 cards that all say the same thing.
Have structure, tell me what flow I should be putting your arguments on and what you are answering, this creates a cleaner debate.
Ask good questions that are conclusive and give you links in CX. I am fine with open cross but please do not dominate your partner's cross examination.
Be strategic about what you decide to go for in the 2nd rebuttal speech

Shamika Augustin Newark Science

Last changed on Thu March 2, 2023 at 9:32 AM EDT

College Junior, Former Policy Debater for Newark Science '19 and debated about 4 years on the state, regional, and national level.

Yes, I would like to be apart of the email chain. Ask in round.

Yes, you can spread, but it needs to be clear. If I say clear more than THREE times I will start to deduct from your speaker points by 0.1 points. And whatever I can hear is what I will flow. If I don't flow it because I can't hear you please do not come to me after around and ask "Did you not flow this x argument?" I will ask you how many times did I say clear and the proceed to walk away.

Yes, it can be open cx.

I do not like SPIKES or TRICKS there is no benefit for it in debate in my opinions, so I will not vote on it.

DO NOT card clip if I find you clipping depending on the tournament or bracket you will lose speaker points AND/OR lose the round.

DO NOT say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/tbh any of the -isms. Even if the other team doesn't make it a voting issue in the round (which they should ... cough cough) I will deduct speaker points and maybe the round will be affected.

TL;DR- DO YOU. I do not need you to conform to my paradigm to win the round because most times I will be able to tell. I will vote for anything as long as you win. Please have a road map, I flow straight down by the way. OFFENSE wins rounds DEFENSE only tells me why I shouldn't vote for (AFF/NEG) not why I should vote for your side. Please explain all acronyms.

Note: 1) If you are doing a Performance AFF/NEG please do not get all up in my face, I value personal space and you may not like my reaction if you do so. 2) Ignore my facial expressions in the round if I have any because I have no way of controlling it and is not an accurate indication of who is winning losing the round.

AFFs- I am fine with both K and policy Affs and topical and untopical Affs. My only request is that you meet these tenants of an Aff. There needs to be an explicit problem, some sort of solvency ie plan, advocacy, outline to address the problem, and there needs to be advantages to doing the Aff. Also, include a framework/ROB/ROJ there needs to be one. You always need to go back to case outweighs.

CPs- are fine, just prove mutual exclusivity (b/c I am likely to buy a perm with a good net benefit). If a CP is being ran with a DA and the DA is a net benefit to the Aff please let me know and also say that the CP solves 100% of the Aff and doesn't link to the DA(s) A clever PIC is always good but be ready to defend why you get to steal most or certain parts of the aff plan.

DAs- are good too, but generic links are ineffective, and if the aff proves that to be true I am less likely to vote on it.- I am also not as persuaded by existential scenarios ie nuclear war impacts I get that people have them and love it but it doesn't make sense to me. You can try to win this, I need a very GOOD internal link story. Please also say that the DA turns case.

Ks-are my favorite! BUT this DOES NOT include white POMO, I am not a fan, those are my least favorite. You can read them if you like but I will not pretend to understand "gobbledygook", so you will HAVE to explain this. Do not take this to mean that I will vote up a queer anarchy k, anti-blackness k etc. just because it's read it needs to be read good and still needs to interact with the AFF. Have specific links to the AFF, point out specific warrants and give analysis on how the world of the alt vs. the world of the aff functions. A K without an alt will automatically be seen as a DA.

FW- shells are interesting and I kind of like them, so do whatever you want. Just prove why I should adopt your FW shell and compare it to the aff's FW. There NEEDS to be a TVA to the framework.

T/Theory- This will be an uphill battle for you. I have an extremely high threshold for winning T, but I can be persuaded to vote for it. Fairness is not an impact ESPECIALLY- Procedural fairness. To win a T-shell I need a case list of Affs that are topical under your interpretation. There NEEDS to be voters, debaters for some reason will have standards and voters as one but know there needs to be a specific voter. If there is no voter the other team (......needs to tell me there are no voters so this shouldn't be a voting issue.---HINT HINT) it will save both of us time.

I will vote on CONDO BAD. If the Neg runs more than 6 off case positions, condo bad is a thing and a voting issue.

Rebuttals- NEED to summarize why I should be voting for your side in the last 30 sec- 1 min, this should literally write my ballot. I also like overviews starting from the 2AC and on it can be long or short but please have one.

That's all! GOOD LUCK! DON'T SUCK! HAVE FUN!

Allen Avrakh Leon Goldstein

Safiatou Bah Brooklyn Technical High School

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 3:17 PM EDT

debated in policy in high school

email - safib2026@gmail.com

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I've done policy debate @Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy and PF rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. I go by any/all pronouns. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements you will lose. also don't try to tell me climate change is real

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Ks, Counter Plans, and theory.

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything.

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.
2) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

3) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias (I fully admit I am a K debater, although I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate it.

Aissata Barry The Bronx High School Of Science

Anika Basu Lexington HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 6, 2023 at 5:32 PM EDT

TL;DR

Anika Basu (she/her)

2A/1N

I'm a senior at Lexington High School.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: anikabasudebate@gmail.com

Title of the chain should be: Tournament - Round X: Team Code (Aff) v. Team Code (Neg)

I won't vote for anything sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. Other than that, I'll vote on anything as long as it's explained well. I won't judge kick the CP unless instructed to do so.

**Note for online debate: Please be clear! If you have tech issues, make sure to let me know before the round.

If you're reading my paradigm, you're probably a novice, so here's what I look for:

- LBL ("They said... but...")

- Evidence comparison

- Impact calc (don't just tell me what the time frame, probability, and magnitude are-- explain which one is most important and why that means your impact outweighs theirs)

- Splitting the block (don't repeat the same arguments in the 2nc and 1nr, you can split them up!)

- Argument resolution

- Flow

- Be clear and flowable

- Be confident!

- Have good, offensive CX questions

- Signpost/give roadmaps before your speech and be organized in general

- Time your speech and prep

- Extend arguments by explaining the claim, warrant, and impact

- Point out dropped arguments and explain why that argument is important

- Explain why you won the debate at the top of your final speech

- Make your arguments contextualized to round and the 1ac-- reading a bunch of blocks some varsity debater gives you just tells me that you know how to read blocks:)

- Ask me questions after the round! Remember to have fun and learn as much as you can.

Don't

- Be mean to your partner or the opposing team

- Read arguments you don't understand

- Read arguments the opposing team doesn't understand without trying to explain it to them during cx (this is directed at k affs)

- Make tagline extensions (see above)

- Steal prep!!! I see this a lot.

- Make new arguments in rebuttals (1ar, 2nr, 2ar)

- Just point out dropped arguments-- explain what it means and how it helps you

- Lie

**If you don't know what any of this means, ask me before the round!

Miscellaneous

- I love the politics da

- When it comes to T debates, I look for good evidence! Also, don't read your generic blocks, make it contextualized to the round and what your view of the topic is.

- I like good case debates! (case turns, rehighlighting 1ac ev, etc.)

- Impact turn debates are fun:)

- <3 condo is usually fine unless there's any in-round abuse. more than 3 is pushing it if you're a novice.

- I'd prefer it if you'd call me "Anika" (AHH-nih-kah) and not "Judge"

- Open CX is fine but excessively talking over your partner/being rude is not!

- Feel free to email me if you have any questions about my decision or anything else!

Speaks Scale

I'll start at 28.5 and move up or down.

Under 27: you probably did something really horrible/racist/etc.

27-28.4: Needs improvement.

28.5-29: Good.

29+: Impressive!

+0.2 if you make me laugh

+0.2 if you show me your flows after the round/email them to me if we're online (let me know after the 2ar)

Malena Bianco Mamaroneck High School

Tryphena Bossman Brooklyn Technical High School

Lara Celik Leon Goldstein

Nell Cox USN

Last changed on Sat January 15, 2022 at 5:01 AM CDT

Email: ellencox22@usn.org

General thoughts:

I am not timing for you. Time yourself.
Obviously no clipping or stealing prep (don’t cheat)
Don’t refer to me ever in the debate round, and I rather you call me by my name than “judge”.
Put me on the email chain
Tech over truth
Please be organized in your debating- give me a road map and stick to it. And have some clash, preferably in the order of the arguments the previous speech was in
I won’t insert myself into the debate- you can see my opinions about things below, but when all is said and done all that matters is what is in the actual debate. If I feel a certain way about a team's strat, it literally does not matter unless the other team debates it and debates it well.
Be nice to each other! You’ll get bad speaker points for being a jerk in cross-ex

Thoughts about specific args:

Critical affs: I think an aff needs to be able to defend a plantext, but I am not going to insert myself into the debate and say that. If the neg mishandles a critical aff they won’t get the ballot
Ks in general: I personally love critics on the negative, but if you’re going to read a k read a k- don’t read a lot of policy neg args as well. Perf con is a thing, and I don’t know why I would buy a cap k and an econ DA… In a K debate, all it comes down to framework and if you win a link to the aff.
Any sort of policy neg arg: I am comfortable with it, really do whatever.
Affs in general: read whatever you what, but you need to defend the entire 1AC not just your plantext (but once again I am not going to make that arg so if the neg does not then I won’t insert myself into the debate)
T- I think topicality can either be a valid arg or something that is just grasping for straws. I’d really like to see some in round abuse or evidence of whatever impacts you're claiming.
Theory in general: I am happy to vote on theory, even if it is ASPEC as long as you debate it well and actually win that flow.

Tim Do West Des Moines Valley High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 9:20 AM EDT

Hello! My name is Tim (Sim Low's league partner), and you can call me by my name.

Everyone should understand that although debate is a competitive activity, it should still be one that is enjoyable. Winning is great, but please relax and enjoy your round.

Background:

I competed mainly in Public Forum as the second speaker and in Lincoln-Douglas as well as in some Forensic events (Impromptu and Original Oratory) during high school. My high school team competed mainly on the VHSL district level, where I won speaker and team awards. I graduated from Johns Hopkins University, where I participated in American Parliamentary, broke, and received speaker awards.

General:

For the email chain, please use my gmail: littletimmy10004@gmail.com .

For other inquiries such as questions about your round, how to improve, etc., you can reach me at hdo11@jhu.edu.

The most important thing in any debate round is asking "why." Every debater should always ask why their argument is being said and why it is even important in the round. Please do not give me bare statements that are simple reiterations of what your research says. Remember to always warrant, mechanize, and impact/weigh your arguments.

I can, and will, follow speed; that does not mean, however, that you should speak at an incomprehensible pace. I will say ‘clear’ or ‘slow’ up to three times - if you fail to adapt, I will flow what I can and whatever I cannot will be missed. I realized that there are some of you guys who speak at >500 wpm; this is absolutely insane for me, so please slow down or you risk me not catching and flowing what you say, which will be reflected in the RFD.

I am very strict on debate being inclusive and equitable. If you even, at the slightest, include any rhetoric that is prejudiced or bigoted towards your opponents, you will automatically be given a loss with the lowest speaks possible. Trust me, I have done this in the past and will continue to do so as it makes my job easier. Likewise, please do not be rude to each other during the debate, particularly during the cross-examinations/rebuttals. I understand that aggressive debates exist; however, if I find that you are being excessively, and persistently, disrespectful, I will dock your speaks. Lastly, please disclose on time. I hate voting on disclosure because I want to hear what you guys have prepared. However, if your cases are not disclosed on time and there is a disclosure argument that has substantive warranting and weighing, I will end up voting for it at the very top.

I will happily answer questions after the round, but I will not tolerate being yelled at by you or your coaches. As much as I love feedback from you guys, please do not post-round me in bad faith. If you decide to post-round me, trust me that my decision will not change. My RFD will be comprehensive enough that when I explain it to tab or whoever I must explain it to, they will also agree with my RFD and stick with my decision.

Public Forum:

I believe that the two most important skills in Public Forum are 1) comparative analysis and 2) weighing. What this looks like is comparing the two worlds and showing me why your world is better or showing me why your arguments are the most important for x, y, z reasons. Please also look at the internal links! If you fail to do so, then I will adjudicate based on what argument I believe to be winning, and I can promise you that it will not work in your favor.

I likewise believe that having cards with proper citations is extremely important. If you assume that I will not catch you, I promise you that I will. When I enter a round, I expect all debaters to not cheat. If you do not have proper citations or if you even attempt to misrepresent research, I will drop you with the lowest speaks possible. With this in mind, please send me all your cases and any evidence you intend to read prior to starting your speeches. Yes, I mean all. If you opt out of this, I will assume that you have made up every single card that you are reading and drop you on the spot. In the extreme case that both teams do not send me their cases, have improper citations, or misrepresent research, I will ask Siri to assign the win. I take this very seriously, and I hope you all do too.

If you are inefficient in sending cases, cards, or any forms of evidence when requested, I will start your prep time; if it becomes excessive, I will deduct speaker points. I understand that internet issues exist, but this should not be taking you anything more than a couple minutes at most. I have had too many rounds where the round went past the tournament time by 15-20 minutes, and this not only takes away my time, but also delays the tournament. It really is not hard to have everything prepared before each round starts, so please spend a couple minutes after pairings drop to ensure that you have everything ready.

I have two new pet peeves in this format. The first is when you guys tell me that "you are going to collapse on x argument because it was dropped" and then subsequently do nothing. Just because there is an argument that is dropped and you say "you are going to collapse on it" does not mean I will auto-vote on it. You still need to show me why you are collapsing on that argument, why it is important, and why it outweighs any other arguments that your opponents bring up. The second is when you guys tell me that "this is frontline" or that you guys are going to "extend this." If you do not tell me why you are doing these things or why these things matter in the round, then I will not care.

Over time, some of you guys have been trying to include arguments from other formats into Public Forum. Look, if you want to engage in K debates, then go switch your format to Policy. I am unsure as to why you want to include such arguments in a format that traditionally does not include them; I promise you that you are not doing something unique by bringing in these arguments. Theory is permissible and has always been okay in this format, and that is theory when it pertains to violating basic rules, misrepresenting research, improperly cutting cards, and so on.

At the end of the day, please do not make me do extra work. If you are going to make a claim, warrant, mechanize, and impact it out. If you are going to go for any argument, delineate everything to me. What this looks like is going from step one of an argument and showing me all the steps in between to reach step five of the argument. You should never give me one step and then jump to the conclusion without delineating to me how you got there. If you fail to do so, I will not be upset, but sad... very sad.

Policy:

I will be very honest; Policy is a relatively new format for me. Although I believe that I have become a more experienced Policy judge, especially in the K debate, I am nowhere near as good as the top judges that you have seen on the circuit. I will change this once I know that I can be a proper judge for you all.

I know that many judges include in their paradigm specific preferences for how certain arguments should play out; for example, a judge may describe their preferences regarding CPs, DAs, theory, topicality, and so on. For me, I genuinely do not care about which arguments you run, as long as they are all properly explained. What this looks like is running Cap K and telling me your arguments, why you link, and why it matters in the round that you are in. Just treat me as a lay judge and explain everything to me.

Lincoln-Douglas:

Lincoln-Douglas has changed a great deal since I have participated in this event. I still know, to a great extent, the many philosophers that Lincoln-Douglas debaters cite and use in their arguments. However, I do not know much about truth-testing, tricks, combo shells, and paradoxes. If you have me as your judge, you need to either 1) include cards about the basics behind these arguments and why you are using them in your round or 2) avoid them. Take the time to explain them to me and I will be more than happy to go back and understand them so that you can still use such arguments. Otherwise, you can treat the round like any other Lincoln-Douglas round.

Speaks:

When I judge, speaks always start at 28.0. Depending on how the round goes, I move up or down. I do not see the need to explain what constitutes a high score versus a low score, but here is a short description on what your speaker scores should mean to you when I judge you. If you get a 29.5-30.0, I am clearing you and expect you to break. If you get a 29.0-29.4, you did well and I believe you can break if you are in a bubble. If you get a 27-28.9, you performed as expected. If you get anything below a 27, you did something terrible and I had no qualms docking you. Please do not be the first debater that I have given below a 27 to. Most importantly, I do not, and will not, entertain any speaks theory.

If you have made it to the end of my paradigm, congratulations are in order. You can make a joke during any of your speeches and I will bump up your speaks by 0.1 and possibly 0.2. Please enjoy your round and have fun!

Alex Eum The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 10:10 AM EDT

Princeton '26 Bronx Science '22

Affiliations- Assistant Coach at Berkeley Prep ('23-), Private Coach for Bronx Science teams ('23-)

Email chain: oneoffthek@gmail.com , hidden.aspec@gmail.com, bronxsciencedebatedocs@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him

TLDR

Tech over truth but have trouble in mid/high level policy v policy debates. Like clash debates but there are better judges for it. Like easy decisions (dropped aspec, wipeout vs a team that is not ready, etc). If its a North East tournament that has comparatively low quality of judges and you are a technical team, you should pref me high. If its an Octas Bid tournament and/or has college coaches / college debaters / good high school coaches who are technically sound and know how arguments interact, I am probably not worth preffing above them.

Debaters who are crushing the other team should make my life easier. If the 2AC drops a DA and a CP, and you are sure you will win, just extend those and sit down. Some of these debates can be won with 3 minutes of the 2NC. Dont use all your prep if you dont need it. Will be rewarded with speaks.

Old:

Glenbrooks Update:

I do prefs for some of my teams. I look for two things: first, are they pure tech over truth. I am, I will only evaluate the arguments on my flow and only intervene if neccesary. I will vote on dropped arguments and will scratch my head if you don't take the easy way out.

Second, what are their opinions on Framework Kritiks and K Affs.

I prefer to judge kritiks that invest most of their time in framework to moot the aff. I prefer the aff to go for fairness impacts. I prefer the negative to realize that 5 links in the block, specific or not, will not help you with mooting the aff. If mooting the aff is not a negative win condition, you will probably lose to the perm double bind or case outweighs if equally debated. I can judge negative kritiks that fiat big functionally competetive alternatives if the negative is losing framework that is treated as a DA/UQ CP. This likely requires a lot of cards and some way to capture aff offense. Less strategic, although its what I did senior year.

For K Affs, I prefer judging impact turn based strategies. The counter interpretation makes sense to me ONLY when winning some external offense about predictability or limits. Otherwise, in my mind, counter interp will always link to negative offense if predictability is articulated well. I prefer that the negative goes for fairness based impacts that explains the neccesity of fairness for both teams.

KvK debates - I prefer that the negative wins a reason the aff doesn't get a permutation or, a harder sell, that the permutation doesn't sheild the link.

Policy v Policy - I dont trust myself to judge decent policy debates. You likely dont want me in the back for this. You should pref me below the college debaters you're comfortable with taking, successful FYOs that still think about debate, and definitely below college and high school coaches who actively cut cards and think about policy arguments. Since I am not super well versed on the true arguments on things like counterplan competition and such, I will be heavily relying on my technical ability and evaluate drops highly. Going for less and collapsing on one or two pieces of offense decreases the chances of me making a bad decision because I'll need time to parse the card doc and think about how arguments interact. I think infinite condo is good (although I enjoyed going for condo a lot and felt judges sometimes did too much work).

Old:

--I went positive at TOCs my senior year if that matters to you

--Tldr: Do what you do best- I am a technical judge and will vote for the team who did better debating. All of my opinions can easily be overturned by out-debating your opponent. I want to judge high-level debates and recognize that you are giving up your precious time to research and compete. I will be invested in your debate, try my best to catch every argument, read cards during prep, etc out of respect for your preparation, genuine interest in high-level argumentative innovation, and appreciation for technical proficiency. Although I'm not going to lie, I may look bored watching some not high level/not competitive debates

--My favorite judges were clash judges who were flow-centric and did not bring personal opinions into the decision (unless it was necessary to do so). This was because I debated fast, reading 13 off and going for undercovered positions. What David Sposito says here resonates with me "Recently I've found myself advising losing teams in the post round that they should have gone for extremely bad, dropped blips. An argument being 'bad' ALONE does not mean that I will have a 'high threshold' for voting on it (again, these are weasel words that allow judges to get away w/ voting as is convenient for them, or as they please). Teams still must answer an argument satisfactorily. It is true that practically, 'bad' arguments should be unstrategic b/c they can swiftly be beaten w/ the right arguments, but the other team only benefits if they know the right answers (which they often do, but sometimes do not, especially for arguments w/ a bad reputation). But that's not about thresholds, exactly.... Ineffective arguments do not suddenly become better because I want one argument to win or lose--logically, that is bizarre, and practically, it is a violation of giving each team their due."

--So what do I believe are "truer" arguments and "faultier" arguments? Despite mostly going for the K in my career, I found myself voting for Policy teams more often in close clash debates when judging last year. However, I am only coaching K teams right now which shows that I recognize the K's strategic potential. This means that if you are a competent K team that utilizes speed to overwhelm your opponent with arguments that are hard to answer, shotgun extendable arguments against the policy team's "true" answers to your offense, isolate offense that is mishandled, impact out arguments and explain how they interact with your opponent's arguments, then you should not be worried. These are the K teams that end up succeeding anyways- most K teams that make it to deep elims of TOCs and other big high school tournaments pref college debaters that solely read policy arguments and college coaches that will vote strictly off of their flow but will vote for the policy team if equally debated. I will think about clash debates similar to these judges. This means I will moot the aff if you win its good to do so, and I will not evaluate reps links if you win reps links are bad.

--To be transparent, I'm confident I can follow a counterplan competition debate but am not as well versed as college policy debaters nor do I know enough dense critical theory to process blocks that use buzzwords every other sentence. I can handle speed, but I can't process insanely fast mumbling or flow as good as the college debaters and coaches who devote much more time to this activity than I currently do. However, I want to judge high-level debates and am confident I can keep up with skilled debaters that make arguments clear and explain how arguments interact with each other.

--I mostly agree with other community norms seen at high levels of debate: if the "truest" arguments on each side are forwarded, affs get perms in kvk debates, unlimited condo is justified, fairness is the most strategic impact, predictability outweighs limits for the sake of limits, dont default to squo unless its mentioned by the negative, etc. I understand these are not homogeneous views held by the community and are contestable, these views mostly stem from Brian Klarman and Mikaela Malsin along with discussions with other top-performing debaters.

--Send docs out quicker, prep ends when doc is sent, asking what cards were read is prep (asking for a marked copy is not)

--Format emails reasonably. If you need help, "Tournament X Round Y- AFF Your Team Code Vs NEG Other Team Code - Judge Alex Eum"

--If everyone in the round sends analytics and you remind me after the debate, I'll raise speaks, just remind me.

Emily Feng North Broward Preparatory School

Last changed on Wed February 15, 2023 at 6:50 AM EDT

Please call me Emily (not 'judge') and add me to the chain: emilyfengdebate@gmail.com

Did a negligible amount of coaching in the 2021-2022 AY and have not dabbled in debate since. I also have no topic knowledge, so please proceed accordingly.

Debated for 4 years at Interlake, currently a sophomore at Harvard.

2A in senior year, 2N for 3 years before that. Most experienced with CP/DA/T vs. plan aff debates, but I will listen to anything.

1. Be a decent human being! I care deeply about inclusion in this space & have no tolerance for rude, condescending, or marginalizing behavior.

2. Speak clearly and slow down if needed. Explain acronyms/niche, topic-specific terms. Please give me time to shuffle my flows.

3. Debate with intention. Introduce well-researched positions, read/compare warranted evidence, avoid rambling overviews, and line up numbering.

4. Explain why things matter. An argument needs a claim and warrant. Impact out statements. Set thresholds. Be instructive and make choices.

5. Pathos can coexist with technical execution. Make the 1AC exciting by setting up a well-paced narrative & delivering it with enthusiasm. Be assertive but respectful in CX. Poke lighthearted fun at silly arguments, underscore pivotal claims, and demonstrate that you know the most important parts of the debate. I love passionate 2ARs (but also have a higher bar for them).

6. The following is a laundry list of preferences. Ideological positions are easily overturned by in-depth debating. I like limits/predictability explanations (T vs plan affs), fairness (T vs planless affs), academically-sound analytics, historical examples/references to 1AC evidence with kritiks, and smart challenges of the "offense/defense" paradigm (I have a lower threshold for reasonability/"zero risk" than most). I dislike exhaustive framing contentions, debating kritiks like they are counterplans/disads, making random perms against kritiks, the phrases "try or die"/"I don't get a 3NR"/"don't make me reinvent the wheel," death good, and trivial theory arguments (or arbitrary interpretations during reasonable debates, like condo).

7. I will match your energy - if you are kind/act like you want to be there, I will be happier! That said, I understand that debate is a stressful activity and will do my best to make sure you are comfortable.

Aliya Fisher The Bronx High School Of Science 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 11, 2022 at 12:43 AM EDT

she/her

Bronx Science '22, currently at Stanford

certified hacker bitch

qualled to the TOC 2021 if that matters to you

add me to the email chain please fishera@bxscience.edu

IMPORTANT: +1 speaks if you ask your opponent why they didn't talk about capitalism in their speech

UK: this paradigm is not updated which is very representative of my relationship to the current debate topic. I also wrote it for novices so section on k affs is not accurate

TOP LEVEL

- i primarily prefer to do k debate but i have also dabbled in policy land so it doesn't really matter to me what you run as long as you do it well

- i absolutely love judging absurd unconventional arguments as long as they are not harmful to anyone or any group of people- this is my favorite part about policy debate

- do more impact calc + ballot writing for me please

- speed is fine and not speed is also fine, clarity is the most important

- tech>truth

- obviously don't be a jerk (don't be racist, transphobic, ableist, sexist, homophobic etc.) and with that said if there's anything i can do to make you feel more comfortable let me know

have fun :)

Policy Aff v K Neg

- love love love these debates

- examples on both sides can win you the debate, and also boost your speaks because history is cool

- depends on the situation but most of the time framework debates make me confused and sad because people misinterpret them and can't do them properly. i would say 8 out of 10 times you're better off focusing on something else (for the aff - DAs to the alt, link turns, or impact turns, for the neg - alt solves the aff (underrated argument), nuanced link debate, k turns the aff)

- for the aff: my biggest pet peeve is when people homogenize k lit leading to them mishandling it. i went to a policy camp and i realized the reason why people suck at answering ks is because certain policy camps teach their kids that all Ks are the same and can be answered by the same 5 2ac cards when this is blatantly untrue and can really screw you over when facing a strong k debater - don't do this

Policy Aff v Policy Neg

- i am more qualified to judge these debates than i was before i went to policy camp. i really like well-thought-out DA/CP combos so if you can pull one out and make me understand it i will probably appreciate it

- politics DA makes me laugh because it is literally so far from being grounded in reality that it's funny, but this doesn't mean i won't vote on it if you win it (see tech> truth)

- policy debaters could benefit from taking some cues from k debaters here - strong turns case/impact calc work goes a long way in these debates as well as giving me a clear coherent story of why i should vote for you in rebuttals

- i don't really have super strong opinions about this since i haven't participated in or judge many of these debates so just do whatever floats your boat

Topicality

- sort of same situation as above - i am qualified to judge these debates but i don't have strong opinions bc i don't have much experience with them

- obviously many definitions on the water topic are arbitrary and unpredictable but just as obvious is the fact that the topic is completely underlimited - i have yet to see a compelling resolution to this debate so far so it really just comes down to who debates better on a round-by-round basis

- for the aff your best bet is probably to go for arbitrariness/unpredictability and for the neg limits (although this is just what i have seen work and again i am not opposed to voting on other things depending on how the debate plays out)

- evidence comparison is your friend because people read bad evidence all the time. i don't want to vote on glenn treefukers precise definition of water resources (this is a tiktok reference, btw i like these) but an underrated source of definitions is legal textbooks

K-affs

- you kids aren't reading them probably so this section is pending but i have judged a lot of these debates and contrary to preconceived notions i'm probably 50-50 aff-neg on the framework question because framework is a good argument and k affs are cheating even though cheating is good.

boosting your speaks (novice edition)

- time yourselves and your opponents

- make pop culture/tiktok/history references

- i'm sort of a science nerd and i think this topic is an opportunity for stem kids to shine so if this is you i will probably love you

- give me a song suggestion before the debate and i will listen to it during prep or rfd or something and if i like it i will boost your speaks

- be funny even if you're not - my threshold for this metric is so low bc my humor is broken and i laugh at everything. also if you see me laughing during your speech you probably didn't do anything wrong i just am the type of person to think of something funny and make myself laugh about it out of nowhere

Chloe Foster-Jones Washington Urban Debate League 8 rounds

Yifan Fu Lexington HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 3, 2022 at 5:04 AM EDT

Yifandebate@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)

Yifan Fu

He/Him pronouns

ON THE TOP: I AM OKAY WITH SPREADING, OPEN CROSS, AND WHATEVER ELSE YOU WANT. EXCEPT, I AM NOT OKAY WITH RACISM, SEXISM, ANY KIND OF DISCRIMINATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. I am currently a senior debating at Lexington High School. To be honest, run whatever you want, I'll vote on anything if you debate well and state why I should vote on you. I am familiar with both policy and ks, but obviously, still, explain the argument to me(ALSO THEORY OF POWER!!!!).

General:

Tech > Truth - I will listen to CX and CX is binding - Open cross is okay - Prep time ends when you stop compiling documents.

K: I understand most works and literature, but still explain it well. The K should prove that something is wrong with the plan, and the more specific links to the plan the better. The stronger the link, the weaker permutations become and the easier it is for me to put a ballot on your K.

DA: explain why DA outweighs the Aff

T: Run T, it's so useful and if you explain well it might win you the round

CP: explain why it solves better than the Aff

Please do impact calc, it is so important and helpful to any judge. It could be a straight-round winner.

Policy Aff: I enjoy them, they always seem a bit absurd but it is also really fun to listen to. It is super super important for you to explain your impacts, and why you can actually solve them. You should maintain that debate is a game and your Aff is hypothetical but it is very educational.

K Aff: I run them, I enjoy them, I think they're fun. But if you do run them, it doesn't make me want to vote for you more. While I love K affs, I also hate them. Please just make sure to explain everything well and your entire theory. If you do not seem educated on the topic I will not vote for you. I am not a fan of overly long overviews.

I will disclose speaks if someone asks and both teams are okay with it. I will be generous with speaks as we're all having a hard time here.

Things to do to earn good speaks

"Yee haw" before the round for +0.5

Technical efficency(sign posting, road maps are also good)

WEll executed and/or originially researched strategies

making funny jokes within rounds.

Overall, have fun in debate, experiment with whatever you want, explain the arguments well, GO CRAZY. GFW

Akum Gill Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 11, 2021 at 11:07 AM EDT

Contact info

akum.singh@gmail.com

Debating History

* High school: I debated for Harker from 2006-2010. Qualified for and competed in the TOC senior year

* College: I debated for the University of Michigan from 2010-2012

Judging History

Honestly, not a ton. I've been out of the scene for a few years, but am looking to get re-familiarized and contribute more to judging over the coming years. I judged a few high school rounds when I was debating in college, but not since

Preferences

* I don't need to personally like an argument or find it compelling to vote on it. Debate is about rewarding debaters who make good arguments so I'll do my best to check my biases/preferences at the door and adapt to the round. With that said, it's probably a safe assumption that I don't know the nuances of your argument unless you explain them to me. If you're going to use terms of art, I'll request that you define them or explain them so I can follow along effectively

* I have a very expressive face so it should be pretty clear when I don't really know what you're talking about

* It takes me a bit to get used to your voice so please don't just start full speed. Ease me in

* I prefer depth of argument over breadth so I don't love when one team just sandbags the other with weak arguments, but that preference is more likely to be reflected in speaker points instead of the ballot

* The neg is allowed to have multiple contradictory arguments throughout the debate, but should consolidate to one by the 2NR

* You should tell me why you're winning an argument, but also why winning that argument means you win the debate. Tell me why some arguments are more important than others

* Evidence quality matters, but I'll defer to you to point me to the most important pieces of evidence that I should be looking at to make my decision

* Be nice to each other please

* Please ask me questions before the round starts! This will help me to know what I should be adding here that isn't already clear

Professional history (probably not relevant, but in case you're interested)

I worked for Facebook from 2014 - Feb 2021. In that time, I led engineering teams working on child safety, countering/preventing violent extremism, and anti-scams. I left the company to work in scientific research for a non-profit. Because of this, I'm quite familiar with both the positive and negative effects of big tech and social media specifically on society. I don't think I have a particular bias in one direction or the other on this though.

Jeffrey He Lexington HS

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 5:07 AM EDT

Lexington '23

Dartmouth '27 (not debating)

He/him

presumption2nr@gmail.com for chains.

Please format the subject line of the email chain as the following:

Tournament name Round number---Aff team [Aff] vs. Neg team [Neg]

E.g. Trevian R6---Lexington HV [Aff] vs. Lexington TW [Neg]

Hi everyone. Call me Jeffrey/Jeff. 4 years at Lexington High School as a primarily policy 2N.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have.

Notes for big lex:

These will be my first rounds judging on this topic. I haven't coached on this topic, nor have I done research in the literature, so extra explanation goes a long way, especially w/ respect to particular programs/pieces of legislation/other abbreviations or topic-specific niches. I will follow more if you don't throw out big words and complex acronyms. I've been out of the activity for a bit so excuse me if I'm missing one-liners you throw out (hint hint don't throw out one-liners).

I have been very unfond about the quality of arguments and evidence recently (see misc.). I may internally laugh at your evidence for my own pleasure. Sometimes I'm expressive. Maybe I vibe. Speaks may suffer. White's an All-Star.

Top Level:

Technical debating informs the truth value of any argument. I think it is unfair to the debaters for me, as being outside the bounds of the forum that is the debate, to inject my own knowledge, biases, preconceived notions into the round to come to a conclusion about the round. Therefore, to the best of my ability, I will rely entirely on what is presented to me when coming to a decision. All of my thoughts and opinions below should be read as guidance for how you should approach/debate in a round with me in the back, not as my hardened views of arguments.

I tend to have a high threshold for argument explanation. If you are "winning an argument", don't blaze through it in 10 seconds and then rinse and repeat with another 5/6/7 more. Be strategic about what you choose to extend and how you explain it. The more effort you put into evaluating an argument and its influence in the round, the more likely it is that I will be swayed to value said argument highly, particularly in a close debate.

Both sides should send card docs after the round.

I will say clear once then I will stop flowing.

TLDR for prefs: Best for policy v. policy, then lower than that policy v. k, then a good bit lower kaff v. 'policy', then somewhere very far below that, k v. k. Then all the way at the bottom are teams reading bad evidence.

Policy stuff

- Has a special place in my heart.

- The best T debates involve deep dives into what each model of debate looks like in terms of the debates themselves, the literature, and bilateral research potentials.

- I find link turn/root cause or thesis-level controlling arguments particularly persuasive.

- Also very persuaded by critiques of evidence quality. Far too often teams on both sides get away with reading evidence that’s cut out of context or doesn’t actually define a resolutional word/phrase.

- My pet peeve is aff teams that first throw around the phrase "functional limits exist under our topic", then run through a list composed of the states cp, a politics da, and the cap k, which has been repeated in each previous speech. Make real arguments, do your research.

- If the 2NR is 5 minutes of t-subsets, and you win, i'll give you minimum 29.5.

DAs

- I understand this topic isn’t the greatest. Idc if you read politics, something topic-specific, or jump the gun on the elections da, so long as you execute well. I honestly have a soft spot for a well-thought-out politics DA.

- tell me a good story

- both evidence and explanation are important. evidence = pieces of a puzzle, your explanation is putting it together. link explanation, spin, and evidence analysis are all arts and I'll be impressed if you put them together coherently.

CPs

- Do whatever. I love a good innovative CP, especially a well-research, topic-specific one. As such, I will be happier seeing some CPs read more than I will be for others (e.g. the sunsets cp), but at the end of the day, I was a 2N who had to read inevitably read and go for generics so I will understand the decision you make. I just might be a little more bored (kidding).

- I won’t judge kick unless told to.

- Solvency deficits need implications.

- I’m fine w/ a lot of condo. Perfcon has its place in debate; it's usually not a reason to reject the team.

K stuff

Policy aff v. K

- Familiar with most of the more common literature bases (cap, security, blackness arguments, setcol, sort of psycho, etc.). The more devious you get with your K, the less likely it is that I will understand it if you don’t explain it properly.

- You don’t need a specific link, but you DO need to at least contextualize your generic link. I have a fairly high bar for neg links given that I think a lot of evidence that’s read doesn’t meet the standard for specificity, which is a point that aff teams should exploit. When neg teams ARE ahead here, it’s because of their extrapolation beyond the evidence, and a generic/surface-level interrogation of the link by the aff. Summary: I think there’s potential on both sides here that often times gets lost.

- Aff: attack the alt. Neg: flush it out earlier. Making the alt a floating PIK in the 2NR is funny but also ballsy if you don't set it up properly.

- Framework debates end up being washes a lot. Do with that what you will.

K v. framework/policy

- Only found myself on the negative here.

- fairness matters. CAVEAT: I was a fairness debater, but I like seeing research/testing/skills/clash debates more because 2Ns tend to actually interact with the aff’s offense in those rounds rather than just saying “procedural fairness matters” over and over. I’m more convinced by teams that take fairness beyond that and add link-turns, pre-requisite arguments about “the game”, etc., that frame the way I should evaluate fairness in the context of the neg’s offense as well. TLDR: don't jettison comparisons or legit argumentation.

- I'm not ideologically opposed to k affs, but make them topic-relevant. PLEASE.

- More swayed by impact turns of framework and standards than counter-interpretations that try to solve neg offense. Not convinced by impact turns of the reading of framework itself.

- Use the case debate. On both sides. I cringe seeing teams read evidence about the wrong theory on case (negative); please put in effort to make the case debate substantive. Presumption is a real argument. Your kaff should actually do something, not be a FW preempt.

- Totally down for good memes in honor of the lexington debate tradition.

K v. K

- not my area of expertise

- framing, judge instruction, and explanation go far in these debates. I’m moreso convinced by examples as proof than assertions about a controlling theory of power.

Misc.

Maybe this is my internal 2N but I have been pretty disappointed at the poor quality of evidence pervading the last few topics. I consider myself to have been a debater highly valuing evidence, and that has translated now to judging. While I will obviously not go out of my way to discredit what a piece of evidence says, my threshold for agreeing with a team pointing out the flaws in a piece of evidence is significantly lowered if the evidence itself is terrible. Conversely, if you’re reading good evidence, I will be happy to read it your way assuming you’ve explained and defended it well.

I don’t remember who said this but they're spitting. Speed ≠ words per minute, but legible arguments made per minute.

I won’t bump speaks for this but my mood will significantly improve if you make jokes or banter during the round, whether that be in speeches, between speeches, during cross-ex, or before/after the round (obviously given that what you say isn't demeaning, hateful, or anything of the like). Debate is competitive, but meant to be fun for everyone involved. I like seeing you all enjoying your time at tournaments, so don’t take yourself too seriously with me in the back. Will be extra happy if you make jabs at Atul Venkatesh, Misty Wang, Vinit Iyer, Shreyas Sreeprakash, Ishan Kinikar, or really any other (ex) lexington debater.

Chelsea Hodgson Brooklyn Technical High School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 12:53 PM EDT

Put me on the email chain csh7916@nyu.edu

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I've done policy debate for years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, and Parli rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. My pronouns are she/her. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me its bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

Top Line:

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory. I know people are iffy on theory but I personally feel they make some of the best rounds.

Vinit Iyer Lexington HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 18, 2023 at 4:00 PM EDT

Lexington '23

I went to the TOC my junior year if that matters to you

I was primarily a K debater in high school but I read policy affs a lot of the time

Put me on the email chain: vinit1.iyer@gmail.com

Top Level

Tech>Truth, litmus test for judge intervention is very high

Don't say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, abelist etc in round - depending on the offense I will drop you

Give me the easiest way to way to vote, that means 30 sec at the top to frame the debate are key

Debate is a game at its core, but it can be other things too

Debates are often a question of impact calc, especially clash debates.

Please post round me - it is a good practice and may help clear up any issues you have with my RFD

Throwing shade is fine but crosses the line when it becomes mean - this is especially true for novices

Be respectful towards both your opponents AND your partner

CX is a powerful weapon, take that as you will

Please read arguments that you are comfortable with, my preferences are very easily overturned by good debating

Reading tricks and stupid arguments is perfectly fine and I will vote on them. If the argument is that stupid the other team should be able to answer it efficiently and if they fail to do so, I don't see how voting for them would make any sense.

I have little to no topic knowledge

Most of the policy biases apply but the most important thing is that you do you. As long as your arguments are executed in the most technical manner possible I don't care what arguments you read.

As per new LD arguments that I have less familiarity with like some theory, some tricks and phil, you are going to have to explain more in depth. This doesn't mean you shouldn't read these arguments but it does mean that I will need a little longer to process them.

I have little to no topic knowledge

Treat me like the most technical judge you have ever had. I don't care what arguments you read, everything is on the table (even the most squirelly arguments) as long as you technically execute them. Given that there is very little time given in PF final speeches I find collapsing down to a few arguments to be the most beneficial. Spreading is ok as long as your opponents are ok with it.

Policy

I have some topic knowledge but some intricacies might need to be explained more in depth for me

Here is my list of debates that I am most comfortable judging to least comfortable judging:

Policy v K

K v K

Policy v Policy

Preferences relating to each set of arguments:

Policy Affs vs Ks -

Neg

- Open to almost any k (including the death k if that matters)

- FW is the biggest part for me, losing FW probably means you lose

- Explanation of your theory is extremely important without too much jargon, I am not going to do the work for you

- Link articulation is VERY important, specific links are preferred but generic is also chill

- Alt needs to resolve the links if ur going for it

Aff

- Affs should prioritize extinction O/W and FW over the perm

- Affs should try their best to clash with the negs theory of power

- Affs win when they win a defense to extinction O/W, FW and some level of disproving the negs theory

FW vs Kaffs -

Neg

- Clear impact explanation and calculus is necessary

- I like education and skills more than fairness but fairness is an impact

- Use your offense to turn theirs, I don't just want you to reiterate debate is a game a billion times and hope you win

- TVA > SSD but affs don't have great defenses against SSD so take that how you will

- Very hard to win if you don't disprove their theory especially with ontology based K affs

Aff

- C/I > Straight impact turn

- I want some relation to the topic so you can provide reasons as to why your C/I is a better model for debate

- Make sure to do a lot on the impact level and try to best mitigate their impacts

- Topical Kaffs have a special place in my heart, if you are able to have a W/M and win on it I will boost your speaks

CPs

- No judge kick

- Textual competition is an asinine standard

- I don't know that much about intrinsicness so keep that in mind

- Presumption flips aff if the CP solves more than the Aff

- Theory is underutilized against this type of argument so please consider it as a valid option

DAs

- Turns case matters for me more than most - this doesn't mean turns case is an auto-win, it just means that I think you may want to spend more time on it

- Card dump > other things

Policy T

- The topic is quite big, try to have a precise definition of what you are limiting under your interpretation to exclude all ambiguity

- Make sure to actually articulate impacts, "we maintain limits" is not an impact articulation

- I need a clear story of the violation

- Competing interps vs Reasonability is debateable

K V K

- K affs getting a perm is a debate to be had

- You probably need a robust link to the aff, "we control rc" is NOT a link

- Role of the ballot = rolling my eyes

- Alternatives should probably be as robust and as concrete as possible. This means "insert jargon" is not an alternative

- Please don't drop the floating PIK

Theory

No specific thoughts except that neg teams are getting away with murder and you should capitalize on it

Perf Con can be a reason to reject certain reps arguments

Zahra Karim Lexington HS 8 rounds

Gabriel Koo Georgetown Day School

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 4:35 AM EDT

Background:

Director of Debate at Georgetown Day School.

Please add me to the email chain - georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com .

For questions or other emails - gkoo@gds.org .

I do not share speech documents from rounds I have judged. Please reach out to the teams who debated.

Big Picture:

Read what you want. Have fun. I know you all put a lot time into this activity, so I am excited to hear what you all bring!

Policy Debate

Things I like:

2AR and 2NRs that tell me a story. I want to know why I am voting the way I am. I think debaters who take a step back, paint me the key points of clash, and explain why those points resolve for their win fare better than debaters who think every line by line argument is supposed to be stitched together to make the ballot.
Warrants. A debater who can explain and impact a mediocre piece of evidence will fare much better than a fantastic card with no in-round explanation. What I want to avoid is reconstructing your argument based off my interpretation of a piece of evidence. I don't open speech docs to follow along, and I don't read evidence unless its contested in the round or pivotal to a point of clash.
Simplicity. I am more impressed with a debater that can simplify a complex concept. Not overcomplicating your jargon (especially K's) is better for your speaker points.
Topicality (against policy Aff's). This fiscal redistribution topic seems quite large so the better you represent your vision of the topic the better this will go for you. Please don't list out random Aff's without explaining them as a case list because I am not very knowledgeable on what they are.
Case debates. I think a lot of cases have very incredulous internal links to their impacts. I think terminal defense can exist and then presumption stays with the Neg. I'm waiting for the day someone goes 8 minutes of case in the 1NC. That'd be fantastic, and if done well would be the first 30 I'd give. Just please do case debates.
Advantage CP's and case turns. Process CP's are fine as well, but I much prefer a well researched debate on internal links than a debate about what the definition of "resolved" "the" and "should"" are. Don't get me wrong though, I am still impressed by well thought out CP competition.
Debates, if both teams are ready to go, that start early. I also don't think speeches have to be full length, if you accomplished what you had to in your speech then you can end early. Novice debaters, this does not apply to you. Novices should try to fill up their speech time for the practice.
Varsity debaters being nice to novices and not purposefully outspreading them or going for dropped arguments.
Final rebuttals being given from the flow without a computer.

Things:

K Affirmatives and Framework/T. I'm familiar and coached teams in a wide variety of strategies. Make your neg strategy whatever you're good at. Advice for the Aff: Answer all FW tricks so you have access to your case. Use your case as offense against the Neg's interpretation. You're probably not going to win that you do not link to the limits DA at least a little, so you should spend more time turning the Neg's version of limits in the context of your vision of debate and how the community has evolved. I believe well developed counter-interpretations and explanations how they resolve for the Neg's standards is the best defense you can play. Advice for the Neg: Read all the turns and solves case arguments. Soft left framework arguments never really work out in my opinion because it mitigates your own offense. Just go for limits and impact that out. Generally the winning 2NR is able to compartmentalize the case from the rest of the debate with some FW trick (TVA, SSD, presumption, etc.) and then outweigh on a standard. If you aren't using your standards to turn the case, or playing defense on the case flow, then you are probably not going to win.
Role of the Ballot. I don't know why role of the ballot/judge arguments are distinct arguments from impact calculus or framework. It seems to me the reason the judge's role should change is always justified by the impacts in the round or the framework of the round. I'm pretty convinced by "who did the better debating." But that better debating may convince me that I should judge in a certain way. Hence why I think impact calculus or framework arguments are implicit ROB/ROJ arguments.
Tech vs. truth. I'd probably say I am tech over truth. But truth makes it much easier for an argument to be technically won. For example, a dropped permutation is a dropped permutation. I will vote on that in an instant. But an illogical permutation can be answered very quickly and called out that there was no explanation for how the permutation works. Also the weaker the argument, the more likely it can be answered by cross applications and extrapolations from established arguments.
Kritiks. I find that K turns case, specific case links, or generic case defense arguments are very important. Without them I feel it is easy for the Aff to win case outweighs and/or FW that debates become "you link, you lose." I think the best K debaters also have the best case negs or case links. In my opinion, I think K debaters get fixated on trying to get to extinction that they forget that real policies are rejected for moral objections that are much more grounded. For example, I don't need the security kritik to lead to endless war when you can provide evidence about how the security politics in Eastern Europe has eroded the rights and quality of life of people living there. This coupled with good case defense about the Aff's sensational plan is in my opinion more convincing.

Things I like less:

Stealing prep. Prep time ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed. If you read extra cards during your speech, sending that over before cross-ex is also prep time. I'm a stickler for efficient rounds, dead time between speeches is my biggest pet peeve. When prep time is over, you should not be typing/writing or talking to your partner. If you want to talk to your partner about non-debate related topics, you should do so loud enough so that the other team can also tell you are not stealing prep. You cannot use remaining cross-ex time as prep.
Debaters saying "skip that next card" or announcing to the other team that you did not read xyz cards. It is the other team's job to flow.
Open cross. In my opinion it just hurts your prep time. There are obvious exceptions when partners beneficially tag team. But generally if you interrupt your partner in cross-ex or answer a question for them and especially ask a question for them, there better be a good reason for it because you should be prepping for your next speech
2NC K coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads paragraphs on the links, impacts, and alt that could have been extended on the line by line.
2NC T/FW coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads extensions on your standards when that could have been extended on the line by line.
10 off. That should be punished with conditionality or straight turning an argument. I think going for conditionality is not done enough by Affirmative teams.
Debaters whispering to their partner after their 2A/NR "that was terrible". Be confident or at least pretend. If you don't think you won the debate, why should I try convincing myself that you did?
Card clipping is any misrepresentation of what was read in a speech including not marking properly, skipping lines, or not marking at all. Intent does not matter. A team may call a violation only with audio or video proof, and I will stop the round there to evaluate if an ethics violation has happened. If a team does not have audio or video proof they should not call an ethics violation. However, I listen to the text of the cards. If I suspect a debater is clipping cards, I will start following along in the document to confirm. If a tournament has specific rules or procedures regarding ethics violations, you may assume that their interpretations override mine.

PF Debate:

Second rebuttal must frontline, you can't wait till the second summary.
If it takes you more than 1 minute to send a card, I will automatically strike it from my flow. This includes when I call for a card. I will also disregard evidence if all there is a website link. Cards must be properly cut and cited with the relevant continuous paragraphs. Cards without full paragraph text, a link, a title, author name, and date are not cards.
You are only obligated to send over evidence. Analytics do not need to be sent, the other team should be flowing.
Asking questions about cards or arguments made on the flow is prep time or crossfire time.
If it isn't in the summary, it's new in the final focus.
Kritiks in PF, go for it! Beware though that I'm used to CX and may not be hip on how PF debaters may run Kritiks.

Jack Lassiter Berkeley Preparatory School

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 6:35 PM CDT

Berkeley Prep Assistant Coach - 2017 - Present

10+ years experience in national circuit policy @ Damien HS, Baylor University and other institutions

Email: Jack.Lassiter4@gmail.com

I will evaluate offense and defense to make my decision unless you tell me to do otherwise.

Framework

I have an appreciation for framework debates, especially when the internal link work is thorough and done on the top of your kritik/topicality violation before it is applied to pivotal questions on the flow that you resolve through comparative arguments. On framework, I personally gravitate towards arguments concerning the strategic, critical, or pedagogical utility of the activity - I am readily persuaded to vote for an interpretation of the activity's purpose, role, or import in almost any direction [any position I encounter that I find untenable and/or unwinnable will be promptly included in the updates below]

The Kritik

I have almost no rigid expectations with regard to the K. I spent a great deal of my time competing reading Security, Queer Theory, and Psychoanalysis arguments. The bodies of literature that I am most familiar with in terms of critical thought are rhetorical theory (emphasizing materialism) and semiotics. I have studied and debated the work of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze, to that extent I would say I have an operative understanding and relative familiarity with a number of concepts that both thinkers are concerned with.

Topicality:

I think that by virtue of evaluating a topicality flow I almost have to view interpretations in terms of competition. I can't really explain reasonability to myself in any persuasive way, if that changes there will surely be an update about it - this is also not to say nobody could convince me to vote for reasonability, only that I will not default in that direction without prompt.

Counterplans:

Theory debates can be great - I reward strategic decisions that embed an explanation of the argument's contingent and applied importance to the activity when going for a theory argument on a counterplan.

I believe that permutations often prompt crucial methodological and theoretical reflection in debate - structurally competitive arguments are usually generative of the most sound strategic and methodological prescriptions.

Updates:

Judging for Berkeley Prep - Meadows 2020

I have judged enough framework debates at this point in the topic to feel prompted to clarify my approach to judging framework v. K aff rounds. I believe that there are strong warrants and supporting arguments justifying procedural fairness but that these arguments still need to be explicitly drawn out in debates and applied as internal link or impact claims attached to an interpretation or defense of debate as a model, activity, or whatever else you want to articulate debate as. In the plainest terms, I'm saying that internal link chains need to be fully explained, weighed, and resolved to decisively win a framework debate. The flipside of this disposition applies to kritikal affs as well. It needs to be clear how your K Aff interacts with models and methods for structuring debate. It is generally insufficient to just say "the aff impacts are a reason to vote for us on framework" - the internal links of the aff need to be situated and applied to the debate space to justify Role of the Ballot or Role of the Judge arguments if you believe that your theory or critique should implicate how I evaluate or weigh arguments on the framework flow or any other portion of the debate.

As with my evaluation of all other arguments, on framework a dropped claim is insufficient to warrant my ballot on its own. Conceded arguments need to be weighed by you, the debater. Tell me what the implications of a dropped argument are, how it filters or conditions other aspects of the flow, and make it a reason for decision.

Judging for Damien Debate - Berkeley (CA) 2016

In judging I am necessarily making comparisons. Making this process easier by developing or controlling the structure of comparisons and distinctions on my flow is the best advice I could give to anyone trying to make me vote for an argument.

I don't feel like it is really possible to fully prevent myself from intervening in a decision if neither team is resolving questions about how I should be evaluating or weighing arguments. I believe this can be decisively important in the following contexts: The impact level of framework debates, The impact level of any debate really, The method debate in a K v K round, The link debate... The list goes on. But, identifying particular points of clash and then seeing how they are resolved is almost always my approach to determining how I will vote, so doing that work explicitly in the round will almost always benefit you.

If you have any questions about my experience, argumentative preferences, or RFD's feel free to ask me at any time in person or via email.

Crystal Liao Lexington HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 24, 2022 at 11:09 AM EDT

Crystal

She/Her

Add me to the email chain please: crystall1663@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Crystal. I am a 4th year high school policy debater. I am a 2N so I will be sympathetic to FW and T arguments. Besides that, I'm open to most arguments. Just try your best and be nice! Be sure to explain things during the debate for the sake of me and your opponents. If you're a novice I encourage you not to run super complicated Ks because you will trip yourself up. Overall, I will give everyone high speaks for a good and engaging debate. Some points that I will be considering when making my decisions are:

General:

Tech>Truth

In my opinion cards are not responsive— that's your job. You need to extend and apply your evidence, just reading them makes the debate stale.

Judge instruction - Tell me why you win. I can't read minds so I might interpret things differently and put together arguments in a way that disadvantages you. If you tell me why you win, then I will be able to understand how you want me to see things.

If you’re pressed for time here’s a TLDR: I am pretty much open to all arguments, if you are running an obscure one be sure to understand it yourself and explain it clearly. I like debates with a ton of clash so if you manage that in a debate your speaker points will be pretty high. Have some sort of judge instruction in your last speeches, it helps make sure that I am not misinterpreting your situation in round. Don't be harmful to other people in your round. If it was unintentional be sure to apologize, your speaker points will decrease but I will not vote against you for accidentally saying it. If you continue to be rude on purpose I will vote against you.

Now onto the long stuff. . .

Aff:

Extending Aff solvency - I think the Aff sometimes gets caught up in the Neg's arguments and forgets to extend their own solvency. Without a good reason why your case solves there is no reason for me to vote Aff. Even if you prove that the Neg doesn't have any solvency either, that just means I buy the squo is better than the world of the aff..

Answering T/FW - If your opponent makes these arguments, answer them because it could cost you the debate.

K Affs - Just know how to run a K well. Don't go for a K you have no practice in and don't understand. Generally I am open to K offs as long as the lit is explained well.

1ar - You can read cards in the 1ar. But I strongly recommend you limit it to one or two. It is better to extend cards you already read or respond to your opponents.

Neg:

Extend Case - Don't forget to answer case. Just because you have other arguments don't drop case. I will vote Aff if they have extended case and proven that they solve. If the Aff solves better than the Neg there is no reason for me to vote Neg.

New 1ar arguments - If you tell me not to consider new arguments in the 1ar I will listen to you. But that’s up to you.

Other general stuff is just being nice during CX and speeches. Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, trans phobic and ableist. I'm not a fan of death good. Talk clearly and loudly but don't interrupt others. Be sure to time yourself and don't try to steal prep. Good luck and have fun!

Jonah Lipman Wylie E. Groves HS

Lisa McGonagle Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 8, 2022 at 5:54 AM EDT

I am a policy wonk and NSDA trained Adjudicator. For history, I competed from high school through college in debate. I have worked with Boston Debate League judging for several years.

My pronouns are I/she/hers. Please let me know what yours are as well as your preferred name if it is different from what is on tabroom.

On the issue of speech: you are awarded speaker points. Your speaker points are comprised of rate of speech and clarity. I should not have to refer to your cards to understand your speech. My focus as an adjudicator is on you, not your cards the entire time.

The policy mapping I use: rate of speech, clarity, pre-round prep, evidence sharing, flow, in-round strategy, audience adaption, and thinking on the fly. Things I look out for: evidence distortion and non-existent evidence. When you give me all your evidence know that I will read it to check for distortion and non-existent evidence. During the debate you have my full attention.

Policy is my favorite section to judge. Remeber the question and present a solution. This is not LD, although I also judge LD. Please do not try LD K's in policy. I want an evidence based debate that addresses the proposed question. KNOW YOUR EVIDENCE! I like to hear theory and substance. You must have a strong theoretical framework to warrant deontological or consequential arguments. Who provides the best value and criterion? Giving me an "end of world" solution does not belong in Policy. We're here to solve a problem.

Be prepared. Pat attention to time because I do. Be polite at all times. The point of debate is the civil exchange of opinions. Clash is good! If you find yourself getting nervous, stop and take a breath. Above all, you should have fun and always use this as learning process.

Strong argumentation begins with the topicality, harms, inherency, framework and solvency. Hit each of those.

A thread of logic is required throughout the argument; meaning you cannot begin with one aff and veer off onto a completely different aff simply because your opposition is forcing you to. It is imperative to stick to your aff; be prepared to argue it, defend it in the neg, and have good, solid counterpoints prepared.

Debate is an inherently competitive event. Having its own specialized jargon does not necessarily hurt the event provided the jargon does not become the event. However, they should not replace substance and do not automatically add impacts. Words matter. Choose them wisely. You must impact. You have to do the work: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round. I could rattle off all the terms, but really, they add nothing and from a National Debate Champion and former trial lawyer, debate is not won or lost on terms. It's won or lost on topic knowledge. Know your stuff. Know the purpose of your 1AC and 1NC. Your NR's are only to make your final points and address last arguments; by that time all heavy lifting should be done.

Your NR's are your summations. Lay out your argument, EVIDENCE, and reasons for a decision.

My ballot is contingent on how well you use, analyze, extend, link, and weigh evidence and theory (not on how well I read it). Speaking quickly is fine; as all things in debate, please be clear about it. Please have your camera on when speaking.

Nathan McTeer Calvert Hall College High School

Amanda Niemela Folsom High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 11:01 PM PDT

Hi! I graduated from UC Berkeley in May and I now work as a biologist for UC Berkeley and for the state of CA. As a high schooler I debated for Davis Senior and SUDL, qualifying to the TOC in my senior year. I debated on the China, education, and immigration topics. I've been coaching and judging throughout college a for SUDL, Folsom, CKM, Davis, and do some other coaching here and there.

Please put me on the email chain: amandaniemela8@gmail.com

I would appreciate it if you could include the tournament and the round in the email chain title in whatever way you like ("gonzaga round 6" etc) for organization purposes. Thanks!!

Feel free to contact me for anything before or after the debate.

Everything I have written here are opinions I have developed in my time coaching and debating. I am learning along with you.

***Pls do not read this whole paradigm, your time is more important than that. find what you need to know!

TLDR/prefs:

Update for Meadows 2023: I've judged zero rounds on this topic so far... take it easy on me when it comes to topic knowledge and acronyms!

My personal experience as a debater lies mostly in k debate (specifics below) but I have judged and coached the whole spectrum. Regardless of your style, impact calc and framing are going to determine how well you do in front of me. If it matters to you, I seem to mostly get preffed for K v K debates. Other things that might matter for your prefs: I avoid judge intervention. I flow CX. I value good organization. I love creativity but not at the expense of substance. Finally, and most importantly, I appreciate the enormous amount of work many students put into this activity, and I show my respect for that by making a very genuine effort to be the best judge that I can be. I believe that my job as a judge is to leave my personal beliefs and preferences at the door as much as possible--debate is about the debaters!

***Note on online debate: please please please slow down. Feel free to spread cards as fast as you like (while remaining clear) because I can read along with you, but when it comes to your analytics, please slow down slightly so I can get all of your wonderful arguments. MY SPEAKERS ARE BAD! The clarity is bad. My hearing is also bad. Keep in mind that I'm also having to flip between tabs to see you, your cards, and my flow as I type. I know it's not ideal, but it's even less ideal for me to get 50% of your arguments because I can't understand you. I will say clear three times and then I will give up and do my best.

Generally:

Debate is an activity with an incredible amount of potential that probably has the ability to shape our perspectives to at least some small (but meaningful) degree. It definitely shaped me. It means many different things to many different people and I am not here to change that. Please run whatever arguments you want to (with the obvious exclusion of racist/queerphobic/xenophobic/misogynist/ableist args which are an immediate L0). It is my job to do my very best to arbitrate your round, not to decide how you should be operating within that round. That being said, no one is completely unbiased. It is also my job to make sure you're informed of biases and opinions that I might have.

The best way to win in front of me regardless of style is to filter arguments through impact framing. Why is your model/disadvantage/advocacy/etc important? Compare this importance to your opponent's arguments. What does it mean to mitigate/solve these impacts in the context of the debate? Why is the ballot important or not important? Even the most disastrous debates can often be cleaned up/won/saved through high-level framing. See the bigger picture and explain it to me in your favor for a clear ballot. This is, in my opinion, is the difference between “winning” debates on the meta level rather than “not losing” them on the line by line.

I am very expressive. My face will do a lot of things during the debate. This is not a judgement on you as a debater or person but it's probably a pretty good indication of how I think things are going!

ARGUMENTATION:

Kritiks: If this is the only section of the paradigm that you're looking for, I'm probably a good judge for you. I ran almost exclusively kritikal arguments in my last 2 years of debate and the coaching I do now is largely k oriented.

I am very familiar with: settler colonialism, fem (particularly iterations fem IR and queerfem), puar, other queerness stuff, biopower, cap, security, and chow. These are the Ks I ran during my time in debate but it's by no means a comprehensive list of things I'm a good judge for. It's probably a safe bet that I'm at least somewhat familiar with whatever you're reading, but it's always a good practice to be clear and informative anyways.

Make your literature accessible for everyone in the room (by this, I mean understand if folks haven't read what you have, and avoid trying to obfuscate for a strategic advantage--it usually doesn't help you anyways). Not everyone has equivalent access to the time/resources necessary to invest in critical literature, and their perspectives are still valid. Be respectful. This is especially true for those of you reading pomo.

My experience with and love for Ks doesn't mean I hack for them--if anything, it raises my expectations for what a well-executed K strat looks like. Bad K debates may not be the worst debates but they are still very nasty.

If you're a traditional policy debater wondering how to best respond to Ks in front of me, I discourage you from reading "Ks are cheating" framework since it's typically not very compelling, but I think reading framework overall is a smart move and I can be persuaded by plenty of other interps. I find that the most convincing policy teams answering Ks do a great job of explaining their framework impacts beyond "realism good" or "fairness good" and end up more in "policy education good" or "engaging the state good" territory. Remember that impacts can function on a multitude of levels.

If you're looking to read a K in front of me, know that I am extremely open-minded about how you go for or read this argument. Do you need an alt? Up to you! Performance? By all means. Part of the beauty of kritikal debate is its flexibility. I encourage you to do you in these debates. I will flow performances unless told otherwise, just so I can be sure to remember clearly. Anything can be an argument. I don't particularly care what sort of links you go for so long as you can effectively defend why you're going for them.

I am NOT as familiar with bataille, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, or nietzsche, for example. I didn’t read any of this as a debater. Honestly, I'm just not a pomo hack. This doesn't mean I won't vote for these arguments or think they have no place in debate! This simply means more elaboration will probably be necessary. I was frequently exposed to these arguments as a debater and I still deal with this lit now as a coach. If I'm tilting my head at you in confusion, I probably don't know what you're talking about. It may pay for you to slow down and explain vocab/buzzwords. Please never assume I (or your opponents) know all of your lingo.

K Affs: Go wild. I was a 2A reading a kritikal aff throughout almost all of high school and I understand them strategically, practically, and structurally. Again, performance is great. Pessimism is great, optimism is great, anything in between is great. Anything that doesn't fit into these categories is great. Personally I don't care if you talk about the resolution, though I could be convinced otherwise if the neg takes a stance on it. I come into the round with 0 predispositions about the "role" of the aff because I think that doing so would be basically arbitrary. Tell me why what you're doing is important (or not important). Also, good case overviews are a thing. If you have one of these, preferably don't blast through it at a million wpm. There's valuable stuff in there.

K affs probably get a perm, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Neg: engage the case when possible! There are lots of K affs that don't really do anything and have trouble explaining defending their method under close scrutiny. Take some time to just think abt the aff straight up, your questions may also be my questions.

Framework: I understand the importance of framework and used it myself a few times in debate. That being said, be warned that I was a 2A responding to framework in most of my aff rounds. As a small school debater, I understand why it can be necessary, especially if you legitimately have nothing else to run and don't have coaches to prep you out against every aff. Structural fairness/education/subject formation etc impacts make WAY more sense to me than procedural fairness. I also think it can be extremely convincing to turn the aff with portable skills arguments, if you do it right. If you're from a huge school with 10 coaches and your main defense of framework is "we couldn't possibly prepare :(" then you're going to be facing an uphill battle on this argument if your opponent calls this out. Your interpretation should be clearly defined and should probably be more than one "words and phrases" card. TVA usually ends up being extremely key to resolving aff offense. Like I said about aff overviews, neither team should be blasting through your framework blocks so fast that I miss all of your warrants.

If you're responding to framework, you better have a pretty good block for it. Have defense on their standards but offense of your own on their model of debate. I also do not care if you go for a counter interpretation or if you go for just a turn on their model of debate. If you do the latter, you should probably impact that turn out in the context of the aff. Also feel free to do both or whatever else you feel like.

Both teams should have a role of the ballot. Tell me why yours matters in relation to the biggest impacts in the debate!

Policy Affs: there are some very interesting and educational policy affs on this topic. Just like a K aff, you should have a defense of your model of debate when pressed on it. You should probably also be able to defend your subject formation. I think this standard should be universal.

Love a good, well-warranted impact defense debate here from the neg. doesn't usually win on it's own but super helpful for mitigating offense and also just makes me happy.

Topicality: I like T a lot. I default to competing interpretations but can be convinced otherwise. Why do limits/ground/fairness/research matter? I am of the mind personally that fairness is less of an independent impact and more of an internal link to education but I will also evaluate fairness as an independent impact in the round if instructed to do so. Also, caselists are underutilized and are important, please have these early in the debate! And stop dropping reasonability yall.

To quote my old partner "I met the heart of the topic and it said yall are wack" --Jack Walsh esquire. pls explain what heart of the topic means. If you keep explaining this argument as vibes alone you are forcing me to judge on vibes alone.

Disadvantages: Do what you do here, DAs are straight forward for the most part. Topic DAs are super important for neg ground but I also really appreciate creative, unique DAs. That being said, quirkiness shouldn't trade off with a good link chain. Contextualize. Not enough teams tell good stories of the disadvantage: block extension is just as key as 2NR. I wanna hear specifics in the impact debates pls, that's where all the fun is usually.

Counterplans: Good solvency advocates can be killer here. Have a good understanding of your mechanism. These debates can be extremely interesting. I don't have any predetermined notions about what kinds of CPs are abusive or not. That's up to you to decide. For the aff: explain the world of the permutation--"perm do both" means nothing without an explanation. Paint a picture, worldbuild.

Theory: I love a good theory debate. By good, I mean really in depth discussion rather than a blippy "floating PICs bad" sentence in the 2AC that gets extended in the 1AR and then becomes 3 minutes of the 2AR. Why is your model of debate important? Why does it matter? How does it implicate this round specifically, and potentially all others? Theory can be really strategic and also pretty true in some instances. I don't come in with any predispositions about any particular theory argument here except probably for RVIs. Don't do that.

Misc: if you get caught cheating and the other team calls you out with proof, expect an autoloss and the lowest speaks possible. Clipping, falsifying cites, texting coaches, etc. If you suspect your opponent is clipping, pls record before you call them out, otherwise its a huge mess

Good luck and have fun prepping!

Grace Ou Lexington HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 27, 2024 at 2:40 PM EDT

Hi! Please put me on the email chain: graceodebate@gmail.com

I use she/her pronouns and am a current Junior at Lexington High School :)

**Note for online debate: please be clear, if you have tech issues please let me know before the round.

If you're reading my paradigm, you're probably a novice, so here's what I look for:

I'm fine with policy, if you run a k or a kaff make sure you explain everything. I lean more neg on theory (ie condo, 50 state fiat etc). Anything more than 3 condo is too much in the novice division. I default to competing interpretations but can be swayed the other way.

I won't judge kick the CP unless told so.

DO:

Line by line! Extend your own arguments and answer your opponents arguments. Point out if your opponents didn't answer any arguments and explain why that supports your argument. You can use the “they said…. But …” format to answer arguments.

Sign post! Tell me when you are moving onto a new offcase (ie. Next off, the states CP)

Make sure you do impact calc! Why does your impact matter more? (that includes ev comparison- why is your author better?

Make sure you prioritize your arguments in the last speech. Tell me how I should evaluate the debate/which argument I should be voting on (ie. you can vote on the DA debate because they dropped… Which means …)

CP- I’m fine with agent and process CPs. Love a good CP and DA debate.

DAs :) Explain the story of the DA. Especially in the 2nr. Make sure that you are doing good link, internal link and impact calc debate (especially in the 2nr- weigh the impacts of the DA vs the impacts of the case)

Case- LOVE a good case debate. DO Case turns, Impact turns. Get some offense on the case debate flow. Case debate is underutilized so take advantage of it.

T- I default to competing interpretations but can be swayed the other way. If you are going for T in the 2nr either the entire 1nr should be T or a majority of it should be T. I value evidence comparison (date, author qualifications etc.) but I also remember to do impact calc (ie. ground, limits etc.). Make sure you have offense and defense on the flow (ie. why their interpretation is bad and why yours is better).

K- I don’t have a lot of experience here. My experience in Ks goes to the extent of the Cap K and stops about there. If you run anything else please make sure that you explain the entire story of the k.

DON'T

-Be sexist/racist/homophobic/etc.

-Be mean to your partner or opponent

- Be mean to your partner or the opposing team

- Read arguments you don't understand

- Read arguments the opposing team doesn't understand without trying to explain it to them during cx (this is directed at k affs)

- Make tagline extensions (see above)

- Steal prep!!! I see this a lot.

- Make new arguments in rebuttals (1ar, 2nr, 2ar)

- Just point out dropped arguments-- explain what it means and how it helps you

**If you don't know what any of this means, ask me before the round!

Speaks

28.6-29- Amazing:)

28.5- You're doing great!

27-28.4- Could make some improvements

+0.2 if you show me your flows after round

+0.1 if you make me laugh

+0.1 if you win on presumption (but i don't advocate for it)

+0.1 if you mention my partner Anika Basu :)

Good Luck! Have Fun! You got this!

Jackson Owen Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:55 AM EDT

please put me on email chain

jaxrowen@gmail.com

former 2A/1N for Mamaroneck BO (2018-2022); UPenn Class of 2026

General Stuff

Not very familiar with this year's topic discourse, but I have a basic understanding of social programs and advanced sense of the current political system.

I have a policy slant and am definitely tech>truth (TO AN EXTENT)

Don't change your strat because I am judging, I will vote on anything reasonable

dropped arguments aren't true if they are ridiculous and/or illogical

tell me the implications of arguments, I get mad when judges over reward teams for vagueness because of past experience

I am good with speed but please say "And" or "Next" so I can flow without following the card doc

Clarity on analytics will earn higher speaks and probably allow you to win the round

Please don't be racist, homophobic, offensive in round

K affs

Explain your Theory of Power in some way in the 2ar if you want my ballot

I probably lean neg on t-usfg, but creative debating by aff will compensate

procedural fairness is an impact.

Case

The offense-defense paradigm will apply unless I'm given a reason to reject it

durable fiat solves circumvention unless fiat as a concept is argued against

impact turns are dope, but no racism good

love a good heg good/bad debate, impact level debates in general are enjoyable to me

T/Theory

If your A-strat is going for T or theory violations I am probably not your judge; I will do my best to evaluate the debate fairly but tech-y T debates are not my specialty

should be 3-5 cards at most, or else aff conjunctive fallacy arguments become persuasive

conjunctive fallacy is not enough to answer a disad, not very strategic

I love a creative disad, but make sure it makes sense

Dispositionality means you can kick it if they read perms

PICs are great if they're creative. Depending on the aff, case probably o/ws word PICs

Judgekick=ok

x counterplans bad need specific reasons to reject the team not the argument, or I will probably err neg if they kick the counterplan

Please explain and impact out theory arguments on counterplans

I find Ks very interesting but I will probably lean aff on framework - tell me not to weigh the aff and I will consider not weighing it

Perfcon allows the aff to sever out of reps links, convince me otherwise if you want to go for reps links after reading other worlds in the 1nc

overviews shouldn't take up most of your speeches. Just explain your Theory of Power, the parts of the K and get on your merry way

Anne Peckham Washington Urban Debate League 6 rounds

Omar Price Washington Urban Debate League 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 7, 2024 at 4:35 AM EDT

I am an experience policy debate coach/judge. However, I was never a debater. (Do with that information as you will.) I'm open to a wide array of offensive and negative strategies, but there are some specific things you should be mindful of if I am your judge:

Road Mapping and Sign Posting are your friends.

Speed: SLOW DOWN! I am NOT pro spreading, but I can handle it, to a degree. It is in your best interest to err on the side of caution. Nonetheless, if I can hear words and you slow down to sign post, I am generally fine. However, once again, I cannot encourage you enough to err on the side of caution when spreading, especially if you kick an argument(s) or if you stray from the highlighted portion of a card. I will be apart of an email chain, but I will not depend on it. If I DO NOT CLEARLY HEAR WORDS, I WILL NOT FLOW THEM.

Kicking Argument: I need to clearly hear that an argument(s) was kicked for me to judge accordingly.

Ks: I like a good K Affs and Ks as a negative strategy, in general, however, you must clearly state your alt and you must clearly convince me why your plan cannot be permed, if your opponent attempts. Also, I must understand how your Kritik links to an impact. Prioritizing framework and impact calculus is in your best interest.

K Affs: I love a well-constructed advocacy affirmative. However, if your argument is along the lines of providing just education is the reason the affirmative wins, you will likely put your team at an extreme disadvantage. I am likely going to side with a presumption, perm, T, or framework argument if used against you. When the aff does not recommend an out-of-round action, regardless of the actor(s), or if the actionable steps are too vague and/or hypothetical. (Example: "Cap K advocating for a communist revolution" GOOD, "Cap K arguing that government actions(s) only perpetuate the harms of a capitalist structure, but does not include a plan to change the capitalist structure or arguing the affirmative is best for education." BAD)

Performance: I have never judged nor observed an entire performance round. I am not opposed, but understand, I have never done it before.

Extending Evidence: Be clear when extending evidence. (Example: "extending my Smith 2019....")

50 States CP/Fiat: The only way I will vote for it is if the affirmative does not challenge it. Using fiat to do something so unrealistic is abusive, but if the affirmative does not challenge it, I will let it go. However, almost any challenge will cancel it out.

Lastly, as previously stated, I am open to being included on email chains, but I will not let it supplement being able to hear the words you speak. I will base my decision on solely what I hear.

Rory Sheppard Mamaroneck High School

Nigel Taylor-Ward Isidore Newman School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:21 AM CDT

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

Misty Tippets Berkeley Preparatory School

Last changed on Thu March 7, 2019 at 7:48 AM EDT

Debated 4 years at Weber State University (2013-2017)

Four time NDT Qualifier, 2017 NDT Octa-Finalist, 2015 CEDA Quater-Finalist

Currently a Graduate Assistant at James Madison University

I believe debate is for the debaters, I am happy to listen to whatever your argument is and will do my best to adapt to you so you don’t have to change the way you debate. I would much rather you do what you are comfortable with than read an argument just because you think it is something I would prefer to hear. I debated for 8 years and have read and coached all different kinds of arguments, so you should feel comfortable doing whatever you want in front of me. Everything else I’m going to say is just my preference about debate arguments and doesn’t mean that my mind can’t be changed. The last thing I'll say here is the most important thing for me in debates is that you defend your arguments. You can read almost anything in front of me as long as you can defend it. I decide the debates based off of what is on my flow, and nothing else.

Critical Affirmatives – I believe affirmatives should have a relation to the resolution, but I think there are many different interpretations as to what that can mean. To get my ballot with a non-traditional affirmative you must justify why your discussion/performance is a better one for us to have than talking about the resolution or why the resolution is bad. I am sympathetic to arguments that the negative needs to be able to engage the affirmative on some level, and I don't think that "they could read the cap K" is good ground. Counter interpretations are important on framework and will help me frame your impact turns. To win your impact turns to any argument I think the affirmative should have some mechanism to be able to solve them. Overall, I think it is important for any affirmative to actually solve for something, having a clear explanation starting from the 1AC of how you do that is important, and that explanation should stay consistent throughout the debate.

Framework – I think negative framework arguments against critical affirmatives are strategic and love to listen to thought out arguments about why the resolution is an important form of education. Fairness and ground are also impacts I will vote on and I perceive them as being important claims to win the theory of your argument. I am easily compelled that the negative loses ground when a non-topical affirmative is read, and having a list of what that ground is and why it is important is helpful when evaluating that debate. Even if you don't have cards about the affirmative it is important that you are framing your arguments and impacts in the context of the affirmative. If your FW 2NC has no mention of the affirmative that will be a problem for you. I view topical versions of the affirmative and switch side arguments as an important aspect to win this debate.

Kritiks – As I reached the end of my debate career this is the form of debate I mostly participated in which means I will have a basic understanding of your arguments. My research was more in structural critiques, especially feminism. I have dappled in many other areas of philosophy, but I wouldn’t assume that I know a lot about your Baudrillard K, so if that is your thing explanation is important. If you have an alternative, it is important for you to explain how the alternative functions and resolves your link arguments. I would prefer links specific to the affirmative over generic links. I am not a huge fan of links of omission. You will do better in front of me if you actually explain these arguments rather than reading your generic blocks full speed at me. In method v method debates I think you need to have a clear explanation of how you would like competition to function, the sentence "no permutations in a method debate" doesn't make sense and I think you need to have more warrants to why the permutation cannot function or wouldn't solve.

For affirmatives answering critiques, I believe that impact turns are highly useful in these debates and are generally underutilized by debaters. I don't think permutations need to have net benefits, but view them as just a test of competition. However just saying extend "perm do both" isn't an acceptable extension in the 1AR and 2AR, you should explain how it can shield the links. As for reading framework on the aff against a critique, it will be very hard for you to convince me that a negative team doesn’t get the critique at all, but you can easily win that you should be able to weigh the impacts of the 1AC.

Counterplans – Please slow down on the text of the CP, especially if it is extremely long. I am fine with anything as long as you can defend it and it has a clear net benefit. If I can't explain in my RFD how the counterplan solves majority of the affirmative or its net benefit then i'm probably not going to vote for it, so start the explanation in the block.

Disadvantages – I enjoy a good disad and case debate with lots of comparison and explanation. I would much rather that you explain your arguments instead of reading a bunch of cards and expecting me to fill in the holes by reading all of that evidence, because I probably won’t.

Topicality - I really don't have a strong opinion about what it is and isn't topical and think it is up to you to explain to me why a particular aff makes the topic worse or better. I tend to have a pretty low standard of what it means to be reasonably topical.

Theory - I generally think conditionality is good. Other than that I really don't care what you do just be able to defend your arguments.

Finally, as I becoming older and more grumpy I am getting increasingly annoyed about stealing prep and random down time in between speeches. That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to use the restroom, just be respectful of my time. I will reward time efficiency between speeches with better speakers points. Especially if you can send the email before prep time is over. These are my preferences

--If a speaker marks the speech document and the other team wants the marked document that should happen after CX during prep time. If the other team cannot wait until after CX then they can take prep time to get the cards

--If a speak reads a cards that were not in the speech document and needs to send them out the speaker will take prep time before CX to send out the necessary evidence.

--CX ends when the timer is over. Finish your sentence quickly or take prep time to continue CX

I would like to be on the email chain – misty.tippets9@gmail.com

Jacob Uzman Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 15, 2022 at 4:31 AM EDT

(He/Him)

Background

I was a policy debater in middle school, high school, and college from 2003-2013 and have judged high school policy, LD, and PF on-and-off since then. I ran both policy and critical arguments during that time period and am open to every type of argument. Since graduating, I have worked in international peacebuilding and the renewable energy careers, and as result, I am a little more versed in some of the jargon and contemporary issues related to those spaces.

General Guiding Principles

I will do my best to leave the round in the hands of the debaters and, where possible, I will defer to the debaters' analysis to resolve competing arguments.

There is not always a risk of a link or solvency. I can be persuaded that negative arguments do not link to the Affirmative and should be ignored entirely, and I can be persuaded that the Aff does not solve its advantages and should be voted down since it doesn't meet the burden of proof.

Debate should be safe, inclusive, and fun. We can be competitive without being rude and abusive.

Additional Things of Note

Evidence quality is very important. Policy debate's biggest value-add that distinguishes it from other types of debate is the emphasis on research and as such, I will give greater weight to higher quality evidence from "reputable" sources. What is reputable? I like things that are peer-reviewed and have a track record of issuing corrections when they are wrong, but I can be persuaded that these are unimportant things as well.

Case-specific arguments and strategies are important. Tailoring arguments and strategies to the specific Aff case reflects a high level of research and preparation, and I've found that debaters do a better job of providing analysis to resolve competing truth claims in these debates.

Critical Affs don't need to have a plan, but I've found I'm a little more sympathetic to framework arguments if the Aff isn't at least tangentially related to the resolution.

At a personal level, I think the theoretical underpinnings of the traditional politics disadvantage are pretty weak (particularly since the evidence quality surrounding the links in these debates is usually lacking) and can be persuaded that concepts like "political capital" are meaningless.

If you have questions surrounding specific arguments or issues, please ask me before the round. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Atul Venkatesh Lexington HS

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 3:15 AM EDT

Email: atulhari@gmail.com - Please put me on the email chain.

Lexington High School - Class of 2023

Dartmouth College - Class of 2027 (Not debating)

Email chain should be titled as follows:

Tournament name Round number --- Aff team [Aff] vs. Neg team [Neg]

E.g. Big Lex Round 6 --- Lexington HV [Aff] vs. Lexington TK [Neg]

Big Lex Update

Assume I have zero topic knowledge. We're probably going to have a better time if the topic-related jargon is explained within the debate. I've also found myself getting increasingly frustrated at the lack of strategic vision in rounds, and this is reflected in the speaker points I give. Do what you to do and do it well. I have a high threshold for argument development and strategy when giving out good speaks.

Princeton Update

Competitive policy debater in High School, qualled to the TOC junior and senior year reading mostly Policy/LARP mixed with an occasional kritik. I won't have a problem evaluating your arguments but assume I have zero topic knowledge. If you choose to run tricks, run them creatively/properly. If you run them badly/abusively, I won't be too happy. Most of my paradigm is applicable, so feel free to read through it and ask me any questions.

TLDR:

Tech>Truth

I'm down to evaluate basically any argument. My high school career consisted of exclusively policy on the aff, and reasonably flex on the neg. Good debating will most certainly overcome any argumentative bias you may think I have.

Long version:

I'll give my thoughts on a bunch of off-case and rate how my affinity toward them

I love a well-crafted CP that is part of a bigger strategy. 6 plank advantage CPs? Not so much. Also not the biggest fan of contrived process CPs. Process CPs that are worded smartly and executed well are a joy to watch but it's been a bit tiring seeing the same CPs recycled for 3 straight years. As a result, I love to evaluate a competition debate.

An underutilized aspect of CP debates is the internal net benefit. If the aff mitigates the INB enough, I can be persuaded on aff outweighs and if the neg explains the INB enough, INB outweighs becomes a dangerous strategy.

Aff-specific solvency advocates and clear opportunity costs are ideal.

DA:

Love em. As a 2A, I had my fair share of DA 1NRs so I have thought a lot about its strategic purpose. If you read a contrived DA, link articulation and contextualization is almost as valuable as the cards themselves. Turns case and impact weighing are often too shallow and definitely need to be a core part of your strategy.

I would obviously prefer a topic-specific DA to politics, but I am more receptive to the latter than most.

On the aff, cheaty DAs can be easily beaten by smart analytics. Take that approach with me in the back. Smart analytics > Nonsensical cards.

Not against it. T subsets was a core negative strat senior year so I would say I recognize the purpose of T. Approach T like you would approach any other argument - With an offense/defense paradigm.

I'll probably be less receptive to new 2ar extrapolation - If you got caught lackin, you got caught lackin

Critiques on the neg:

Probably more receptive towards the K than my background may indicate. I'm probably more stringent toward link specificity than most. Permutations are underutilized by aff teams. Aff teams should probably respond to K tricks.

Critical affirmatives vs. Framework

I was always on the FW side of these debates but that doesn't mean I am not a "bad" judge for Kaffs. Presumption-level arguments by the negative are valued higher but the neg is probably in a tough position if they concede the aff's theory of power.

KvK

I have only debated in one of these rounds in my career so I don't have a lot of experience with these types of debates. I am probably on the side of no perms in a KvK debate but can be convinced otherwise.

Misc:

Condo is probably good unless you can prove in-round abuse.
Read my fair share of memes in high school so I won't be opposed to seeing them read in round. If you do read them, you need to actually be able to defend/extend the arguments.
Please make a joke about Jeffrey He or praise the Green Bay Packers in your speech. It will make me happy.

Bill Wilson USN

Last changed on Fri March 22, 2024 at 8:21 AM CDT

Background:

USN head coach 2012-present

MBA assistant coach 2000-2002

The stuff you are looking for:

email chain: bwilson at usn.org

K Aff: Defend a hypothetical project that goes beyond the 1AC.

Framework: My general assumption is that predictable limits lead to higher quality debates. Aff, how does your method/performance center on the resolutional question in a way that adds value to this year's topic education? Why does the value of your discussion/method outweigh the benefits of a predictable, topic-focused debate?

Topicality: I am agnostic when it comes to the source of your definitions. Just tell me why they are preferable for this debate. Aff reasonability defense must be coupled with an interpretation, and RTP that interpretation. I will be honest, when it's a T round against an aff that was cut at workshop and has been run all year, I have a gut-check lean to reasonability. Competing interps becomes more compelling when there is significant offense for the interpretation.

Theory: Other than condo, a theory win means I reject the argument unless you do work explaining otherwise. For condo debates, please have a clear interpretation and reasons to reject. I am more open to theory when it is about something particular to the round and is not read from pre-written blocks.

CP's: I prefer CP's that have a solvency advocate. I think a well articulated/warranted perm can beat most plan plus, process CP's.

Politics: I like it better on topics without other viable DAs, but I am fine for these debates.

DAs: I find "turns the case" analysis more compelling at the internal link level.

Cheating: If you are not reading every word you are claiming through underlining or highlighting, that is clipping. If it seems like a one time miscue I will yell something, and unless corrected, I'll disregard the evidence. If it is egregious/persistent, I will be forced to intervene with an L.

If the other team raises a dispute. I will do my best to adjudicate the claim and follow the above reasoning to render a penalty either to dismiss the evidence in question or reject the team. I think I have a fairly high threshold for rendering a decision on an ethics challenge.

RIP wiki paradigms, or how my paradigm started for years but is now showing its age:

I like it when debaters think about the probability of their scenarios and compare and connect the different scenarios in the round. If it is a policy v critical debate, the framing is important, but not in a prior question, ROB, or "only competing policy options" sense. The better team uses their arguments to access or outweigh the other side. I think there is always a means to weigh 1AC advantages against the k, to defend 1AC epistemology as a means to making those advantages more probable and specific. On the flip side, a thorough indictment of 1AC authors and assumptions will make it easier to weigh your alternative, ethics, case turn, etc. Explain the thesis of your k and tell me why it it is a reason to reject the affirmative.

Alan Yang Lexington HS 8 rounds

Kevin Yang Lexington HS 8 rounds

Ben Zeppos USN None

Allen Zhao Lexington HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 25, 2022 at 8:24 AM EDT

lex 23, 3rd year policy

add me to the chain - lexdebateaz@gmail.com

‎‏‏‎ ‎

1. top

spreading is ok

open cx is ok

i will vote on anything (as long as it's not racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc)

you should prioritize learning over winning - don't be discouraged by losses, the goal of your novice year is to understand and be able to run/defend a variety of arguments - going 5-1 in prelims isn't as important as you think it might be vs going 1-5 and understanding what you did wrong, and how to fix what problems you might have via drills, redos, etc.

its ok to not know things! feel free to ask whatever questions you have post-round, and any clarifying questions ("what's a roadmap?" etc.) during the round. i'm completely down to help you w/ redos, just email me

don't worry about my expression/tone of voice - i'm probably tired af

also, +0.1 speaks if you make me laugh

‎‏‏‎ ‎

2. musts

- signpost! make it clear you're onto a new card with an over-enunciated "and", "next", etc, and say when you're going onto a new contention

- give a roadmap. tell me how many sheets of paper i'll need in the 1ac/1nc and what order you're going with in later speeches (you don't need to be too specific - just say "first will be case, then T, then the DA...")

- be clear. i'd rather you read less cards, but with clarity, than unintelligibly blowing through a ton

- line by line, lots of it pls - i don't want to hear you just spread down blocks w/o any sort of clash present

- be nice to your opponent and your partner ofc

‎‏‏- flow - keeping track of everything that's going on in a debate is absolutely necessary

‎‏‏‎ ‎

3. preferences

as the great aden barton said: "None of the biases listed below are so strong as to override who did the better debating, but adjusting to my priors could maximize your chances of winning"

let me be lazy - you should write my ballot for me in the 2nr/2ar - "you vote aff/neg because..."

judge direction, as stated above

impact calc!!!!! especially in your later speeches

tech > truth

policy = k

i love good case debate and i'll def vote on presumption

i love theory

i will default to fairness is an i/l unless told otherwise

don't interrupt your partner unless absolutely necessary

‎‏‏‎ ‎

4. speaks

copying from vinit iyer's paradigm:

30 - Probably won't give this out unless you are a god

29.9-29.4 - Probably will get to late elims or even win

29.3 - 29 - Probably will break

28.9 - 28.6 - Probably with an even or slightly winning record

28.5 - 28 - Probably will have a losing record

27 - 0 - You are doing something egregiously bad and should completely rethink your strategy

‎‏‏‎ ‎

tell me you read my paradigm and i'll give you +0.1 speaks :)

Julia Zimmerman Mamaroneck High School

Login to Tabroom

Lexington Winter Invitational

2022 — NSDA Campus, MA/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

Judges