GOLDEN DESERT DEBATE TOURNAMENT AT UNLV
2022 — NSDA Campus, NV/US
NLD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hello! I'm Zach Badain. I was a varsity debater at The Meadows School for 3 years. I'm not super picky but there are things I WON'T VOTE FOR.
I probably won't vote for bad theory because bad theory is bad but if you can convince me it's good theory, go ahead and run it.
I will never NEVER, vote on RVIs. Never again. If you say the words "RVI" I will sit and stare at you with a disappointed face and write down nothing on my flow.
Other than that the usuals. Have a clean fair debate. Be respectful of your opponent. If you are disrespectful, I WILL vote against you. I will listen to pretty much any argument as long as you have adequate evidence and explanation.
I'll disclose if I feel like it.
at the top: if you can engage with your opponent's arguments/case and properly weigh to me, i will fall in love with you; doing so = higher speaker points. also, i am a fan of good dad jokes; if you include one, i will bump your speaks up by up to +0.2 points.
hello! my name is tim, and you can refer to me as judge or just by my name! i competed in public forum and lincoln-douglas as well as some forensic events during high school (c/o 2020), and i currently compete in college parli for johns hopkins university, where i study neuroscience. my judging paradigm is very similar to that of Sim Low, Thomas Kim, and other johns hopkins university judges that you may have seen on the circuit.
you can reach me at firstname.lastname@example.org (please don’t judge) / email@example.com / tim do on FB for sending cases and asking me questions; i am always open to giving feedback and helping you understand why i evaluated the round the way i did, so just feel free to reach out!
notes to all formats:
--- always remember to warrant, mechanize, and weigh; don’t ever give me bare statements. be comparative, add layers and depth to your rebuttals, and always be explicit rather than implicit. what this looks like is engaging with your opponent's arguments and showing WHY your argument/impact is more important than your opponent's. how you delineate this importance is up to you, as there are many avenues you can take to do this.
--- 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.UPDATE: i realized that there are some of you guys who genuinely 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.
--- if you even, at the slightest, include any rhetoric that is prejudiced or bigoted, you will automatically be given a loss with the lowest speaks possible. i believe that debate should be fair and equitable to all, so if you include any arguments that are prejudiced/bigoted or actively display any actions that belittle your opponents, i will drop you; trust me, i have done this in the past and will continue to do this as it makes my job easier.
--- i won't lie, but i hate, i repeat HATE, econ arguments; they just for some reason don't make much sense to me whatsoever. if you plan on speaking about econ, you can. but, please go slow and have robust explanations and make sure you define your terms and the econ concepts relevant to your argument. for example, i obviously know what supply and demand is, but i don't know how it works, so warrant it and mechanize it properly to me.
--- please do not be rude to each other during the debate, particularly during the cross-examinations/rebuttals; if i find that you are being excessively, and persistently, disrespectful, your speaks will be docked -0.5.
--- 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.UPDATE: no one has ever post-rounded me in bad faith yet, which is a good thing, but if you do end up post-rounding me, trust me that my decision will not change. my RFD will be comprehensive enough that when i explain it to tab, they will also agree with my RFD and stick with my decision.
--- i am uncertain as to whether or not this applies to all formats because i came from a high school with a relatively small debate team, but please disclose your case online in a timely manner. i hate voting on disclosure because debates should be about the actual resolution. however, i will always believe that debate should be an activity that is equally accessible to all individuals, so if there is a disclosure argument that has substantive warranting and weighing, i will still end up voting for it at the very top.
--- remember to have fun! at the end of the day, debate is, and should always be, an activity that everyone enjoys. let’s have some educational and meaningful debates!
public forum (my favorite event):
--- send me your cases and any evidence you all intend to read prior to starting your speeches. yes, this means the ac/nc and rebuttals. if you all opt out of this, speaks will be docked -0.5. UPDATE: if you cut cards throughout the round, please send me the updated version; this just provides me a second alternative in determining what was said in the round in the case that i missed something on the flow.
--- i want to see cards with proper citations on them; if not, don’t be surprised when your speaks are low. UPDATE: proper citation is very, very important. do not cheat and paraphrase what the research stated; if this happens and someone picks up on it, i will 100% vote on this. please don't have miscut cards or misrepresent your evidence as i will drop you with the lowest possible speaks.
--- 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 impact calc, 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. fail to do so, and i will start to make assumptions and trust me, these assumptions will not help you.
--- besides that, i don't think i have anything else to say about this format. PF used to be my special place in debate, so feel free to debate however you like. i am a pretty straightforward judge; i will evaluate you the way you want me to, but just make sure you uphold what i stated above!
--- i used to be not picky with this event because debaters used to run very clear, straight policy arguments that just showed to me whether or not i should vote on the resolution. however, i've realized that there are many other debaters who exist on the circuit that include Ks, CPs, theory, topicality, etc. i've had my fair share in judging this format to understand these other policy debates, but this is how i prefer debates in this format:
1. policy vs. policy
2. policy aff vs K, K aff vs T/FW, K vs K
3. everything else
--- if you are going to include any Ks, please make sure you delineate these concepts to me. i thoroughly enjoy K debates, but just make sure you are explaining EVERYTHING to me. i am a judge where if you leave out something, even the slightest detail, i will be very confused about the overall argument. so, whenever you are reading these types of arguments, pretend i am an elementary school student that has only ever read Magic Tree House!
--- please don't rely on policy jargon. i am a firm believer that simply stating policy jargon will never be sufficient substitutes for explanations of your evidence or thesis. if you are going to use jargon, explain them and then move onto your other arguments.
--- overall, i perceive policy to be a format that is becoming even more diverse in terms of what arguments can be made. this is what i enjoy about policy, so make any argument you want, but just make sure you always explain your arguments and concepts to me.
--- same thing as policy and PF; this is the event that i am LEAST picky with.
--- when i judge, speaks always start at a base level of 28. depending on how the round goes, i move up/down. if you want me to move you up, be communicative, have good strategy and in-round choices, be comparative, weigh, impact… you get the point. if you want me to move you down, i think it is pretty self-explanatory as to what you should do.
--- if you get a 30.0, i will be framing your speech and showing it to my novices on my debate team. if you get a 29.5+, i am clearing you and expect to see you in outrounds; if you get 29.0-29.4, you did well and i believe you can break if you are in a bubble; if you get 27-28.9, you performed as expected; anything below 27, you did something terrible and i had no qualms docking you.
--- most importantly, no speaks theory.
I’m a parent judge with engineering major. I have no debating experience.
I expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time.
My normal range for speaker points is 25-30. Clear, simple, and concise can earn extra speaker points.
I may say clearer out loud if a debater is unclear. But I prefer not to disrupt debate unless it’s necessary.
I am not comfortable with spreading. I vote heavily on your ability to verbalize the links between your evidence and the resolution. If I cannot hear or understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.
During final speeches, I want you to clearly and succinctly explain to me why I should vote for you (for example, give me numbered reasons). Weighing directly at the impact level is also important.
This is my first year judging LD. Some things that I look for are
- Make sure to stress your value and provide evidence for all contentions
- Do not go over your time limits
- Speak clearly and go at a comfortable pace
- Do ensure to restate reasons you won during voter issues
- Always remember to be kind and respectful during the debate
I'm Andrew Kim and I'm a varsity debater at the Meadows School.
I will basically listen to every argument no matter how stupid it is.
I probably won't vote for bad theory because bad theory is bad but if you can convince me it's good theory, go ahead and run it.
Other than that the usuals. Have a clean fair debate. Be respectful of your opponent. I will listen to almost any argument as long as you have adequate evidence and explanation.
Also please try to keep me interested in the debate, I find humor to be very important as well.
My name is Params Kumarasamy. I am a lay parent judge. Please layout the roadmap for rebuttals and speak slowly and clearly.
Wish you Good Luck!
(Updated For Viking Clash at Viewmont)
First off congrats on actually looking up your judges wiki, next step is implementing it in the way you debate.
If you'd like to contact me for anything other than a solid after-round grilling of why you disagreed with my decision, my email is JacobDKunzler@gmail.com. I'd also like to be on any email chains in round.
tl;dr: I read kritiks, theory, cp's da's and most types of arguments in high school. I will buy anything you have to sell, not only because I love capitalism but because I do my best to enter the round as tabula rasa as possible. Read whatever you want, just be able to defend it. The exception is anything related to the spread of discrimination in the debate space. I don't care how well you prove your point that women's suffrage was not utilitarian (I wish I hadn't been in that round) I'm not going to buy it. If you feel your opponent is violating this please email me.
Speed: Yeah speed is probably one of the more exclusionary aspects of debate but that doesn't mean it's going away. I've been out of the circuit for a few years, so plan on going around 70% top speed. If its a problem I'll clear you. I don't plan on ever deducting speaks for a clear meant to slow a debater down.
Kritik: I read a modified form of the Afro Pessimism K for 2 years on both the aff and neg until I started reading poetry based cases. I'm by no means an expert but will definitely know what elements are necessary to call your argument a kritik, and will be looking for them. If both procedural arguments and the K have pre-fiat impacts you should work to create a priority between them. You probably wont like the way I prioritize arguments if you leave me no option other than to choose for myself. (quarters may or may not be involved because why not, capitalism makes all the other decisions in this country)
On the aff I'm also a strong advocate for the kritik, go ahead, but you better be ready to justify why that education specifically is more valuable than the education of a typical affirmative, and be prepared to answer the procedurals out of the negative.
Procedurals: never my strong suit but nonetheless a form of debate that I enjoyed. While some disagree I believe fairness is inevitably an internal link to education, and will be more easily convinced of arguments in line with that way of thinking, but I do my best to enter a procedural debate as tabula rasa as possible. I default to drop the arg over drop the debater, no RVI's, Reasonability over Counter Interpretations, and Procedural fairness over structural fairness.
I default to epistemic certainty, but when read, I'm pretty easily persuaded by epistemic modesty. I'll also default to comparative worlds over truth testing
Speaks: I start both debaters at 28 speaker points and go on to add or subtract whenever I feel I need to. Some great things to avoid would be unclear spreading, rudeness. Some great things to do would be humor (quality over quantity), familiarity with your own case in cross, and overviews.
Flashing is not prep but don't abuse it.
If all debaters ask me then I will disclose the round
If you want to talk about the round definitely find me/email me, given that I have time we can go over anything you'd like.
I believe disclosure is good for debate, and will grant you +.1 speak for either being disclosed before round, or showing me after
Flex prep is chill for clarification, but try to avoid its use for argument building.
I am a traditional judge who is pretty comfortable with a lot of what you could run including a lot of progressive arguments( ie. disads, kritiks, and counterplans) but I am not that comfortable with spreading. If you decide to spread I might miss something and won't consider it. The one progressive argument that I am not that familar with is theory so you can run it but you need to explain it really well. Overall though if you can explain and defend your argument well I can follow it.
I am the Head Coach at Lakeville North High School and Lakeville South High School in Minnesota. My debaters include multiple state champions as well as TOC and Nationals Qualifiers.
I am also a history teacher so know your evidence. This also means the value of education in debate is important to me.
I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. I vote heavily on your ability to verbalize the links between your evidence and the resolution. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.
Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about a few key pieces of important evidence rather than doing a card dump.
If you plan to run off case that's fine just make sure that you articulate and sign post it well. Don't use narratives or identity arguments unless you actually care about/identify with the issue.
Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please take the time to learn your opponent's preferred pronouns. I expect you to take your RFD graciously-the debate is over after the 2AR not after the disclosure.
Please debate slowly and clearly!
Due to technical issues that may arise as a result of online debate, I request that you send me and your opponent your case and all other speech docs during the round. Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I did PF in high school. I'd say I was decent. I studied economics at UC Berkeley and am taking a gap year before attending law school next fall.
1. Talking fast is fine. I'm also good with any speed if I have your speech doc.
2. I am okay with you running kritiks as long as you warrant, link, and impact it very well. I will drop you if you run a K AFF or anything like it, these are not topical. I prefer you stick to case debate because I understand that better and think it's more educational, but if you're really passionate about your "alternative" argument then by all means run it. You'll just really need to explain to me what's going on or you'll lose me. Exception: I think some form of arguing for ending the world as a K is pretty OP. Interpret that as you will.
3. Do not run theory unless you genuinely feel there is a violation which skews you out of the round. I'm cool with you pointing out issues regarding T or Condo. CONDO BAD. I don't care for disclosure theory unless it's tournament policy to disclose.
4. I'm 100% tabula rasa. Act as if I'm a blank slate on the topic.
5. Tech > truth. I will accept anything you run without intervention. Two exceptions:
a. if your opponent rightfully calls out a bigoted argument (i.e., something racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, islamaphobic, anti semitic, etc), I will view it as such and may drop you depending on the severity and definitely tank your speaker points.
b. if there are conflicting pieces of evidence (LD or PF), and no one explains why their card should be preferred, I will call both and make my decision on which one to weigh more based on the merits of each (recency, methodology, scope, etc). Even if cards are weighed, I still might call from both teams if I have doubts.
6. I put my pen down for the most part during final speeches, so I want you to clearly and succinctly explain to me (i.e., give me numbered reasons) why I should vote for you. Weighing directly at the impact level is also super important here.
7. If you are running a plan or CP, please be specific regarding what action you are taking, who the actor is, funding source, etc
PUBLIC FORUM PREFS
1. I'd like a 50/50 split offense/defense in summary. Doesn't have to be *exact* but a general guideline to follow.
2. Always give offtime roadmaps after the 1NC.
1. Asking/attempting AND answering POIs is a good way to get higher speaker points. Don't spam your opponents with POIs though. Just enough for me to know you are engaged in the debate.
SPEAKER POINT SCALE
Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:
29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament
29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims
28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds
28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break
27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little
27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot
27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do
below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong
Hi I'm Jalyn (she/her/hers), I go to UCLA and debated for WDM Valley in LD for ~7 years. I have experience on both the nat and trad circuits. I've dabbled in pofo and policy but don't consider myself adept at judging those.
If there's an email chain, put me on it: email@example.com. In constructives, I don't flow off the doc.
TLDR - LD
Please note first and foremost that I am not that great with postrounding. To clarify, please ask questions about my decision after the round--I want to incentivize good educational practices and defend my decision. However, I really do not respond well to aggression mentally, so please don't yell at me/please treat me and everyone else in the round with basic respect and we should be good!
quick prefs (but please read the rest of the TLDR at least)
2- theory, id pol k/performance, stock k
3- pomo k, LARP
for traditional/novice/jv debate: I'm good with anything!
I am fine with speed. At online tournaments, please have local recordings of your speeches ready in case there's audio issues/someone disconnects. Depending on tournament rules, I probably can't let you regive your speech if it cuts out, so be prepared. I will say clear/slow.
I rate my flowing ability a 6/10 in that messy and monotonous debates are difficult for me to flow but as long as you're clear in signposting, numbering, and collapsing, we shouldn't have any problems.
I view evaluating rounds as evaluating the highest framing layer of the round as established by the debaters, then evaluating the application of offense to it. In messy debates, i write two RFDs (one for each side) and take the path of least intervention.
i assign speaks based on strategic vision and in round presence (were you an enjoyable person to watch debate?). However, if you make arguments that are blatantly problematic, L20.
Many judges say they don't tolerate racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc, but know that I take the responsibility of creating a safe debate space seriously. If something within a round makes you feel unsafe, whether it be my behavior, your opponent's behavior, or the behavior of anyone else present in that round, email me or otherwise contact me. I'll do my best to work with you to address these problems together.
LONG VERSION - LD
- If a debater stops the round and says "I will stake the round on this evidence ethics challenge" I will follow tournament/NSDA rules and evaluate accordingly (generally resulting in an auto win/loss situation). However, I usually prefer ev ethics challenges are debated out like a theory debate, and I will evaluate it like I evaluate any other shell.
- I really am not a fan of debates over marginal evidence ethics violations. like i really do not care if a single period is missing from a citation.
- I don't hold strong opinions on disclosure norms. Disclosure to some extent is probably good, but I don't really care whether it's open sourced with green highlighting or full text with citations after the card.
- reasonability probably makes sense on a lot of interps
- I strongly dislike being sketchy about disclosure on both sides. Reading disclosure against a less experienced debater without a wiki seems suss. Misdisclosing and lying about the aff is also suss.
- disclosure functions at the same layer as other shells until proven otherwise
- I strongly dislike defaulting. If no paradigm issues or voters are read by either debater in a theory debate, this means I will literally not vote on theory. I don't think this is an unfair threshold to meet, because for any argument to be considered valid, there needs to be a claim, warrant, and impact.
- You can read frivolous stuff in front of me and I will evaluate it as I would any other shell, but more frivolous shells have a lower threshold for response. For more elaboration, see my musings on the tech/truth distinction below.
- Paragraph theory is fine, just make sure that it's clearly labeled (i flow these on separate sheets)
- Combo shells need to have unique abuse stories to the interp. generally speaking, the more planks in a combo shell, the less persuasive the abuse story, and the more persuasive the counterinterp/ i meet.
- "converse of the interp" has never made much sense to me/seems like a cop out, if you say "converse of the interp" please clarify the specific stance that you're taking because otherwise it's difficult to hold you to the text of the CI
- overemphasize the text of the interp and names of standards so i don't miss anything
- you can make implicit weighing claims in the shell, but extend explicit weighing PLEASE
- RVIs make less sense on T than they do on other shells, so an uphill battle
- T and theory generally function on the same layer for me but I can be persuaded otherwise
- Good/unique TVAs are underutilized, so make them. best type of terminal defense on T IMO
- altho I read a ton of K affs my jr year, I fall in the middle of the K aff/TFW divide.
- if you're going to collapse on T, please actually collapse. don't reread the shell back at me for 2 minutes.
- see above for my takes on defaults
- I am more familiar with asian american, fem, and cap (dean, marx, berardi), but have a decent understanding of wilderson, wynter, tuck and yang, deleuze, anthro, mollow, edelman, i'm sure theres more im forgetting, but chances are I've heard of the author you're reading. I don't vote on arguments I couldn't explain back at the end of the round. if the 1ar/2nr doesn't start off with a coherent explanation of the theory of power, I can't promise you'll like my decision.
- buzzwords in excess are filler words. they're fine, but if you can't explain your theory of power without them, I'm a lot less convinced you actually know what the K says.
- some combination of topical and generic links is probably the best
- i find material examples of the alt/method more persuasive than buzzwordy mindsets. give instances of how your theory of power explains subjectivity/violence/etc in the real world.
- floating piks need to be at least hinted at in the 1n
- idc if the k aff is topical. if it isn't, i need a good reason why it's not/a reason why your advocacy is good.
- you should understand how your lit reads in the following broad categories: theory of the subject, theory of knowledge, theory of violence, ideal/nonideal theory, whether consequences matter, and be able to interact these ideas with your opponent
- the type of debate I grew up on. NC/AC debates are criminally underrated, call me old school
- I'm probably familiar with every common phil author on the circuit, but don't assume that makes me more amenable to voting on it. if anything i have a higher threshold for well explained phil
- i default epistemic confidence and truth testing (but again. hate defaulting. don't make me do it.)
- that being said, I think that winning framework is not solely sufficient to win you the round. You need to win some offense under that framework.
- i like smart arguments like hijacks, fallacies, metaethical args, permissibility/skep, etc.
- sometimes fw arguments devolve into "my fw is a prereq because life" and "my fw is a prereq because liberty" and those debates are really boring. please avoid circular and underwarranted debates and err on the side of implicating these arguments out further/doing weighing
- Rarely did LARP in LD, but I did do policy for like a year (in 8th/9th grade, and I was really bad, so take this with a grain of salt)
- All CPs are valid, but I think process/agent ones are probably more suss
- yes you need to win a util framework to get access to your impacts
- always make perms on CPs and please isolate net benefits
- please weigh strength of link/internal links
- TLDR I'm comfortable evaluating a LARP debate/I actually enjoy judging them, just please err on overexplaining more technical terms (like I didn't know what functional/textual competition was until halfway through my senior year)
- well explained logical syllogisms (condo logic, trivialism, indexicals, etc) (emphasis on WELL EXPLAINED AND WARRANTED) > blippy hidden aprioris and irrelevant paradoxes
- i dont like sketchiness about tricks. if you have them, delineate them clearly, and be straightforward about it in CX/when asked.
- Most tricks require winning truth testing to win. Don't assume that because i default TT, that i'll auto vote for you on the resolved apriori--I'm not doing that level of work for you.
- warrants need to be coherently explained in the speech that the trick is read. If I don't understand an argument/its implication in the 1ac, then I view the argument (if extended) as new in the 1ar and require a strong development of its claim/warrant/impact
TLDR - CX
I have a basic understanding of policy, as I dabbled in it in high school. Err on the side of overexplanation of more technical terms, and don't assume I know the topic lit (bc I don't!)
Misc. thoughts (that probably won't directly affect how I evaluate a specific round, but just explains how I view debate as a whole)
- tech/truth distinction is arbitrary. I vote on the flow, but truer arguments have a lower threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is round) and less true arguments have a higher threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is flat)
- I think ROB/standard function on the same layer (and I also don't think theres a distinction between ROB and ROJ), and therefore, also think that the distinctions between K and phil NCs only differ in the alternative section and the type of philosophy that generally is associated with both
- I highly highly value adapting to less experienced debaters, and will boost your speaks generously if you do. This includes speaking clearly, reading positions and explaining them well, attempting to be educational, and being generally kind in the round. To clarify, I don't think that you have to completely change your strategy against a novice or lay debater, but just that if you were planning on reading 4 shells, read 2 and explain them well. It's infinitely more impressive to me to watch a debater be flex and still win the round than to make the round exclusionary for others.
- docbots are boring to me. I just don't like flowing monotonous spreading for 6 minutes of a 2n on Nebel, and it's not educational for anyone in the round to hear the same 2n every other round. lower speaks for docbots.
- I will not evaluate arguments that ask me to vote for/against someone because they are of a certain identity group or because of their out of round performances. I feel that oversteps the authority of a judge to make decisions ad hominem about students in the activity
- pet peeve when people group permissibility/presumption warrants together. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.
- this list will keep expanding as I continue to muse on my debate takes