Jean Ward Invitational hosted by Lewis Clark College
2022 — NSDA Campus, OR/US
Policy Judge Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Affiliation: Clackamas High School
Competitive experience: 2 years of NPDA (college parli), 1 year of CEDA (college policy)
Coaching/Judging experience: 6 years of NPDA coaching with 45-60 rounds judged per year, 6 years coaching high school policy
Post the order in the zoom chat ((especially when someone is afk) credit to Wichita BM and Gerrit Hansen for this one)
I’m into philosophy. It was my major for my decade-long undergrad, so that won’t change anytime soon.
I'm also a former law student focused on immigration, employment, and labor.
Although I have run topical affirmatives with a plan in the past, I have generally moved towards the critical as I have continued (From a Heg and Econ National Security Courts aff to Lovecraft performance and high theory).
In CEDA, I have gone for the Cap K with a Historical Materialism alt in every one of my 2NRs. This does not mean that I will automatically pick you up if you run it, but I will be familiar with most of the arguments and authors involved in that debate.
I have come to grips with the fact that I am not very good at evaluating Framework. This does NOT mean you shouldn't run it in front of me or go for it. I think Framework is a valuable debate to be had in most rounds and I encourage people to look at varying forms of this argument in debate. You should be aware, however, that I am not going to be able to fully appreciate the nuances of Framework arguments. It's really not you, it's me.
I hold a high regard for creativity in debate, both in strategy and style. In my mind, creativity is the reason debate is such a fantastic activity. I particularly like arguments that are novel, strange, or Weird.
I am also pretty expressive in round. If you notice me nodding my head or or making a face that suggests "Hey, that sounds reasonable" then that probably means I'm thinking that. If I look up in disgust or confusion, then that means I am probably experiencing one of those things.
All that being said, I am open to most any position or style so long as you can articulate why your arguments are preferable.
Also, feel free to find me outside of rounds and ask me about a round (please bring your flow or be specific about what went on in the round, I can only remember so much on demand) or about general arguments and strategies or whatever.
Clarity: I flow all speeches in the debate and I stick to that flow when making my decision. I will call clear if I can’t understand you. If you are still not understandable to me after I call clear twice, I will stop flowing what I cannot understand.
Clipping: If there is a challenge relating to clipping cards, it must be brought with video evidence. If a team has been shown to be clipping cards in my round; that team will receive a loss and the clipper will receive 0 speaker points for that round.
UPDATE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2022: Please be aware that as of February 24, 2022, the post-Cold War geopolitical/international security world underwent a monumental (and likely permanent) change. If you are going to make any arguments -- whether you're AFF or NEG, asserting internal links or existential impacts -- built around a conventional war in Europe; America's, NATO's, or Russia's propensities to escalate; the threshold between conventional and nuclear conflict; etc., please ensure that your evidence is up-to-date and timely (and, yes, that probably means written sometime after February 24, 2022) and/or please be prepared and able to explain logically and analytically how any older evidence/logic still applies in light of real-world developments in Central and Eastern Europe. Also be aware that if you read evidence (or make an argument) that fails to take account of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I will almost certainly accept your opponent's analytical arguments -- provided they're logical and persuasive in post-February 24 terms -- as more valid than out-of-date evidence and pre-invasion academic theorizing. And your opponents should feel free to ask you, in CX, to explain how and why any pre-February 24 evidence/arguments are still applicable to the position you're advocating or negating. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the world of geopolitics and international security has been radically altered over the past six months. Also, be aware that I spent a large chunk of my 30-year diplomatic career working on NATO issues (including stints at NATO headquarters and on the NATO desk at the State Department). While I don't expect high school debaters to understand or appreciate every detail or nuance of how the Alliance functions on a day-to-day or issue-to-issue basis, please do your best to avoid completely mischaracterizing NATO decision-making or policy implementation.
Note on Timekeeping: In all forms of debate I expect competitors to keep their own time (to include tracking prep time for both themselves and their opponents). Also, debaters should keep track of their opponent’s time (including prep). I will make an exception for novices at their first few tournaments, but otherwise time yourselves, please.
After retiring from a three-decade career in the U.S. Foreign Service, I returned to high school debate as a (volunteer) coach and frequent judge in 2013. I'm no longer the head coach at Oak Hill School (as of June 2020), but I still provide some assistance (to South Eugene High School) and judge fairly regularly. Beyond that, I teach public policy and international affairs -- as adjunct faculty -- at the University of Oregon.
CX Paradigm: My judging approach has evolved significantly over the past decade. While I still consider myself more of a truth-over-tech/policymaking-paradigm judge, I don't believe -- as some would suggest -- that policymaker automatically equates with a simple util approach. Far from it. Essentially, I view the two teams as playing the role of competing actors within the government, each trying to convince me to endorse their policy option. But I remain open to whichever framework one of the teams can convince me should or best applies.
And while I have an inherent bias toward the realistic (particular as it involves global security issues such as nuclear weapons, NATO and Russia, and the nature and distribution of power and influence within the international state system), I'm fine with K debate. That said, although I know my Marx/Engels/Lenin pretty well from my academic training and Foreign Service experience in Moscow and the former Soviet bloc, if you want to run French post-modernist arguments -- or anything of that sort -- you'll need to explain it to me in terms I can understand and appreciate. And that may mean slowing down enough to make yourself more comprehensible and persuasive. I would also advise you against running any sort of performance AFF...I'll judge it if you run it, but it's hard for me to evaluate. For better or worse, I still view the resolution as the starting point of any policy debate, and I still believe that an AFF case needs some version -- however abbreviated -- of a case and a plan. And case matters. A significant percentage of the AFF ballots I write end up noting that NEG essentially conceded case...that shouldn’t be the norm. (And, yes, on the other side of that I still very much believe that presumption lies with the NEG...and that going for it is a legit approach that can win a debate.) Unless something is truly and grossly abusive, I am not particularly keen on RVIs or similar arguments for a behavior as opposed to a policy issue on the flow.
As for T, I am more than open to T arguments and will vote NEG on T if the AFF can't make a coherent topicality defense. But be aware that I have a very inclusive topicality threshold (to put it in 2014-15 oceans topic terms, if a case involved salt water I was ready to accept it as reasonable... provided the AFF made that argument).
I'm good with aggressive spreading, but recommend you slow down enough to allow me to hear and easily flow your tag lines and organizational structure; sign-posting may seem old-fashioned, but if you want me to flow your argument in the correct spot, intelligible sign-posting remains an important element in the process. Pet peeve addressed to 1NCs: LABEL YOUR ARGUMENTS, please. 'Next' is not a label. Off-case, tell me whether you're reading T, a DISAD, a CP, a K, or something else. Similarly, ‘case’ is not a label. Tell me where you want your argument flowed. It may seem 100% clear to you, but it may not be as clear to me (particularly if there's no email chain and I don't have your speech). If there is an email chain, I want to be part of it: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Tag-team CX is fine, but recognize that if the debater who is the designated questioner or respondent is overwhelmed by their partner, both team members will likely receive reduced speaker points.
LD and Parli Paradigm: I'm pretty much tabula rasa in both these formats, happy to judge the debate as it's presented and debated. I will always be a flow judge (who values line-by-line clash as much as possible). But I'm generally more 'progressive' in judging LD and Parli than I am in judging Policy. Go figure. In both LD and Parli, I very much appreciate theory/framework arguments. I also think both LD and Parli debates benefit from explicit plans/advocacies, which thus opens up the NEG option of CPs/counter-advocacies. Ditto K debate in LD and Parli...go for it, provided you know what you're doing (and can present the K clearly and coherently). Basically, the more LD and Parli resemble Policy, the better.
PF Paradigm: Follow the rules, of course, but I'm comfortable with pushing the limits (in terms of advocacies and counter-advocacies and such)...that said, I'm open to the other team pushing back on PF rules/norms regarding plans and CPs and such. I see framework as a key element of PF; it's important to establish (and win) your framework (and then, having secured the framework, explain how your case upholds it). I will always evaluate the debate off my flow, so line-by-line clash and full coverage of the key issues are important. That means spreading is fine with me...you don't have much time in PF, so use what you have to the fullest. Ditto theory (to the extent it exists in PF). Again, PF is kinda/sorta Policy Lite, and I'll always prefer -- but not insist upon -- a more Policy-like approach.
tl;dr is in bold
I have 4 years of HS policy debate experience debating semi-regularly on the national circuit, and sporadic college parli experience. I have been judging HS policy debate on and off since 2012 and have been judging national circuit LD frequently since 2019. I have generally found that my experience with CX translates to judging the national circuit style of LD without much in the way of skipping-a-beat.
As a debater I ran primarily kritiks during my most competitive seasons. As such I'm familiar with most K lit bases, theory args, etc, and I'm comfortable with speed. I do ask that you please vary speed and/or tone between your tags, theory shells and analytics versus the text of your cards, especially if you're reading a lot of blippy theory args. Being comfortable with speed doesn't mean I appreciate flowing all 8 of your 5-word standards in 10 seconds with no 'nexts' in between.
I generally consider myself fairly tab, with that being said I have some opinions:
Plan Texts/DAs/CPs: Don't be discouraged by the fact that I was a K hack as a debater. I don't find that I enjoy K heavy debates any more than policy oriented ones as a judge, I just enjoy good debates. I specifically enjoy well executed small/janky plans and CPs. I don't have much else specific to say about these args.
Kritiks: As above, I'm very down with whatever K you want to run, even the weird ones. I don't necessarily believe Ks require an alt, if you can make clear why the aff is entirely self defeating or detestable on face, I think you can win, but you're probably better off with an alt. I do try to counterbalance against a bit of commonplace anti-K bias in terms of the degree of explanation I require from Ks. If debaters are expected to understand the intricacies of what's happening in the South China Sea, I think it's reasonable to expect them to know the definition of Biopower. However, I do expect a robust explanation of how your K interacts with the Aff specifically and the unique wrinkles of your kritik. I think this specificity tends to become more important in the more postmodern lit bases, as well as with args like Cap which can be run in near infinite flavors.
'Nontopical' K affs/Project Affs/Performance Affs/Rejecting the resolution/Whatever: I am probably more down with these types of affirmatives than the average judge. You should articulate either in the 1AC or near the top of the framing/framework flow A. your interpretation of what debate is, what it's for and your Aff's relationship to the resolution (are you claiming to be topical somehow? shouldn't have to be?) and B. why doing whatever your Aff is doing is good in light of that interp.
Speaker Points: I believe these are arbitrary and I wish we had better ways to break ties. I tend to give high-ish speaks with the winner of the debate getting an extra half-point. Being that I think they are arbitrary, I may tank your speaks, no matter your speech quality, if you anger me by being needlessly rude or obnoxious.
Theory Generalities: I believe that competing interpretations is the only truly appropriate way to evaluate debates about debate. I am more likely to evaluate reasonability type arguments as a standard or defense against voters on theory than as a proper response to competing interps because top level reasonability arguments are themselves a competing interpretation -- lending the argument a weird performative incoherency on-top of, in my experience, never being clearly defined.
I generally take it for granted that fairness is an internal link to education unless told otherwise.
I will generally vote on any theory argument that I'm instructed to vote on if the offense is clearly won. That being said if you pick up on one of the arguments I am about to say I do not like, or something you and I both know is an awful argument, I may drop your speaks.
RVIs: I see these being read a lot in LD. I do not recommend reading these in front of me. I don't generally believe that it is unfair to debate about any aspects of debate, and I don't think I've ever seen an RVI run convincingly. If you insist on going for an RVI, I'd be far more compelled by arguments about theory bloat harming the educational value of debate than the args I typically see along the lines of 'they read too many theory args/I disagree with their theory args and that's not fair.' But probably just don't.
I am much more willing to consider Ks of framework/theory (which I've always viewed as distinct from RVIs, though I've seen them used interchangeably in LD) as voters. If you go for this, you should have a clear story about what is so rhetorically/structurally harmful about their theory arguments that your opponent ought to lose outright.
Floating PIKs: Don't do them. If your kritik doesn't solve some aspect of the aff you're probably doing it wrong, but if your alt actually enacts nonprecluded parts of the affirmative plan, you need to be forthcoming about that in the 1NC. I'm probably more lenient than most on floating PIKs when judging policy, but the structure of LD definitely raises my expectations in terms of specificity from the 1N. I won't reject the argument out of hand but I'll allow new "floating piks bad" in the 2AR which will obviously sink your PIK.
Aff/Neg Choice: I hate these args. In line with the rest of my opinions here, I believe things in debate should be up for debate. Reading interps that state terms of the round should be chosen by either party, or that an opponent should not be allowed to respond to a particular argument, fundamentally does not sit well with me. I think winning these args requires winning with essential certainty that whatever "choice" it is you're making (e.g. aff chooses util good) be the best choice, in which case you should just win that interp in the first place.
Perf Con: I probably take perf con arguments more seriously than the average judge. If there is a significant rhetorical/performative/in-round component to enacting your alt or advocacy, I think performative contradiction can be articulated as a turn that is not resolved by conditionality. I think it makes more sense articulated as a solvency turn than a theory interp though.
Those are all the specific things I can think to comment on at the moment. If you have questions, certainly ask.
LD: policy pls (below should still be applicable)
If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.
TL;DR Go for what you're most prepared for and can execute the best because that's what really makes debate fun and productive. I'm not very familiar with the topic.
Debate is good
Tech > Truth
Clarity above all else
Clipping is bad
I, as the judge, am a policymaker
Fiat is a good thing
A couple Great cards + explanation always beats 10 pieces of mediocre ev
There's not an excuse to avoid line by line
I don't think fairness isn't an intrinsic impact, same as education. It can be an internal link to other things but simply ending your impact calculus with "They KILLED FAIRNESS" won't do it for me. Just treat your extensions and impact work like you would any DA. (I WON'T EVALUATE T AS A DA. TOPICALITY IS A YES OR NO QUESTION. RISK ANALYSIS FOR T IS ABSURD). I also lean heavily towards competing interpretations; the quality of your ev does matter.
If your entire strategy solely centers around the K, I'm not a great judge for you. I can certainly understand your generic Cap and Security K but any high theory requires a whole lot of explanation for me. Just because I might understand what you're saying doesn't mean you can weasel your way around with generic links if it's even somewhat contested. If you're aff I'd down to see an impact turn (obvious exceptions, of course, are: racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, etc.) I really do not want to hear Death Good, please do not do that in front of me.
K-Affs (Includes Framework)
I have written my disdain for K-Affs before. I am not going to just dismiss it; even as I maintain a reluctance to vote on them, I am not one you should just breeze through your blocks and force me to do work for you. I will be the first to admit that I need a lot of explanation as noted above in "Kritiks". Given all this said, framework is an uphill battle for the aff. I am not very sympathetic to generic "fairness bad/your education bad" impact turns; I think policy education is generally a good thing.
The only theory I feel even remotely comfortable voting aff (TO REJECT THE ARGUMENT) on are utopian fiat bad, object fiat bad, riders DA bad, delay cps bad, and floating piks bad. Condo is generally a good thing and I personally think you're better off not reading that 30 second shell if the neg is running just a single conditional advocacy but I understand time skew. Also, in principle, I judge-kick. I think that as I default to Condo being a good thing, and the status quo always being a logical option, it would be illogical for me to choose a plan of action when doing nothing would be better.
Also, I doubt I'll ever vote for Word Piks. This certainly doesn't excuse excessively disrespectful behavior.
I like politics a lot and I like engagement and clash at the link level even more so. Turns case analysis (vice versa for the aff) is always a good thing and should be a must have. Straight turns are fun.
I love impact turns and my personal favorites are: Heg Good, Warming Good, Cap Good, Dedev, and CWG. It will take a lot for me to evaluate 0 risk of an impact. It can happen but your cards need to be far better.
If you make fun of the Tennessee Titans during your speech I will give you +0.3 speaker points.
My background is in Public Forum and Parliamentary debate. I competed in HS in Colorado and was a state finalist in PF. I competed in Parli at Lewis & Clark College. I have coached PF, LD, CX and Parli. I am familiar with all mainstream forms of debate. I can handle all the technical stuff, so if you want to run a K or something, I'm open to it. But don't just do it to do it. It needs to fit in the round and if it's bad, I will hold it against you.
I prefer debate to be an accessible activity. Overly relying on jargon to make your point bums me out. Do not spread your opponents. If they say "clear" you better slow down. Disregarding that can absolutely cost you the round.
Most of all, persuade me. I want warranted claims and facts presented, but I need you to do the analysis. You need to put the pieces together for me, I will not do the work for you.
I will try not to divulge my personal beliefs, and most of all, I will try not weigh them in a round. That being said, I am human and I have feelings and empathy.
I also value cordial discourse. If you get rude to your opponents (dismissive, talking over them incessantly, glaring or obviously rolling your eyes) I will mark you down on speaker points at the very minimum, and it will affect my decision. Remember, you were new once, and a supportive community keeps this activity alive.
Have fun, don't stress out, and GOOD LUCK!!
Hello! My email is: email@example.com
Anthony, Who are you and what are you doing in my debate round?
I'm a grad student who studies Mathematics. I did High School and College LD. As a tldr, I vote based on what's written on my flow. I vote for the debater that has access the most impactful offense in the round. There are not any positions that I will refuse to vote for, but of course like all people there are some positions I have a harder time voting for than others (if you have a question about a specific position, ask me before round). It's your job to make sure why the arguments you are going for get you the ballot.
How do I evaluate debates?
Offense gets you access to the ballot, good defense denies your opponent access to offense. If you want my ballot, then by the end of the debate you must tell me 1: what piece of offense do you have access to, and 2: why that piece of offense outweighs whatever your opponent has. I think good debaters use a strategic mix of offense and defense.
How do I feel about spreading?
I am a fan of spreading. When I debated, I did both fast and slow debate. You do you. Try not to be exclusionary to other debaters though.
If you are unfamiliar with spreading, and your opponent is going too fast for you, call out "speed!". If your opponent is unclear, call out "clear!". If your opponent does not even make an attempt to slow down or clear up after calling out "speed" or "clear", I will decrease their speaker points, and I'd be open to any theory argument against them made in your speech.
How do I feel about K's?
I read K's and I like them. There are some authors I know better than others (If you have a question about a specific author, ask me before round), but that does not mean I will not vote for an argument I haven't heard before. You need to tell me how to frame the round and how to frame impacts (why is the K prior to the aff?).
I need clear alt solvency. I feel like this gets way too glossed over in most K debates. In my experience I have noticed a lot of aff teams too afraid to point out the flaws of the alt-mechanism, and most neg teams seem to just presume that their alt will solve. Negs need to clearly explain what the alt does, what it solves, and how.
Also, Negs, I believe creative and nuanced arguments against the perm beat generics any day. Conversely, I am a huge fan of aff teams which get creative with the perm.
How do I feel about Theory?
I probably have the least amount of experience evaluating theory compared to other debate arguments. That being said I will evaluate it like any other debate argument. Ultimately, I default to theory prior to any other argument because I view theory as a meta discussion of the debate. That being said, in round I can be persuaded to evaluate, for example, K prior to theory.
Make sure you have a clear violation. Make sure your standards link to your voters.
When answering theory, it helps when you have a clear counter interpretation and standards, but if you clearly do not violate I view a we-meet as terminal defense.
Competing interps or reasonability?
I am biased toward competing interps but if it is well argued I will not be opposed to viewing T through the lens of reasonability. I think my only issue with reasonability is that I have a hard time wrapping my head around what counts as 'reasonable'.
not doing college debate
add me and interlake onto the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
- qualified to state 3x
- qualified to the toc 2x
- qualified to nsda nationals
TLDR: not super familiar with the topic this year but i did some work over the summer on some affs and neg stuff. you should pref me if you want a super flexy judge if ya kno what i mean. senior year for strats they were as diverse as going for afropess to heg good in the 2nr.gonzaga will be the first tournament im judging at this year. you should keep this in mind when you use any acronyms or terms germane to the topic. dw, im not like SOME people *cough* freshman college debaters who think they're super cool enough to have a hefty paradigm. i'm going to make this short and sweet for you
- agents and process cps were my go to senior year. i went for the courts cp with the stim da like 20 times lol.
- extra speaks for creative cps/pics that are cut by aff evidence/answer the aff
- i default to sufficiency framing unless the aff wins that sufficiency framing is bad and they're ahead on framing
- the cp should solve like 80 percent of the aff? idk it depends on how things are going with the da.
- the weakest mitigated parts that is the least complicated to evaluate is just pointing out how shitty their rider link cards are
- idk if this topic is mostly ptx das or what, i guess i'll have to find out if yall are reading topic das or what
- the more internal links the da has the less compelling the story becomes
- i like other impacts rather than just nuclear war, and aff team if you're reading a soft left aff you should impact turn the impact
- go for it, it will need to be fleshed out in specific ways like this
- for the aff, set it up in the 2ac and the 1ar and 2ar should go ham on it
- for the neg, set it up in the 1nc and the 2nc/1nr should go ham on it lol
- card quality and quantity matters a lot in these debates since they're tech > truth heavy
- lol ai good, heg good, CO2 Ag good, warming good, cap good are all really fun debates to watch
- ik death good seems controversial but i think this argument is more nuanced than it seems in terms of k literature or whatever cards you read so you can read it and win it in front of me if i can tell that you know what you're saying/doing and not just reading david spositos blox/cards
- i love the k, i started going for it sophomore year and was a k debater junior year after going to k lab but then i became flex senior year
- i am well versed in antiblackness, deleuze, settler colonialism, moten and harney, queer theory, and gender theory
- the best k techy debaters dont just read blocks, they know when to read blocks on the lbl to make it sound like you're doing embedded clash (unless u wanna say "they say bla")
- best link packages have an impact and turns case analysis attached to them
- you can kick the alt, but you must explain why framework provides uniqueness to the links, and it's probably some in round impact, otherwise the alt provides uniqueness to the links, you cant just go for a non linear da in the 2nr
- just because im known as a k debater does not mean i will hack for you. in fact, it probably means my threshold for the k is higher than other judges. must be executed well
- i have no idea what any of the t debates are this year. i thought t enact was funny last year lol
- so i really dont know or wont default to one definition being more precise than the other unless you explain it well to me
- i wont be caught up to date with the t trends going on in the debate community, if someone explains the worst t argument better than the other team then i will vote on it even if other judges wouldnt have voted on it
- so what i mean is like on the cjr topic i would vote aff against t enact if that was explained well to me even tho judges auto voted neg against courts affs
- omg my fave and ive been in so many of these debates before, im probably the most neutral judge for this
- you should check out my spotify lecture on fw and if its true. here's a good way to get my ballot and this was the summary of the podcast: k affs win fw if they hijack the negs research and education arguments and link turn it. k affs lose to fw when they drop that its about the process of debating with a precise resolution that makes fairness limits clash work, not the process of research and debating with an arbitrary res, since everyone can research lit by looking it up on google scholar lol, and reading it on the neg solves this argument because you can research ks and change ur subjectivity with a resolution just read a k on the neg.
- aff fw impact turns need uniqueness, so you need a counter interp, unless ur going for a debate bad impact turn in the 2ar
- tbh i think idea testing (iterative argument refinement) is the best impact to go for. the way aden barton explained it when he crushed me in a fw debate at camp my summer to junior year was that people would be going for these strategies year long, and a stasis allows us to iteratively refine our arguments we lose so that we get better in time for the toc to test strategies that work bla bla etc.
- but i think fairness can be argued as an independent impact or as an internal link to a litany of things that make the game work
Add me to the email chain - CyanRidge@lclark.edu
I am a second year at Lewis and Clark College. I compete in LD and competed at NFA. I competed in policy, public forum, and congressional debate all throughout high school. I have been to nationals, the DCI all years, and placed at state tournaments.
My philosophy & experience: I have judged two high school tournaments this year so I know a little amount about the current topic.
I will listen to any argument and am very open-minded. I evaluate the link debate heavily when facing nuke war impacts. MOST IMPORTANTLY: I will absolutely not tolerate any behavior that is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/discriminatory in any way and will not hesitate to vote you down for it. Be nice to your opponents in cx don't make me angry.
Any speed that you are comfortable with is fine with me. I will tell you to slow or clear if I am having a hard time. As long as both teams can spread and keep up then fast is excellent. BE considerate of opponents who may not spread and match their energy.
I love performative affs, k debates, and identity politics. I’m generally familiar with most K lit but please do not assume I know exactly what you are talking about.
fantastic! go off.
I really appreciate impact calc done in the NR. Although speed and tech are important, explaining your arguments in context is the most valuable skill to learn in the debate.
I write lots on ballots, but feel free to send/ask me questions! You can reach me at email@example.com
Lowell '20 l UCLA '24
Yes, email chain: zoerosenberg [at] gmail [dot] com AND firstname.lastname@example.org,please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"
Background: I was a 2N for four years at Lowell, I qualified to the TOC my senior year and was in late elims of NSDA. I don't debate in college due to a lack of policy infrastructure. I now help out at Damien and am involved in the team's strategy so I have a good sense of arguments being read on the circuit.
GGSA/State Qualifier: I will still judge rounds technically, as one does for circuit style. However, I believe adaptation is one of the most important skills one can get out of debate so I encourage you to speak slowly, especially with parents on the panel.
Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. All of the below can be changed by out-debating the other team through judge instruction and ballot writing. Unresolved debates are bad debates.
Speed is great, but clarity is even better. If I'm judging you online please go slightly slower, especially if you don't have a good mic. I find it increasingly hard to hear analytics in the online format.
Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards. I generally think in-round explanation is more important than evidence quality.
I'm very expressive, look at me if you want to know if I'm digging your argument!
Call me by my name, not "judge".
Debnil Sur taught me everything I know about debate so check: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=debnil&search_last= for a better explanation of anything I have to say here.
What arguments does she prefer? I go for mostly policy arguments and feel more in my comfort zone judging these debates. That being said, I moved more to the left as my years in high school came to a close and am down to judge a well-defended kritikal affirmative. I think debate is a game but it's a game that can certainly can influence subjectivity development. Note: I would still prefer to judge a bad policy debate, over a bad kritikal debate.
Online Debate Adaptions
Here are some things you can do to make the terribleness of online tournaments a little less terrible.
1 - I really would like your camera to be on, wifi permitting. Debate is a communicative activity and your persuasion increases by tenfold if you are communicating with me face to face.
2 - Please use some form of microphone or slow down by 20%. It is really hard to catch analytics with poor audio quality.
3 - The benefits of sending analytics vastly outweigh the cons of someone having your blocks to a random argument.
4 - If it takes you more than a minute to send out an email chain I will start running prep. I genuinely don't understand how it can take up to five minutes to attach a document to an email chain lmao
K Affs: I read a kritikal affirmative all of senior year but on the negative went for framework against most K affs. I don't have a definite bias toward either side. However, kritikal affirmatives that defend a direction of the topic and allow the negative to access core topic generics jive with me much more than simply impact turning fairness and skirting the resolution.
Framework: Fairness is an impact. By the 2NR please don't go for more than two impacts. Having a superior explanation why the TVA resolves their offense and doing impact comparison will put you in a good spot. Switch-side debate is a silly argument, but feel free to convince me otherwise.
Neg: I know the lit behind security, neolib, psychoanalysis, and necropolitics. Make of that which you will. I'm not going to be happy listening to your 7 minute overview. Explain the thesis of the kritik and contextualize the link debate to the aff and I will be quite happy. Winning framework means you probably win the ballot. And as Debnil puts it, "I believe I'm more of an educator than policymaker, which means representational critiques or critiques of debate's educational incentive structure will land better for me than most judges."
Competing interps or reasonability? Competing interps. Asserting a standard like limits needs to be warranted out, explain why your impacts matters. Have a clear vision of the topic under your interp, things like case-lists and a solid understanding of arguments being read on the circuit are important. T before theory. Also a good topicality debate is my favorite thing ever.
Is condo good? Yes, most of the time. Things like amending stuff in the block, kicking planks, fiating out of straight turns are sketchy. But in most debates, unless it's dropped or severely mishandled I lean neg. To win condo the affirmative must have a superior explanation why multiple advocacies made that debate unrecoverable. Going for condo only because you're losing on substance is not the move. Hard debate is good debate. Other theory preferences (I-Fiat, Process CPs, etc.) are likely determined by the topic. However, they're almost always reasons to reject the argument not the team.
Policy stuff? I like it. Link centered debate matters the most, so focus on uniqueness and link framing. Do comparative analysis of the warrants in your evidence. I really dislike bad turns case analysis, link turns case arguments will sit better with me. I think most types of counterplans are legitimate if the neg wins they are competitive. I'll judge kick if you tell me to do it.
Make a funny joke about anyone on the Lowell squad, Lisa Kopelnik, Brendan Tremblay, or Debnil Sur and I'll boost you +.1 speaks
Hey reader! I dunno if tabroom has updated my name yet, but I'm Alice. I debate for L&C and if you’re reading this then you probably have me for a round or two!
I love thorough warrants and explanations. I am fine with speed, and will vote on anything that is explained adequately. I don’t lean any way, I’m fine with wacky 6 off strategies or 1 off DA’s, anything that you enjoy debating. Just make sure that you’re having fun!
I have experience in both lay and progressive circuits. I like good, interactive, educational rounds (isn’t that the dream). Try your best and you’ll do great, and you will probably get good speaks unless you say something super backwards and hateful.
I am completely fine with speed, so long as I can read along as you talk. Make sure that you are delivering your speeches with clarity. Don't feel pressured to speak fast if it isn't something you are comfortable with. The most important thing is that you and your opponent are both okay with the pace that is being set! If your opponent calls clear or speed and you don’t acknowledge it, you will lose speaks. Roadmapping and signposting are big plusses to speaks.
Stock Issues/Topical Debate
I feel comfortable with stock issues, and I think that stock issues debate is an easy way to get my ballot. You don’t need to explicitly tell me which card is on which stock issue, just make sure that when you’re doing line by line to sign post so I’m on the same page as you.
I spend most of my time debating Kritiks (on both the aff and neg), so I do end up voting for them a lot. My main areas are Orientalism/Cap/Queerness. If you do end up reading a K, please don’t assume that I know or understand the literature base. I think we as a community get away with using tags as arguments and not explaining the bulk of the card, so I tend to like at least a little bit of hand holding to get me to the same conclusion as you. Vague alts are really hard for me to vote on, so make sure you tell me what the alt actually does. If you’re debating against the K, don’t be afraid to ask clarifying questions because I may be just as lost as you are.
I do really enjoy theory debate. It’s one of my favorite things in debate. If you do end up going for theory, or find yourself having to respond to it, please make sure that you’re being clear with the signposts on the line-by-line. Theory can become really muddy unless both debaters make sure to be extra clear. I will vote on almost any theory arg so long as you win competing interps.
currently accepting submissions for a new paradigm meme
Who are you?
I am currently a 3L at Lewis & Clark Law School and co-LD coach for L&C. I graduated from L&C undergrad in May 2020 and did parli (NPDA) debate there. I also competed in high school for four years, mainly in LD. For the sake of ultimate transparency, I want to make my debate opinions as explicit as possible. I promise to try my best :)
I dont want to read ur whole paradigm. What do I need to know?
I will listen to any argument (except disclosure) that you make and will weigh how you tell me to. Ks are my favorite and theory is not. Please make clear extensions. pls dont be a jerk. I will absolutely not tolerate any behavior that is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/discriminatory in any way and will not hesitate to vote you down for it.
Note for High School:
You do you! I have done or am familiar with every high school event. All of the below would apply in a technical/circuit style debate round. If you are unfamiliar with any of that, don't worry! I will evaluate the round how you tell me to. Feel free to ask me questions. Be kind to each other. Have fun with it!
Note for NPDA:
Pretty much all of the below applies! Anything specific to NFA-LD just straight up ignore. I've been out of the parli game for a bit since Lewis & Clark does LD now, but most of my debate experience was formed through NPDA. Let me know if you have any questions.
How do you allocate speaker points?
I really struggled with coming up with a consistent way to give speaks. They are usually arbitrary and reflective of personal biases and tend to be total bs... SO i usually give high asf speaks (30 + 29.9). That being said if I don't give you the speaks you wanted pls dont read into it, i have no idea how to give speaks in a fair or consistent way. You'd have to really say something discriminatory, very mean or otherwise demeaning to earn very low speaks (anything lower than a 27). I'm open to any args you want to make about speaks and just let me know if u have any questions.
How do you feel about Speed TM?
Any speed that you are comfortable with is fine with me. I will tell you to slow or clear if I am having a hard time, though this probably will not happen too often with speech docs. I do have sympathy for debaters who cannot keep up with extremely fast opponents so keep that in mind if you plan on spreading against someone who cannot.
What about the K?
I love love love performative affs and GOOD k debates. If you've ever debated me you know that I've almost always read non-topical Ks with some fun (loosely) topical debates mixed in every once in a while. I’m familiar with almost all K lit but please do not assume I know exactly what you are talking about (especially when it comes to D n G bc i simply do not get it.) I am most familiar with futurism arguments and performance affs. Cap is fun! Generic links are so frustrating and so are unclear alts. I love a good explanation of the world post the alt. I'd honestly rather vote for an uncarded link that is specific to the aff and contextualized to the debate than to vote on a generic carded link.
How do you feel about perms?
Love it. Fun stuff. Perms are probably advocacies because everyone treats them like they are.
What if I want to read theory?
If you read theory, read a smart interp with a clear violation and standards/voters that make sense. Voters that do not make sense to me include: fairness without a warrant, education without a warrant, “NFA rules say it’s a voter.”
I prefer proven abuse. Does potential abuse even have an impact???????
I also think the competing interps vs. reasonability debate is SO dumb. "prefer CI bc reasonability leads to judge intervention" and "prefer reasonability bc CI leads to a race to the bottom” are not warrants. They do not interact with each other or make even a little bit of sense. If you really want to know how I evaluate theory, it is likely that I will "reasonably" vote for whichever "competing interpretation" is doing the best.
Ok but rules are important to me... How else can we have a fair debate?!?
I think MOST of the rules are fine and whatever (speaking times, rules for prep, rules on evidence citations). However, a significant amount of other rules hold up structures of racism and sexism. And, many of the okay on face rules end up being enforced most harshly against minority debaters. At the end of the day, I wholeheartedly believe F the rules, be nice to one another, and have a fun debate.
I wanna read some topical stuff! How does that sound?
Great! Read tons of topical stuff. I do like me a good topical debate! Clearly articulated link chains and impacts will go a long way.
Be condo if you want plus I prefer a hard collapse anyway. DO NOT LIE ABOUT BEING UNCONDO.
Collapse, slow down for important things you really want me to remember, don't forget to do impact calc, I will not vote on disclosure, and have fun ;)
Please feel free to send/ask me questions! You can reach me at email@example.com or send me a message on facebook. Otherwise you can ask before a round! I seriously love talking about debate and will do it literally any time.
Hi, I'm Rose! 'My intention here is to disclose as much bias about the way I judge -- I never want to be a judge who makes decisions on undisclosed biases or based on an undisclosed method.
I'm a junior at Lewis and Clark College, I debated for three years in highschool and do college LD now. I have experience in every type of highschool debate except for PF which means I have experience with a pretty broad range of argument types. I'm still trying to figure out my personal debate style but I tend to prefer running Ks and T to policy based arguments, but don't let that affect your decisions about what to run. If there's an email chain, put me on it: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debate how you wanna. Read the arguments you like on both sides. Don't be shy about asking specific or clarifying questions before round but I'll try to cover the major ones.
Be kind to one another. If not, it makes me not want to vote for you and will definitely hurt your speaker points. You don't need to be besties and I don't mind a smidge of snark, but please be aware of your position within this activity and that you aren't actually hurting anyone or making a round unfun. I think "tech vs truth" is an oversimplified dichotomy and I definitely have arguments I am more skeptical of (disclosed below) BUT a dropped argument is a dropped argument, ya know?
One of the easiest ways to get high speaks is to make my job as easy as possible. Make your weighing extra clear, esp. in rebuttals and try to clean up the framing debate. If I have to do my own weighing I will be sad and you might be too. Framework debate good. Judge intervention bad. Offensive args good. Defensive args won't win you a round unless it's a major hot mess. This also means collapsing to one or two positions in the rebuttals AND telling me how I should be weighing positions against one another. Should I care about in round impacts more? Likelihood or magnitude more? Tell me and explain why!!!
I flow and adjudicate based on my flow. I will have speech docs open and do read them, but one of the best things you can do for yourself as a debater is prioritize the clarity of my flow; tell me where you want me to put arguments, tell me when you switch between arguments, tell me where you want me to flow over/underviews if you read them. It just goes a long way to making sure I'm contextualizing arguments the way you want me to and I think is just a really good organizational skill to practice.
I default to T/Theory/Whatever You Wanna Call it being a priori but I'll entertain arguments about why that might be false or bad. I have found I am more persuaded by proven abuse than hypothetical abuse on a T flow but that isn't an absolute. I think disclosure theory is dumb. I don't ~love~ blippy theory but I'll evaluate it, just know I'm gonna be skeptical.
If you can make me laugh that helps your speaks. I accept cash bribes.
Speed is fine, but I reserve the right to clear you. Also, don't be afraid to call clear or speed on your opponent; debate should be accessible.
I give high speaks generally but am hesitant to give perfect speaks unless you really wow me. I use low speaks to punish you for being rude, inconsiderate, intolerant, or generally a bigot. I just thing points can be so gosh dang arbitrary that I don't mind being a bit of a point fairy if you're generally being a smart, clear debater.
Here's some more in depth stuff for policy folks or anyone else who wants more insight:
Advantages/Disads: Not a lot to say here. I will admit to a preference for soft left positions with structural violence impx over big stick nuc war impx. I'm just generally more skeptical of the probability of those logic chains so you have more of an uphill battle with me if you choose to run them. This isn't to dissuade you from running your nuc war scenarios but in the interest of disclosing biases.
CPs: No strong preference. A perm isn't an advocacy jsyk and I really don't mind if you run as PIC as long as you're prepared for a theory debate about it. Cover your bases on explaining how the CP is or isn't competitive. I also think advantage CPs are a neat, underutilized tool.
Topicality/Theory: Love a good T debate. I think it's an awesome tool of accountability in the round. You don't need proven abuse but I will admit to finding it slightly more persuasive than hypothetical abuse. Don't love blippy T and generally have a low threshold for reasonability on these sheets especially if it's pretty clear you're jonesing That doesn't mean you CAN'T BS but, like I've said, it's gonna be more of an uphill battle. I'll also entertain outweighs T arguments if you can handle them with clarity. Lastly, don't make me listen to disclosure theory.
Ks: Swag on either side, aff or neg. Also, I've read a lot but don't assume I'm as familiar with your authors as you are OR that your opponents are as familiar as you are. Remember what I said about accessibility? Also I tend to be skeptical of the solvability of alts -- i think its 99.9% of the time the weakest part of your K but you can work against this by making it a. abundantly clear wtf your alt does b. ideally having some material action behind your alt.
Arguments I Do Not Like: Overpopulation, cap good, extinction good, anything in this general camp of arguments. None of these are auto-Ls, just know I fundamentally do not believe you when you say these things. These still need to be answered. And anything blatantly racist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, or otherwise exclusionary is pretty much a guaranteed L and bad speaks. I encourage you to call out your opponents for things like this but I also understand that debating this stuff is exhausting so don't waste too much time and energy on this stuff if you have to answer it.
Ask me anything else or send me an email if you want clarification bc I've surely forgotten some important stuff. :D
TL;DR do what u wanna, be nice, debate should be fun