The Dempsey Cronin Memorial Invitational
2022 — NSDA Campus, CA/US
Individual Events Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Dougherty Valley '21, Cal '25
Adults in debate need to stop involving children in their weird clout chaser politics and treat this activity like the educational space that it is.
be comprehensible/go slower - i dont judge as often as you compete
probably better for the K now than I was 2 years ago - I still require explanation and examples to the same extent though
Debated mostly in LD but went to policy camp and some policy tournaments. If you're a PF-er you shouldn't have counteradvocacies but other than that I will judge it like it’s a policy round - read cards
add me to the email chain (email@example.com).
if you're short on time, just read this top section:
don't overinvest, have fun
Tech>Truth, but it’s easier to win more truthful arguments.
arguments require a claim and a warrant and (eventually) an implication. i wont pretend you said something you didn't and have no problem voting on lack of explanation or not hearing something.
online: record speeches locally if online, flash analytics if possible
email chain should be set up at start time
- you don't need to adapt to novices if on the national circuit
- sending a marked copy does not constitute prep, requesting a doc where "unread cards are deleted" does
- tell me to judge kick or I won't: condo assumes 2NR collapse exists.
- circumvention and impact turns are nice
- you can insert rehighlights
- number/delineate your arguments
- will reward fun, high-risk strategies such as 1-off disad, a massive impact turn , 7 minutes of case turns or circumvention etc.
- "independent voting issues" are rarely ever independent or voting issues
- if you or your opponent might read theory or topicality as a viable out, read the "rant" under the theory section. everything else in the paradigm is extremely standard and you'll be fine even if you don't read it.
- disclosure is good, read theory
- happy to give the "i don't get it" rfd
- defaults: comparative worlds (LD), no judge kick, "competing interps", no rvi, drop the debater on T and condo and disclosure theory and drop the argument on all other theory, fairness and education are voters, everything other than fairness and education is not a voter
-clipping if you do catch clipping, do not make clipping an argument in the debate - stake the round and show me the recording.
- ev ethics - any misrepresentation of evidence (stopping in the middle of a paragraph, if the article concludes the opposite way after the card ends, mis-cited) is an automatic L even if not called out. if your link is dead but the article can be procured through a different method you won't lose.
- i expect evidence to have cites/qualifications and not be bracketed unless offensive language. read theory
- i read a lot of ev, the quality of the warrant is the quality of the argument.
- extend warrants, weigh, and answer warrants. implicate each argument, don't leave it to me to do the work for you
- you still need to answer the disadvantage
- this just shifts the burden of explanation, it doesn't magically make extinction not a problem anymore. that being said, you should still leave some time for the framing portion of the debate
- politics disads are cool
- do impact calc
- no new links/IL/impacts/uq arguments in the 2NR, but may use cards to answer (new) 1AR arguments
- 2NR/2AR impact calc isn't new
- love smart and creative counterplans
- start the solvency debate in the 1NC (card or analytic), not the 2AC. burden of proof on the negative!
- defining "sufficiency framing" isn't enough - make it contextual.
- read CP theory but don't speed through blocks. Counterplan theory is generally a question of research and predictability, having a specific advocate is important.
- i do not have a predisposition for/against condo/dispo bad in LD (they're good in policy)
- err neg/drop the argument on 1AR theory is persuasive in LD
- LD only: while i do think non-resolutional actor CPs in LD don't provide an opportunity cost to the plan insofar that the aff's obligation is to prove an actor's moral obligation, i will still evaluate them as they are read and debated unless that argument is made.
Kritiks (on the negative):
- good k debates are cool but rare - consequently good k debates with explanation and knowledge of your argument will get great speaks and bad k debates meant to take your opponent by surprise or rack up easy wins with blocks will get extremely deflated speaks.
- the more the negative wins their link the easier it is for them to win Framework
- filter alt solvency through Framework - and actually explain it please!
- please actually warrant your fairness arguments on Framework - 'moots the aff' absent an explanation of why consequences are specifically key is probably not enough
- LD only: Link walls must be in the 1NC. New 2NR links from the 1AC are new and will not be evaluated. New 2NR links based on the 1AR will be evaluated. In policy, new 2NC links are fine
- not relying on precluding the aff = higher speaks.
- extensions of 'ontology' and similar broad claims need to be much more robust than you think they do. you can't just say the buzzwords "natal alienation" or "gratuitous violence" or "metaphysics" without telling me 1) what they are and 2) how they implicate progress.
- i will vote for warranted K "tricks" but keep the overview shorter rather than longer please
- vagueness in cx bad
- particularity vs Ks is good and Ks should either link turn or impact turn this and overinvest time on this argument
Kritiks (on the affirmative):
- T-USFG/Framework - aff teams can easily out-tech neg teams but i usually went for T/Fwk. Don't care which internal link/impact you choose: fairness, skills, testing, etc. as long as they have an actual impact
- try to answer the case even if you go for T especially the parts that interact with the shell
- you get a perm
- go for presumption if the 1AC is just an impact turn to Framework
- i like T, went for it a lot.
- weighing is essential
- evidence comparison is underutilized
- Rant: Reasonability vs Competing Interps is much less important than you think it is. If the substance tradeoff DA or overpunishment DA by dropping the debater outweighs mitigated interp offense, I will vote against theory because of "reasonability". If neither of those arguments are introduced or leveraged successfully, I will not use reasonability (i.e. there must be some offense vs the interp to vote against theory). if both teams pretend like this part of my paradigm doesn't exist, I'll likely just use competing interps because it causes me less of a headache to evaluate
- RVIs are bad but don't drop them
- if a 1AC theory underview has more than yes/no theory, competing interps/reasonability, dtd/dta, voters you instantly lose 0.5 speaker points for making me flow all that :)
- Interpretations are models of debate, and definitions are the warrants for why those models are predictable - standards should be filtered through predictability
- "semantics first" is not persuasive, precision as an internal link is persuasive
LD Philosophy/Ethical Framework Debates:
- i am much better for literally any other argument
- if your cards and rebuttals do a good job of explaining the syllogism and reasons to prefer(they usually don't), you'll be fine.
- tricks: If there's a clear claim, warrant, and implication to an argument when it is first introduced, then I will flow and evaluate it like any other argument. Even if you go for terrible one-liners that are almost definitively false, you should still collapse and oversell the truth of your arguments.
- "we defend the aff as a general principle" is a topicality issue about implementation.
- general confidence vs modesty bores me - contextualize (with cards) !
CX matters, -0.1 speaks if you shift around your order multiple times when giving it or if you don't label your flows in the 1nc ("next off" is insufficient).
Credit to whoever I copped some lines of this paradigm from
Director of Speech-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)
Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)
Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)
Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 14 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 5 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida to national circuit.
First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments).
While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*
I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.
+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.
If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.
PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.
Small note for LD: Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind.
Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.
I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.
I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.
I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.
You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.
Preferences for arguments:
If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:
This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.
Hi! Yay! Believe! You are amazing! Smile!
Lynbrook ‘22 and Fr00t L00ps ‘22 and Sunshine ‘22 and Puffers Academy of Excellence '22
Send speech docs to the email below:
Feel free to email me if you have any questions or want additional feedback!
I will vote on any argument, so please feel free to read anything you want!
I have done Lincoln-Douglas Debate for 4 years (both lay and circuit) and broken to numerous elimination rounds, taught LD/PF debate and impromptu speech, and have extensive experience in drama, theatre, and improv.
Quick Prefs (Based on how well I can adjudicate them. I don't give any argument preference over the other when I evaluate.)
1 - LARP, Theory, T, Theoretical Trix, Lay, Creative Stuff
2 - Phil, K, Performance, and Logic/Misc. Trix
4 - Super complex kritiks/phil when the entire debate is buzzwords
Strike - Not warranting/explaining your argument for the entire round
Weigh your arguments, please. It's good 4 u and happy and healthy for me.
I recommend you explain arguments as much as possible!
If you are going for an evidence ethics argument, please actually argue it (read it as a shell that people can respond to).
The choice to collapse your arguments is up to you—in some rounds that is the best strategy but in some rounds, it may be not.
I primarily read util policy-style arguments and theory with some theoretical tricks mixed in. I have also read phil occasionally and sometimes Ks. I have written and/or read unconventional arguments too (i.e. Unique Util Framing, Ubuntu AC, Animal Wipeout, Case outweighs theory, etc.) and find creativity inspiring. I also find performative offense fascinating and powerful. I think you can tackle any argument in any way, and am open to basically whatever you want to do.
If I'm judging you for speech events, I look for both your content and how you present the speech (emotion, speaking skills, articulation, physicality, etc.). I do flow your speeches so that I remember and can evaluate the content (63%), but at the same time, I will be analyzing your presentation (37%). I've noticed I tend to like unique speeches that spark a flutter of emotion within me. A little bit more about my background: I did drama for 7 years, held many leadership positions, and did improv theatre for 3 years. I've participated in plenty of musicals and plays as an actor, techie, organizer, and director. I've also taught impromptu speech the past three summers. Anyway, feel free to be creative—the structure you follow for your speech and the movement/emotion you portray is up to you, and the way you choose to structure a speech and move/show emotion throughout the round can affect its power. I will vote on any speech.
If you're uncomfortable at any time for whatever reason, please let me know so we can address it as per your wishes.
Junior Year Wikis (this was when I was most active): AFF = https://hsld20.debatecoaches.org/Lynbrook/Chattoraj%20Aff and NEG = https://hsld20.debatecoaches.org/Lynbrook/Chattoraj%20Neg though some arguments are not on there due to shady disclosure practices (but like I found the wiki really helpful as a debater lol so I kinda disclosed heavily to compensate). Disclosure norms for your round, like any other argument, are up to y'all. Explore! Have fun!
Speed: Probably 8.5-9/10. I'll follow along with your speech doc, but please still be clear. Analytics are appreciated. If you are extempting, articulate.
Speaks: Primarily based on both strategy and how well you spoke (could I understand you easily as you spread for example). Doing something new/inspiring/teaching me something gives you higher speaks. If your speaking/debating ability gives me goosebumps and chills, I will give you a 30 (so far I have had 3 opponents do this me while debating).
Have fun! You'll do amazing! Don't be scared. Whether you win or lose, you will learn! Now go shine like the shooting star you are!
Hi! I debated public forum for four years in high school. Please explain thoroughly, signpost, and don't go too fast. If I'm not judging PF, I'm probably not as familiar with your event, so I'm sorry. Basically, if you run progressive debate arguments, I most likely won't get what you're doing, or at least not be able to evaluate your arguments as well. Plans/counterplans in non-PF are fine though.
Please be courteous to your opponents. You are definitely allowed to be assertive, but show your opponents the same respect that you want from them. This includes refraining from being condescending and being equitable/inclusive with your argumentation.
I don't flow cross. Please weigh.
Feel free to ask me anything. Above all, have fun and good luck!
Hello, my name is Lexi Cragnotti I am a Senior in high school. I was one of the captains on my speech and debate team and my main events were parliamentary debate and after-dinner speaking.
- Please do not spew it is not beneficial for anyone.
- Speak clearly - talking fast is totally okay just don't speak so fast that I cannot understand you.
- Make sure you add tag lines to your contentions so that I can flow your speech's.
Have fun everyone!
GFC update (9/22):
please go slow and explain <3 these are my first rounds since last spring and I’m pretty unfamiliar with the topic specs right now so over explain in front of me!
jw patterson update (10/21):
Things I'm going to start dropping your speaks for - 1. counting down before your speeches 2. calling me judge/ms. curry(misgendering me)/any formality - please just call me Ausha(Aw-shuh) or don't refer to me lmao (asking "judge ready?" is okay)
^if you do this i'll know either a. you didn't read my paradigm (bad) or b. did read my paradigm and just aren't respecting it (also bad)
Hi! I'm Ausha
I'm a current sophomore at American University majoring in a mix of poli sci/econ, probably going to do some form of debate here too. In high school I did 2 years of policy and 2 years of LD, running stock and critical args in both. I finished top 50 at NSDA Nats in 2021 and was the WA state LD champion.
Put me on the email chain if you make one : ausha.L.firstname.lastname@example.org
tldr -- Run whatever you want to run. I'll listen. I'll vote where you tell me to, that's your job in the rebuttals.
Don't do/say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamphobic, etc. It'll 100% result in an L20. If at any time during the debate you feel unsafe, feel free to email me and i'll end the round and deal with it accordingly
Policy/LARP - 1
Basic Ks - 1
T - 1
Uncommon Ks - 2
Phil - 3/4
Other Theory - 3/4
Tricks - strike
1. online - go maybe 80-90% max speed and definitely start a little bit slower in case the audio is shady. also plz locally record your speeches in case either of our internet cuts out !
2. disclosure - I won't vote on disclosure unless the violation is super egregious. i was literally the only circuit debater at my HS and i couldn't afford programs like debate drills, etc. so if you're in a similar boat i will def be empathetic towards you in these rounds. On the flip side if you're from a school that has a massive team and try to run the small school arg i won't buy it (interlake i am looking @ u)
3. tech > truth - please be super clear about signposting especially online. even if your opponent straight out concedes something, I still need extensions of a warrant and some weighing for me to vote on it
4. speed - speed is good, slow down on plan/cp texts, interps, etc. I'll yell clear or just ask for the doc post speech if I feel like I missed anything too significant (if it wasn't sent already). If your 1ar is entirely analytics please either slow down or send them in the doc
5. Ev ethics - if u suspect ur opponent is clipping cards, let me know after their most recent speech. it'll also require some sort of recording for proof. Yes stake the round on it, or you can run a theory violation on it and it'll be nicer for everyone
Argument Specific -
tricks - strike me. i won't go for any of the "neg doesn't get CPs" or "eval the debate after x speech". i think they're genuinely cheating, a bad model of debate, and incredibly exclusionary and i will die on that hill
t/theory - I love t, please run it. I spent a lot of my time in policy going for t in the 2nr so I'd say this is where I'm pretty comfy judging debates. I have a pretty high threshold for other theory, especially super friv theory like font size
LD specific: I didn't run a ton of grammatical stuff like Nebel in LD but if you run it well and explain the violation clearly, it's a pretty good shot I'll vote for it. i've come to the realization i don't particularly love theory 2ars if it's only introduced in the 1ar. I think it's made for some pretty shallow debates, but again, i will vote on it unhappily
Defaults: Competing interps, DTA, condo good, PICs good, yes RVIs (note: this doesn't mean i won't flip, you'll just have to debate it)
trad (LD) - will get through these rounds unhappily, but please spice it up a little bit. Make me not want to rip my ears off. Explain phil well, i've never ran one of these cases but i've won against them if that means anything to you. please do comparative work otherwise i will have no idea how to weigh. (Post GFC outrounds, please do not go top speed for kant I NEED you to slow down and explain how everything interacts with each other)
CPs - please make them competitive and have some sort of solvency evidence unless it's some a structural issue (ie taking an offensive word out of the plan text and replacing it). i use sufficiency framing for weighing the cp against the aff meaning you'll have to do more analysis than just "cp doesn't link to the net benefit" in the final rebuttal for me to vote on it. I think both internal and external net benefits are good.
DAs - I enjoy unique, nuanced das. I really like politics and i'll buy them pretty easily if there's a good link to the aff. Should have an overview in the final rebuttal and the block shouldn't be just reading new ev and not answering line by line.
ks - go for it! I like them if they're ran well but make sure you know that your own lit. I'm most familiar with generics (setcol, cap, security), Foucault, a little Edelman, and Baudrillard, any other high theory ones you should explain more though. open to pomo but never really ran it during high school and only hit it a couple times.
k affs - I like these, i ran more than a few. They don't have to be topical, but I think it's easier to win on t if they're in the direction of the topic. I mostly end up going for k v k against these affs but i also run fw in the 1nc, see the t section above if you have questions about that. tvas can be deadly so please blow it up if T/FW is your nr strat!
performance - never ran this, but always enjoyed watching these rounds. Tell me why the 1ac is important in the debate space and win T and it'll be a super easy aff ballot. negs be careful and please don't say anything offensive <3 but i feel like a different K or pik is always a better bet than fw against these
I think i tend to give relatively high speaks averaging between a 28-29. Things that'll boost your speaks: nice pics of aubrey plaza at the top of the speech doc, good organization, clear weighing, and strategic decisions
+.5 for flashing analytics
I value insightful responses to challenging questions during the questioning period. By that same token, if you ask challenging and provoking questions, it will reflect well on your round placement.
I wholeheartedly value speeches that embody the congressional debate sentiment: a focus on the American constituents who "elected" you to office. At the end of the day, that is who you represent. The best speeches are compelling, comprehensible, motivating, and delivered at a normal speaking pace (no spreading). I definitely don't mind a joke/pun or two. Speaking well, in a very compelling way, is just as important as what you are saying. Try not to read from your screen too much.
For PO contests, speed and efficiency is key. The better PO is the one that successfully moves the round along with minimal hesitations, almost as if you don't even notice their presence.
World Schools Debate:
I heavily value speaking compellingly and passionately. That means that you shouldn't be spreading. Also, make sure that you keep in mind that because this is WSD, you should be considering the perspective of the world, not focusing your debate on a specific country.
Try not to spread, as Public Forum is intended to be accessible to the average non-debater. Additionally, make sure your arguments are presented in a compelling way; what you say is just as important as how you say it. For online tournaments, your arguments are communicated more effectively if you are not clearly reading from your screen for the entire speech. Try to look up at the audience/camera every once and a while. I am also comfortable with nonconventional arguments (at least nonconventional for PF) as long as they are presented compellingly and have a clear tie-back to the topic at hand.
I participated in Congressional Debate and World School's Debate in high school, attending both CA State Finals and Nationals. I am now an undergraduate student at Yale University.
- email chain: email@example.com (use for additional questions after round)
- available for virtual coaching on weekends
- tech > truth generally, but I am fond of epistemology arguments
- fully extend unique impacts speech to speech
- restating taglines is not persuasive; extensions need to include interactive warrants
- this is a shared space so please make it accessible
- I need clash and comparative impact calc to stay awake
- jargon/buzzword spamming is not persuasive & mucks up the flow; signpost with intention
- evidence evaluation is very important to me; send out cut speech docs before speaking
- 4 years of local & national LD for Centennial High School
- 3 years of policy for the University of Wyoming (executive authority, space policy, & alliances)
1 Person Policy:
- fiat means that the advocacy of the aff is impervious to domestic political inherency for sake of comparative world construction; nothing more
- moderately high threshold for durable fiat; I need 1-2 warrants for it
- more than 30 seconds of frontlines designed to enable abuse are annoying & obvious; just prep the incoming shell and stop wasting 1AC time
- whole resolution please
- framing is optional but encouraged
- try not to write reverse engineered, impact oriented cases that epitomize security k links; you can still win on tech but I'll be a little bored
- framework should be reasons to prefer a method of evaluation for impacts and/or truth in the round, not just definitions
- definitions should have their own section to clarify ground (and function as interpretations for T)
- LD is a debate of philosophy (aesthetics, axiology, epistemology, metaphysics, ontology, etc.), not just vaguely imperative morals; specify your prescribed philosophy to avoid ranting about subjective morality
- if you read an ends-based criterion/standard of any kind, YOU NEED SOLVENCY
- if reading a means-based criterion/standard, you do not need solvency; you also cannot access ends based impacts of any kind
- discourse, performance, pedagogy, affect, proximity, etc. are all crucial; show me HOW within YOUR aff in THIS round
- if untopical, provide offensive reasons to ditch the resolution
- the more stable your advocacy is, the more stable my vote is; I hate shifty aff's
- please utilize these arguments with the intent to clash and learn more about the topic
- I need at least 1 bit of substantive/contention level offense to weigh through the framework (link + impact); you can't win off of being endlessly theoretically correct
- unframed offense will be evaluated under util by default; make your framing obvious and consistent coming out of the constructive speeches
- epistemology operates above aesthetics, axiology, and moral evaluations in general until you tell me otherwise
- I interpret LD resolutions as truth testing and/or comparative world and enjoy that specific framework debate
- I evaluate competing frameworks under epistemic modesty, not confidence; the neg can weigh their DA's under aff framing, their own, or default util to save time
- stick to your lit; do not use obscurity as a strategy (ie buzzwordy & vague high theory) or I will punish you
- line by line & strategic grouping are a must
- overviews are vital for traditional debaters; condense and collapse the debate to win on depth
- story telling is powerful in traditional debate assuming it isn't highly syllogistic or heavily reliant on pathos
- underviews are time wasters; further contextualize evidence in the rebuttals
- clearly separate the 1NC case from off-case arguments applied to the 1AC flow
- do not read linear DA's, especially multiple
- 'DA turns case' is a swell argument, but absolutist rhetoric is sketchy; be specific when explaining the turn on the link and impact level
- high threshold for vague econ, heg, and privatization DA's ; provide recent and specific evidence
- condo isn't inherently good or bad, so debate it
- process CP's are boring
- low threshold for PIC's good
- neg fiat must be frontlined in the 1NC; no private actor, no international, no multilateral
- not everyone is familiar with k's; please make the debate reasonably accessible for sake of clash
- one off k's NEED extensive framing; ROB's, theory, method etc.
- performative contradiction makes evaluating k's super uncomfortable, so please don't do that to me
- do not read multiple prior question/ a priori arguments; that's just backtracking the k and your offense
- the k should NOT operate as a linear DA with an easy to kick CP; provide solvency for your alternative or don't read a k
- links of omission are boring (high threshold)
- rejection alt's are boring (high threshold)
- PLEASE make presumption arguments if the aff functionally does nothing; I will vote for presumption over deontology in most debates
- THEORY TO PRAXIS; CRITIQUE IS A VERB
- DISCLOSURE IS GOOD FOR DEBATE and debate arguments
- I am comfortable evaluating policy, LD, and PF but prefer LD simply because framework is fun
- generic t/theory is not persuasive; keep it explicit if you need to utilize those arguments in a 45 minute LD round lol
- high threshold for RVI's; you need to prove that they provided no substance and wasted our time
- do not be condescending or you'll get a low point win
- do not call arguments or people ableist adjectives; your speaks will default to 27
- please default to gender neutral communication; unless your opponent doesn't like being referred to as a side or speaker position just call them those objective terms
- performative contradiction will affect speaker points, but it will only show up on the flow if the opponent impacts out the implications of the contradiction within the debate; subject positioning is crucial to these/all debates
- speed is # of arg's per minute, not words per minute
- if you spread analytics I want a doc (and so does your opponent)
- I'm a sucker for creative impact turns; do NOT impact turn forms of oppression (i.e. Nietzsche turns), but you can totally go the dedev/spark/extinction good/nuke war good route
- you will get dropped for creating a hostile environment; debate is a game, but that should NEVER normalize violence of any kind
- off time roadmaps only need to tell me the order of sheets to flow
- card/file manipulation will drastically affect overall truth threshold and speaks. CLIPPERS BEWARE
- essays with parenthetical citations are not debate cases and hurt my eyes; please utilize discretely cited evidence in the form of tagged cards
- all authors should ideally have qualifications written after the publication date in parenthesis
- please don't use news outlets as sources
- verbally deliver cards with tag, author, and date included
- using a verbal pause followed by "and" or "next" before reading a tag or transitioning in general is a good habit to form
- vague quotes at the top are a waste of time unless they are funny
- being super formal annoys me; just treat debate like the workspace
- I will evaluate any philosophy and sincerely attempt to remove personal biases BUT for the sake of transparency:
--philosophy I hate: Kant (all), Rand/egoism, vague/buzzwordy Baudrillard, Hegel, rule of law, constitutionality, social contract theory (all), trans exclusionary feminism, humanism, cosmopolitanism, minimum effort Rawls that is just colorblindness, state led communism, judeo-christian morality (all), psychoanalysis, and any Marx that dips into material realism
--philosophy I like: anti capitalist scholarship from the last 2 decades, anarchism that accounts for ableism, Beauvoir/existentialism, Braidotti, Butler, Deleuze ♥, Derrida, Escalante, Foucault, Habermas, Nietzsche other than oppression good crap, Puar, Eve Sedgwick (I love paranoid/reparative readings of the 1AC), schizoanalysis, utilitarianism (especially negative, go Karl!) and skepticism (trix 4 dayz)
- trix are fun but don't be mean or overly obnoxious about it
- I low key think that evidence from Rand Corp. and the Heritage Foundation is propaganda
- k debate should not be a 'race to left' with little to no technicality
- traditional debate should not be a 'race to the right' with little to no technicality
- not a fan of choreographed pathos in debate; save it for speech
- not a fan of bravado, condescension, passive aggression, tiny CEO syndrome, meme-ness or any other unprofessional dispositions normalized by debate
- I ultimately think that competitive debate is a black hole of diluted data bent to the egos of hyperconscious maniacs that specialize in sophistic threat construction, so showing off real world research and communication skills is the best way to generate ethos with me
- my goals as a judge are to:
1) attentively & objectively adjudicate
2) learn & teach via critical pedagogy
3) run the tournament smoothly
4) be paid fairly for my time & relevant experience
I competed in public forum debate for four years at Centerville HS and have judged for the past four years. I am currently a senior at NYU. Add me to the email chain at firstname.lastname@example.org.
There are a few things that I want to see in the round.
1) I think that using logic with evidence is important. Do not just dump cards and not explain the warranting behind them.
2) I like when teams give organized rebuttals and signpost.
3) Don't fight over evidence.
4) Don't run theory/K's as I am not too knowledgeable on them.
5) Use off-time roadmaps in the round so that I know where you are starting at.
6) I won't flow cross but if something major happens let me know in a speech.
If you have any questions, let me know before the round.
Do your thing. I am not here to limit you. I love debate and did it all four years in high school and a little in college. I ran a K aff on the national circuit in high school as a little background. But that doesn’t really matter. It is up to y’all on what you want the debate to be about. So please debate however you feel you will do best. I want to see debaters debating about what they know not what they think I would like.
On a side note go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. It’s the UDL I am from. Also I want to be in the email chain. My email is email@example.com thanks!
Hey, I'm Chandra. I've done PF at the nat circuit and I have also done LD at the state/local levels.
Here's my email if you need it for the chain or any questions firstname.lastname@example.org
I am generally tech > truth (please don't read death good) so usually my decision will come down to the flow but effective communication is appreciated. Your speaker points will be based on a combination of both presentation and strategy. Speaks 29 and above means that you are a pretty solid debater.
TLDR : Be nice, weigh, collapse, and read whatever you like as long as it is respectful (explain it well tho)
**Here are some key things on how I like debate...**
1. Always be respectful and kind to your opponent. Being consistently rude will severely affect my decision. Stating something discriminatory is an automatic L and worse speaks possible.
2. Debate in a constructive manner. I don't want rounds to become a back and forth about two opposite arguments. Clash needs to exist, but to win arguments you need to analyze why your warrant and evidence is better. If your opponent drops one of your arguments, that does not win you the round automatically. Do the weighing and comparative analysis to win my ballot.
3. Warrants are key. I will not flow an argument if it doesn't have a clear warrant. One sentence blips usually don't have enough warranting for me to flow it.
4.Weighing is super critical. Weigh on the impact level by making direct comparisons. Also weigh on the link level explaining why your link into your impact is the strongest in the round
5. Never pick up a dropped arg. If you clearly dropped a link, impact, response, or literally anything please don’t try to wiggle your way through to talk about it. I literally won’t flow it. Instead work around it by weighing.
6. Extend your offense and defense cleanly. This means signpost and cleanly extend your warrant. Just saying "extend Rendon 19" is not enough for me. If you don't explicitly extend your link and your impact, I am sorry but I can't weigh it. You don't go to reiterate the entire thing, just a sentence or two is good.
7. Always be consistent and have a clear narrative throughout the round. So don’t read args that contradict each other for the sake of strategy. This also means your speeches should mirror each other and have crystallization. In the final speech have clean voters.
8. Collapsing is key. Do not try to go for every single arg in the final speeches. Pick and choose your strongest contentions and responses. Do more weighing and analysis on that instead of trying to go 700wpm to extend every single argument. I always prefer debaters to say more with less args than say less with more args.
9. Know your argument. I understand that prep is often shared with your team but please understand your argument before you read it. The real value of debate comes from its exchange of knowledge. So you got to have it to share it!
10. Have fun!!! Debate can sometimes be overwhelming and sometimes even toxic. Even if you are a national champion, debate is only worth it if you have fun. And honestly if you are having fun I am probably having fun.
- Summary and FF should mirror each other
- Be civil in crossfire, especially grand.
- Analytics matter
- tailor your weighing to your arguments. Don't just throw out buzz words like mag and scope and expect me to vote on them. You don't even have to use buzz words, as long as the weighing comparison is warranted well.
Check the LD section of Anisha Yeddanapudi's paradigm right here
**Some other things...**
If you are gonna spread rebuttals, I expect speech docs and slowing down at cites.
If you are going to run any super progressive argumentation, please make sure your opponent is ok with that.
If anything is confusing in this paradigm, let me know I'll clarify it but otherwise just debate naturally.
For specific ways on how I will evaluate your speaker points scroll down to the bottom of Lizzie Su's Paradigm right here
Hi! I'm Charles (he/him/his). My email is chazkinz [at] gmail [dot] com.
For the 2022-23 season, I am in Taipei, Taiwan on a Fulbright grant to help promote debate here. If I am judging an online U.S. tournament, please be aware that I am on a +12-14 hour time difference.
This is my 9th year involved in debate overall and my 5th year coaching.
Conflicts: Charlotte Latin EL and AP, West Des Moines Valley, Lake Highland.
I am less concerned about having a detailed paradigm these days. I find that, at this point, debaters either don't read it anyway or already know to pref (or not pref) me. That said, here are some broad strokes that I feel inclined to keep:
Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and French authors. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and are their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.
Other important things:
1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.
2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot free. Examples include charts, spec details, and solvency details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read.
3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.
- My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
- I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
- Put your analytics in the speech doc!
- Trigger warnings are important
- CX ends when the timer beeps!
- Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!
I've done PF and Parli debate for a handful of years, and I'm affiliated with Mountain House High School.
If you need to get in contact with me after round, or if cards need to be shared, my email is email@example.com
For general stuff, check out Lizzie Su's paradigm here.
For more specific stuff:
I'm fairly tabula rasa. However, having done Parli, I have a preference towards a more logical debate over just pulling out random cards. You need to give me a reason to believe what you're saying besides just name-dropping a card; if the logic behind the claim makes no sense, I'll more easily buy refutations against the point based on the rationality of the entire argument.
I'm fine with theory, LARP, Phil, and Kritiks. I'm not the best with tricks, but I will vote for them if need be.
Make sure to actually weigh in your speech. Simply saying, "We win on this argument," and then not explaining why you win with the argument won't get you the ballot.
Speaking scale (taken from Vishnu Vennelakanti because I'm even lazier):
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
26.0 to 26.9 - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong
PF: My paradigm for public forum is fairly simple. If you are using a framework make sure to weigh properly on it throughout the round. Weigh your arguments in the summary and final focus so I know who to vote for. Also be nice to each other please.
LD: Please do not spread in the round. I am a more traditional LD judge and was very traditional when I competed. If you run policy args you are going to have to do a very good job of convincing me because I will be coming in with a bias towards those types of arguments. Please use a value and value criterion and engage in the value debate.
sarah (she/her) homestead ‘22 usc ‘26
yes email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
hello! i’m sarah and i debated cx for 3 years and ld my last year. i read mostly ks and policy args during my time as a debater, and thus those are the arguments i feel most comfortable evaluating. everything below is just biases/preferences i’ve developed from my time debating but are not absolute. good debating can overcome any of the below statements.
i enjoy reading ev during round and good ev will be rewarded w speaks. cards w/ no warrants = :(
please do something different. i've been judging the same debates in a cycle.
I coach on the DebateDrills Club Team- please click here to access incident reporting forms, roster, and info regarding MJP’s and conflicts.
1 - larp
1 - k and k affs
2 - theory
3 - common phil
4 - obscure phil
4 - tricks
• no racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. in round - auto L + 20
• speech times
• at the end of the round there will be one winner and one loser
• speaker points will be determined based off how well you debate, not a theory shell
• no card clipping
• an argument is a claim + warrant + implication
things that make me happy:
- comparison: of evidence, of voting issues, of warrants, of literally everything - the more the merrier
- warrant extension
- collapsing 2nr/2ar to a few key arguments
- pointing out mistagged cards + explaining what it actually says > "this card is mistagged" with no further explanation > letting them get away with murder
- ballot painting
- humor (not a necessity, but nice to have)
things that make me sad:
- doc blotted t-fw 2nrs that don't interact with the aff at all
- blind extension of arguments without interacting with opponent's args
- "what is death"
- spreading through theory shells/answers like your life depends on it
- stealing prep
- hearing the exact same 2nr/2ar multiple times (you can avoid falling into this trap by contextualizing your speeches to the 1ac/1nc)
i did cx for most of my debate career and thus am very familiar with policy. read your squirrelly process cp, ptx da, whatever it is and i’ll make a decision from that. however, the cheatier the cp, the lower the threshold i have on aff theory (ie delay cps, should/ought pics). smart cheaty cps are cool. i default to judge kick if neither debater contest it.
impact turns and case turns are fun and underutilized.
specific aff implementation/enforcement > "it just happens"
do impact calc pls – not just why your impact is really bad, but why your impact is worse in comparison to your opponent’s.
vs ks: i really enjoy these debates when done well. don’t be afraid of the k mumbo jumbo and defend your reps, extinction ows, etc. use cx to clarify the things you don’t understand. losing the fw debate makes winning the debate really difficult. link defense is good. pls answer ontology - no ontology in 1ar makes it difficult for you to win
i read ks more often junior/senior year, both good and bad ks.
v. familiar (read it as a debater) - security, cap, set col, harney and moten, beller
familiar (have read some lit, debated against it) - fem, afropess, agamben, baudrillard, bataille
mehhh? - any other pess, ableism, lacan, deleuze, IR
??? - debaters inventing ks by mish mashing authors who don’t agree w/ each other together
specific > generic links. if you go for a generic link, contextualize it to the 1ac in the 2nr.
good explanation > buzzwords that don’t mean anything.
i read a k aff in almost all of my rounds senior year.
bad k affs should lose to t-fw or presumption. good k affs should be debated on the substance level.
the t-fw debate is not about whether the aff belongs in the debate space but rather about whether the world of debate under the aff’s interp would be good. winning t-fw is almost always impossible without putting some sort of case defense on the aff.
kvk debate: very cool. clash between theory of powers is key.
i’m somewhat familiar with the generic kant fw, but everything else i’m much less familiar with. well-developed phil syllogism > blippy independent reasons to prefer.
legitimate abuse > “but ☹ 1 condo ☹ ” with that being said, i will still vote on condo if well debated + abuse story explained in the 2ar. i’ll vote on theoretical abuse. any theory shell that’s not condo has a higher threshold of explanation for why i should dtd and not just dta.
i have come to discover i'm becoming closer to most LD judges' threshold of theory - 1 condo vs 3 condo doesn't matter as long as you win that conditionality as a model of debate is good/bad.
3+ new shells in the 1ar and kicking the 1ac - pls don’t unless it’s your only way out.
2NR should always overcompensate on theory, a 30sec pre-written block will usually lose to 2AR extrapolation of the 1AR shell.
defaults: DTD, C/I, no RVIs, T comes before 1ar theory
pls don’t :( warrantless arguments that are conceded are not a reason to vote for you.
if for whatever reason i’m in the back of the room of a tricks debate, i’ll do my best but i make no promises in how i evaluate the round.
if you’re debating someone significantly less knowledgeable than you, pls be nice. don’t spread against novices.
good cx =/= overly aggressive cx
post-rounding is cool, but pls keep it civil. at some point, if it keeps escalating, i will just ignore you.
if it’s an online debate, pls record your speeches when you give them (especially the rebuttals) in case of tech glitches.
i will vote on bad arguments (begrudgingly) if no one calls out the bad args. just because i think an arg is nonsensical doesn't mean i'll do the thinking for you. you need to a. point out that it's nonsensical and b. warrant out why that's true. the threshold for warranted explanation is lower the worse an argument is, but this does not mean you can make claims with no warrants.
speaks usually hover around 28.5, increases and decreases based on how well you debate
unclear spreading = lower speaks. unclear spreading 1AR blocks = likely L because i didn't catch args
in a competitive round, if you close your laptop and give your 2nr/2ar off the flow, i'll give you a 29.5+ (do not do this if it's an online tournament for obvious reasons)
Wassup, I'm Saksham(he/him). I've done debate for all 4 years of high school and competed in PF, LD, and Parliamentary. I mainly competed in PF and Parliamentary on their respective national circuits.
My email is email@example.com if you wanna send me the speech doc or ask me any questions. I'll be down to answer anything.
I tend to be tech > truth but do appreciate a reasonably warranted argument. I'll usually give speaks based on a combo of speaking ability and argumentation but if you can fit a nice idiom anywhere within your speech during the debate such as "they are shuffling deck chairs on the titanic" or "They must have cited the pope because their case is one of the holiest things I have seen" or "When most people go to bed, they check for the boogie man under their bed or in their closet. but when I got to bed, I check for what I fear most:___", I will boost your speaks as long as it is not abusive and does not directly attack your opponents on anything except their argumentation. I will also boost your speaks every time you high-five your partner in between speeches(this is the idea of a previous judge I had).
I believe debate is about the debater so you do you. I am tabula rasa and will accept any argument that is given to me unless the other team convinces me not to. Note that it says convinced and not told meaning warrants are key. In a battle of facts, warrants are what build arguments.
Any attacks on a person's character such as racial or sexist remarks will not be accepted and lead to an automatic loss. Try to be respectful.
I can generally keep up with speed but if you plan on spreading, please share the speech doc. If I give an RFD, I will tend to be blunt but respectful at the same time. I believe the best advice to grow upon stems from honesty and so if you didn't debate well, I will tell you and how to improve. If you run any argument, make sure you understand what it says before you try to convince me of it.
Don't ever tell me that if I don't vote for a certain arg, that I am racist or anything like that. You can make the arguments that these are based on but you should be able to win off of it just based on how well it is made rather than any threats made towards the judge.
HAVE FUN. Debate is all about having fun and about the debaters, not the judges so you do you. I can be convinced against any part of my paradigm(except the part about attacking a person's character).
Make the round accessible to everyone. If your opponent needs you to slow down, slow down, and if they need you to explain something, do it. They're here to have fun too.
Defaults(Same as Immanuel Victor):
Yes RVI’s for both sides
Presumption flows neg
Yes 1AR theory
Any argument can override my defaults
Hi! My name is Aditya Madaraju. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org, please add me to the email chain. I debated LD/Policy for 3 years at Dougherty Valley during HS, and I am now a sophomore at Berkeley. This paradigm is for LD/Policy if I am judging you for PuFo or something go to the bottom of the paradigm.
Tech>Truth, but it’s easier to win more truthful arguments. I still won’t vote for tricks. Email me at the address listed above if you have any questions that aren’t answered in this paradigm.
I like these and went for them most of the time during my career. 2NRs on the DA should have an overview and good impact calculus at the top, which makes it far easier for me to decide debates. If you’re kicking out of these, make sure that you concede defense properly to make sure you don’t accidentally concede a straight turn, because that can be tragic. If you’re going for a DA without a CP make sure to spend enough time on case in the 2NR as well.
I like these, and think they are underutilized a lot in debates. The 1NC on the counterplan ideally should have some solvency mechanism, be it a carded solvency advocate or a sentence explaining how it solves, but it’s not something that I care too much about.
If you are going to read a kritik, please try to read ones that are somewhat relevant to the topic. Please don’t read identity Ks or pomo in front of me.
Going for the K--Links to the plan are more persuasive but if the aff has terrible scholarship go ahead and read reps links, I’ll vote for them. 2NRs going for the K should thoroughly explain the K and not rely on buzzwords.
Answering the K--I am persuaded by arguments like framework and particularity, which I will vote for most of the time. Impact turns vs perm+link turns should be utilized depending on how your aff is oriented.
Topicality--I like topicality debates and started going for this argument more during my senior year. These debates hinge on predictability; weighing is essential and evidence comparison is underutilized.
Theory--I won’t vote for frivolous theory. 3 condo or less is fine in policy, in LD I don’t really have a preference/default. PICs, advantage CPs, and some process CPs are probably good, while consult counterplans and some process CPs are bad.
Regarding disclosure, you should open source documents. Contact info being disclosed on the wiki and disclosing when asked is a bare minimum, but it’s better if you open source with cites on the wiki.
An evidence ethics violation (clipping, missing paragraphs/ellipses, starting or stopping in the middle of a paragraph, or mis-cited evidence) with proof is a stake the round issue and L 20 for whoever is wrong.
These are cheating and I will pretty much never vote for them. Framework is true.
I default util and modesty, and will have a hard time voting for anything other than these. However, if you are winning on the flow with another framework and have thoroughly explained your syllogism, I will still vote for you. No tricks.
Impact turns are highly underutilized, and good case debates are fun to watch. Spark is fine, but not wipeout.
My thoughts on this ld topic:
Pirates are evil? The Marines are righteous? These terms have always changed throughout the course of history! Kids who have never seen peace and kids who have never seen war have different values! Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right! This very place is neutral ground! Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war becomes justice!
Feel free to do with that information what you will...
idrc what u do just read directly from cards don't cite them and make up random stuff and send all your cards that you read. otherwise its def an ev ethics violation. SAVIT BHAT's paradigm more accurately sums up my...thoughts on this issue.
Hello debate peeps,
I am a public forum debater and have been debating for 3 years.
I am a flow judge. Please don't spread.
Extend arguments in final and summary.
Please FRONTLINE. Second Speaking team frontline in rebuttal, if you do not I will buy that you conceded to their responses to your argument.
I like to listen to cross, I won't flow it unless brought up in other rounds.
Be clear, I buy evidence with ANALYSIS, over rhetorical answers only.
Do not run anything too sketchy. I will call for cards if it sounds sketchy.
No new responses in second Summary and Final.
Evidence said in the round must have the author name and date, if it does not I will not buy the evidence that you present.
Things in final focus must have been said in summary.
Don't be rude in round.
If you are sexist, racists, xenophobic, etc. I will give you the "L" no matter how well you are winning on the flow.
And finally, have fun in round.
Please no spreading. I can flow debates;however, when speaking extremely fast it becomes hard to follow and as such I will probably miss some of your points and impacts which can affect my decision.
TLDR: Standard FYO flow judge, tech>truth, must respond to offense in the next speech (lenient to dropped offense in 2nd rebuttal), warranting is essential, speed must be justified by content, don't be harmful to the debate space, weigh comparatively, have ev at the ready and don't misconstrue, don't read dedev
- For email chain: email@example.com
Paradise Valley '21 | ASU '25
Did PF all 4 years at Paradise Valley in Arizona (2017-2021), competed at local level first 3 years and almost exclusively national circuit senior year, got to a couple bid rounds, and qualled to NDCA. I was also captain senior year.
**** Don’t be harmful to the debate space; absolutely zero tolerance for sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. behavior - You will get an L20 for this****
- Debate is a game, win the flow
- Collapse and weigh to clean up the debate; too many people try to win every part of the flow and it almost always hurts them because they don't give themselves the time to do the comparative analysis.
- Weighing goes a long way - as a judge I have to decide who's case is truer/more impactful - do the work for me so I do not have to intervene
- SELF TIME
- If something is dropped, call it out, it's not my job to call it out for you. Dropped evidence has 100% strength of link ONLY if you extend and flesh out the warranting for it.
- You HAVE to frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal (you SHOULD frontline everything in 2nd rebuttal but if opps dump turns on you there's only so much you can do)
- Extend in every speech after rebuttal (Don't be blippy do real extensions - If I absolutely feel there is no way to vote at all because no one extends I either defer to the NEG on policy change topics, or the 1st speaking team on "on balance" topics, etc.)
- Extending through ink is the same thing as conceding your arg
- If you run ANY form of argument that potentially may make your opps uncomfortable, you MUST use get ALL members' approval before the round. Ex: Use an anonymous Google Form prior to the round, make all of us fill it out, and if even one person opts out, you do not run the argument
- If you do NOT use content warnings on args that obviously warrant it, I already am inclined to vote for your opps
- Weighing isn't: "We outweigh on magnitude because it's more people" (nah fam i could care less if u don't do the in-depth comparative)
- Prereqs are my favorite type of weighing because it is the easiest to do the actual comparative
- If yall go for the same type of weighing, then explain why your weighing is more important. Ex: If both teams try to prereq explain why your prereq happens first or subsumes their prereq
- If you have the same impact, please please prioritize any type of weighing EXCEPT magnitude. Ex: If both teams impact extinction, win probability or TF (I genuinely don't know why people do magnitude/severity weighing when it's the same argument)
- The first time you weigh should most definitely not be in final. Personally, I've done weighing sometimes as early as first rebuttal (I obviously don't expect this, but make sure it starts in summary)
- Likely won't even be paying attention, cx is for you
- If something relevant comes up, bring it up in a later speech
- Skipping grand for a min of prep is chill if both teams agree
- Likely won't ever call for cards unless you tell me to
- If I read the card and it is misconstrued it will not bode well for you (PF evidence ethics is dog so gotta enforce it somehow)
- If you have clashing empirics/evidences, tell me why I prefer your evidence -- otherwise I will call for both of them and intervene towards which one I agree with more (I may call cards anyways just to be curious and see who's evidence is rly better, but won't factor that unless you give me a reason to)
- I won't start prep when looking for cards if you find it within reasonable time, otherwise I will
- Don't just send a link and just tell your opponents to ctrl + F, its lazy, you should be cutting the card for them
- Usually high speaks, with a base of 27, but you have to earn a 30
- If you earn lower than a 27, you likely did something unethical in the round.
- Please, please, PLEASE do not go faster than you should be. Too many people try to speak fast so they can sneak responses in and then collapse on them(this is lowkey abusive, just don't do it). Speed is fine, but I should be able to understand it, and it should not sacrifice your clarity
- Avoid it if you can, because I feel that too much nowadays real issues are tokenized for the sake of a ballot. However, theory can be a valuable asset in shining on a light on real issues, so use it only if you actually are trying to promote awareness about the issue you talk about.
- I personally almost never hit theory on the circuit, so make sure you explain it as well as you can. This also means don't be mad if u get screwed after running theory lol
- For theory and theory only, it'll be truth>tech, otherwise there is rly not any point in running it if u cant logically argue it
- Never done this event, and don't know too much about the structure, so treat me like a lay for the most part
- I can handle speed, but it has to be justified by content, meaning don't spread unless every additional word you say helps you (SEND SPEECH DOCS)
- If you wanna know how I flow, read the PF section
- I'll pretty much always disclose
- If you read stupid stuff like extinction good, I have a VERY low threshold for defense on it (this is literally fake PF)
- If you read like 40 turns in rebuttal and flat out response dump, I feel that is incredibly abusive and not at all inclusive to small schools who can't get the same prep (speaking from the perspective of a one entry school), so I will allow your opps to respond to them very late
- TKO rule applies
- If you find a creative way to incorporate sports references or jokes(have to be funny lol) in your speeches you get +0.5 speaks
- Don't postround me, but feel free to ask questions about my RFD
My name is Erin and I use she/her pronouns.
I did policy at Downtown Magnets High School in LAMDL for a little over 3 years. I'm not familiar with the current hs topic so be aware of that. I'm rusty so start at like 20% slower than usual, I need to adjust but will definitely flow vigorously. I was mostly the 2N throughout HS but have had experience as the 2A and did ins n outs a few times. I was pretty flex until my junior year when I mostly ran Ks on aff and neg.
TLDR: tech over truth, don't do anything discriminatory - you will lose, nothing below 28.2-28.5 probably, good line by line + articulation > good evidence w/o analysis, clash is good! Make rebuttals clear and write my ballot for me, whoever does that will likely win, don't make me do too much work for you :(
Policy affs: Okay for policy affs - ran a lot of them my first two years, better for soft-left affs. Nothing much to say here though, inherency, plan, solvency --> i trust you know your aff better than me, get me on the same page, as aff make sure the round is framed in your favor, don't get too caught up in off that the round is no longer filtered through your arguments.
Framework: procedural fairness is an internal link to education but I can be convinced otherwise, whoever has the best impact explanation will win, give me context for limits and grounds - everyone has heard the same arguments about limits and ground but if you give good examples about how they're important for 1) this round and 2) setting precendents it makes it much easier to follow
DA/CP: i appreciate good internal links, impacts and innovative CPs however I will admit that I do not have the best knowledge relating to them but I will be able to follow if you do good enough analysis. I don't have much to say other than make sure it's structured and not frivolous
T: I like T, so long as you defend that your interp is the best for not only the round but debate as a whole you will win - why is your model of debate the best for the people in the room?
K: This is probably the type of argument I'm most familiar with, I'm lenient with ridiculously long overviews (I did that, sorry) so long as they're organized and beneficial to your arguments. Have good link work and assume I do not know the theory of power you're explaining. Something I did a lot in high school was spend all my time explaining my links without ever impacting them out, don't fall into that and make sure you explain wy they matter. Good alt work is preferred but I will by that the K can be a disad to the aff if it is made clear that's where you're going with the K by the end of the round. I like these debates the most and would love to see them.
K aff: I understand both the strategic and ethical reasons to run a K aff and I think if run well they make the debate space better and more accessible, that said I think as a default you should have a good topic link otherwise you will need to do substantial work proving to me why that isn't necessary. I know these can be very personal at times I just need to know why it is imperative that you run them in this space and why you could not use a policy aff instead. If it is performative, great, utilize that performance throughout the round otherwise I don't see why that would be better than just evidence?
Theory: Theory is good, don't just run it as a time skew I will be annoyed that I have to flow it however if it is significant in the round I encourage you to pursue it. You don't need to fully win theory in order for it to impact the way I view the round (i.e if you run condo well enough for me to empathize but not enough for it to be a voting issue I will still be more lenient).
- jokes are good
- accessibility is important to me, let me know how I can make this space safer for you
--> on that note, don't make the round purposefully inaccessible, i understand the strategic purpose for 8+ off however tread with caution - i dislike debates that are too fast for one team to keep up with no matter how well you execute you will lose points
- be kind
- I'm much nicer than my face seems
- I was the kind of debater that could not function without facial expressions and eye contact with judges so I will try my best to be very expressive
- I'm not that great tbh so like idk don't take my words to heart
I prefer clear speeches, though they don't have to be super slow. I welcome great professional cross-examination that doesn't need one to be rude to others.
Hi, my name is Ameya (he/him), and I have done a good amount of debate so don't be scared to read quirky prog arguments.
ameyapuranik25@gmail for the email chain.
I am tabula rasa, and 100% tech over truth if warranted well. I will buy your sketchy cards if not responded to and warranted well because logic can only get you so far.
Defaults: the same as (Immanuel Victor)
Yes RVI's (both sides get this)
Presumption flows neg
Yes 1AR theory
Any argument will override my defaults
I am pretty flow, so any progressive argument is fine if read properly. Yes, I will buy your funky interp if it isn't responded to well.
Debate is a cake, so I evaluate layer by layer i.e. T first, but you can make arguments for me to evaluate it another way if warranted well.
For speaks, please be nice to everyone, and read a blip if you wish.
Speed is fine by me as long as there is disclosure and you slowdown on plantexts.
If your opponent is not comfortable with something, please try to adapt i.e. don't read a floating pik against a new debater.
Overall, just do warranting please.
General Pet Peeves and random things:
- Do not threaten me
- I will not make your links for you
- Do not run an argument you cannot explain
- explain your theory of power for K affs
- I will buy tricks, just don't be shady in cross
- be inclusive
- terminalize your impacts
- don't pick up dropped args
- if you call for a card pls send it to me as well if comfortable
I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.
- PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
- if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
- tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
- remember when J.O.T was a thing? I'm from that era
IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!
Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do
(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette
if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time
POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it - ps I keep up with everything.
Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.
don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho
don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check
best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round
clash can GO a long way in this event
For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.
gestures are neato, but don't act like Trump
witty banter is a plus
if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person
tech or truth depends all on you competitors
I better see clash
if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!
When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions
I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links
I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech
I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!
Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision
FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)
Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns
Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it
I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross
When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis
^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T
I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall
Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful
Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"
take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc
Tech > Truth (most of the time)
links can make or break you
value/criterion - cool
stock issues - cool
K - cool
LARP - (my loudest YEAH BOI)
Trix/Phil/Theory - the quickest way to torture me
never assume I know the literature you're referencing
I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything
look at LD above
PLZ send a doc
I expect to see clash
no speed, this needs to be conversational
don't paraphrase evidence/sources
STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine
its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round
not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1
^ don't take on too many - it kills time
don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated
the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed
as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration
Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues
I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.
May all competitors have a great 2022-2023 season!!
- Technicality over Truth.
- Speak as fast as you want. However, if you’re going faster than I can process, I’ll text you to go slower once and then it’s on you.
- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read.
- I don't care if you sit or stand or wear formal clothes etc.
- Give trigger warnings.
- Absent any offense in the round, I'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics.
- Do whatever you want to do.
- I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.
- Offensive overviews in second rebuttal should be discouraged and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower.
- I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
- Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded.
- Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability.
- Caveat on turns. I believe that if you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is, otherwise, I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
- Case offense/ turns should be extended by author name.
- Do - “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
- Dont - "extend our link"
- For an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended.
- First summary
- Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice.
- Second summary
- This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
- Defense must also be extended
- Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
- Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before.
- Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though
- I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it
- If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument
- I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
- You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked
Hi! I’m Lizzie Su (she/her).
firstname.lastname@example.org for the chain/questions
TLDR: Anything is fair game (bar the -isms) but you should err on the side of over-explaining things if you’re concerned I won’t pick up an argument.
I’ll update my paradigm as I judge more rounds, but overall I don’t have many strong preferences - if you make strategic decisions and win the right arguments, it doesn’t make sense for me to vote you down.
Defaults: DTA, competing interps, no RVIs, permissibility negates, policy presumption
--For the sake of full disclosure, I will have no idea what I’m doing in a dense phil v phil or K v K debate.
--Counterplan competition debates, politics disads, impact turns, case dumps, non-Nebel T shells, and util v phil rounds are based
--I am very bad for Ks in general. If you like 6m of overviews, buzzwords, and K tricks with 0m of judge instruction and line by line, do not pref me.
--I am resolved (firmly determined) that misgendering is bad and that it is logically incoherent to vote on eval after the 1ac
--Debaters should flow the round and take prep/cx for clarification (re: marked docs)
--I’ll read evidence not to see what an argument says, but to see whether your explanation lines up with what an argument is supposed to say. In other words, spin is important as long as it is grounded in your ev.
Speaker points are boosted for strategic pivots and good ethos (read: smart CX, not distasteful zingers). If I enjoy watching/judging the debate, you will enjoy your speaks. My average will probably be slightly higher than most policy judges.
Speaks will be docked for splitting the 2NR/2AR 5 different ways or otherwise making the debate irresolvable.
Savoy High School, Savoy, Texas / Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida
I competed in CX Debate, LD Debate, and Informative/Extemporaneous speaking during my four years of high school. I then went on to join the Debate Team during my two years at Florida State University as well. In the years following college graduation, I have both judged and coached students/tournaments on all levels from Elementary School through Collegiate levels.
Experience Judging: CX Debate, Policy Debate, LD Debate, Parli Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congress Debate, Informative/Extemporaneous Speaking, Editorial Commentary, Spontaneous Argumentation Debate (SPAR), Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, and Oratory.
High School - 9th Grade - 5th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 10th Grade - 5th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 11th Grade - 4th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 11th Grade - 5th Place in State of Texas 1A - Impromptu Speaking High School - 12th Grade - 4th Place in State of Texas 1A - Cross-X Debate High School - 12th Grade - 2nd Place (Silver Gavel) Speaker Award - 2nd Best Speaker in State of Texas - 1A Cross-X Debate
Briefly, I am a traditional CX judge, and, as you can see above, the majority of my experience both on a competitive level as well as that of a judge has been on the CX circuits. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules that affirms or negates the resolution. I am always open to hearing plans/counter-plans and find a debate round to be very intriguing if/when I see two teams who know how to present, execute, and defend a quality plan/counter-plan, etc. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. However, at the same time, basics are still very important to me. (i.e., Pay attention to AND provide/present strong, credible, current evidence in support of any contentions/arguments presented. Be quick to point out/counter old, outdated, irrelevant/unreliable evidence given by an opponent. I believe very strongly in backing any/all contentions/arguments with strong evidence from reliable/trustworthy sources.
LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE:
I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. However, again, please refer to my notes above under Cross-Examination Debate regarding my thoughts on evidence, etc. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence. FLOW, FLOW, FLOW a debate in it's ENTIRETY from start to finish. It is almost ALWAYS easily apparent if/when a debater fails to do this as arguments/contentions almost always end up being forgotten/skipped/unresponded to as a result. This could prove catastrophic to a debate. I tend to carry any arguments/contentions presented in the constructives all the way through to the end and, in most cases, will consider them to be fact if/when an argument/contention is skipped over and/or not responded to by each team member.
IN MORE DEPTH:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.
Speed/flow: I can handle speed, having competed myself on a collegiate level, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, I'd go with more focus on creating strong, compelling arguments vs reading your speech faster, etc.
Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.
Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker. Though debates can be/often times are quite contentious, even heated at times, I EXPECT AND DEMAND that ALL DEBATERS treat one another, their teammates, their opponents, coaches, judges, and staff with the utmost respect AT ALL TIMES. I do not like ugly (mean). I can appreciate an aggressive/contentious debate/cross-examination, etc, however, it is imperative that each and every competitor carry themselves with class, dignity, and respect at all times. Remember, we are ALL IN THIS TOGETHER at the end of the day!
Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give perfect speaker points. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged state champions, and have, personally, been the recipient of a Silver Gavel Speaker Award my Senior Year in High School. However, even then, I did not receive perfect speaker points from my judges. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair. If you are hoping for a lenient judge who gives out speaker points like they're nothing...that's not me. While I will ALWAYS BE FAIR in giving out speaker points, I expect any debater that I give perfect/near perfect points to to REALLY set themselves apart from the rest in some form or fashion and EARN those high points. Again, however, I am not one to be TOO STRINGENT/STINGY with my speaker points and will, always, be fair to all.
Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.
Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.