Hi, I’m Doron. I coach Ld for Mountain View/Los Altos (CA). I’m also a ph.d student in English at the University of Wisconsin. I have previously coached at Millburn High School (NJ) and UW (WI).

2023-24 is my 15th debate season (including competing for four years in high school). Generally speaking, I consider myself more of a traditional debate coach/judge these days. I don’t dislike circuit debate (most of my dissertation concerns the kinds of things debaters would refer to as “k lit”), but I do dislike judging it.

I find that I’m generally more likely to vote for debaters who:

- Demonstrate strong topic knowledge
- Make sound strategic decisions (knowing which arguments to go for and which to drop because they don’t matter/affect the ballot)
- Make proper extensions (i.e. don’t just tell me to extend something, also tell me why the extension matters)
- Demonstrate a sense of style/personality during the round. I.e. Make the round (or yourself) stand out.
- signpost exceptionally clearly during your rebuttal speeches—I think this is a hugely underrated skill in debate.
- Very explicitly weigh impacts back to the framework.
- Actually seem like they're having fun.

My paradigm has gone through several evolutions over time, but I find that going through all the technicalities is much more important for circuit debate than traditional debate, so I'll keep the document short. I’m also happy to answer any questions you might before the round starts.

Strake Jesuit Class of 2020

Fordham 2024

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game, first and foremost.

I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument

Summary of my debate style - I just enjoyed the activity while reading all types of arguments with my own spin on them. I think debate is often boring with debaters just reading blocks and not being innovative.

Please note that I have strong opinions on what debate should be, but I will not believe them automatically every round they have to be won just like any other argument. Tech>truth no exceptions.

Triggers - French Revolution and Freemasonry

I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.

Speaks -

How to get good speaks 29-29.5

• be entertaining either with good music, good jokes etc
• making arguments that I like or agree with; this includes Catholicism and Monarchism.
• Style
• Reference something from Scooby-Doo

How to get 30

• Define the 4 Marian Dogmas
• Explain Unam Sanctam
• Explain who you think the greatest monarch is and why
• Explain who you think the greatest Saint is and why
• Recite the our father or hail mary in latin

How to get low speaks

- Having bad strategy choice

-being really rude or mean

- Swearing or cursing, try to keep it professional and respectful, please

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them

Tricks - 1

Larp - 2

Phil - 1

K - 3

Theory - 1

K performance - 5

My name is Params Kumarasamy. I am a lay parent judge. Please layout the roadmap for rebuttals and speak slowly and clearly.

Wish you Good Luck!

Best

Params

If you don't know what anything means please ask me before the round.

My email is varkmark0@gmail.com please add me to the email chain.

Tech > Truth UNLESS you say something racist, homophobic, sexist etc. If you do, you will be dropped.

If you have tech issues, a disability, etc feel free to email me for accommodations.

Please don't spread (I can handle speed but spreadings a no no), if you choose to do so, well that's on you.

I do not know how to evaluate K's or Theory. If you want to run them anyways, you've been warned.

Please signpost.

Have interactive weighing.

I'll buy a warranted analytic over an unwarranted card.

I won't call for evidence unless you ask me to in a speech or it is essential to the round.

Defense isn't sticky.

Please frontline in 2nd rebuttal, I consider 2nd summary too late.

No new stuff allowed in final speech, unless it's basic weighing.

FOR TOC 2023

First of all, congrats on making the TOC and best of luck; it's an accomplishment to be here so try your best and have fun! I've been out of debate for a year, but have been nearly fully removed from the community so I'm not very updated with the new meta, strategies, etc. With that being said, that doesn't change my judging philosophy. I'm still down to listen to anything and will vote on it if won. I've bolded the important sections of my paradigms for prefs, but if you still need a pref sheet, here's something you can use:

1 - Case, T, Theory, Ks, K Affs

2/3 - Tricks, Phil, Lay Debate

tl;dr

read whatever you want, be respectful to your opponents, and collapse in the back half/rebuttal speeches

i prefer technical debate

Longer Version

evhs '22

I was primarily coached by Luke DiMartino and Trevor Greenan. My paradigm is extremely similar to theirs, so if you feel that any part of this paradigm is unsatisfactory in terms of giving you the information you want, refer to theirs

Tech > truth, for adjudicating debate rounds. In parli, I will not fact check anything; I expect that you have integrity and will not lie about sources. If I wind up judging any carded debate event, I will most likely read some evidence, but the decision I make will be mostly based off of what you say in the rebuttals, your extension and spin of the ev, and overall just technical debating. I will not hesitate to intervene if you are being disrespectful to your opponents; racism, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, misgendering, or anything violent won't be tolerated. I don't mind if you postround with me, just please make sure you're respectful.

I don't have any argumentative preferences. I'm comfortable with evaluating standard advantage vs da/cp debates, theory debates, k's and k affs. I am not super comfortable with tricks, phil positions that are popular in LD, and super dense process CPs. My go to arguments by the end of my debate career were a buddhism k aff, spec shells, the cap k, a baudrillard k, t-fw against k affs, topicality, and ofc advantages and da/cp strats. I have more familiarity with these types of args but hold no biases. Anything goes in front of me, as long as you win it on the flow

Keep the flow clean. Number your arguments. Signpost. I usually flow the 1NR (in parli) on a separate sheet, so tell me if you would like me not to. Give me clear roadmaps and tell me the sheets you are going on in order. I flow virtually now, so telling me where overviews are would also be appreciated so I can add cells. I should be okay with speed, but I've been out of flowing for a while so opt for 90% of your top. I will not give out double wins. You should time yourself. I will protect the flow as much as I can, but call the point of order if you really want to be sure. Please take at least one POI in your speech; it is deeply saddening that parli still doesn't have flex time at every tournament.

I'll decide the winner of the round by comparing the win conditions each team presents me with in the rebuttal speeches. Comparatively weighing all of the arguments you make is super important to me. Whether the debate comes to down to china war vs warming, or the perm on the cap k, comparatively explaining why your argument is stronger than your opponents will win in front of me. My goal in the round is to minimize my intervention. I will zero out my personal opinions and try and use only my understanding of arguments to try and come up with the decision. Regardless of all that, judge instruction and weighing are your best friends.

For case arguments, I care about uniqueness more than the average judge, and think that smart analytical defensive arguments can be fairly powerful. On the flip side, I don't find myself believing in zero risk. I default to utilitarianism but am open to other frameworks as long as you are specific as to how I can weigh impacts at the end of the round. The more abstract you are, the more explanation I'm going to need. Standard arguments like politics, bizcon, etc. are all fine, but a really good topic DA in parli will definitely make me happy.

Counterplan debates are good. I will default to all advocacies being conditional and will judge kick your CP if told to in the 2AC (or 1AR if I wind up judging policy or ld). Fine with pics, adv cps, agent cp's. Not up to literature on process cp's so if you do go for them err on the side of overexplanation. Sad as it is to admit this, I am probably a better judge for theory than for a perm debate, but if the perm debate is properly explained and not super dense I will be happy to adjudicate it. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies, and it will be really really hard to persuade me otherwise. Please send specific texts that are binding.

I frequently read theory and topicality and did a lot of nonsense with it, so I'm good with judging theory debates. I will most likely intervene on theory read in the 1AR for parli. Default to competing interps. I thought I figured out what reasonability was once and then forgot, so if you want to go for it please provide a brightline because I would prefer to not arbitrarily decide theory debates. Repeat interps, explicitly extend your voters, and please please please collapse. I enjoy good topicality debates as well; just make sure you have specific interps. Tricks like jurisdiction triggering presumption are fun, but don't lack on the substance of your standards and the true debatability of your interp. Once again, comparative weighing is super important. Weigh 1NC vs 2AC theory, weigh fairness vs education, weigh standards against each other. You are, theoretically, cultivating a "better" model of debate with your nonsense spec shell, so please weigh it against the counterinterp and tell me why your standards are better than theirs. My thoughts on theory are very similar to Trevors, so please refer to their paradigm for more specific explanation. Last thing here, is that I don't need in interp for things like "pics bad"; cp theory, floating piks bad, and all those arguments alike do not need interps for me to understand them, but if you are pressed for an interp then you should be able to provide one. Presumption is fire; please go for it (not even just in theory debates, all debates at this point)

I enjoyed kritiks more towards the end of my career, and find that good K debates are super fun. I think I have a passable understanding of most literature bases, but please err on the side of explaining your thesis and/or theory of power as much as possible. I care about framework more than the average judge; this is mainly cause I care about debatability a lot paradigmatically. However, I think strong framework arguments aid the negative more as I would feel completely fine voting on frameouts of the aff. I don't need a rotb, but if you do, just know that the rotb is nothing more than an interp and it will not mean anything to me if your framework arguments don't justify it. Specific links are good; alts doing and solving something is also really good. I think a compelling alternative should be able to resolve it's links. Aff teams should pick specific strategies. I am not fond of watching teams go for both hard right and soft left strategies against the K. Think about what your aff is saying, and then pick between link turn/perm or impact turn. Or invent a new strategy to beat the K, just make sure it lines up with what your 1AC is saying. I am not fond of K's bad theory, but if won i will vote on it.

K Affs are something I got into in the latter half of my debate career, and I really enjoyed them. For neg teams in this debate, don't go on autopilot. It's really easy to read the same fairness overview, and I would know cause I did this myself. Engage with the line by line because more often than not the aff probably has some compelling arguments. For aff teams, framework here, again, really matters. This is because I genuinely think you can win that your framework is an a priori in front of me. Regardless, smart counter interps are good, but so are impact turns. Just pick a strategy and align yourself with it. Back to the neg, I think it is very important to leverage your standards as turns to aff offense. Deeply questioning the sustainability of debate, as an activity, that isn't centered around competition or stasis will help you win my ballot. Additionally, creativity in arguments would be appreciated here. Fairness first gets boring after a while, and I say this as someone who went for fairness in nearly every framework round.

K v K debates: not much to say here. Compare frameworks and err on the side of over explaining. Judge instruction in these debates is even more important than in others. The aff probably gets a perm, but if you really dont want them to have one, make a theory argument.

Any questions, email me at mani.ayan2004@gmail.com. If you read through all of this, thank you. The debate space is yours and you should read whatever you would like. Have fun!

If my camera is off, don't start your speech. If you want to email me questions about your round, please do so with haste because I have an awful memory.

Email: okvanessan@gmail.com

Kapaun Mt. Carmel/Mount Carmel Independent '19. I did policy debate for four years.

University of Southern California '23. I did not compete but was still involved with the policy debate team.

General:

Please be kind. I promise I'm not angry or upset, my face is just like that.

Again, I haven't competed since high school and I'm not as involved as I once was: this means I've forgotten lots of jargon and you will need to slow down a bit. The technical nuances of debate aren't as intuitive to me anymore so please explain the implications of your arguments more.

I don't really have any strong opinions on debate other than:

(1) be kind to your partner and opponents, and

(2) debate is a valuable activity and all argumentative styles that allow chances for contestation/clash are essential for that.

If you take time out of your own prep to delete analytics from constructives, you're only hurting yourself.

Feel free to email me with any further questions.

Content:

Do whatever as long as it's not repugnant. If you're unsure whether your argument falls under this category, then probably don't read it.

For what it's worth, I read mainly policy arguments in high school and am not super familiar with critical arguments. If you read the latter, you're going to have to explain your arguments more. Such debates are easier for me to follow if your strategy engages the impact level. Non-USFG affs should have a debate and ballot key warrant. I always went for framework, a topic disad if it linked, or an impact turn against such affs.

I think fairness is the best impact.

I think affs should get to weigh their plan and it will be an uphill battle to persuade me otherwise.

I know very little about the topic. Please keep this in mind if going for T.

I like impact turns. That does not mean death good. That does not mean wipeout. Please.

*LD note: I dislike RVIs.

Good luck! Have fun! Learn lots! Fight on!

I am a parent/lay judge with no real experience. I cannot judge fast rounds when I don't understand or comprehend what you are saying. LD jargon will only confuse me so keep it clear and simple. Keep the volume up and the speed very low. Do not be rude to your opponent as it will cause me to take off speaker points. Enjoy the occasion and don't be afraid to repeat things to me.

Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.

These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at cfquiroz@gmail.com

UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

I'm a lay, parent judge. This is my third year judging Lincoln Douglas Debate. I have judged both Novice and Varsity: however, I do not understand spreading or progressive arguments. I prefer the typical conversational speed. The rate of delivery doesn't weigh heavily on my decision as long as I'm able to understand. Some tips that you might want to take into consideration are:

1. Being assertive is good, but please don't be offensive or overly aggressive.

2. I like a great Cross-Examination.

3. Having good evidence comparison is an added bonus, don't just take into account that evidence is right on face

4. Framework debate is good, but I don't understand complex philosophies, so you will have to explain it very well

5. Please talk clearly and slowly.

I am a parent judge. Just because you share a speech doc does not mean I will be able to fully understand your contentions or the weight of your arguments if you spread at an incomprehensible rate. Spread at your own risk.

Weight out contentions, be respectful, etc. Engage in a good, substantive round with argumentative clash.

Hello,

I was on the speech and debate team throughout HS. Now, I am a parent of a high schooler competing.

My partner and I won Illinois state twice and placed at nationals in debate (there was just one kind of debate offered within our high school way back then).What I learned as a debater served me so well during college and as a professional, that I can not over state how valuable the experience and skills have been through out my life. So, it's a privilege to participate and help young people hone their critical thinking, research, and speaking skills.

I am much more of a traditional judge versus circuit or policy.

Please take care to put the round together for me -- that is your primary job. Make your framework and contentions easy for me to follow. Weigh the issues. Craft your evidence and arguments into a narrative. I will flow the debate, but what's much more important is that you convince me through excellent reasoning and compelling communication. While tech > truth, I want to be persuaded by your arguments and evidence as a first step.

I value quality over quantity. I know that it can be tempting to speak as quickly as possible to make as many points as possible. Please avoid spreading. I appreciate well-reasoned, well-spoken arguments more than a lighting-speed attempt to outrun your opponent. While I competed in high-speed debating in high school, I am not as fast at flowing now -- so help me not miss any of the great arguments you present by speaking at a relatively normal speed, please.

I am new to judging after a long hiatus and new to the online format. Some of the rules and conventions have changed. So, please have patience as I get up to speed. Don't hesitate to remind or correct me if I miss a point of order. I will be grateful if you let me know if I make a mistake!

I am a parent judge who has not judged LD at all.

Please do not talk fast or spread, and please do not use philosophy, tricks, or any references to things like non unique (explain if you do use it).

I'm anti plagiarism- so it feels ethically wrong to do so without asking- but if I could copy Mike Bietz's paradigm word for word, I would (can be seen here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=4969) except I'm ok with flex prep. In addition to everything in here I have a few additional pieces of information.

Note: If you have any questions about how to interpret my paradigm, ask me pre-round. If any of the terminology is something you're unaware of or curious about, feel free to ask me either before or after the round. If you want to look anything up, wikipedia has surprisingly thorough indexes of debate terminology (especially when you're starting out!)

For all Debate:

• Disclosure is good and should be done. Sharing cases is good for fairness in debate. As someone who was in a small program during my high school debate career, the sense that the round was unwinnable because the opponent had 8 coaches giving them prep and resources to my none was incredibly frustrating, and while disclosure doesn't fully solve that, giving people from smaller programs access to evidence, cases and formats from bigger programs helps the health of the debate scene.
• General disclosure rules: Share case right before the speech (aff shares case before their first speech, neg shares case after the aff finishes speech)
• I flow the rounds, and catch what I can. If I don't catch it, it doesn't show up on my flow. Speaking quickly (and even spreading on a circut level) is fine, but you have to recognize your personal limits as a speaker when you do so. Intonation enables the spread, so training yourself as a speaker to be intelligible while spreading is on you.
• When sharing cards, please do so equitably and fairly. Ideally, include myself (and the other judges) on the document sharing doc to ensure that we know the documents are shared fairly, and to prevent frivolous fairness theory being read in the round.
• Debate is, in general, a format for education first and foremost. Fostering an environment that promotes education means that you must enter a round with empathy for your judge, opponent and audience. If a person is confused in a debate round, spend a moment to explain what you mean to them. Creating a debate environment that is inclusive and mindful of diversity gives people an opportunity to meet, learn from and grow with a diverse group of people.
• Related to this, people who push a "old boys club" mentality within debate round, who seek to bully out wins on newer debaters by reading fringe argumentation, or are excessively combative to people who are clearly not comfortable in it don't have a place in debate in my opinion. Remember, although competitive this should be an environment that values being collaborative as well. Debate isn't an environment to get your rocks off and feed your ego by bullying the less experienced, and people who treat it as such will get negative outcomes on ballots from me.
• Above all, remember that debate is an activity that is for fun more than it is anything else. That fun is not just your own; the priority to make everyone enjoy the experience to the best degree you can is important.

For Public Forum:

• PF is not meant to be theory heavy. Philosophy has a useful basis in backing an argument, but being topic-centric is the essence of the debate format.
• Exception: Any independent voters (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, etc.) will be weighed heavily, and if any happen, it will result in an automatic loss.
• On Cross: Being aggressive is good (and encouraged), but you need to give your opponent space to speak. Cutting them off occasionally is reasonable to guide the conversation, but if you ask a question and don't give the opponent space to answer or attempt to railroad a CX by turning it into a soliloquy that will be noted for speaks.
• Impact calculus outweighs argument volume down the flow. If you seek to win on a line by line on argument volume, your opponent will win the debate (if you prove 9 different people will die in 9 arguments, you will lose to the person who proves 90000000 will die in one argument).
• I do flow Crossfire and weigh it as a speech, so cross matters to me as a judge. Don't assume a vote that will be cross-exclusionary. Someone can win in spite of a bad cross, but cross will be weighed in how the outcome is perceived.
• Dedicate summary to expressing Voting Issues and dropped arguments. Extend to why you are winning currently on the flow.
• Dedicate FF to weighing mechanisms and impact calculus.

For LD:

• On Theory: Theory is fine to read, and often makes debate better. One important thing about theory is that I view it as a "pact" that both debaters have to agree on.
• On RVIs: I believe in RVIs as a way to counteract frivolous theory. In general, especially on a circut level, I believe the anti-RVI stances a lot of judges hold on is a portion of what creates the neg skew on the circut. Beyond "fairness" I think that, conceptually, theory takes time and mandates a response and having theory's worst case be net neutral for the team that reads it lacks fairness.
• On Ks: Kritiks are good for debate, but I have a clear line in the sand:
• Topical Ks: Good, make debate better, force flexibility in thought and challenge our implicit biases. Topical Ks further education in round and create a space where we challenge our baseline assumptions in a way that challenges the way we look at the world.
• Non-topical Ks: The only context where I view non-topical Ks as a voter is if an independent voter manifests. Reading "debate is a male-skewed environment and societal burdens placed on women creates inherent unfairness in the debate environment" may be true, something I agree with, and something I prioritize in how I judge, but is not something that I will vote on unless the opponent is engaging in behavior that is exclusionary to that group. And as the debater, you must highlight the infringement.
• On Perms: Perming is good and should be done often. In order to successfully perm in round, you must demonstrate the lack of conflict between the counterplan and the aff.
• Advantages/Disadvantages: All disads and advantages need every plank in order to be considered (uniqueness, link and impact).
• NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE 2AR
• Tricks should be called out as tricks if ran against you. If a trick is identified and demonstrated to be a trick successfully, it will be treated as a voter.

I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.

Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.

GENERAL

1. Clarity > Loudness > Speed.

2. Framing > Impact > Solvency. Framing is a prior question. Don’t let me interpret the debate, interpret the debate for me.

3. Truth IS Tech. Warranting, comparative analysis, and clash structure the debate.

4. Offense vs Defense: Defense supports offense, though it's possible to win on pure defense.

5. Try or Die vs Neg on Presumption: I vote on case turns & solvency takeouts. AFF needs sufficient offense and defense for me to vote on Try or Die.

6. Theory: Inround abuse > potential abuse.

7. Debate is a simulation inside a bigger simulation.

NEGATIVE

TOPICALITY: As far as I am concerned, there is no resolution until the negative teams reads Topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation resolves their voters, while also proving abuse. The affirmative either has to win a no link we meet, a counterinterp followed up with a we meet, or just straight offense against the negative interpretation. I am more likely to vote on inround abuse over potential abuse. If you go for inround abuse, list out the lost potential for neg ground and why that resolves the voters. If you go for potential abuse, explain what precedents they set.

FRAMEWORK: When the negative runs framework, specify how you orient Fairness & Education. If your FW is about education, then explain why the affirmative is unable to access their own pedagogy, and why your framework resolves their pedagogy better and/or presents a better alternative pedagogy. If your FW is about fairness, explain why the affirmative method is unable to solve their own impacts absent a fair debate, and why your framework precedes Aff impacts and/or is an external impact.

DISADVANTAGES: Start with impact calculation by either outweighing and/or turning the case. Uniqueness sets up the timeframe, links set up probability, and the impact sets up the magnitude.

COUNTERPLANS: Specify how the CP solves the case, a DA, an independent net benefit, or just plain theory. Any net benefit to the CP can constitute as offense against the Permutation.

CASE: Case debate works best when there is comparative analysis of the evidence and a thorough dissection of the aff evidence. Sign post whether you are making terminal defense arguments or case turns.

KRITIKS: Framing is key since a Kritik is basically a Linear Disad with an Alt. When creating links, specify whether they are links to the Aff form and/or content. Links to the form should argue why inround discourse matters more than fiat education, and how the alternative provides a competing pedagogy. Links to the content should argue how the alternative provides the necessary material solutions to resolving the neg and aff impacts. If you’re a nihilist and Neg on Presumption is your game, then like, sure.

AFFIRMATIVES

TRADITIONAL AFFIRMATIVES

PLANS WITH EXTINCTION IMPACTS: If you successfully win your internal link story for your impact, then prioritize solvency so that you can weigh your impacts against any external impacts. Against other extinction level impacts, make sure to either win your probability and timeframe, or win sufficient amount of defense against the negs extinction level offense. Against structural violence impacts, explain why proximate cause is preferable over root cause, why extinction comes before value to life, and defend the epistemological, pedagogical, and ethical foundations of your affirmative. i might be an "extinction good" hack.

PLANS WITH STRUCTURAL IMPACTS: If you are facing extinction level disadvantages, then it is key that you win your value to life framing, probability/timeframe, and no link & impact defense to help substantiate why you outweigh. If you are facing a kritik, this will likely turn into a method debate about the ethics of engaging with dominant institutions, and why your method best pedagogically and materially effectuates social change.

KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVES

As a 2A that ran K Affs, the main focus of my research was answering T/FW, and cutting answers to Ks. I have run Intersectionality, Postmodernism, Decolonization, & Afropessimism. Having fallen down that rabbit hole, I have become generally versed in (policy debate's version of) philosophy.

K AFF WITH A PLAN TEXT: Make sure to explain why the rhetoric of the plan is necessary to solve the impacts of the aff. Either the plan is fiated, leading a consequence that is philosophically consistent with the advantage, or the plan is only rhetorical, leading to an effective use of inround discourse (such as satire). The key question is, why was saying “United States Federal Government,” necessary, because it is likely that most kritikal teams will hone their energy into getting state links.

K BEING AFFS: Everything is bad. These affs incorporate structural analysis to diagnosis how oppression manifests metaphysically, materially, ideologically, and/or discursively, "We know the problem, and we have a solution." This includes Marxism, Settler Colonialism, & Afropessimism affs. Frame how the aff impact is a root cause to the negative impacts, generate offense against the alternative, and show how the perm necessitates the aff as a prior question.

K BECOMING AFFS: Truth is bad. These affs point to complex differences that destabilize the underlying metanarratives of truth and power, "We problematize the way we think about problems." This includes Postmodern, Intersectionality, & Performance affs. Adapt to turning the negative links into offense for the aff. Short story being, if you're just here to say truth is bad, then you're relying on your opponent to make truth claims before you can start generating offense.

I believe that speech & debate offers an invaluable experience for students in that it provides a platform and an audience. Your voice matters, and I am honored to be but a small part in the process where you speak your truth.

I competed in LD, Extemp, Poetry & Impromptu throughout most of high school. I had a very brief relationship with Policy that left a bad taste in my mouth, and I think I tried every speech/interp event that existed at the time. I judged debate tournaments in college, began coaching a debate club about 9 years ago, and started teaching a speech & debate class two years ago. I truly believe it is THE class that most prepared me for my career in business because it improved my analysis, helped me create ideas, and gave me confidence in communication - both written and verbal.

Now for the paradigms you seek...

DEBATERS: debate is first and foremost a speaking event. I expect you to stand when you speak, make eye contact with your judge and not speak so quickly that you spit on your laptop. I also expect for you to provide evidence AND analysis for your arguments. Please do not expect me to provide the link in your justification. I am a relatively traditional flow judge- if it's not on my flow at the end of the round, then you didn't carry it over, and I don't intend to vote for dropped arguments. I also do not flow CX- if you bring up a really great question during that time, I expect that you will then mention it in your next rebuttal speech.

Specifically, I'm comfortable with LD, PF, WSD and slower/well-posted Policy rounds. If you're reading this paradigm right before you walk into a Congress round with me, let's hope I'm on a panel. :) I don't mind Kritiks or theories, but I do not like abusive arguments. If there is really NO WAY for your opponent to outsmart that idea, then it is abusive and has no place in a high school debate round. I don't have to believe your argument to buy it in the round, but you do have to sell it. If you want to put me in a box, I'm probably a Stock Issues judge with a dash of Policymaker and on some topics a bit of Tabula Rasa thrown in. But feel free to not put me in a box.

I really appreciate signposting so I know where you are in rebuttals, but I absolutely DO NOT need an off-the-clock roadmap where you just say aff/neg or neg/aff/voters. There are no times during a debate round where I am listening to you when your time is not running. Oh, and to be clear, your time starts when I press the button, which is likely to be on your first word. I do not need for you to tell me when your time starts. If you trust me to judge the outcome of the round, please trust me to press the button on my phone clock appropriately.

SPEAKERS: in speech events, I expect you to come across as the expert on the topic at hand, whether it's an Info or OO you've researched for 6 months or an Extemp topic you drew 30 minutes ago. I expect all of these to have strong research, well cited sources and solid analysis on your topics. Remember that you are conveying a message to the audience that you care about and we want to listen to. Enjoy your time in the speech!

INTERPERS: I know how difficult it is to continue performing the exact same piece over and over again for months- it's hard to keep it fresh. Think of it as a juicy piece of gossip (the good kind- don't spread bad vibes!) that you just can't wait to share. Then it stays fresher each time you say it because now you're excited to share it with THIS audience.

Who knew I had so much to say about judging in the speech and debate world? If you're still reading my paradigm, my sincere prayer is that you are enjoying this journey and wherever you are in it right now. Oh, and hurry up and get to your round! :)

I debated (mainly policy, after a very brief foray into LD) throughout high school, back in the debate dark ages. After a decades-long time away from the activity, I have more recently begun attending tournaments again, assisting my wife with coaching responsibilities and judging for her Houston-area school team. I've had many years to appreciate the skills that speech and debate helped me begin developing in high school, and the importance of seeing those skills develop drives my judging paradigm more than anything.

In short, I'm a traditional judge that considers debate to be a communication event above all else, with logical argumentation and researched evidence being a close second and third. I value clash, and I will always go back to my flow of the round to determine a winner in a close round. I don't mind hearing obscure contentions if they are well prepared and presented, but I don't appreciate outright tricks, excessive speed, or anything else that comes across as abusive or generic.

In LD debate, I expect a value debate and not a discussion of plans and counterplans or other concepts borrowed from other formats. In PF, I want to see that you've done the research and that you understand the tradeoffs between pro and con, so weighing is important to me. I grew up with stock issues as voters in policy, so those arguments are most comfortable to me. In any of these formats, if you’re taking a different approach than what I’m describing, know that you’re taking a risk, and be sure to take me with you.

Speaker points are based on professionalism, persuasion, and polish. Rudeness and disrespect don't belong here or anywhere. If you came to my paradigm primarily to see if I can handle spreading, I suggest you don't test that in round. Even if I can keep up with you, I don't want to, and it's tough to persuade me to vote for you if I can't follow your logic or if I'm annoyed that you've ignored my paradigm. I appreciate the need to hurry things along, particularly in the compressed rebuttal time, but quality of argumentation will beat out quantity every single time.

2nd year biology student at UCLA, 4 years HS LD.

Run whatever you feel comfortable running, with the obvious exceptions. I do want to be on the email chain. Ask any questions before the round. In the case of no framing, I default to offense/defense. A proper analysis will be given more weight than simply reading a card. Line by line argumentation please. Be civil and communicate well. If you aren’t communicating well, then your arguments are incoherent.

Questions and email chain: dishayadav756@gmail.com

Online Debate- I suffer from chronic migraines and have auditory issues. Something about the additional audio noises that arise from the computer messes with me. I cannot keep up with spreading, and will not be able to provide a fair assessment of the round if you do. Please be respectful of this request. Prioritize clarity over an influx of arguments. I really cannot stand to hear you constantly gasping or taking those large breaths. I'll say clear once, if you still do not fix your speed or comprehensibility, I'm done flowing. If you would prefer me to raise my hand instead of saying clear, inform me before the round.

I prefer traditional debates, just easier to keep up with and a lost art.

Affs- I would prefer the affirmative to follow the direction of the resolution. Planless affirmatives are absolutely fine; don’t make the mistake of solely extending aff cards and not explaining the solvency mechanism. Kritikal affs are not my favorite, but I will vote on them. That being said, if your K does not have a plan text that is relevent to the resolution, you will not get my ballot.

Disads and CPS- Love a good DA, they're won through the link chain. Bury the affirmative with quality argumentation and concrete evidence. You need to explain the casual chain, there’s no disad without the internal links. Counterplans have to be functionally competitive. I believe counterplans are an effective means of testing out the affirmative’s plan through competitive policy. PICs, conditional, international fiat, states counterplans are all fine.

Kritiks- Yes, I’ll vote on them. Don’t assume I’m familiar with your literature. Ensure it’s specific to this round and make the link chain clear. Don’t be vague have a well-defined alt. If the alt is to reject the aff, explain how that accomplishes anything. Impact calc. If I look confused or annoyed, I probably am. Fix that, explain to me clearly what happens when we make policies that make this wrong assumption.

Theory- I’m not voting on frivolous theory, don’t waste my time or your opponents. In terms of topicality, only run it if there’s a good reason. Don’t just use it as a time skew, make sure all the information you give is specific to this round. Warrant your claims, provide examples.

I love rounds that have direct clash and completely cover the flow. Have concrete link chains and weigh your impacts. Run what you know and clarity above all.

I have no tolerance for derogatory comments, discriminatory actions, making fun of debater’s limitations, etc. An immediate loss, I will refuse to listen any longer and walk out.

I believe debate should be about the students, so I am open to any arguments you want to run. Please do not spread

I did Policy in HS and College. I coached Middle/HS LD for six years, and am now coaching Policy for UWyo.

I am collecting anonymous feedback and data about my judging. If I've judged you and you'd like to contribute, please fill out the form!

Above any ideological loyalty or stylistic preference is my appreciation and need for clean, organized, structured debates.

natalieforensics@gmail.com

Mechanics of Evaluation

I try my hardest to be tabula rasa, but I'm also a person. I vote on dropped arguments more than most people.

Major things that make me different from other judges:

I'm somewhat hard of hearing - try to talk way louder than you would. This is usually only a problem during physical (not online) tournaments and in rooms with much echo. If you are unclear, I'll yell clear twice before I stop flowing. Don't slur your words together. Use complete sentences while avoiding filler words. If you've never recorded yourself giving a speech and tried to flow yourself, chances are you think you are far clearer than you really are.

Tech and Truth - it's not hard for me to see the connections between arguments. I vote on many conceded args with impacts, and heavily undercovered args. I guess that makes me more of a tech judge, but I also will be very grumpy about arguments that don't make sense, so I'll vote on them but I'll complain about having voted on them.

1ar/2nr/2ar dynamics - I like to protect the 2nr. If the arg wasn't in the 1ar or the 2ar pivot is outlandish, it can be a problem for me. That being said if the 2nr spin on the block strat is heavy, 2ars should be pointing that out as a reason to justify new 2ar args.

Speech docs- I hate having to follow along on the doc. I think debaters' flowing skills have rapidly deteriorated since judges were added to speech docs. But now, with mixed modalities, it's very much necessary. That being said, I'm not gonna base much of my decisions on your evidence unless there's a disagreement about what it says - the parts that are most relevant should be paraphrased and cited by author name and the speech they were introduced in the rebuttals.

It's also silly how often people spread through their analytics (especially on theory) as though they're highlighting within a card and expect the judge to follow along on the speech doc.

Try to be pleasant - It's not gonna swing my ballot unless it's turned into an argument, which usually has to do with critiques of how people talk.

Events that happened out of round -This is a gray area for me. I guess on some level I think you should be held accountable for things that happened that can be proven to have happened. On the other hand, how many times does someone have to lose on something for them to be free of their past? I guess that's for y'all to debate about and me to find out.

-

Ideologies and their Juxtapositions

K v K Debate

This is the format that the algorithm has determined I'm destined to judge the most...

Be organized. Distinguish between claim warrant and implications. Writing the story of the ballot can be crucial. Detailed perm theory about what the aff does or does not get to permute is essential for me.

Framework/T-Usfg

When I vote on Framework, there's usually an offensive answer to "you don't address the aff impacts" via a conversation about how affs that have no tie to the topic or completely foreclose upon state engagement to trade off with opportunities to learn about the values of state engagement or ways in which the topic hurts the people the aff is talking about. I do think that soft framework with interps such as "aff must defend a tangible strategy," "aff must have a connection to the resolution," "aff must be in the direction of the resolution," etc. with most of the same justifications as regular framework can be solid round winners in front of me. My neg ballots on this usually start with "the topical version of the affirmative resolves most of the aff's offense and has better inroads into dialogue/clash and advocacy/policymaking skills for the following reasons:" or because the aff undercovered switch-side debate.

Plan v K Debate

Aff: Don't over-rely on framework, perms and theory. Read these arguments when they really make sense, not out of fear of engaging the substance of the K. Make sure that the K actually violates the rules you want to set up before spending time setting up those rules.

Neg: Don't be lazy! Read specific, offensive links with well-explained alts that are both paradigmatic and can be translated into action that helps people. You can advocate for specific solutions (that may or may not be state policies) as examples of a broader and more general alternative. Find a good balance between examples, explanations, and warrants/proof.

Discourse/rhetoric links: this is my jam. Neg teams answering these - perm and framework go a long way, but honestly people should sometimes just defend their rhetoric. You're not gonna have a defense of every word you use so offensive args about why the 1ac performance is net good even if it's messy or not ideologically pure. The defense of the performance of the 1ac is the key here, and what impacts it addresses. Labeling it as "the value of the performance of the 1ac outweighs the negative harms of their links" really goes a long way with me because it's a clearer contextualization of what "policymaking good" and "research on this topic is good" are actually doing for you besides getting you out of "roleplaying bad" debates. This isn't a theory arg either - you're just weighing the costs vs benefits of the 1ac speech act, in addition to a robust strategy about why my ballot should prioritize the outcomes of the plan over the performance of the speech.

Critiques based on consequences: winning the impact/root cause debate is key? Idk what else to say here.

Traditional

I did this style in High School, and while I coach a team that predominantly does traditional debate, I don't spend much time thinking about this side of the topic. My favorite traditional debates have been more technical than most. Since I'm more unfamiliar I tend to be a lot more tech over truth, given as I'm not exactly doing regular work on your politics disad or specific uniqueness claims. I am also not very knowledgeable about what many acronyms on the topic mean.