SPRING BREAK SPECIAL Hosted by Equality in Forensics
2022 — Online, US
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
LINCOLN DOUGLAS/PUBLIC FORUM
Traditional Judge or Philosophical
A Road Map is extremely helpful.
Fulfill the burdens.
If Spreading you need to be clear or I will dock you for unfairness and not consider information that was mumbled.
Fulfill the burdens.
Prefer Probability over Magnitude cases. If it's highly improbable, most likely will lose (Here's looking at you, extinction cases)
K's need to be probable and backed with empirical data, assumptions in your K's will be negative towards your score. Analytical warrants are decent as initial Rebuttals but need to be empirically extended afterward.
Be creative if you can, but also be realistic...you're debating policies that are essential in real-world scenarios...not fictional universes.
Hi, I am a graduate who competed at Dripping Springs High School participating in mainly PF and Worlds.
NOTE TO LDERS: READ PF STUFF. IT'S MORE UPDATED WITH MY NORMS.
I am very nice in this regard. I generally give everyone 28.5-29.5 unless you either make me very angry, or you amaze me with your skills.
I'm pretty well versed in all argumentation. I trust myself enough to judge rounds on Theory and on regular substance. With that being said, if you plan on running a K, you better run it well. As judges should, I flow the round. At that point, I really like turns, so if you see a window to run a turn, I highly recommend pushing that argument. Additionally, I want everything clearly extended throughout the round; if you're going to extend a piece of evidence in final focus then it better be extended in summary. Finally, flood the flow in rebuttal, it makes my life as a judge so much easier.
Edit: not much has changed for what I like in PF, but I now am very picky about extending your impacts. This is to say, I will drop you if you fail to do so.
A few new things to note about PF as of August 30, 2022:
- If your response to a prog arg is "but pf is supposed to be public" I will drop your speaks and probably vote you down. I am going to vote on anything in PF. Some arguments you may have to run well (nuke war good), but I will still vote on them.
- I dont like probability weighing. Don't waste your time.
- I like theory as long as its not friv.
- Framework is good in PF. In fact, I prefer rounds that consist of framework.
- I'm chill with paraphrasing ngl
- Don't fake evidence. If you don't have ev just make it an analytic. It's not worth the tko
- This is more for LD, but I hate pre-fiat args, so I probably wont vote on them
World Schools :)
This was/is my favorite event. I placed top 16 at NSDA Nationals in the summer following my junior year placed 2nd speaker at MIWSDC, went 5-0 in the prelims of UT, got 4th speaker at nationals my senior year, and placed 5th at TFA State this year, so I have had some success here. What I like to see in this event is simple. I want to clearly understand what you are arguing, this starts out in your first speech when you present your contentions. If the case is organized, it makes the round SO MUCH easier to judge. Analytics are insanely Overpowered in this event, so put that to use. Even though evidence isn't as important in worlds, I don't want people making outlandish claims for the sake of the ballot, so please don't make up statistics. Towards the end of the round I want a good amount of analysis on the principal and practical aspects of the round, this is what separates a good worlds round from an amazing worlds round. Finally, I judge worlds as it should be judged; this means that it is possible to win the flow, yet still lose the round. At this point, I put a lot of importance on ones ability to persuade me, so try your best in this regard.
Not rly much experience in this event(s). In regards to speed, if you are going to spread, slow down on the taglines and add me to the chain. I consider myself to be trad in these events. I can probably judge a simple K as well as most theory. If running either of these arguments, make sure to explain it well.
[ notice ] - last updated for Jack Howe, 9/21
 speaks- i will not be inflating speaks. don't like it? do my speaker points challenge. i've added so many more. I literally have a way for you to get an auto 30. I'll automatically give you a +0.1 if you tell me in round you've read my paradigm and you're firmly determined to [affirm/negate]. i will reward clarity, organization, and making the round easy to flow with high speaks, but that seems to be not found in this activity.
 lbl>>> - there seems to be a trend of card dumping as far as the last two rebuttals before the 1AR. frankly, cards that are spammed aren't doing you any good if the analysis isn't done. prioritize the lbl with intuitive arguments, and keep the cards sparse. if you don't explain an argument and expect me to perceive it from the 4th card in the 20 card dump, that's on you.
[2a] judge instruction - life becomes easier when you weave the aff/neg story in the 2nr/2ar. just tell me what you want me to do, and i'll evaluate based on metric(s) are said in round. otherwise, expect it to be a blind leap of faith in those close rounds where its pure clash and no judge instruction occurs. not saying that i need judge instruction to function, but i enjoy organized and clear debates :>.
[ about-me ]
name: Armaan Christ
high school: Midlothian '22
college: University of Texas '26
pronouns: any /shrug
HSLD'21-22 wiki: https://opencaselist.com/hsld21/Midlothian/ArCh
conflicts: William G. Enloe RN, Rock Hill DG, Clear Springs EG, Alief Hastings OB
affiliations: DebateTrack (research consultant), UT Debate
Overall LD voting record: Aff 52.63% (20/38), Neg 47.37% (18/38)
refer to me as: armaan, you (preferred), judge (strongly not preferred)
[ navigation ]
this paradigm is made with accessibility in mind with headings to be as organized and concise since I know it gets hard to read paradigms after staring at your 12904892130895th paradigm
each section will try to have tl;drs for dense information, and if you need any other accommodations to read this paradigm please lmk!
headings: [ notice ], [ about-me ], [ navigation ], [ /gen thoughts ], [ LD pref sheet ], [ LD thoughts ], [ fun + misc ]
[ /gen thoughts ]
the best way for me to digest information is to break it down into simple explanations and paint a picture -- where does the argument rabbithole go? what's the dire abuse story going on with 3 conditional pics? how does your theory of power explain the link into the aff?
these are various questions i am posed with based on specific styles of debate but ultimately it comes to this:
1. i default at minimum that debate are performances that i am supposed to take away something from -- however less guesswork into that "take away"
2. just as important the flow can be - so is your performance - why should i give you the ballot for nasally going for the 3rd part of the Kant syllogism on the NC? a crucial part of debate is performing your best equivalent to output of offense on flows (tl;dr believe in yourself, and your position you're defending) - hard to vote up a robot
3. just as performances are conducted -- they occur within their time limit and adhere to the governing rules (i.e follow tournament rules for speech times, prep time, etc) -- distinct from what is thought up as "rules" (which is really just a weird form of policing)
4. my role as the judge by default is to vote up "better" performance -- left to my own index mean that i vote up for the most amount of articulated offense won
5. since some people read parts of this paradigm, every part of this paradigm is able to be navigated and has tl;drs for every section - i expect simple things such as how you refer to me/pronouns matter a lot into the perception of how i can view you in the round and can negatively impact your performance
6. my defaults can be changed and debated out in round, maybe i am suppose to truth test the round? at minimum, i believe i follow a doctrine of non-intervene-unless-necessary (because truly no judge is non-intervention purist)
to resolve some of the questions posed of where arguments head, for me to make sense of something, i need a clearly articulated claim, impact, warrant - a good performance will do something similar in effect that allows me to make judgement
this paradigm up to this point might sound like a bunch of nonsense, but this is what i default to without any other mechanism
tl;dr: I try to evaluate the debate closely verbatim as intended (from form to content) - with few exceptions based on style of argument.
Speaks start at a baseline of 27.4 and go up or down based on clarity, organization, argument choice, and doing my challenges. I'm not too much of a stickler for speaks as long as you don't hurt my head with being inefficient/unorganized or doing things I clearly do not like.
the best way to win a round in front of me is to paint your ballot - what does the road look like from your arguments to winning my ballot? what are the major key points I need to focus in and weigh accordingly? how should i evaluate weighing? this is the moment where you take the foundation you've built in the round and paint the vision of a skyscraper.
On the distinction for tech and truth -- I like to follow that I evaluate arguments under a tech >= truth model
Personally, I think that at on a microscopic level, arguments have some value (undetermined) and failing to respond will lead me to evaluate a greater amount of offense. However, debate is not the little amoebas of arguments under a microscope and is rather a very large mess of arguments with different weighing priorities.
This is why when people say they're truly tech > truth, I usually never believe them, and the same should go that I don't necessarily believe that tech in every instance is > truth. Consider some of the examples below (will be presented in LD fashion):
1AC: K Aff
1NC: T-fwk and on case
1AR: Handles on case, impact turns T-fwk and extends ROB, drops other parts of T-fwk such as the violation, a fairness standard etc
2NR: Goes for dropped standards on T-fwk, mishandles impact turn (answers it),
2AR: Weighs between T-fwk and impact turn and why its necessary, isolate a piece of offense from the aff, explains the ROB
In some instances, you may find that tech > truth people may end up voting for T-fwk because the violation was dropped and they want to remain "as close to the ballot", but I find this lazy and unwillingness to truly isolate and engage the round. In this instance if I understand the impact turn to T-fwk and the ROB has little contestation (and instead just a 2NR buffet on T-fwk), I would end up voting for Aff on the impact turn, even if they "lost" the flow on T-fwk.
This is where I believe tech >= truth works well in because while even if the violation was dropped, its like tech > truth model forgets object permanence for arguments exist and that the aff did weighing to win the impact turn. This is also why I enjoy top-view explanations in the rebuttal rather than a buffet of extensions and then a 1 minute cram weighing session because it truly gives me a play-by-play of the arguments.
1AC: K Aff
1NC: T-fwk, cap K, case
1AR: responds to t-fwk and case, extends ROB, drops a generic turn on case and ran out of time on the Cap K page, perm and ROB was extended
2NR: split on cap K and the dropped turn, and then skimped out on ROB responses, answers perm
2AR: explains the round top-down, extends ROB, handles remaining responses on Cap K/does proper weighing
Another K Aff example, however a tech > truth judge may end up voting on the dropped turn because some justification proves voting negative prevents the harms of the turn from happening. Even if the turn isn't true, then the judge may buy that the Cap K resolves the aff because of the link being resolved through the alt of the Cap K, and declare ROB/Framing debate is a 'wash'. However, I would find myself voting aff barely on the question of the perm and ROB if it was well done in the 2AR -- these rounds become a lot closer (and inherently messier) when arguments are not responded well, and that is where I think weighing becomes super helpful. I think declaring things as wash is also an example of judges not wanting to think through what happened in the round/not paying attention which skews the round from passion and performance that is put into each speech.
tl;dr - tech >= truth evaluates argument in context of permanence to each argument on respective flows, how each one interacts, and paying close consideration to how each argument is prioritized. If no index is provided, I will end up intervening by voting for what remains the most offense in all things considered "equal".
[ LD pref sheet ]
this pref sheet will be in two parts: what I consider myself to be best at judging (expertise), and what I prefer to judge (personal preference) -- take both into account to gauge if an argument/style is cool to read in round.
1 - T/Theory (all), Policy, K (all), Phil ("simpler" e.g - Util v. Kant), Traditional
2 - Phil ("denser" e.g - Virtue Ethics v. Levinas)
3 - Tricks (see "tricks" note in [ LD thoughts ])
1 - K (all besides "denser" literatures), T
2 - Policy
3 - Phil ("simpler" e.g - Util v. Kant), Theory (non-frivolous), K (the pomo/dense kind)
4 - Traditional
5/Strike - T/Theory (see "frivolous arguments" note in [ LD thoughts ]), Tricks (see "tricks" note in [ LD thoughts ])
[ LD thoughts ]
is chill, my bread and butter
i hate vague links so don't read them -- contextualization/understanding their evidence is key to avoid hyper-isolated 1 liner links
im cool with 'hard-right' scenarios as well as 'soft-left' - as much as you try to boil me down into a "K judge" or "Theory judge", I hope to not have any dogmatic precedents towards all arguments (albeit frivolous theory and bad tricks.. because that's just sad to judge and will vote on when they're executed well instead)
reformism is ok but its not the answer to the K, lol
judge kicking is cringe... but i'll listen to it, just give me a good reason why the status quo is independently key to how the 2AR reacts
i don't have any predisposition to any policy arguments tbh, just execute it well and paint the ballot for me to win it
just go for 1 DA, or 1 DA+CP, or 1 shell. please stop going for everything. i'm practically begging. you're going to lose more debates in the 2NR being split on so many things instead of just winning one thing and then using it to win the position well enough.
s tier argument tbh
I've previously read: Racial Cap/Beller, Setcol/Yang, Dalit literature -- however I won't hack for u just because I've read it -- you still need to do work to explain
Yes you can kick out of the alt and go for the link as a DA to the aff
pro-tip: usually impact cards talking about 'extinction' aren't usually talking about human extinction, and if it is, it was probably not warranted well or have to use a weird internal link extrapolation, be sure to capitalize on it (pun not intended)!
no vague links
perm is cool, but i don't treat it like an advocacy, rather a test of a unique combination instance (germane to statistics)
dropping util becomes a pretty uphill battle, so do anything and everything to respond to util/their fwk -- fair game and reciprocal if they drop your framing
please know your literature well -- good K debaters have a good understanding of their arguments because they did their homework to read and understand the nuances of the interactions and how it can apply to debate, not just receiving the diet-soda debate version of what the literature should be
addenum: to the thing above, the same way applies to responses to the K. things like 'uh does ontology good resolve afropess' or 'does all these reform prove progress is possible a good answer against setcol?' makes me cringe because its running with horribly generalized 'debate-maximized' arguments that do not even fathom the literature. i think its a problem of trying to boil down all of the literature (that is orginally loosely-defined) with set bounds under current mechanisms of debate. get creative. there are plenty of ways to utilize mechanics of debate without sounding like a freshman who just heard what a Batman K was.
other than that, go you for reading a based arg :>
woohoo, time to discuss why the silly alternative to burn down the world to initialize the new revolutionary mode of communism doesn't o/w the world's 'richest' military /j
on a real note, i can (and will) vote either way on t-usfg and K affs.
Affs should be prepared to defend why they foster a model of debater better than the status quo
Negs should be prepared to win why the current status quo of debate is a preferable model than completing uprooting it
That being said, I'm not really convinced by fairness. You can try treating it like a voter, but it doesn't have a warrant. At best I'll grant you an internal link left to no index to measure. There are creative ways to warrant why fairness matters, but just complaining the 'game' isn't fair isn't a reason for me to hand the ballot of to you
Jurisdiction makes me laugh, this isn't 2007 anymore, old man
I think I enjoy T-usfg debates the most when they discuss how each model of debate is promoted respectively through what offense is filtered, how each debate round should look like, how they promote inclusivity, what index is provided to respond to arguments, etc. Going for standards like limits is more convincing under going for a model of debate argument than just whining under fairness. Yes, you can prep them out, the answers exist and all it takes is 1 message to figure that out.
Impact turns versus T-usfg are chill, I like evaluating them, but I can only do so much work given the amount of explanation I'm given. Just as I evaluate tech >= truth model, I tend to err the impact turn to resolve some questions of T-usfg, but I need an explanation to help me resolve those uncertainties. Give me a great explanation, and I'll do a great job evaluating it.
That being said, I think neg should also try going for impact turning their model of debate and contextualize to why T-usfg model of debate is key -- i.e not in a problematic way, but there obviously going to be some flaws in their model of debate and why it may not produce 'good' scholarship
addenum - i find affs lose the debate when the impact turn/1AC becomes lost in the round, and negs lose the round when the impact turn/framing level isn't handled well.
stealing from david since i mostly agree with this:
... If you don't know the full extent of your K, don't run it. Also, if you're running a kritk that relies on the experience and pain of a certain group of people that neither individuals in your team represent, that's kinda messed up. Agency does matter. Don't profit off the pain of others for a win in a high school competition. (Salazar, May 2022, Para. 13).
therefore, I don't mind handing an L if there is a clear distinction that you use scholarship and the pain of others for winning the round -- however, I think there is a very, VERY, fine line when it comes to this and become very risky. for example: non-black afropessimism, reading setcol as a settler, brahmins reading specific dalit narratives and cultures, etc.
- - anthro is honestly kind of a mid K but if you find yourself running it, i guess it doesn't apply?? yay save the animals i guess .. i don't know how i feel about this exception so you'll find me down the middle till i talk to someone smart or read for once -- the takeaway i have a strong positionality to humanism-esq articulations and their form of violence endured
tl;dr there is a whole section with "frivolous theory" below -- long story short, the minimum for you to win theory is that you must be able to prove that a violation occurred in round. I will absolutely not vote on anything out of round, and if something made you uncomfortable in round, please reach out to me to stop the round, in which we will have a recourse of action.
is cool, went for theory quite a bit when I didn't go for the K or a DA at times. However, as much as I ran theory, I would hate to listen to interps without violations that happened.
i usually default: dta, c/i, no rvi
i'll only listen to RVIs in the 2NR/2AR if the previous rebuttal is going for theory as their main strategy -- if they aren't, you might as well forget it
and even then, I'm not receptive to the RVI as I am to the interp -- skill issue tbh just respond
that being said, dtd warrants are bad, so if nothing else, hedge on dta -- if for some reason a theory shell can't drop an argument, i will default to recourse in theory shell, BUT my threshold for winning the shell becomes higher. I really don't like listening to bad arguments
for ivis, i will only vote on them if it has a warrant and terminal impact, and even then, i will not solely vote on them. give me a course of action, and i'll weigh between the aff/negs based on weighing priority, which means uplayering is key.
I think this form of debate I have a decent understanding of, and at the same time, will probably need "crutched" to understand the argument in its entirety and how it interacts.
That being said, I am not terribly apt for phil tricks such as dropped a prioris = you lose if I don't catch a warrant. And even if there is a warrant, any answer to it would be sufficent.
Nothing much to comment here, other than I'm probably best for Util v Kant debates, and Util v [insert your phil here] debates. I've read in debate: Levinas, Util, Kant -- but because I read these doesn't mean it will be a slam dunk for you to go for these positions in front of me without giving me something to vote on.
this primarily involves theory violations but the same will probably apply -- not a fan
i like nitty-gritty theory debates that have actual clash/weighing on the flow page over standards, not invisible/dropped/omission violations
so here's how it'll go from now on (since i'm very tired of hearing them):
1ar restart on theory? give me a legit violation
fairness is a voter? nope i'll grant an i/L at best (hint: more persuaded by competing models of debate under fairness)
nebel? fine, give me a good semantics vs pragmatics debate.
"they read x argument which makes me feel unsafe and means they should lose" ? stop the round or you will lose to reasonability
theory ran over a person's appearance/characteristics ? L25
ivi? fine, i guess i'll evaluate them, but i won't vote off them, i'll just give it as offense of some value that you need to setup and win
reasonability invites judges intervention? im literally getting paid to do that by the end of the rebuttals
competing interps ? its cool if the violation is legit
i will be having a higher threshold on DTD if you want to win it -- if you're serious, you'll put in the extra mileage.
this also means i will have the lowest of bars for reasonability -- meaning if i catch even a sliver of a warrant about a shell being unreasonable and i determine it is, i'll grant reasonability -- read substantive arguments ????
tl;dr - read theory if the violation is not omission/primary strategy to have clash on the page instead of going for drops
originally, I use to think that tricks has no place in debate, but i have slowly changed my position and disposition towards it after seeing some high quality tricks files being produced/ran.
i think that tricks have educational value when they are logic puzzles/follow sequences of logic, albeit not as much as K/Policy education, its valid in this manner
what i do not want to see: 14 a prioris non-formatted in comic sans and the 1ar being a game over from 1 dropped a priori - consider me a strike if your style of tricks is to go for badly warranted arguments
i will reward high speaks if the tricks/rebuttal collapse on tricks genuinely makes me laugh
tldr: don't be exclusionary, make the formatting accessible, being dodgy ruins the rebuttal collapse, boldness = more speaks
... anyway, just do you i guess, enjoy it, and then let's get out of everyone's way.
i am fully proficient to evaluate this throwdown.
[ fun + misc ]
for speaks, you may only get a cumulative of +2.2 speaks in total added to your preliminary speaks I give.
linked is a collaborative Spotify playlist, add a song and in round disclose your Spotify username to initiate the gamble (if the link doesn't work, just email me the spotify link)
I will only listen during your prep time up to 45 seconds
if the song is heat, you will get +2.3 speaker points
if the song is mid, you will get -1.1 speaker points
if the song is trash, you will get -1.8 speaker points
for reference, i will listen anywhere from duvet - boa to Stir Fry - Migos.
I will (try to) vibe to anything, so give me your best music recommendations (no duplicate recommendations allowed that are already on the playlist)
spreadsheet of current songs on the playlist - if debaters were real people, this is what they would listen to
other misc speaker points stuff:
auto 30 if you have outro music playing and give a perfect 2NR/2AR and do not go over time (must be louder than the music). if you end up doing this and lose the round from an imperfect 2NR/2AR, then you will get barred at only 27.3 (or lower). if you give an imperfect rebuttal with the outro and win, you'll get +0.4 speaks. if your opponent does not participate and you gave a perfect rebuttal, then your opponent will be barred at 27.1 speaks. if both the 2nr/2ar was imperfect and participation for outro music occurs, both debaters will get 28.3. if both 2nr/2ar was perfect and participated in this, you both debaters will get 30s. take the risk. i'm very serious about this, and I will gladly hand out 30s. highkey the first person that does this ever will probably get a 30. no one has done it as of the most recent edit. please do it.
+1.3 speaker points if you can make me laugh in round
+1.2 speaker points if you're an enby and dalit:) (just tell me via email or in round)
+1.1 speaker points if you can play the iOS alarm clock sound I use when timing stuff
-0.8 speaker points if you try making me laugh in round, but instead you make me cringe
+0.8 speaker points for the fit check
+0.7 speaker points if you wear flip flops and swim trunks in round (must wear clothes... aka don't come shirtless)
-0.6 speaker points if the fit check is not drippy
+0.5 speaker points if you're a californian native and can tell me something fun to do or a good food reccomendation during my weekend here
-0.4 speaker points if you're holding up the round from starting past 2 minutes of the starting time
+0.3 speaker points if you show me at least 5 cards in the 1AC/1NC you cut (must have ur tag at the end)
+0.2 speaker points if you make a Yeat, Baby Keem, or Uzi reference in a speech
+0.2 speaker points for giving yourself a hug
+0.2 speaker points if you can successfully do pen finger tricks
+0.1 speaker point if you tell me one nice thing you did this week
-0.1 speaker point if you have to ask me to get up and do anything.
i would most closely think and vote the same way as Holden Bukowsky and Vishal Sivamani on mostly all styles of arguments in LD. they're also some of the greatest people alive. especially my sibling vish luv u -- I also was taught by Harun Vemulapalli and Ishan Rereddy, and tend to find myself agreeing with most of their decisions (vvv smart people i love being around!!)
for policy arguments, i tend to mostly agree with David Salazar (other than semantics at times), and Cortez Proal. David and Cortez are my biggest inspirations to keep moving forward in debate and helped out a ton my junior and senior year.
i am currently coaching: William G. Enloe RN, Rock Hill DG, Clear Springs EG, Alief Hastings OB, Neil Yabannavar
if you'd like to become part of my roster, my email is above! (please reach out if you are low income and/or Indian!!)
if you're at the bottom of this paradigm, then congratulations for reading! go drink some water and vibe before round (or in general!!)
p.s -- shoutout if ur queer and dalit/low-caste. that s*** is challenging in the brahmin world out there. im always here for you and you can always reach out to me for support, care, and love.
I lean towards the policy end in terms of arguments; I most enjoy generic policy stuff and reps based ks.
1 (best) -- policy and T
2 -- theory, reps ks
3 -- k's vs policy aff, k affs
4 (i dont really like/am less comfortable with judging) -- phil, tricks
I will try my best to be as tabula rasa as possible, but in terms of my knowledge base if you're going for phil or a against a policy aff, judge instruction and lots of explanation is important to me. I'm familiar with cap, setcol, biopower, and like generic ks. If its weird or baudrillard, you have to explain that more thoroughly to me.
CP texts are important. Even if you're a traditional debater, you need one.
Name: Rishit Pradhan
School: Stockdale 2023
Qualifications: my friends say i am nice and have a good personality but i also won some tourneys, went to toc a couple times, and ranked at nats a few times
Policy, Theory/T, K, Phil
Long ago, the four ld categories lived together in harmony. Then everything changed when the judge screws attacked.
Only the flex debater, master of all four categories, could stop them. But when the world needed them most, they vanished.
A hundred tournaments passed and my team and I discovered the new flex debater, you. And although you are great, I believe that you have a lot to learn before you save anyone.
But I believe you can save debate.
Every arg is fair game unless it is problematic and you know what is problematic so don't try it.
Here are some defaults you can easily challenge them in round:
CI > Reasonability
DTD > DTA
Aff gets 1ar theory
I will evaluate anything with a warrant, no warrant = no arg.
I have experience in mainly Lincoln-Douglas Debate, both as a debater and a judge. As a debater I understand the basics of the other categories but may ask a few questions beforehand to make sure I judge properly.
tech > truth (Essentially I will judge only on the information that you provide in round, I may ask for copies of your case to ensure I have all the correct information.)
Be clear when explaining the biggest impacts of your argument; the benefits of your side should be obvious. I don't usually flow during cross-examination but I might consider it for speaking points.
Do not be rude to your opponent. I understand the competitiveness and intensity of debate rounds, but that is never an excuse to be blatantly rude or disrespectful to your opponent.
LD Judging Preferences:
I'm alright with speed during speeches. I may interrupt you to let you know that you are going too fast at any time during the round. However, if you are spreading just to force your opponent out of the debate, that is an immediate drop.
Have clear links and connections, no matter what the card says it has to be proven relevant to the topic at hand or it is not considered in flow.
Framework is crucial, it is the defining factor of LD. Therefore, there is no need to overdo it but you definitely should do you best to mention it.
In terms of Theory and Kritiks, I am not very familiar with these and would suggest avoiding them unless absolutely necessary. If you do end up using them then please be sure to explain each part clearly.
Make sure to give off-time roadmaps when appropriate. Stay organized, especially in rebuttal speeches. SIGN-POSTING IS KEY in order for me to follow your flow and arguments.
When giving your rebuttals and final speeches, I encourage you to use voters to your advantage. Make it extremely clear why I should vote for you.
Voting Criteria: (for all events)
I will do my very best to give a holistic look at the round before making my decision. With that, please note that utilizing voters effectively only helps you.
In terms of arguments and rebuttals, make your defenses and offenses clear. Dropped arguments will hurt you only if they are pointed out, I will not look for what you dropped. Make all links and impacts as clear as you can.
Speaker points are pretty straightforward for me. I give anywhere between 27-29, unless you're perfect I might give you a 30. You'll get a 27 if your speeches are alright but need a bit of work. A 28 is average debating. A 29 is above average debating, eloquent, well-thought out, and easy to follow. I will automatically give you an extra speaker up to 29.5 if you can reference a meme during any of your speeches.
Any rudeness, hate speech, harmfulness, or profane language will have your speaks dropped all the way to the minimum and you will be dropped on the ballot for exactly that.
I look forward to judging you today and hope that you have fun! :)
Here is my email for email chains: email@example.com.
Debate (Excluding Congress)
TL/DR: I like substantive arguments, probable impacts, good statistical evidence, reasonable definitions and good cross ex skills.I don't like progressive arguments in PF and extemp debate, aff Ks in parli, disclosure theory, or politics disads.
It's my first year doing a fast format, so I have trouble flowing anything faster than about 300 WPM. I will call "speed" or "clear" if you go too fast for me or speak unclearly. I don't like it when debaters use their speed to exclude others and will vote on speed theory.
With regards to substantive arguments, I try my best to judge based solely on what is said in the round, unless someone is being blatantly racist, homophonic, sexist, etc. I appreciate well researched cases, especially if they have an interesting yet topical way of approaching the topic or arguments whose components fit together well. I'm totally open to voting on goofy impact turns (eg. democracy bad or nuke war good) when they are well used. I'll admit to being a bit biased against politics disads, but I'll vote on them if they are really well researched and have significantly probable impacts.
In high school LD, I like it when there is a value and a value criterion used to structure and weigh your contentions. I do evaluate plans and counterplans in LD, but generally prefer the traditional style (unless it's one of those tournaments that has a progressive LD division, then you totally should have a plan).
Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scope and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers.
In formats with plans, I'm okay with conditional counter advocacies and effectual and extra topical plans, unless your opponent wins a theory argument stating otherwise. I love a well run counterplan. I don't usually vote on consult CPs. I'll vote on 50 states and time delay CPs, but I won't be happy about it.
In evidentiary formats of debate, I care about the quantity, quality, and relevance of evidence. Usually statistics persuade me more than qualitative data or quotes from experts. In high school parli, while I do weight claims made with supporting evidence more than claims without evidence, I am more concerned with how logical the arguments made are than how many sources you have. In all formats, but this is mostly a problem in parli, I care a lot about whether your evidence actually supports your claim; citing sources for the sake of increasing your source count isn't a productive exercise.
I do flow cross examination (or POI if you're in parli) and consider how well you respond to questions in my evaluation. You can't win a round because of how good you are at asking or answering questions, but you can lose a round if you are bad enough at answering questions. Not taking any questions in parli, attempting to dominate cross fire in PF or BQ, or being too aggressive in cross will negatively affect your speaker points.
I generally prefer substantive topic relevant arguments to kirtiks, but I'm open to voting on them if they are relevant to the debate and in a format that is conducive (policy, LD, and often parli). I like kritiks with clear links and strong alternatives. This is my first year of ev debate, so I'm still not familiar with all of the critical literature yet and appreciate well explained kritiks. In general, I don't like to vote on K affs, especially in extemporaneous formats of debate.
I'm vehemently opposed to progressive arguments in PF, extemp debate, SPAR, and BQ, so if you are doing one of those events, don't expect me to vote on a K or T unless there was a really egregious violation, it was conceded, or nothing else was discussed in the round.
Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to reasonability when evaluating theory and will refuse to vote on "go to the beach theory", collapse of debate good impact turns and other such nonsense. I always drop the argument not the debater. I will vote on disclosure theory and topicality based on wording technicalities, but I won't be happy about it. I do evaluate 1AR theory (unless the 1AR is the last speech in that format). I'm open to voting on 50 states CPs bad and time delay CPs bad and frequently do.
TL/DR: I'm a content oriented congress judge who largely rates competitors based off of how well they contribute to the discussion. I value unique arguments, clash, and good questioning skills.
Although it's listed in a category of its own on my paradigm, I consider congress to be more of a debate event than a speech event. About 70% of how I evaluate competitors in congress is their content. I appreciate thoroughly researched cases, especially when they have a lot of relevant statistics or a unique angle on the bill. After the first cycle or two, I value speakers who refute the arguments of those on the opposing side. I especially value clash when it is against strong arguments made by the other side and is well integrated into the rest of your speech.
Because there are so many competitors in a chamber, in many respects congress is a contest of standing out. For me, competitors who stand out do so because they contribute to the chamber by make arguments no one else is making, refute other's arguments well, and/or ask a lot of really good questions. Like with debate, in my view, you can't win a round because you are good at asking and answering questions, but you can lose a round if you are bad enough at answering questions.
Although I don't weigh it as much as content, I do care how well you speak and will dock you for stumbling, talking at an inappropriate speed, and/or having bad gestures. This especially true for early round constructive speeches, when you have had lots of time to prepare, the arguments are pretty stock, and there isn't much clash to evaluate.
I admire speakers who have a good understanding of the issue and use pathos because they genuinely care. I will, however, dock speakers who are using pretending to care as a way to get better rankings without having to do as much research.
Organization matters. Like with questions, you can't win a round because your speech is well organized, but you will get a low score if your speech is a disorganized mess.
If you give a crystallization speech (or any later round speech for that matter) make sure you are providing analysis or additional information that puts other parts of the round in context and not just rehashing. I tend to rank crystallization speeches either very high or very low depending on how well the contribute to the discussion.
Currently, I'm a first year competitor in NFA LD at Lewis & Clark College in Portland. In high school, I did congress and extemp for four years in Southern California. I also competed for three years in local circuit high school parli and have done a bit of judging.
Hi! I’m Lizzie Su (she/her), I’ve done LD for four years now affiliated with Mountain House High School (4 years of trad + 3 years of circuit LD).
Any questions ask in round or email me - firstname.lastname@example.org
For the most part I’m tech > truth.
! The rest of my paradigm is written under the assumption that you won’t be reading anything violent - I will drop you for reading anything racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. Aside from that, I dislike IVIs because they're never fully explained as to why they are *independent* *voting issues.*
Don’t put me in a place where my ballot affirms/negates your identity.
Ev ethics is important, but not necessarily round-ending. If you think a violation is bad enough to stake the round on it, be my guest. If you’re hesitant, I would err on the side of caution and read it as a reason to drop the arg.
Short overviews >>>
POLICY - 1
THEORY/TOPICALITY - 1
KRITIK - 2/3
PHIL - 4
TRICKS - 4
KVK/T-FW - 5/strike
‘Defaults:’ epistemic confidence, competing interps, no RVIs, permissibility/presumption negate
Policy - definitely what I'm most familiar with. I love good advantage counterplans, impact turns, and case dumps!
Theory - I'm 100% down for a good theory debate, please remember to weigh between standards and extend any applicable interp/violation. I will vote on frivolous theory, but out of round violations (with the exception of disclosure) will be harder to win.
Topicality - I'm fine if you run Nebel (the argument), though I don't like hearing Nebel (the author)--find a better card and learn the warrants for all the fun grammar stuff.
Kritiks - I know the most about Security, Cap, Set Col, and Asian American type stuff. Pomo (except maybe Baudrillard?) and any other identity politics-related kritiks will probably require a little more explanation. Specific links to the aff >> generic debate/topic links >>> links to fiat, what your opp wears, etc.
K affs/non-T affs - I'm terrible for K v K rounds. If we end up in one anyways . . . I need a very clear picture of what the affirmative actually does (if you’re negating, this is your sign to read presumption!). If you’re reading framework, fairness > clash > movements etc.
Phil - I’m familiar with common frameworks like Kant, Hobbes, Libertarianism, Rawls, etc. For other frameworks, just explain why I’m voting aff/neg under your specific standard.
Tricks - I’d prefer hearing things like skep over 25 point blipstorms. I'm not the best at flowing and I'll definitely miss stuff that's hidden if I have to skim through your speech docs during prep, so take that as you will . . .
I have a higher threshold for extensions in traditional rounds - arguments must have a claim, warrant and impact in every speech.
No weighing = no ballot.
Please understand what you’re saying - know your ev and know the warrants.
If your opponent calls for a card I want to see it too :D
I am not going to disclose speaker points if I don’t have to but I may be willing to point out places where I increased/decreased speaks.
Things that will increase speaks . . .
Good judge instruction
Signposting is your friend :)
An order for your speech (before time starts) would be very helpful!
- Number your responses!
Things that will decrease speaks . . .
Not knowing your arguments/insufficient warranting
Academic dishonesty (especially with malicious intent), including misrepresenting evidence
Reading offensive arguments (racism, sexism, homophobia good) will result in an L25 or lower
**PF, PARLI, POLICY**
I'm totally cool with progressive arguments as long as your opponents are too but I’d MUCH rather see a good traditional round than a poorly executed progressive one
Defense is not sticky
Other than that I have no specific preferences -- Everything I said above still applies!
Hi im Lydia!
add me to the email chain - email@example.com
ODI tourney update
i have not thought much about debate since toc so just make sure to be clear when u spread
LD - T/L
read whatever you want, ill eval almost everything that's not explicitly racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc.
speed/spreading is fine just be clear
1 - Policy/K
2 - T
3/4 - generic Phil/theory
4/5 - tricks, friv theory
extra speaks if u start ur rebuttals with "they missed the boat"
Ks - read whatever k but I'm most familiar with Asian lit, marxism, cybernetics,setcol, Foucault, and less familiar with high theory
K affs - don't have to be topical just know how to defend against tfwk and have a clear reason why ur not topical
tfwk v kaffs - I dont think i lean aff or neg, ill just vote for whoever wins, bonus points if u read a diff procedural vs a kaff
PIKs - are fine, just implicate/hint that it's a PIK in the 1N
K 2ns - pls do LBL !
I read mostly plan affs and PTX DAs
DA - pls read updated uniqueness ev
CP - I dont default to judge kick
CP/PIC theory - I probs lean neg on most
I dont understand that much phil so just overexplain if u read it
T debates are fun
I dont rly like tricks but if u win on them ill vote for u
just dont lie in cross