Tabroom.com

SPRING BREAK SPECIAL Hosted by Equality in Forensics

2022 — Online, US

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Derek Antoniazzi Hire 8 rounds

Brett Banks Hire 8 rounds

Armaan Christ Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 15, 2023 at 1:13 PM CDT

last updated: 3/15

king rr/pre-toc update:

[1] i have found i've been too lax with time used in round and don't want to make tournament be hogged down from debaters being not fast, so i will be enforcing my decrease for speaks with being untimely. i will be timing you on my end; -.8 speaks for every interval past 15 seconds of prep stolen/taking up time. i don't think this problem will occur at King RR, but who knows at this point.

[2] same thing goes with showing up to the room, every minute past a 3 minute grace from the start time will incur a static -1.5, so try to show up by the time on the tabroom blast, please. i will be more understanding if you were lost, but don't try to pull this for the last prelim round of a tournament.

hi! my name is Armaan (not pronounced R-MAN, nor R-MIN, pronounced R-MAHN)

email: graduated@gmail.com

they pronouns

previously at midlothian

i debate for texas (2a/1n) with enjia wang (eddie)

i have adhd, please be cautious in clarity for me

judge mutuals: vishal sivamani, holden bukowsky

conflicts:

Alief Hastings MM, Alief Hastings OB, Barrington AC, Clear Springs EG, Clear Lake AA, Clear Lake MK, Jordan KV, Jordan VS, Heritage WT, Langham Creek ML, Liberal Arts and Science Academy AB, Liberal Arts and Science Academy AR, Liberal Arts and Science Academy RX, Liberal Arts and Science Academy OX, Oak Ridge AA, Rock Hill DG, Sugarland SpiderSmart VS, Westlake AK, William G. Enloe AN, William G. Enloe PD, William G. Enloe RN, Unionville AS

here is my old paradigm if you would like to read my old thoughts

i vote off any piece of articulated offense with the least amount of intervention

i usually try not to look at the doc when flowing

if im looking at the doc, its because i may be having trouble processing, not necessarily a you problem, but moreso a me problem from adhd. that being said, i am usually listening to the speech and quite like real life, the supplement of viewing the document can only improve my decision from processing. i also flow top down for specific arguments at a certain point in the debate

you'll probably find that i call articulated offense by warrants/impact articulation said in the round. i'm not too much of a stickler for the rules for argument operation, rather by how that implication can occur. i think policing how debate should occur by rules of arguments isn't necessarily my jurisdiction and hampers any new form of argument innovation. i also think it produces a hyperspecific form of debate that excludes out low-income/marginalized individuals from a specific model of debate that seems to be the norm and rather refuses how other debaters may interact with an argument if we are constrained by a burden of an argument someone needed to make in a specific form that was answered by an articulated warrant.

here's a generic example of what i was saying in the blurb above:

1AC - K Aff
1NC - T-fwk
1AR - Impx turn on T
2NR - X standard was dropped, therefore we autowin, undercover case
2AR - extends case, leverages impx turn

i've found there are judges who believe that a c/i is necessary to have any sort of "chance" against T-fwk, and this i find to be similar to the specific form of debate that is privileged and predicated on exclusion where i believe the impact turn can function on a level that brings K >= T at some point and leverage against the model that T produces via the impact turn

that is not to say i will be dogmatic because X was read etc, rather give no other metric, i will recall a basic schema of an argument, and think about the argument based on what was said in context to the schema, how the argument traditionally functions, identify if win conditions were met or if new articulations were made past the point of a win condition, and then evaluate its implication in context to the whole round. i.e] i think that given no restrictions, offense/defense is the truest form of debatability anyone can access and how this gets redefined based on debates can produce new articulations that i will end up deciding by the end of the debate. it is your job, as debater, to tell me how things should work, rather than what i think how things should work.

basically, im y'alls clairvoyant constrained by what was said in the round. tell me what to do, and i will follow and spit back an output.

i am flexible with any style of debate

my only strict rules:

[1] i will not vote on anything morally repugnant

[2] the round must be a safe space

[3] speech and prep times are set in stone

[4] "evidence" is required for a debate case. i won't define what evidence looks like, just that it needs to exist for a claim.

[5] debate is predicated on offense/defense, if nothing else.

[6] in a static conception of debate, there is a substantive and procedural layer

everything else is fair game*

*plagarizing from holden:

"a note on non-black engagement with afropessimism, I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. This also means that if you are disingenuous to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I'm feeling. This is your first and final warning."

speaks default at 29 if you do nothing to increase or decrease

increase by: being organized and clear, ending your speeches earlier

decrease by: being late, being annoying, not extending warrants

prefs for LD (based on what i like to hear):

[1] k, policy, theory

[2] phil (flavors of util v. kant)

[3] phil (everything else), tricks

[4] traditional

sliders (stolen from various people who have sliders):

voting policy----X----voting kritik

researching policy-----X--researching kritik

tech-X-------truth

good evidence quality---X-----bad evidence quality with spin

will read ev anyway------X--what ev do i need to read

asking "did you read X card"-----X---learn to flow or run prep/cx for this

condo--X--------no condo

yes RVIs------X--no RVIs

overviews------X--lbl

fairness is definitely an impact-----X---fairness is definitely not an impact

alternatives/kritikal affs should solve things or lose---X-----alternatives/kritikal affs can not solve things and not lose

"pre-fiat"-----X---actual arguments

debate good--X------debate bad (the activity)

debate good-----X---debate bad (the community)

alternative models of the topic + offense----X----impact turn everything vs framework

yes your baudrillard/kant-X-------not your baudrillard/kant

feelings and jokes--X------debate robots

mime-like expressiveness---X-------statue-like poker face

clashX--------cowardice

assume I understand the things--------Xassume I do not understand the things

30 speaks default-X---25 speaks default

LD should be like policy------X--LD should do its own thing

severance--X------intrinsicness

strategy--X------printer lbl

theory needs in round abuse-X-------you didn't violate but im still reading theory

ev ethicsX--------"substance"

presumption--X------0.00001% risk

lived experiences---X-----literature is gospel

ptx da--X------no ptx da

mumbling thru--------Xi listen to the speech

consult cp----X----no consult cp

t-fwk = violence------X--t-fwk = truth

oci--------Xrvi

hiding theory in the middle of an off--------Xflowing theory on a seperate page

will try to be "smarter than both teams" for the rfd--------Xrepeat back what was said from the 2nr/2ar

judging for the kidsX--------judging for the money

3nr--------Xno 3nr

give me a 30--------Xread my paradigm

will be expressive at your speechX--------will be stoic

i listen to every detail of CX---X-----i do not care about CX

nebel-----X---pain

give me phil-----X---give me pill(s)

protect the 2nr---X-----entertain the 2ar

tag-team speech prompting--------Xhas to come from the person speaking

cursing--------Xpg

email chainX--------speechdrop

"judge/Mr. Christ"--------X"Armaan"

detailed roadmaps with every response--------Xjust tell me the order of the offs/subdebates

card doc--------Xi flowed

capitalism--------X( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

paradigm inspired by and dedicated to david salazar, enjia (eddie) wang, cortez proal, and vishal sivamani <3!!

Aerin Ella Engelstad Hire 8 rounds

Austin Macikanycz Hire 8 rounds None

Rishit R Pradhan Hire

Maximus Renteria Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 26, 2023 at 2:33 PM CDT

Hey y'all. I am a college junior competing at Rice University in NPDA/NPTE debate. I have 7 years of debate experience, 4 of HS policy and 3 of NPDA/NPTE. While I am an experienced debater, I am still a new judge. In my attempt to limit judge intervention, below are beliefs that I have about debate from the perspective of a debater.

I believe that debate is a game that allows for all sorts of players to create, share, and debate advocacy. While debate may be more of a technical logic puzzle rather than a truth-seeking activity, this does not allow for the denial of subjective experiential truth that each person comes into the round with.

In my belief that debate is a technical game, I try to give full reign to the debaters in the round to choose the strategy that they believe is the best to win the round; I will then try to evaluate the round using all arguments that are given by the debaters. Because this is the case, I ask that y'all make my job easy and tell me how to vote instead of making claims that are impossible to evaluate in the vacuum of the round. That being said, I am no perfect and have my own presuppositions toward debate elements. Below are my thoughts on common topics. If you have any questions feel free to email me.

Affirmative Case

I do not have a preference between topical and kritikal affs, but I do believe that there are right and wrong ways of running these arguments in the 1AC. So run what you want to run and run what you are comfortable running.

Topicality

Paraphrasing one of the best debaters and smartest people I know, topicality is the truest argument you will meet in the game of debate. Because of this, absent weighing I defer to topicality as the highest layer in the debate. Furthermore, I defer to Competing Interpretations over Reasonability. While I do defer to no RVI, a great teammate had almost convinced me that RVIs are a very special argument not to be looked over. I also have not viewed OCIs to be a useful argument in the game of debate.

Kritiks

I believe there are 4 parts to a kritik. Framework, Link, Impact, Alternative. I personally believe that kritiks are research methods to be performed to evaluate the desirability of the 1AC but do not defer to this. I believe that Alternatives do provide Uniqueness for the Kritik Impacts, but Link Impacts can be independent of the kritik itself. Because I am not versed in the most critical literature, I believe it is useful for everyone to spend time to explain important parts of the arguments (this goes for all arguments in which I am not an expert). I do not have a preference between material and immaterial alternatives. I prefer DAs to the perm over link recontextualizations.

For reference, I have run Edelman, Spanos, Colonial Epistemology (revolving works by Achille Mbembe), Baudrillard, Althusser, SetCol, Lacan, and Cap (I do have a dislike for cap but do understand the strategic value so I do not defer against it).

CPs

I am not as well-versed in CP theory as I should be but I understand the value for and against specific CPs. I will listen to these theoretical objections or just arguments on the CP but please impact them out.

Of course, be competitive however you want to argue it.

Perm theory - I am down to listen to perm theory but again impact it out.

THEORY

I am aware that every circuit in every format of debate has their own sets of norms. However, I believe it is important that a debater is able to convince someone that there is value to these norms, geez I'm getting old (not really I just don't know all of the circuit norms anymore, sorry). I, too, have read many frivolous theoretical violations in my time.

I am down for spec. I am down for condo (although I have a deference toward the allowance of being condo in most cases). I am down for any theory interpretation you may have, but convince me.

Suhani Sharma Valencia High School

Last changed on Sat October 23, 2021 at 2:28 AM PDT

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.

Pronouns: she/her

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.)

General:

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! :)

Anne Smith Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 26, 2023 at 9:15 AM PDT

Email:annesmith@lclark.edu

Experience: Currently, I'm a second year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, probable impacts, well used statistical evidence, reasonable definitions and good cross ex skills. I don't like progressive arguments in PF and extemp debate, dislike frivolous theory, and tend to be less willing to vote on Ks or PICs than most judges. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD.

General: In most formats, I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green), I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I decide on the winner based solely on content of speeches, not the delivery. I'm always happy to answer questions after the round; talking to people about debate is one of my favorite activities.

I'm okay with most spreading in formats where it is standard practice, but I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up. If you spread, I appreciate it if you either go slower on the tags or otherwise make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins.

Impact stuff: 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 scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on some goofy impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), but I won't vote on racism good or things of that nature.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I hate powertagging and other forms of bad evidence ethics with a burning passion. If it is particularly egregious and raised as a voting issue, I will vote the powertagging team down.

Plans: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on terminal defense. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges.

CPs: I prefer quality over quantity. I'm not a big fan of PICs. I love dispo (neg may kick the counter advocacy if a perm or no solve that proves it’s not meaningfully different than the squo was read). If you lie about being unconditional and the other team makes a voting issue out of it, I will vote you down. I consider the perm to be a test of competition, not an advocacy. I'm open to arguments that perms involving sequencing are unfair. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, no non-topical CPs, no topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I tend to be less willing to voting on Ks than most, but I'm open to voting on them if they are relevant to the debate and in a format that is conducive (policy, prog LD, and sometimes parli). I'm not a huge fan of condo alts. I'm more willing to vote on no solves, perms, and no links than most judges. I love anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, no non-USFG actor fiat, etc). I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible alternatives. I'm not a big fan of K affs, as I tend to find the theory arguments against them pretty convincing. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap and neolib; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to reasonability, rejecting the team, and only voting on potential abuse when evaluating theory and T. I'll sometimes vote on disclosure theory, spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but I won't be super happy about it. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in rare circumstances, as long as you explain why they were being unfair enough to warrant it.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason). In trad LD, I think it's fine (and strategic) to agree with your opponent's framework if it was basically what you were going to use as framework anyway.

PF :Public forum was designed to be an event that is accessible to a lay audience and the community benefits immensely from having a slow, jargon free event. I’m vehemently opposed to spreading and progressive arguments (Ks, theory, topicality, plans, and counterplans) in PF. I’m fine with PFers who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation or who talk about rules or definitions when absolutely necessary in a non-jargon heavy way. I care more about the reasonability of arguments when evaluating PF than other formats. Don't bring up new arguments in final focus or be too aggressive during crossfire.

Policy:I’m mostly a policymaker judge. Advantages, disadvantages, and case args are my favorite. On condo, I'm more likely to side with the neg if they read 1 or 2 condo counter advocacies and more likely to side with the aff if they read 4 or are super contradictory.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and dislike hyper-generic arguments (generic impact statistics and positions that link to multiple things in the topic area are fine, just don't run a case that would apply to most resolutions). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Topic specific Ks that clearly link are okay. I don’t like it when people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals. I won't look down on you at all if you turn away a point of information after you have taken two that speech (or it's protected time, of course).

Elizabeth Su Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 3, 2023 at 1:37 AM PDT

Hi! I’m Lizzie Su (she/her). lizzies1066741@gmail.com

General debate musings

Debaters should flow the round. I don’t understand marked docs.

“““There is no "flow clarification" time slot in a debate. If you want to ask your opponent what was read/not read, you must do it in CX or prep -- better yet, flow!” - Danielle Dosch” - David Dosch” - Me

I HATE split 2nrs.
! The rest of my paradigm is written under the assumption that you won’t be reading anything racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. Aside from that, I dislike IVIs because they're never fully explained to be *independent* *voting issues.*
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.

Defaults: truth testing, plan focus, competing interps, no RVIs, permissibility/presumption negate

**Fun Stuff**

Policy - 1

Theory/T - 1

K - 2 for the basic stuff, 4 for everything else

Phil - 3

Tricks - 5

Policy:

Good for everything, i like seeing smart analytic counterplans, impact turns, case dumps, cheaty counterplans, cheaty perms, politics disads, intrinsicness tests, infinite condo.
Counterplans must be textually, functionally, and extrinsically competitive.
Default no judge kick + high threshold for warranting it - “it’s condo” is not a warrant
I’d err against 2n evidence

Framework should be in the 1nc, but plan focus is prolly true - Ks should disagree with the aff, not attempt to frame out offense and center the debate around [x impacts].
Links to the aff>>>>links to the squo/fiat>>>links to what your opponent wears, word piks.
<3 frame subtraction vs k affs
Long taglines are bad
I’m terrible for K v K debates
Anything can be a t-fw impact but presumption/impact turns are also W strategies

Substance debates > interesting T > nebel (the arg) > nebel (the author)
You don’t need a 2m overview to explain limits???????
*Technically* you should extend the aff in a T 2ar if you’re not going for an RVI

Theory:

Weigh standards, not fairness/education in a vacuum
I do not like reasonability brightlines or RVIs

Phil

Ok for util vs. anything else, not good for dense phil v phil debates

Tricks

Won’t flow off the doc
Over-explain the implications of arguments you want me to vote on

Trad LD

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.
If your opponent calls for a card I want to see it too :D better yet send an email chain :D
Valuing *good things* over *other good things* is kinda silly, if there’s a meaningful distinction between frameworks feel free to debate it out but usually there isn’t a lot of offense excluded with any given v/vc…

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!

Lydia Wang Hire

Login to Tabroom:

SPRING BREAK SPECIAL Hosted by Equality in Forensics

2022 — Online, US

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm List

Judges