Tabroom.com

Harvard Round Robin

2022 — Online, MA/US

Lincoln Douglas RR Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Sam Anderson Eagan High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 6, 2024 at 1:49 PM CST

Add me to the email chain: sdandersondebate@gmail.com. I prefer email chain to Speechdrop, but either work.

Background

I competed in LD from 2009-2013 and have been the LD coach at Eagan (MN) since 2014 and judge 100+ rounds a season. I qualified debaters to the TOC from 2021-2023 who won the Minneapple and Dowling twice. One primarily read phil and tricks while the other primarily read policy arguments, so I am pretty ideologically flexible and have coached across the spectrum.

If you're not at a circuit tournament, scroll to the bottom for my traditional LD paradigm.

Minneapple 2024 Note

It's been almost a year since I've judged a national circuit tournament and about a year and a half since I have done any extensive circuit coaching. Expect my flowing skills to be diminished to some extent along with my comfort evaluating dense debates about e.g. theory or Ks.

Sections/State 2024 Updates

Not a new update per se, but read the traditional LD section of my paradigm to see what I consider the permissible limits of "national circuit" arguments in LD. TL;DR, uphold your side of the resolution "as a general principle".

I'm somewhat agnostic on the MSHSL full source citations rule -- I do think it's a good norm for debate without email chains, but if you want me to enforce it, that should be hashed out preround.

Rounds on this topic are difficult to resolve. It seems like most of them come down to cards with opposite assertions: status quo deterrence is working/failing, China can/can't fill in, etc, and I struggle to figure out who to side with when it comes down to different authors making different forecasts based on the same basic set of facts and a lot of uncertainty. I encourage you to think really, really hard about the story you're telling, the specific warrants in the pieces of evidence you read and how they interact with the assumptions being made by opposing authors, etc. Alternatively, finding offense that's external to these core issues (whether that's phil offense or a independent impact scenario) can be another way to clean up the round. As a reminder: tagline extensions are no good, and "my card says X" by itself is not a warrant -- it just means that one person in the entire world agrees with you.

General Info

I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.
I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much – it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and your ROB is probably impact-justified (i.e. instrumentally valuable and arbitrarily narrow).
I tend to evaluate arguments on a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no. I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s almost always a risk of offense.
As a corollary to the above two points, I will vote on very frivolous theory or IVIs if there’s no offense against it, so make sure you are not just defensive in response. “This crowds out substance which is valuable because [explicit warrant]” is an offensive response, and is probably the most coherent way to articulate reasonability.
I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.
As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.
Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.
I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a straightforward extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.
Any specific issue in this paradigm, except where otherwise noted, is a heuristic or default that can be overcome with technical debating.

This is the area of debate I'm least familiar with – I've spent the least time coaching here and I'm not very well-read in any K lit base. Reps Ks and stock Ks (cap, security, etc.) are okay, identity Ks are okay especially if you lean in more heavily on IVI-type offense, high theory Ks are probably not the best idea (I'll try my best to evaluate them but no promises).

The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.
Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case – clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea".
For pess Ks, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.
I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.
I’m bad for K arguments that are more rhetorical than literal, e.g. “X group is already facing extinction in the status quo” – that’s just defining words differently.
Not a fan of arguments that implicate the identity of debaters in the round. There's no explicit rule against them, but I'm disinclined to vote for them and they're usually underwarranted (e.g. if they're not attached to a piece of evidence they're probably making an empirical claim without an empirical warrant and your opponent should say that in response).
K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I’m very unlikely to vote on anallytic RVIs/IVIs like T is violent, silencing, policing, etc. unless outright dropped – impacts turns should be grounded in external scholarship, and the neg should contest their applicability to the debate round. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly – just don't do debate then.

Policy

This is what I spend most of my time thinking about as a coach. Expect me to be well-read on the topic lit.

There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war – your cards *almost certainly* either don’t say that or aren’t coming from credible sources.
Probabilistic reasoning is good – I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.
Plan vagueness is bad. I guess plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but I don’t think vagueness should be resolved in a way that benefits the aff.
I’m baffled by the norm that debaters can round up to extinction. In my eyes, laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts, and if your opponent points that out I don’t know what you could say in response. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that explicitly argues X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's. Phrases like “threatens humanity”, “existential”, etc. are not necessarily synonyms for human extinction.
Pointing out your opponent’s lack of highlighting can make their argument non-viable even if they’re reading high-quality evidence – you don’t get credit for the small text.
Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by saying "durable fiat solves".

Counterplans

In general, I lean towards the view that the 1N should make an argument for how the counterplan competes and why. I think 2N definition dumps are too late-breaking (although reading more definitions in the 2N to corroborate the 1N definition may be fine).
Perms should have a net benefit unless they truly solve 100% of the negative’s net benefit or you give me an alternative to offense/defense framing, because otherwise I will likely vote neg if they can articulate a *coherent* risk. E.g. if the 2AR against consult goes for perms without any semblance of a solvency deficit, perm do both will likely lose to a risk of genuine consultation key and the lie perm will likely lose to a risk of leaks – even if the risk is vanishingly small, “why take the chance?” is how I view things by default.
I think counterplans should have solvency advocates and analytic counterplans are bad except in the most trivial of cases. E.g. if the aff advantage is that compulsory voting will increase youth turnout and result in cannabis legalization, then “legalize cannabis” makes sense as a counterplan because that’s directly in the government’s power. Otherwise, you should have evidence saying that the policy you defend will result in the outcome that you want.
Normal means competition is silly. It’s neither logical nor theoretically defensible if debated competently.
There’s probably nothing in any given resolution that actually implies immediacy and certainty, but it’s still the aff’s job to counter-define words in the resolution.
I spent a good amount of time coaching process counterplans and have some fondness for them, but as for whether they’re theoretically desirable, I pretty much view them as “break glass in case of underlimited topic”. A 2N on a process counterplan is more “substantive” in my eyes than a 2N on Nebel, cap, or warming good. If you read one and the 1AR mishandles it, the 2N definitely should go for it because they make for the cleanest neg ballots. I’ve judged at least a few rounds that in my eyes had no possible winning 2AR against a process counterplan.

Theory

I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I don’t like purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics that I struggle to flow.
Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it – if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.
Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true – 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.

If debated evenly, I tend to think limits and precision are the most important impacts (or rather internal links, jurisdiction is a fake impact). There can be an interesting debate if the neg reads a somewhat more arbitrary interpretation that produces better limits, but when the opposite is true, where the neg reads a better-supported interpretation and the aff response is that it overlimits and kills innovation, I am quite neg-leaning.
Nebel T: I’m open to it. It’s one of the few T interps where I think the overlimiting/innovation impact is real, but some LD topics genuinely are unworkably big (e.g. “Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to provide development assistance to other nations”). The neg should show that they actually understand the grammar arguments they’re making, and the aff’s semantics responses should not be severely miscut or out of context. “Semantics are oppressive” is a wildly implausible response. I view “semantics is just an internal link to pragmatics” as sort of vacuously true – the neg should articulate the “pragmatic” benefits of a model of debate where the aff defends the most (or sufficiently) precise interpretation of a topic instead of one that is “close enough”, or else just blow up the limits impact.
RVIs on T are bad… but please don’t just blow them off. You need to answer them, and if your shell says that fairness is the highest impact then your “RVIs on T bad” offense probably should have fairness impacts.

Phil

I debated in a time when the meta was much more phil dominant and I coached a debater who primarily ran phil so this is something I'm familiar with. That being said, heavy phil rounds can be some of the most difficult to evaluate. I'm best for carded analytic moral philosophy -- Kant, virtue ethics, contractarianism, libertarianism, etc. I'm worse for tricky phil or hybrid K-phil strategies (agonism, Deleuze, Levinas, etc.).
By default I evaluate framework debate in the same offense-defense paradigm I evaluate anything else which means I'm using the framework with the stronger justification. Winning a defensive argument against a framework is not *automatically* terminal defense. This means you're likely better off with a well-developed primary syllogism than with a scattershot approach of multiple short independent justifications. Phenomenal introspection is a better argument than "pain is nonbinding", and the main Kantian syllogisms are better arguments than "degrees of wrongness".
If you'd rather not have a phil debate, feel free to uplayer with a TJF, AFC, IVIs, etc. I also don't feel like I ever hear great responses to "extinction first because of moral uncertainty", more like 1-2 okay responses and 3-4 bad ones, so that may be another path of least resistance against large framework dumps.
If you're going for a framework K, I still need some way to evaluate impacts, and it's better if you make that explicit. Okay, extinction-focus is a link to the K, but is utilitarianism actually wrong, and if so what ethical principles should I instead be using to make decisions?

Tricks

I'm comfortable with a lot of arguments that fall somewhere under the tricks umbrella -- truth testing, presumption and permissibility triggers, calc indicts, NIBs that you can defend substantively, etc. That being said, I'm not a good judge for pure tricks debate either -- evaluate the round after X speech, neg must line by line every 1AC argument, indexicals, "Merriam-Webster's defines 'single' as unmarried but all health care systems are unmarried", "you can never prove anything with 100% certainty therefore skep is true and the resolution is false", etc. I don't have the flowing skill to keep up with these, many of these arguments I consider too incoherent to vote for even if dropped (and I'm perfectly happy for that to be my RFD), and I really don't like arguments that don't even have the pretense of being defensible. I also think arguments need clear implications in their first speech, so tricks strategies along the lines of "you conceded this argument for why permissibility negates but actually it's an argument for why the resolution is automatically false" are usually too new for me to vote for.

Non-negotiables

I have a strong expectation that debaters be respectful and a low tolerance for rudeness, overt hostility, etc.
If you’re a circuit debater hitting someone who is obviously a traditional debater at a circuit tournament, my only request is that you not read disclosure theory *if* preround disclosure occurred (the aff sends the 1AC and the neg sends past speech docs and discloses past 2Ns 30 minutes prior). If they have no wiki or contact info, disclosure theory is totally fair game. Beyond that, I will probably give somewhat higher speaks if you read positions that they can engage with, but that’s not a rule or expectation. If you’re a traditional debater intending to make arguments about accessibility, I’ll evaluate them, but I will have zero sympathy – a local tournament would be far more accessible to you than a circuit tournament, and if there’s not a local tournament on some particular weekend, that simply is not your opponent’s problem.
I reserve the right to ignore hidden arguments – there’s obviously no exact brightline but I don’t view that as an intrinsic debate skill to be incentivized. At minimum, voting issues should be delineated and put in the speech doc, arguments should be grouped together in some logical way (not “1. US-China war coming now, 2. Causes extinction and resolved means firmly determined, 3. Plan solves”).
I’ll drop you for serious breaches of evidence ethics that significantly distort the card. If it’s borderline or a trivial mistake that confers no competitive advantage, it should be debated on the flow and I’m open to dropping the argument. I don’t really understand the practice of staking the round on evidence ethics; if the round has been staked and I’m forced to make a decision (e.g. in an elims round), I’m more comfortable with deciding that you slightly distorted the evidence so you should lose instead of you distorted the evidence but not enough so your opponent should lose.
I’ll drop you for blatant misdisclosure or playing egregious disclosure games. I’d rather not intervene for minute differences but completely new advantages, scenarios, framing, major changes to the plan text, etc. are grounds to drop you. Lying is bad.

Traditional LD Paradigm

This is my paradigm for evaluating traditional LD. This applies at tournaments that do not issue TOC bids (with the exception of JV, but not novice, divisions at bid tournaments -- I'll treat those like circuit tournaments). It does not apply if you are at a circuit tournament and one debater happens to be a traditional debater. And if you're not at a bid tournament but you both want to have a circuit round, you also can disregard this.
Good traditional debate for me is not lay debate. Going slower may mean you sacrifice some amount of depth, but not rigor.
The following is a pretty hard rule: "Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of their side of the resolution as a general principle." At NSDA Nationals, this is written on the ballot and I treat that as binding. Outside of nats, I still think it's a good norm because I believe my ballot should reflect relevant debate skills. I do not expect traditional debaters to know how to answer theory, role of the ballot arguments, plans, non-T affs, etc. Outside of circuit tournaments, one side should not auto-win because they know how to run these arguments and their opponent doesn't. However, "circuit" arguments that fall within these bounds are fair game -- read extinction impacts, counterplans, dense phil, skep, politics DAs, topical Ks, whatever, as long as you explain why they affirm or negate the resolution.
As a caveat to the above statement, what it means to affirm or negate the resolution as a general principle is something that is up for debate and depends on the specific wording of the resolution. I'm totally open to observations and burden structures that interpret the resolution in creative or abusive ways, and think those strategies are often underutilized. If one side drops the other's observation about how to interpret the resolution, the round can be over 15 seconds into rebuttals. They just need to come with a plausible argument for why they meet that constraint.
Another caveat: I think theoretical arguments can be deployed as a reason to drop the argument, and I'll listen to IVI-type arguments the same way (like this argument is repugnant so you shouldn't evaluate it). They're just not voting issues in their own right.
You cannot clip or paraphrase evidence and need a full written citation, regardless of your local circuit's norms. The usual evidence rules still apply.
Your opponent has the right to review any piece of evidence you read, even if you're not spreading.
Flex prep is fine -- you can ask clarification questions during prep time.
Because (typically) there's no speech doc and few checks on low-quality or distorted evidence, I will hold you to a high standard of explaining your evidence in rebuttals. Tagline extensions aren't good enough. "Extend Johnson 20, studies show that affirming reduces economic growth by 20%" -- what does that number represent, where does it come from? This is especially true for evidence read in rebuttals which can't be scrutinized in CX -- I will be paying very close attention to what I was able to flow in the body of the card the first time you read it.
Burdens and advocacies should be explicit. Saying "we could do X to solve this problem instead" isn't a complete argument -- I *could* vote for you, but I won't. This can take the form of a counterplan text / saying "I advocate X", or a burden structure that says "Winning X is sufficient for you to vote negative because [warrant]" -- it just needs to be delineated.
Even if you're not reading a big stick impact, you still benefit a lot by reading terminal impact evidence and weighing it against your opponents' (or lack thereof). When the debate comes down to e.g. a federal jobs guarantee reducing unemployment vs. causing inflation, even though both of those are intuitively bad things, it's really hard to evaluate the round without either debater reading evidence that describes how many people are affected, how severely, etc.
Normative philosophy is important as a substantive issue, but the value and criterion are not important as procedural issues. I do not mechanically evaluate debates by first deciding who wins the value debate, and then deciding which criterion best links into that value, and then deciding who best links into that criterion. Ideally your criterion will be a comprehensive moral theory, like util or Kant, but if not then it's your proactive burden to explain why the arguments made at the framework level matters, why they mean your offense is more important than your opponent's. This applies when the criterion is vague, arbitrarily narrow, identifies something that is instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, etc. (Side note: oppression / structural violence frameworks almost always fall into one of the latter two categories, sometimes the first.)

Joseph Barquin Prospect High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 1:47 PM PST

Affiliations:

I am currently coaching teams at lamdl and have picked up an ld student or 2.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evidence sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great. The sept/oct topic really made me realize I never dabbled in cp competition theory (on process cps). I've tried to fix that but clear judge instruction is going to be very important for me if this is going to be the vast majority of the 2nr/2ar.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

Matthew Berhe BASIS Peoria 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 12:56 PM EST

Hello, I recently graduated from Lexington high school - add me to the email chain: chickenwrap4@gmail.com

harvard update - opposite of Rishi’s paradigm.

The litmus test for judge intervention is obviously high. I doubt I’ll do it but in the instance of exclusionary slurs or blatant evidence ethics I won’t have a real problem.

Tech>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth - everyone has personal conceptions of the quality of arguments but the decision a judge makes should reflect the debaters input and delivery of arguments rather than preconceived beliefs. If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc - my least favorite decisions include prioritizing new 2ar arguments or heavily leaned aff or neg because they believed they were on the “right” side of the issue.

LD:

I evaluate every round that lacks a theory or topicality argument through

What’s the most important impact that I ought to prioritize
Given that most important impact would the strategy the neg or aff proposes be desirable

But obviously theory violations sideline my ability to evaluate such since they question the ethicality of engaging content in the first place.

Theory - I figured I'd put this first since it's considered one of the most judge dependent things. I'll vote on almost every theory violation, the almost exists as I wont vote on theory if it doesn't meet the standard of an "argument". A lot of people blip through incoherent statements that lack any form of development such as "vote aff cuz speech times favor an advantaged negative" this claim is terrible but even if the neg drops this it's not an argument as there's no explanation for why speech times favor the neg or how voting aff would solve such. However, if someone desires to pursue this incoherent argument they could say "a time pressed 1AR will inevitably get pummeled as it has to cover 7 minuets of content where the negative gets to develop any part of such - endlessly voting aff would force NDSA to change the structure of debate as it's functionally ending the activity" - that's an argument but a single blip answer from the neg will pretty much eliminate such. I will vote for any theory argument if it's substantiated in the original explanation not after it is "dropped".

Clarity and speed matter a lot in theory debates - often LD debaters can drop or lightly cover spikes when they are exempted or put inside large paragraphs because they're forced to flow when the aff can often be the combination of unclear and fast. While the aff may think this is a cheeky strategy absent immense clarity how does this prevent the judge from missing the argument as well. I'm not going to miss the argument on my original flow and look back and see it's in the middle of your 4th paragraph and expect the debater to catch it as well. This doesn't mean I'm against large walls of spikes but rather I only evaluate them when delivered coherently.

Theory arguments usually boil down to two main factors

1 - What impact does the affirmatives performance potentially cause relative to the benefits it potentially has

2 - How likely is it that the affirmatives performance causes or solves such problem in debate.

3 - If I should compare impacts or hold the affirmative to a standard where I let them pass if I believe they're reasonable.

What I mean by 1 - In a condo debate the aff can claim multiple conditional options skew 1AR strategy and the neg can claim it's absolutely necessary to ensure any educational value - however, as a judge adjuticating if the practice of conditionality is good I need to start with is preventing time skew more important than ensuring education. Winning this part of theory can lower the bar for how much of a link you need to win to your impact as you've already substantiated that it is much more important.

What I mean by 2 - In this very same condo debate even if the aff wins I should care about time skew way more than education if the negative proves it's very unlikely that conditional options uniquely skew the aff I should start to prioritize the negatives impact because it can be solved. However, this is all relative - how likely it is to be solved * how important is it to solve is the traditional frame used by an objective audience.

What I mean by 3 - This is the classic competing interpretations vs reasonability - without any debating I lean towards competing interpretations as it seems a bit arbitrary to randomly say I don't think the aff commited too much of a crime and leave it at that. However, if the aff sets up a persuasive argument for why anything but a model of reasonable doubt causes an endless proliferation of nonsense which is a) unfair or b) kills the value in debate I can be persuaded. Again, these often lose to arbitrariness or judge intervention claims in my experience.

Theory can also be an avenue for complete BS - I read robo spec, no prep, and grammarly spec as a debater for fun sometimes. However, I felt no sympathy going for these arguments as they're so trash if the aff can't generate responses of the top of their head they shouldn't win the round anyways. I'm the same as a judge I'm not going to strike a trash theory argument off the flow because it is utterly trash because it should be the aff's burden to disprove the utter trash.

This is the same for tricks, clarity and forming complete arguments are NECESSARY but otherwise it comes down to technical debating - I don't care how many you read if I can flow all of them.

CPs - this is pretty simple.

1 - Is the CP competitive

2 - Does the net benefit outweigh the risk of a solvency deficit

Some low level debates can justify competition by difference which never made any sense - it's the negatives burden to prove absolute exclusivity either based on text function or both. Usually for PICs this is pretty self explanatory.

Does the NB outweigh - for some reason some people think under the frame I've got to beat the CP then I've got to beat the DA. Usually there's no "beating" the CP or "DA" there's minimizing the risk (unless the debating from one side is absolutely terrible). One can lower the risk of the CP solving the aff and prove to me the case outweighs the DA but if I conclude the net benefit outweighs the risk that the CP doesn't solve I'm still forced to vote negative.

Judge kick - I'll presume towards it if no debating occurs.

DAs - this is a scenario where evidence matters a good amount to me, it seems kinda weird if people talk about the current state of politics or large economic factors based on arbitrary claims when the other team has cards supporting different from qualified specialists. However, this doesn't mean the neg should have a card that answers every aff argument but should be able to connect the dots between the thesis their authors support to disprove any rebuttal supported by the aff. For example, not having evidence to answer impact D in the 2NR usually doesn't matter a whole lot in LD if the original card you had in the 1NC was any good. However, if the 1NC has a barely highlighted impact card and the 1AR reads a bunch of reasons why warming doesn't cause extinction it's likely that the 2NR is going to need evidence to rebut such.

Phil - I don't have the most experience on smaller philosophies but I've gotten to understand things like Hobbes, Kant, Util, Forms of skepticism, and honestly most things read in LD. It's important for me to understand what your philosophy values in morality and how that connects to whatever the negatives philosophy is. For example, saying KANT=TRUE then Kant supports X is an argument but when the neg says X causes extinction or something it's on the aff to explain why such impact matters less than following a certain ethical criteria.

I am very low on TJFs most people have them, they make me cringe read them if you want but to me they're basically at the same standard of argument as you're a robot theory.

Ks - I spend a decent amount of time debating about whether I should evaluate the consequences of the plan against the alternative or some other framework based on education, reps, or any alternative metric. Oftentimes when the neg loses this debate their strategy starts to fall apart. However, some great Ks have backup plans built into their thesis. From my experience technical blocks resulted in a complete 1AR collapse - I don’t like it when the AFF just reiterates a generic defense of scenario planning and fails to connect it or answer the negative articulation of why such is bad.

If one does decide to go for a K against a Kaff make sure to

1 - Have a good defense of whatever your theory of how power/whatever you're questioning operates.

2 - Spend a lot of time proving exclusivity when it is hard to pin the affirmative to a specific method

3 - Explain why what the ALT solves is a lot more important than what the aff solves OR if it actually solves the case.

KAFFs - I used to read them a lot and logically I'm fine adjudicating these but I often hold the aff to a relatively high bar when answering framework. Having sweeping critiques of debate as a whole or the logic of "fairness" are bold claims but if the negative fails to dispute them it's fair game. In framework debates the neg should respond to aff offense well and articulate coherent internal links to the impact - don’t let the aff say things like “the wiki solves” “we defend most of the resolution”. AFF should prioritize impact calculus to decrease the necessity of defense to the negs impact.

My policy paradigm:

I evaluate every round simply through two frames absent a theoretical violation (theory or topicality)

What’s the most important impact that I ought to prioritize
Given that most important impact would the strategy the neg or aff proposes be desirable

New Trier is my first time judging the topic, but I’m decently informed on most affs, CPs, DAs, and Ks. My background in debate was almost entirely centered around Ks, T, and interesting kritikal versions of CPs and theoretical arguments. That being said I never had a strong ideological belief of the arguments I delivered but tried to perform it in the most technical venue to get the ballot, which is generally how I viewed most critical arguments. I don’t have any essentialist strong beliefs such as “Ks are bad” but I won’t let teams get away with minimal proof for broad sweeping claims about how the entirety of the world operates given decent aff contestation.

CPs - neg must prove opportunity cost with a net benefit Germaine to the plan outweighs the risk of a solvency deficit - against most CPs I prefer when the 2AR paints a consistent picture that connects deficits to certain 1AC Cards rather than blips that force the judge to infer, this also includes impacting out each solvency deficit.

T - I went for weird T arguments a lot such as “substantial” but also pretty decent T arguments for the majority of my junior year and some of my senior year. Most of the time I’m a big fan of precise definitions, anything else seems to be pretty arbitrary and makes any limits set unpredictable. However, I can be convinced that some definitions are so unbearable for the negative that research becomes closer and closer to impossibility. A large part of the time T debates bottle down to what impact matters the most as it’s hard to completely mitigate small theoretical impacts.

Framework - respond to aff offense well and articulate coherent internal links to the impact - don’t let the aff say things like “the wiki solves” “we defend most of the resolution”. AFF should prioritize impact calculus to decrease the necessity of defense to the negs impact.

Ishan Bhatt Hire

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 7:24 AM CST

Hello there! I’m Ishan. I am excited to hear what y’all have to say!! For what it’s worth, I haven’t been involved in a couple of years, so please explain jargon and debate a little slower than you would otherwise.

Email for LD: ishanbhatt42@gmail.com. Could you make the subject line something like: “ Tournament -- Year -- Aff vs Neg”?

Updated for Harvard 2024

Form Preferences:

1. Read what you want if it is well-warranted and well-explained. This is theoretically a content-neutral preference, but I may be worse for very short arguments with very extreme implications. The size of an argument’s implication and its length should be inversely correlated.

2. Please be sure that every word you say is understandable. I’ll say clear. If I do, please go back, and say your argument again. I don’t open speech docs until after the round, so I do want to hear all the words of the card.

3. If an argument is dropped, you get the warrant, not the tag. The implication of a dropped argument can still be contested.

4. I’m more persuaded by specific arguments. It’s hard to win no progress if you drop aff solvency, threat inflation if you concede the China war scenario, “fairness always first” without some debating about the internal link, etc.

5. Please be transparent about your argument. Don't be coy about the function or content of the argument, or else I may not understand it either! And please don’t refuse to answer questions at all.

6. The 1NC must fully develop the argument. My sense of the meta is only based on judging twice in the last two years, but I thought many off-case positions I saw weren’t complete arguments and the 1AR could’ve briefly dismissed them.

Content Preferences:

Plans/CPs/DAs:

I really don’t need everything to lead to extinction.
For most “cheating” counterplans, a clear theory of “what should be competitive” is most compelling.
A perm needs explanation in the speech in which it is introduced.

Theory:

Predictably defining the words in the topic matters the most for topicality. Once you’ve defined a word, proving a good vision for the topic regarding research, ground, limits, etc. is great.
I basically won’t vote on bad theory arguments, especially really contrived interpretations (e.g., “may not do exactly what you did”). A solid “this is arbitrary + reasonability + don’t drop the debater” push should do the trick for me.
Reasonability, to me, makes most sense as “voting on theory means we lose out on a substantive debate, therefore defense is sufficient.” I’m often confused by reasonability “bright line” arguments.
Please don’t claim that a debate practice (like a new case or conditionality) makes debate “unsafe.” I feel like safety is meaningful thing and is probably outside the realm of technical debating.

Ks:

You need to explain a structural claim, not just say the claim.
I likely won’t vote on an argument about personal stuff.
I really don’t understand most arguments over fiat. “Fiat” makes most sense to me as shorthand for the “is-ought” fallacy.
I might be stricter than the median judge for neg DA links – if you “destroy the system of capitalism,” the neg is probably right about the link to the econ DA.

See also: Andrew Garber's paradigm.

Arnav Burudgunte Hire 8 rounds

Matthew Doggett American Heritage Broward HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 6:44 PM EST

Email- mmdoggett@gmail.com

Background:

My college career started back in the 90s when CEDA still had 2 resolutions a year. I have coached in CEDA, NFA, NPDA, IPDA, and a little public forum. I am now coaching mainly in NFA LD.

General:

First, you should not assume that I know anything. This includes your shorthand, theory, or K literature. If you do, given our age differences, you might be shocked at the conclusions I'm going to come to.

Second, if you don't offer an alternative framework I will be net benefits and prefer big impacts.

Third, I presume the aff is topical unless the negative proves otherwise. I don't necessarily need proven abuse either. What I need is a clean story from the final negative explaining why they win and why I'm voting there. T is a voter, and I'm not going to vote on a reverse voter (vote against a debater) unless it is dropped or the carded evidence is really good. I am more willing to ignore topicality and look elsewhere than I am to vote the negative down on it. In rare instances, a negative can win without going all in on it, but that is very, very unlikely.

Fourth, I tend to give the affirmative risk of solvency and the negative, a risk of their DA.

Fifth, I'm probably going to need some offense/risk of offense somewhere on the flow to vote for you.

Sixth, if your K links are non-unique (apply to the status quo as well), you are only going to win if you win your alternative.

Seventh, on conditionality (LD specific)- I will probably vote conditionality bad if you have more than one conditional position.

Eighth, I will vote on them, but I'm not a fan of tricks. Tricks are usually a good indication that you know that you have done something pretty shady but if the opponent let's you get away with it, I'll vote for it.

In closing, I think that pretty accurately describes who I am but just remember I try to vote on the flow, but I tend to only look at the parts of the flow the debaters tell me too. Good luck!

Andrew Garber Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 30, 2024 at 5:55 AM EST

TL;DR: speak at a fast conversational pace (or even just a conversational pace); read fewer, better-explained positions; I'll try not to intervene much. I'm bad at flowing.

Update (Harvard RR 2023): I haven't judged since last year. Please take the speed stuff seriously.

Background. I debated national circuit LD for Cambridge Rindge and Latin, qualifying to the TOC twice. I graduated high school in 2019 and have debated and judged little since then. My email is andrewg4000@gmail.com -- feel free to email me any time (even if you just have random questions about debate or want book recommendations or something).

Defaults. I aim to be as tab as possible as long as the round remains safe for the debaters. I'll try to assume whatever the debaters assume so that I minimize intervention. If both debaters assume fairness is a voter, then I'll assume that it's a voter, even if it's not explicitly justified. As a debater, I ran philosophical frameworks, theory, some policy positions, and the occasional K. Because of my experience as a debater, I will be more familiar with some positions than with others. That said, I will try my best to understand your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

Speed. Speak slowly. I do not flow off speech docs. I am terrible at flowing and listening, and always have been. I am likely much, much worse at flowing than I was as a debater, since I judge LD about once per year. You might think that while spreading you're clear, or slow, or understandable, but you're probably not. If you slow to a fast conversational pace, I will be grateful and reward you with higher speaks. Given all this, if you're going fast, don't get upset at me for missing some of your arguments.

Arguments I don't understand. I am not receptive to arguments I don't understand. (To clarify, I mean positions that were ill-explained. For example, I know something about Kantian moral philosophy, but explain it to me as though I don't.) Debaters often cut cards from dense or poorly written sources (e.g., Kant, Baudrillard... really most K and phil authors fall under here) and then specifically cut the cards so as to be as information dense as possible, making the arguments extremely hard to follow. I will probably from now on be more receptive to just not evaluating these arguments or at least having a low threshold for responses. Unfortunately, most debates I've judged have come down to trying to evaluate two positions I don't understand. My decisions in these cases are probably fairly random; you have been warned.

Respect. If you are debating against someone with clearly less knowledge about debate than you have (e.g., you're varsity debating a novice or a circuit debater debating a lay debater), please make the round as accessible to both debaters as possible. If you can only win with obscure positions and debate jargon, then debate has failed you; you're not good at debating, you're just good at playing inside baseball. (For the same reason, I like arguments that I can understand without being an expert in the relevant area of academia/public policy/whatever the current debate trend is. My role is not to be an educator, but nonetheless I want to judge engaging, educational rounds.)

On a related note, I dislike when debaters are mean to each other. I was vicious in this sense as a debater. For example, I sometimes cracked jokes at the other debater's expense when I had a decisive advantage. I regret doing so, and this sort of behavior usually makes me uncomfortable. I particularly dislike the personal call-outs in some debates. Although in very rare instances this behavior might be justified, I think that it is more often close to bullying or intimidation than a just accusation. You are in high school, and I'd like to see you be respectful and kind to each other.

See also Ishan Bhatt's, Pacy Yan's, and Jacob Nails's paradigms.

Appendix A. Important Articles.

I highly recommend "Plato Beyond the Platitudes" by Marshall Thompson. I also recommend "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell.

Appendix B. Miscellaneous paradigmatic thoughts.

- I don't need voters on a theory shell to be extended unless contested.

- I don't understand most issues with fiat. See this excellent article. For example, if you defend the resolution and say that you "don't defend implementation," I am willing to dismiss this argument if the other debater says "they don't defend implementation -- hahahahahaha" and moves on, unless you give a compelling explanation for why not defending implementation is coherent.

- I default truth testing.

- I default epistemic/ethical confidence rather than epistemic/ethical modesty.

- On theory, I default drop the arg, reasonability (sufficient defense is enough to reject the shell), and no RVIs. The threshold for sufficient defense depends on the strength of the arguments for reasonability. For example, if you say that theory is almost always bad, substance is amazing, and only the most extreme circumstances make the round such that the judge can't vote for the better debater, then my threshold for sufficient defense will be low (i.e., my threshold for what counts as sufficient offense for voting on the shell will be high). If I have to default to reasonability or if there are not many arguments for reasonability, then I will assume a fairly high threshold for sufficient defense.

- I don't evaluate arguments that tell me to change speaks (e.g., "give me a 30").

- I think that debaters should justify something like drop the debater if they want to make an independent voter. I am unlikely to vote on independent voters unless such a warrant is present (see above: I default drop the arg). If it's the 2NR or 2AR and you're answering an independent voter without a drop the debater warrant, quickly pointing out that the voter lacks drop the debater and providing a quick reason to drop the argument instead of the debater should be more than enough.

- I am still a bit confused about how I should evaluate 2AR weighing. Right now, I tend to think that if 1ARs have impacts to weigh against NC impacts, then they should weigh in the 1AR rather than in the 2AR. I have so far erred neg on debates where the aff could have weighed in the 1AR but waited until the 2AR to do so. I think that the same should apply to NCs against impacts from the AC. But this is probably the least certain part of my paradigm.

- Here's another thing that annoys me: people who try to spread, but they're basically going at a fast conversational speed while changing their pitch of voice so that it sounds kind of like they're spreading. Spreading doesn't help you here.

Appendix C. Against Spreading

Spreading is bad:

It makes debate much less accessible;
It makes it easier for people to get away with nonsense (e.g., cards that make no sense, extremely blippy arguments) since judges can't tell what the debaters are saying;
Usually it encourages debaters to learn pretty useless skills (e.g., talking extremely fast) rather than some actually useful speaking skills (speaking with good emphasis, efficiency, eloquently).

Counterarguments:

Spreading teaches people how to process information quickly. Reply: I haven't seen much evidence for this claim, nor that it transfers beyond a narrow type of information (speeches/lectures delivered quickly orally). Anyway, this skill is very specialized and not that useful. It's good for listening to videos at faster speeds, but most of my non-debater friends can do this too.
Spreading allows people to introduce more evidence, make debates more interesting, go more deeply into cool literature. Reply: See point 2 above, which moots most of this argument.
If I don't spread but my opponent does, I'll lose! Reply: This is why I want to enforce both debaters not spreading. Anyway, I don't think the disadvantage is that great; efficiency and good strategy can make up most of the loss.

Didn't cover most of the things here, nor did I explain them well. Hope you get the gist though.

Alan George Memorial High School

Last changed on Mon February 7, 2022 at 9:15 AM CST

I want to be on the email chain: algeor99@gmail.com

Conflicts: Klein Oak, Montgomery Blair, McMillen NG, Garland KP, Lovejoy CM, Hayes PF, Cambridge AG, Memorial

Background:

I did LD for four years (2014-2018) in Houston, and qualled to TOC my senior year. If you need something before/after (pls not during) the round, I’m most active on Facebook. I was fairly flexible as a debater—I mostly LARPed, but also read some Kant, Levinas, Marx, Mestiza Consciousness, Deleuze, and Weheliye.

Five min before round:

HOW you go about articulating your arguments is way more important than WHAT you chose to read. I could care less what you go for (as long as it's not overtly repugnant), as long as it's explained and implicated well.

· WARRANT TO WARRANT COMPARISON WINS ROUNDS. If their DA says X and your link turn says Y, explain to me why I should prefer your link turn. Make clash explicit and do the work on the flow for yourself. Otherwise, be prepared to receive a decision with which you’re unhappy

· I’m willing to vote on anything, as long as it has a claim, warrant, and an impact. Just explain the argument to me and why it should be in my RFD. This means you need to be doing clear layering and weighing

· Tech > Truth

· Please pop tags and author names

LARP:

· Your extensions need to have warrants—even in the 1AR/2AR. That being said, all it needs to be is an overview of the advantage—just tell me what the aff does, what it solves, and how it does so. The more a warrant in your aff is contested, the more thorough your extension of that part of the aff should be.

· I’d prefer not to have to call for cards as that forces intervention. However, if you think your opponent’s ev is sketch and you point it out, I’ll look at the card.

· This should go without saying, but….you need to win uniqueness for a link turn to be offense

Theory:

· Good theory debates are fun. Bad theory debates are sad.

· Defaults (theory): drop the arg, competing interps, no RVIs. DTD on T is the default. These are all very soft defaults—PLEASE present actual paradigm issues

· If you read brackets theory and the bracketing is not egregious, the highest you can expect your speaks to be is 28.

· Slow down for interps. Having them prewritten would be very nice.

· If you blitz through blips I won’t catch everything, so slow down where it counts.

· The more you number/label, the easier it is to flow you

· PLEASE do weighing between theory standards. Tell me why ground outweighs limits or whatever other arguments are in play

Phil:

· Please do clear framework weighing. Tell me why one framework justification matters more than another and so forth...if both sides have “my framework precludes”-type claims, tell me why yours matters more than your opponent’s!

· Phil can be very hard to flow—make it easy for me. Flashing analytic dumps would be cool, but if you don't want to do that, then please make sure you're being clear and are delineating one arg from the next

· Make sure I understand the framework—my facial expression should be indicative enough

Kritiks:

· I’ll probably have a basic understanding of whatever K you read, but I will not vote for you unless YOU explain your theory to me.

· Your 2NR better be easy to flow. I don’t want to sit through a ridiculously long overview that then requires me to sift through my flow after the round to determine what responds to what. Your speaks WILL not be amazing

· Shorter tags are easier to flow

· The most important thing for you to do is to explain the interaction between the K and the aff. Explain why it outweighs/turns the case/why the perm fails/why the K is a prior question

Andrew Gong Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 8, 2024 at 1:38 PM PST

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy, code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Email: andrewgong03@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Andrew, but people also call me gongo. I did LD at Harvard-Westlake, got 18 career bids, and reached finals of the TOC. I graduated in 2021.

Top level:

1. As a senior, I read only big-stick policy positions. This should tell you what types of debates I'm most comfortable judging, but it shouldn't dissuade you from reading your favorite args (exception: tricks).

2. Clarity is very important to me. No, I will not flow from the speech doc, so if I can't hear you, I'll stop flowing and yell clear until you slow down.

3. Online debate - keep a local recording in case you cut out. Keeping your camera on would be ideal, but it's not a requirement.

Non-T Affs:

I'm probably 60/40 biased in favor of T framework against non-T affs. Arguments like truth testing make intuitive sense to me.

I like education more than fairness, but both are fine.

I went for the cap K against non-T affs a lot as well. It's also a good option.

Ks:

I like these more than my argumentative history would imply. I think good K debates are a lot of fun to watch and judge. I've read a lot of Deleuze, a little bit of Baudrillard + settler colonial literature, and I have a good grasp of most other Ks.

Good 2NRs on the K will have specific links that implicate aff solvency, and contain lots of real-world examples on all parts of the flow. Good 2ARs on the K will either have lots of link defense and disads to the alt, or go for framework + extinction outweighs.

I really like impact turns against the K. Heg good and cap good are awesome, provided you go for them correctly.

Arguments couched entirely in terms of you or your opponent's personal identity/out-of-round actions are probably bad.

CP/DA:

I'm sympathetic to 1AR theory and very lenient in competition debates against cheesy process counterplans. However, 1AR theory debates are generally late breaking and annoying - I'll hold the line against 2AR explosions of 1AR blips, especially when there's not much in-round abuse (1 condo/1 pic).

I read ev, good ev is important.

T/theory:

I'm not the best at evaluating either of these arguments - as a debater, I rarely went for either except as last-ditch efforts. This isn't to say that I don't want to vote on them, but I do prefer substantive debates.

I'm definitely better for T than theory. Nebel T is probably wrong, but I'll vote on it (reluctantly) if you win it.

I'll default competing interps, but I'm very persuaded by in-round abuse claims and reasonability. This also means I don't like nonsense theory arguments (e.g. non-resolutional spec shells, shoes theory).

Don't go for an RVI unless you have literally no other choice lol

Philosophy:

Probably biased towards util. Permissibility and presumption triggers, including calculation/aggregation impossible, are ridiculous to me, but I'll vote on them if conceded.

If your opponent reads a nonsense contention, concede their framework and go for turns!

I went for the race/colorblindness K against phil a lot, and I like the argument.

Tricks:

I'll be very sad voting on conceded 1-line blips. The worse an argument is, the lower your bar for answering it. And if I don't understand your argument in the speech it was presented, I'll give your opponent leeway in terms of new answers in the final rebuttal speech.

Eric He Lexington HS 8 rounds

David Herrera Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 8 rounds

Nicholas Jennings Dulles High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 11, 2024 at 9:45 AM CST

Updated - 9/5/2024

Email: I do not use email for debate rounds please use tabroom.share or speech drop.

Experience:

Coached debate at HAIS (1), Crosby (3.5), Dulles (3.5), and Niles West (3.)

Debated policy for 4 years at Crosby (2004-2008), In College at UMKC (Fall 2009), and Houston (Spring 2009, 2012-2015)

Non-negotiables

If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.
If you think the appropriate response to other people explaining how they need to be included in debate is to say "West is best" or "Violence towards people like you is good" please strike me.
Purposeful or dismissive acts of misgendering will result in a full speaker point loss and if the other team makes it an argument the possible loss of a ballot.
All permutations must have a text.
I will not vote on hidden theory shells unless the following are met (I clearly have it on my flow, the document sent during the round includes it , and the theory is warranted to be sufficient for a winning argument how it is read in the original form.)

Tech ---------------------------------------------------------X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Truth

I very slightly side with tech, but more importantly conceded arguments are only as good as the warrants you extend and what the evidence actually says. Not your tagline, the argument/evidence. I think this is important because the Flow is very important to my decision making but I am not willing to vote for a gross misrepresentation of evidence, nor am I willing to entertain tagline extensions as warranted explanations. I can never think of a reason for a debater to say "read this card" if you're doing your job I should read it and go yep that is what they said in round! Truth also matters, if confronted with conflicting claims about the nature of a set of evidence I will pass judgement on correctness over technical factors.

What is Debate?

I think that we need to understand we are a community of people responsible for the activity, We are responsible for teaching and guiding students to make decisions that are descriptive of the community they wish to compete within.

Policy

Theory

Theoretical rejections of the team have an incredibly high burden in my mind. Theoretical rejections of the argument have a much lower burden. For me to vote for a team entirely on theory they must prove that the debate was borderline impossible. Contrarily to win reject them argument you only have to prove the debate would be better without the argument. To me using theory to force a condensing of the round is a sound strategy. Also, generally, if you're conceding that conditionality is good then you're highly unlikely to get me to vote down the team on another theory argument.

DA's

Disadvantages are the core of all aspects of debating. Make sure you extend all four components when going for a DA. This includes when going for Disadvantages from any perspective.

CP's

Calling into question the legitimacy of many different types of counter-plans should be a portion of your strategy. Too many affirmatives allow the negative to get away with a lot of abuse on the counter-plan that they shouldn't. CP must have a text, a clear solvency mechanism and a net benefit. Please make sure you extend each if you go for the argument. Perm do Both, Perm Do CP, and Perm do aff and CP on other issues are all answers to various things, but the latter two you need to justify. Please create nuance in both perm and theory debates this makes life a lot easier.

Framework

I feel strongly that framework should be part of a strategy to answer critical affirmatives but should not be your "answer" for critical affirmatives. Given the debates I have watched most recently the question of fairness vs critical education has largely come out of the side of critical education arguments. I also think that the majority of rounds I voted for framework have been for clash standards, with a very strong push for limiting subject formation, and a very strong push that the game effects every aspect of debate and thus infects the critical education/DA's the aff is going for. Combined with SSD or solid TVA push this tends to be the easiest way to my ballot as the negative. I also find the more you mitigate the aff itself the more likely I am to vote for something like Fairness or Clash is a sliding scale.

For the affirmative having your DA/Critical Education impact turn the content we clash over needs to be explicitly done, I generally am fine with any number of potential frames for this type of arguments and am willing to vote on innovations if they impact turn the clash or fairness' content or form. That being said I do not judge college debates (I've judged like 3 in my lifetime.) and as such the new verbiages or the hottest new trend needs to be explained to me in this format. What is the argument? Why does it impact turn Clash/Fairness? and What resolves the claim? (Alt or interp.) The aff must also have a good reason it needs to occur on the aff. I'm down for SSD bad to be clear but being aff is special and their should be a reason you need to be aff.

Critical Affirmatives

Critical affirmatives should have a solid defense of both their importance but also the importance of debating it. There should be a clear area of debate that the negative can and should engage in. That being said I really enjoy watching good Kritikal affirmatives deploy the various ways of relooking at debate structures and topics. I find affirmatives that are either very small but willing to engage with whatever strategy the negative chooses, or conversely, very large structural affirmatives that will engage on a theory level with everything to be the best. Be ready to answer the core questions negation should ask you. Why this aff? Why this round? Why negate this? Why this ballot? If you think you have good answers to those then I'm likely going to enjoy watching the debate.

The Kritik

Kritik as framework :I am willing to vote for kritiks that pair down to just a framework argument but feel this decision needs to be hyper clear in the 2NR, preferably in the 2NC as that would give you the biggest set of arguments and still lets you no link aff offense. If you are going for framework then do that, don't hedge bets that's generally how you lose rounds. Win that the affs scholarship is fundamentally abhorrent or unreliable to the point of worthlessness. Win that this furthers systems of domination, and win that a model of rejection proposed by the negative interp is a better world for debate than the consequences only style the aff uses.

Kritik as structure: I am willing to vote for kritiks as structural criticisms, I treat these debates very much how I treat CP/DA debates. You need to win the alt and a net benefit that outweighs the aff. Obviously you can do that through mitigation of the aff or via the alternative resolving the impacts, or action of the 1AC. I like clear Link -> Impact -> Alt solves extensions just like I expect that from CP/DA Debates.

The PIK: I have no issues with these if they are clearly flagged (I do mean very clearly) in either the 1NC or the Block. I do not think you get to answer the CX question can the kritik result in the aff, say no and then proceed to go for a PIK. I think these can be strategic especially against arguments about reps, but you need to win reps severance bad, and that PIKS are good. It is a strategy do not mind it have fun.

Jonathan Jeong Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 22, 2024 at 4:27 AM PST

Update for Princeton Tournament:I haven't judged or kept up with debate in the past two years. I still have high confidence in judging policy and K rounds, but anything else will require more explanation than you might usually give to a judge who's active with the meta. I however don't really care to have debate opinions anymore so I am happy to evaluate anything.

Email: jj4485@princeton.edu

General description of how I evaluate debates.

1] I exclusively debated policy (including topicality) and K in high school. I evaluate all arguments, which has a claim warrant and an impact in the first speech presented but the further you are from how I debated, the less comfortable that I am. I am best for policy v. policy, clash debates, good for T vs. policy K v Ks, ok for phil, meh for everything else.

2] I view debate through a lens of relative risk (magnitude of impact * probability of impact). Weighing arguments bring up the magnitude of an impact and are usually not preclusive filters. If you win that X outweighs Y, I will not evaluate the round on who has a stronger link to X but consider X to have a higher risk. This means that weighing arguments (K vs. theory, warming vs. nuke war, predictability vs. limits) all still need to put defense on the other impact. The exceptions are non-consequential Ks and phil frameworks.

3] This means that I strongly value well-warranted arguments. Risk starts from 0 and goes to 100 with how well you warrant it. A well-warranted, dropped argument has near 100 risk. Good evidence or historical examples bolster empirical debates such as K and Policy (although good evidence alone without spin wont help you). Well thought out logical syllogisms will help in phil debates (don’t require cards as much because of the abstract nature of these debates).

Specifics: All of below can be changed with good debating.

Policy—Not much to add here. I am somewhat worse for convoluted politics disads than other judges. Agnostic on whether I think agent counterplans, process counterplans, states are competitive. Tend to think competing off certainty and immediacy are illegitimate. Near impossible to convince me that international fiat is legit. Any advantage counterplan that doesn’t fiat negative action (US should not go to war) is legitimate. Object fiat is not a real thing. Judge kick is a logical extension of conditionality and unless the aff contests conditionality, I will judge kick.

Ks—Strongly dislike overuse of buzzwords. Bad for framework arguments that make it impossible for the aff to win. Good for links indexed to the plan with root cause, links turn aff arguments. Fiatted alternatives should lose to permutation double bind. Good for alternatives that have a framework argument and establish competing values from the aff. Bad for utopian alts that say that people should be “nicer to each other.” Good for any aff offensive strategy (extinction outweighs, link turn perm, da to the alt). Affs should mercilessly attack the alt. Terrible for Ks that ripoff Afropess when your cards don’t make an ontology claim.

K aff vs. Fwk—Personally think debate has value which is why I spent so long doing it. Good for K affs that re-define words and have a coherent counter-model. Worse for affs that impact turn everything (although I get why it’s strategic with LD’s short 2ARs). Great for fairness and clash. Bad for skills. Hard to convince me that fairness and clash aren’t impacts; can convince me other things matter more. Terrible for five second arguments that debaters treat as TKOs (ci: your interp plus our aff, truth-testing).

Theory—strongly dislike frivolous shells. Hard to convince me that all theory is DTD. Very persuaded by DTA and reasonability. Unwarranted 1AR shells that blow up in the 2AR are unbelievably bad. Think counterplans should be resolved at competition, not theory. Need argumentation for why an argument makes it harder to answer other layers of the debate; otherwise it’s a reason to drop that individual argument.

Phil—I like good warranted phil debates. My understanding is quite bad in these debates admittedly which means that extra judge instruction, warranting, and weighing is needed than if you debated in front of average east coast judge. Agnostic on epistemic modesty vs. epistemic confidence. Personally think nuclear war matters more than lying.

Extraneous thoughts:

Likes (will help speaker points)

Strong historical knowledge/examples

Tasteful snarkiness (see below)

2NRs off paper

Innovative strategies

Dislikes (will strongly hurt speaker points)

Scripted 2NRs and 2ARs

Unfunny/just rude snarkiness

Shiftiness

Shadiness about disclosure

Being rude to novices (don’t think you have to debate down whatsoever but don’t be rude)

Throwing a water bottle because you lost a round

Briajia Levi Harrison

Last changed on Wed January 24, 2024 at 1:55 PM CST

Email: Briajia.l@gmail.com

Bri (She/her)

Policy/LD rounds

Background- Debated policy for 6 years. LD/Policy judge over 6 years.

Speed

Spreading is fine, please be sure to slow down on the tagline and when quoting evidence so I can properly flow the arguments in the round. I also recommend that debaters share the files before each speech just in case I miss anything on flows during the speeches. I also do not recommend fully spreading in the rebuttal rounds. At the end of the day, just try to be as clear as you are able to.

Adjudicating rounds

I am very traditional when it comes to policy debate and my judging style is very straight forward. If you are Aff please convince me how the Aff solves for its impacts. Be very cautious to extend solvency and impacts throughout the round. I would also recommended an overview at the beginning of the second affirmative speech.

Neg team should be careful not to be abusive and run frivolous off case arguments only as a time advantage. When there is multiple off case arguments in a round, the neg needs to let me know what they want me to vote on. Make sure all off case arguments have the components needed to win, a dis ad needs a strong link and impact and a counter-plan needs to have a net benefit for me to vote on it.

Kritik Rounds

I am open to non traditional Affs but are very hesitant to vote on them if they are not ran properly or explained in a way that I am able to understand. I think it is very important for the team to explain to me why running non traditional Aff is a better move than policy. Other than that I am open to all arguments and case types, as long as I have something to vote on at the end of the round. I really enjoy fun and creative K affs. I am very big on solvency and even though an Aff may not be policy it still needs to solve in some way. Please run what you like, it just needs to be clear. I have heard K affs for the first time that have completely changed my perspective on judging/debate. If you feel confident in your K aff then please run it. I always keep an open mind.

Neg teams that run Ks need to do a good job at explaining the K, also if there is an alt , you must convince me how the world of the alt solves and there needs to be very clear explanation. In other words, the alt needs to make sense. I do not recommend running a K that you do not fully understand, it will likely cause you to lose the round.

Assigning Speaks

I assign speech based on the clarity of the debaters in the round and the overall quality of the speeches from each debater. Debaters who are more convincing and strategic are more likely to get higher speaker points.

I sometimes doc speaker points if debaters are rude to each other in cross ex, there is nothing wrong with being aggressive or strategic in cross x but it needs to have a purpose. Let's have fun and be respectful.

Kritiks I like to hear: Afropess/antiblackness, settler colonialism, Security, Cap K, Anarchy, Disability K, Black Fem

FYI-(Please do not send me emails outside or after a tournament, Judges are only allowed to have contact with debaters during a round/tournament.) it’s fine to ask questions after a round on clarification or how to improve but please don’t post round me, especially coaches! Please be respectful. Decisions are final and I’ve already submitted the ballot before giving feedback per tournament rules.

Nethmin Liyanage Claudia Taylor Johnson High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 9:14 AM PST

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

she/her

i coach policy debate at damien-st. lucy's

Recently rewritten paradigm, probably best to give it a quick skim!

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am good for policy teams that do topic research and primarily go for negative strategies that engage the affirmative. I am also good for k teams that do topic research and answer the aff and go for 2nr arguments that are substantive (not "role of the ballot").I am bad for ld teams that go for ld-specific things ("tricks"), but am good for ld teams that are well-researched and read policy or k arguments.

More LD-specific notes/thoughts at bottom of paradigm.

Topic Knowledge: I don't teach at camp but I do keep up with the topic. I'm involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research. My topic knowledge is fine, but extra explanation/handholding when breaking new prep is appreciated.

email chains:

damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if i am judging you in ld -- don't add the damien email please!

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail (team email) for these types of requests)!

non-negotiables:

1 - speech times - constructive are 8 minutes, rebuttals are 5, each partner must give one constructive and one rebuttal, cx cannot be transferred to prep.

2 - evidence ethics is not a case neg - will not vote on it unless you can prove a reasonable/good-faith attempt to contact the other team prior to the round.

3 - clipping requires proof by the accusing team or me noticing it. i'll vote on it with no recording if i notice it.

4 - i will not evaluate out-of-round events. this means no arguments about pref sheets, personal beef, etc. i will evaluate disclosure arguments.

other than these 4 things, everything else in this paradigm is a preference/a guide for how to improve your chances of winning a debate in front of me.

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:)

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve theory arguments about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. Going fast is fine, being unclear is not. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

Disclose or lose. Previously read positions must be on opencaselist. New positions do not need to be disclosed. "I do not have to disclose" is a losing argument in front of me 100% of the time.

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra points for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus points for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

2ac add-ons must be coherent in the speech they are presented. You don't get to turn a random card on a random sheet into an add-on in the 2ar.

Planless affs:

I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.

You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have some kind of relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

In a 100% evenly debated round, I am better for the neg.However, most of these debates are not evenly debated. Either team/side can win my ballot by doing the better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:

The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness. I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponent's strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

Theory arguments other than conditionality are likely not a reason to reject the team. It will be difficult to change my mind on this.

Theory arguments must have warrants in the speech in which they are presented. Most 2ac theory arguments I've seen don't meet this standard.

Conditionality is an uphill battle in front of me.If the 2ac contained warrants + the block dropped the argument entirely, I would vote aff on conditionality, but in any other scenario, the aff team should likely not go for conditionality.

Please weigh!Many theory debates feel irresolvable without intervention because each team only extends their offense but does not interact with the other team's offense.

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are very helpful.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

"Plans bad" is pretty close to a nonstarter in front of me (this is more of a thing in LD I think).

Kritiks (neg):

I am best for K teams that engage with the affirmative, do line-by,line, and read links that prove that the aff is a bad idea.

I am absolutely terrible for K teams that don't debate the case. Block soup = bad.

I vote for K teams often when they are technical and make smart big-picture arguments and demonstrate topic knowledge. I vote against K teams when they do ... not that!

In general, clash-avoidant K strategies are bad, K strategies that involve case debating are good.

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about counterplan theory other than that condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

No judge kick. Make a choice!

Competition debates have largely become debates where teams read a ton of evidence and explain none of it. Please explain your competition evidence and I will be fine! I'll read cards after the debate, but would prefer that you instruct me on what to do with those cards.

LD-specific section:

-you might think of cx judges in ld as people who despise judging ld and despise you for doing ld. i try to not let this be true about me. all of my issues with ld can be grouped into two general categories: 1) speech times/structure (not your fault, won't penalize you for it), and 2) the tendency to read unwarranted nonsense, such as "tricks," shoes theory, etc (you can avoid reading these args very easily and make me very happy)

-i am a horrid judge for tricks and frivolous theory. please just go for another argument!

-i do not judge philosophy-based arguments often, since i primarily judge policy. i am not ideologically opposed to these arguments but will need a lot of handholding-explanation. i am happy to judge these debates, i just need more explanation. as a note -- phil positions that contain tricks are not a winning strategy.

-you don't get 1ar add-ons -- there is no 2ac in ld

Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational

-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc

-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument

-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such

-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc

-a debater's moral character is determined by whether they read policy or k arguments

-"tricks"

-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist

-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar

-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter

-new affs bad

Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:

-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic

-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies

-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate

-"role of the ballot"

-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate

-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr

-the affirmative may not read a plan because of "bare plurals"

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

David McGinnis West Des Moines Valley High School 8 rounds

Spencer Orlowski American Heritage Broward HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 7:11 AM EST

Email: spencer.orlowski@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain

New Paradigm 4/26/24

Top level thoughts

I have voted on pretty much everything. I prefer depth and clash to running from debate. Engaging will be rewarded.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponent or me. We are all giving up lots of free time to be here. I won't vote on oppressive arguments.

I think preparation is the cornerstone of the value this activity offers. You shouldn’t rely on theory to avoid reading.

I don't think it’s possible to be tab, but I try not to intervene. Arguments must have a warrant or they aren’t an argument. This applies to all debate styles. (Ex. "6-7-4-6-3" is not a full argument)

I shouldn’t have to have background on your argument to understand it. I have read and seen a lot, but that will be irrelevant to my decision. I won’t fill in gaps for you.

I think most debates are way closer and more subjective than people give them credit for.

Collapsing is a good idea generally.

I will not flow off the doc. That is cheating.

Don’t let my preferences determine your strategy. I’m here for you! Don't over adapt to me.

General thoughts on arguments

Ks: My favorite literature. I have a fair bit of experience with most lit bases commonly read and I really enjoy clash and k v ks debates. I wish I saw more K v K debates. I dislike long overviews and super generic links. I think critical literature is great, but I think you should at least attempt to tie it to the topic if possible. Spec advantage links are great. I will vote on non-T affs and I will vote on T.

Policy Args: I have the most experience evaluating these arguments (I debated them for 8 years). I think comparing evidence and links is more important than generic impact weighing. Turns are OP, and I will vote on smart analytics. I only really read evidence if debaters don’t give me a good mechanism to avoid it. I tend to default to offense/defense paradigm, but I’m open to whatever framing you want to read.

Frameworks: I find phil frameworks interesting and fun. I wish these debates were a bit deeper and used actual phil warrants instead of just extending tricky drops. I think LD is a really great opportunity to get into normative ethics.

Theory – I find frivolous theory a bit annoying (despite what my pf teams might have you believe), but I flow these debates pretty thoroughly and evaluate them pretty objectively. I will accept intuitive responses even if they are light on proper terminology. (i.e not explicitly saying the word counter-interp)

Tricks – Lots of different tricks that I view differently. Things like determinism and skep are better than mis-defining words or 15 spikes. I find good apriories interesting. I have a fairly low bar for intuitive responses. I will probably not vote on “evaluate after x speech”. If I cant flow it I wont vote on it. Hiding one-line paradoxes in tiny text after cards is obviously a waste of everyone's time

For PF

2^nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline

If it takes you longer than a min to produce evidence, it doesn't exist. I think you should just send all cards before you read them.

If I think you inappropriately paraphrased, I will ignore evidence. Read cards to avoid me thinking your paraphrasing is bad.

Use email chains. Send cases and cards before you start your speech. Stop wasting everyone's time with outdated norms

Megha Prasad Lexington HS

Last changed on Wed February 9, 2022 at 10:49 AM EST

~Updated for Feb 2022~

FYI I have not judged in approximately a year and I have not interacted with debate in just as long. I would recommend taking this into account while prepping strats and speaking MUCH SLOWER than you usually would.

Conflicts: Walt Whitman, Lexington, Hunter, Hamilton RM

Send docs: 19.prasadm@gmail.com

I did LD and PF at Lexington HS (MA) 2015-2019.

Disclaimers:

Hello! This is ZOOM debate which means it is GLITCHY and GROSS pls SLOW down!

Used to be Yale 2020, now thoughts on e-debate in general: I'm tired, I am burned out, and I get very bored listening to badly explained Baudrillard Ks multiple rounds in a row. If you do pref me, know that double flighted tournaments make my eyes *burn* and I will be flowing on paper for most rounds if it's a double flighted tournament. I used to care a lot about the things listed below. To some extent I still do, but I haven't taught/intensely thought about debate since summer 2019 so at the moment I'm not very invested in specific types of arguments or up to speed with whatever is trendy this season. Judging over Zoom is exhausting and it's honestly pretty hard for me to flow that well with little voices screaming out of my laptop. Please, please, please, for the love of all things good, SLOW DOWN. At least for tags. I'm begging.

PLEASE TRIGGER WARN APPROPRIATELY!!! If you don't know how please ask!

Postrounding is a no <3. Questions about strats are fine, but you won't change my ballot.

LD:

Short version.

Ks we love. LARP/policy is solid. Traditional is also good. Phil is kinda meh, you'd need to explain it very well. Please leave your tricks, skep, and frivolous theory at home, I don't trust myself to evaluate them. Probably okay at evaluating T/theory if there is a persuasive abuse story. If you read T/theory the shell needs to have an impact. Disclosure and email chains are good. When you extend or make new arguments don't forget to implicate them! Tell me what comes first and why.

Long version.

I used to vibe p hard with Mina's paradigm and I share a lot of her views on debate. I was also heavily influenced by Paloma O'Connor, CQ, and David Asafu-Adjaye. As a result, I'm not a fan of the whole "debate is a game" mindset and doing whatever it takes to win a round. Debate is about education, not about your record. Also -- I'm sorry, fairness is not a voter.

Kritiks/Non-T K affs/Performance

I mostly ran these as a debater so these are my favorite arguments. I really like hearing performance affs but you also need to be able to point to something the aff actually does.

That being said, don't read random Ks in front of me just because of my paradigm. I need to see a clear link and know what the alt does. Links of omission are ~questionable~ and I'm sympathetic to args against them. I'm also extremely picky when it comes to people reading and other kritiks relating to indigenous scholarship. I think a lot of authors are bastardized and commodified in debate and I see this the most with indigenous scholarship. Not uber familiar with all K lit, especially newer pessimism arguments.

New microaggression independent voter args that seem to be trendy and function on some sort of level between theory and K, but probably above policy?

Impact these out if you're reading them. I'm not going to vote off of a blippy one line claiming something is an "independent voter" or a "voting issue" and no implication of the argument. Also, don't just drop all the other flows because you think something is an independent voter -- I don't think this is very strategic; explain how it interacts with the other flows and which layer of the round it should be evaluated on. I don't really enjoy voting off these arguments...tbh they make me kinda uncomfy, but if they're warranted and impacted I will.

Plans/CPs/DAs/LARPy policy stuff

These are cool, low key would like to judge more of them. Just be wary of super long link chains. I default to comparative worlds in most debates (esp when framing becomes murky) so this is probably the type of debate best equipped for that.

T/Theory

I did not like these arguments as a debater and I generally do not enjoy judging them. I'm also not very good at judging them so PLEASE make the abuse story very clear and SLOW DOWN A LOT.

Post Big Lex 2020 edit: I'm honestly starting to hate these arguments less. I'm not completely opposed to T and would probably be down to judge more non-T K affs vs T rather than bad/awkward K v Ks.

Yale 2020: Idk if this is a new thing but y'all aren't impacting your shells. Like great you just spent a minute reading T, but didn't tell me what to do about it. DTD or DTA, but if not idk what I'm supposed to do with the shell lol.

Blake 2020: If you read disclosure against a trad/small school debater who is not familiar with the wiki I will probably not vote on the shell,,, like bruh why?

T v K

I went for K over T a lot as a debater but I'm gonna try to be tab about this and say both sides are gonna need hella warrants and hella weighing when making these arguments.

Tricks/a prioris/friv theory

just no <3.

Speaker Points

I start at a 28.5 and then move up or down depending on what y'all do. Go slow at first and let me get used to you before you go full speed. I'll say clear 2-3 times but if nothing changes don't expect my flow to be that great and I'm not gonna check the speech doc to play catch up. Be strategic and don't be rude and you'll probably be happy with your speaks. Read: adapt to your opponent if they have considerably less experience than you. I am not afraid of giving a mean debater with a good strat a 26.

PF:

I didn't do a ton of PF because I don't think it's very nuanced/not well-structured. Biases aside, just make good extensions, do a good amount of weighing and READ ACTUAL CARDS.

Andrew Qin Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 28, 2024 at 5:25 PM EST

Houston Memorial ’20

Andrewqin02@gmail.com for sdocs

Note for Harvard: I do not think about debate more than once a year and know very little about the topic.

I have also discovered that my threshold for warranting is way too low, so I will be increasing my threshold for warranting. If you plan to read blips and tricks in front of me, they MUST be warranted in the speech they were read, and I MUST understand the warrant. Saying the words "I am the GCB" is not a warrant, and I will not vote on it even if it goes dropped. Additionally, the sillier the argument (e.g. "Evaluate after the 1AC"), the lower the threshold for responding.

I competed on the national circuit for three years, qualifying to TOC my junior and senior years. I try to be relatively tab – I will attempt to fully consider any argument that has a warrant as long as the argument doesn’t exclude debaters from the activity (No oppression good). However, I have debate preferences, though I will try not to let those preferences influence my decision-making.

Quick Pref Sheet:

Theory – 1

LARP – 2

Phil – 2

K – 3

Tricks – 3

General Notes:

· CX is binding – If you say something is Uncondo in CX and kick out of it in the 2NR, if the 2AR points it out, it’s an auto-loss with few exceptions.

· Evidence Ethics Claims (Clipping, Miscutting, etc.) stop the round and the challenging debater must agree to stake the round on it. Whoever loses the challenge gets an L-0.

· I have a higher threshold of warranting on independent voters. You can’t just say something is an “independent voter” for three seconds and collapse to it for 6 minutes in the 2NR. An independent voter needs clear warrants as well as clear reasons why it’s a reason to drop the debater. I am willing to not vote on a dropped independent voter if it had basically no warrant for why it’s a voter in the last speech.

· Lower threshold for 1AR extensions, though I’m a tad skeptical of straight-up new 2AR weighing. Case outweighs and theory vs K weighing should generally be in the 1AR.

· AD HOMS: I really don’t like ad hominem arguments that call out x debater for being a bad person out of round. If it’s won, I’ll grudgingly vote on it, but speaks WILL suffer, and I have a low threshold for responses.

· High speaks are received for technical efficiency, strategy, and clarity in spreading.

· Be nice to novices and traditional debaters.

· I don’t consider arguments about speaker points or double wins or going beyond the time given. Any argument past the timer is disregarded, and if you keep going, it’s an L-0.

Theory:

· Defaults: C/I, Drop the Arg, Fairness/Education are voters, No RVIs

· Friv theory and theory purely for strategy = 100% fine. I heavily prefer theory centered on round and disclosure abuse (spec status, AFC, CSA, disclose round reports, etc) as opposed to theory on clothing or Zoom styles (shoes theory).

· PLEASE WEIGH BETWEEN THEORY SHELLS AND STANDARDS! If there’s no weighing, I’ll default to evaluating on strength of link. I don’t know what it means for the “theory debate to be a wash” if both sides have offense, which means I do not default to presumption or substance if both sides have theory shells that aren’t weighed between.

LARP:

· I do not default to judge kick if it’s condo (this is just a default though and can be changed with arguments).

Phil:

· Understand most of the traditional LD canon – Rawls, Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Levinas (somewhat), I-Law, Constitution, etc.

· I think I’d be fine in the back of most phil debates, but be sure to explain the phil well. If I don’t understand it, I won’t vote on it.

· Postmodern and critical phil like Semiocap – I probably am not the best at adjudicating these, but I’ll try my best.

· Default epistemic confidence.

Tricks:

· SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS AND INFLECT!

· Default: Truth Testing, Presumption/Permiss Negate.

· Explain and weigh the tricks well – The sillier the argument, the lower the threshold for the response. Not a huge fan of blippy aprioris and the like, but if it’s won, I suppose I’ll vote on it.

· Prefer you to be straight-up in CX with tricks.

· I’m familiar with a decent amount of Ks: Queerpess, Afropess, Settcol, some Weheliye, Warren, some Deleuze, etc.

· Overviews are helpful, but please do good line by line work – I won’t cross-apply your overview to every possible argument for you.

K Affs:

· Never really understood these very much but I’ll try my best.

· I prioritize technical ability – This means even if the 1AR and 2AR have good overviews explaining your position, you need to explain how it directly interacts with 2NR arguments.

· If it’s a K v K (anything other than cap) debate, I will probably be lost unless the ballot story is very clear.

Abhinav Sinha Memorial High School

Last changed on Sat September 4, 2021 at 6:39 AM CST

Dulles '21

Stanford '25

Email Chain: abhinav2002sinha@gmail.com

Hey, I’m Abhinav! I competed on the national circuit for three years, qualifying and clearing at TOC (2x)/TFA (3x), 10 bids senior yr, won some tournies (Bronx, Harvard RR, Grapevine, Strake, etc). I mostly read T/Theory, Phil, and policy style arguments.

I’ll try to be relatively tab – I will attempt to fully consider any argument that has a warrant as long as the argument doesn’t exclude debaters from the activity (No oppression good). However, I have debate preferences, though I will try not to let those preferences influence my decision-making. Although Tech>>over truth, I think a truer arg is easier to win

Quick Pref Sheet:

T/Theory- 1

Phil/Policy Args- 1/2

Trix- 2/3 (no blips please :(, cannot flow), also check trix section before reading

Ks- 3-5 (if you can explain it/be tech about it, I’m good)

Important Rules

- I'm bad at flowing soooo slow down for analytics like really slow down/OR JUST SEND (yes this is a rule like the be slow part)

- CX is binding – If you say something is Uncondo in CX and kick out of it in the 2NR, if the 2AR points it out, it’s an auto-loss with few exceptions.

- Evidence Ethics Claims (Clipping, Miscutting, etc.) stop the round and the challenging debater must agree to stake the round on it. Whoever loses the challenge gets an L-0.

- I have a higher threshold of warranting on independent voters. You can’t just say something is an “independent voter” for three seconds and collapse to it for 6 minutes in the 2NR. An independent voter needs clear warrants as well as clear reasons why it’s a reason to drop the debater. I am willing to not vote on a dropped independent voter if it had basically no warrant for why it’s a voter in the last speech.

- AD HOMS: I really really really don’t like ad hominem arguments that call out x debater for being a bad person out of round. If it’s won, I’ll grudgingly vote on it, but speaks WILL suffer, and I have a low threshold for responses.

- Be nice to novices and traditional debaters. I don’t like it when the debaters are just jerks to each other in CX. Prep can be CX not the other way.

- I don’t consider arguments about speaker points or double wins or going beyond the time given. Any argument past the timer is disregarded, and if you keep going, it’s an L-0.

-+.2 speaks per minute of speech not used

If you want to stop reading, you can stop here, everything below here is just argumentative preferences, but I thought it was useful to read what a judge thinks about various positions before preffing them, so read if you want.

More Info

Argument Defaults

- I default whats assumed in the round but if someone says x argument wasn’t made (i.e 2nr says no one said fairness is a voter, I will no longer default fairness as a voter)

- DTD, no RVI, CI, epistemic confidence, policy presumption cuz less arbitrary, theory>t>everything else, f+e voters, comparative worlds

Theory/T

- I love theory debate! A good theory debate is fun to judge and probably something I’m qualified to judge

-Flash interps/shells

-If paradigm issues arent contested I don't think you need to extend them.

-I got confused when judges would say I think x shell is “probably” true or not, I’ll vote on any shell thats won through the paradigm issues in the round. Bad shells obviously have true answers, so they are easier to beat back (font size theory, shoes theory, must label tournament name, etc.), but you still have to make the arguments to beat it.

-No new 2ar fairness/edu weighing

-Reasonability needs either a substance education bright line or something else-it’s probs true vs more friv shells, but again make the argument

Larp

- Did only policy debate my freshmen/sophomore yr and did quite a bit my senior year

- Spin>>evidence quality but good/bad evidence should be pointed out

-Smart analytics vs Pics/das/cps are all really important and can be collapsed to

-I probably wont read ev unless you tell me too, but you still have to do ev comparison

-Judge kick has to be justified

-I really like creative/well researched CP/DAs vs small affs

-PTX is fun, but have good cards or else you’re gonna lose to analytics

-Zero risk could be a thing

Phil

- Did lots of Phil debate, so I appreciate good ones

-Must weigh framework justifications in 1ar/2nr/2ar

-Familiar with most Phil lit, so read what you want but explain it.

-2nrs/2ars need to collapse

-NOTE TO UTIL VS PHIL DEBATES, to win extinction first you MUST win consequences matter or else I will be VERY hesitant to vote on it and phil debates must point out why consequences don’t matter. Ext o/w is a fine argument just win consequences matter and Phil debaters must beat consequences matter. Excluding consequences through syllogism>>calc indict

-I read/went for a couple of Ks my senior year, but please explain your K. Don’t try to win a round just because you don’t explain your position to your opponent

- LBL >>>>>> Long overviews

-Winning a theory of power or how the world works is important but you must explain how that applies to other flows.

-2nr NEED to explain links whether to plan (yay!) or not (boo!)

- I don't like doing work from overview to specific arguments, so do that work for me

-Aff/neg framework is usually hella important so both debaters need explain why winning their interp means they win/or why losing it doesn’t matter.

-T framework vs K affs: I think fairness 2nrs are great but skills 2nrs are also good, if you need to win a tva explain it, if not dont. As a non-t aff debaters I prefer creative answers and just pure impact turns(and flash analytics here cuz most people go way to fast for me to understand)

Tricks

- MUST EXTEND warrants for conceded arguments like for anything besides paradigm issues 1ars/2nrs/2ars need to extend warrants

- Do not like long underviews, plz don’t read super tricky affs, plz lol

- I like cool and innovative trix> recycled trix

- P/p is p important so explain it/how it functions in these rounds

- SLOWWW DOWN I CAN'T FLOW AGAIN(lol)

- I like cool logical trix >1 liner “no neg analytics”

- Don't be sketch in CX(like tell people apriori/implications)

Other Notes

- Yell clear twice before stopping to flow

- Feel free to ask me any questions before round!

-be funny and you’ll get higher speaks

Speak scale- based on in-round performance.

29.5+: expect you to win the tournament/really good speech

29-29.5: expect you to get to late outrounds

28.5-28.9: bubble/expect you to break/early elims

28-28.5: don't expect you to break

27.5-28: really don't expect you to break

James Stuckert Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Last changed on Mon June 3, 2024 at 9:10 AM CST

I debated LD for three years for Strake Jesuit (after a brief period in PF). I qualified for TFA State and TOC in LD, and I have instructed at TDC and NSD. I am conflicted with Strake Jesuit. Contact me/add me to docs at jpstuckert@gmail.com

You can call me "JP." "James," "Mr. Stuckert" or "judge" are fine but weird to me.

For online rounds:

1. Keeping local recordings of speeches is good. You should do it.
2. If I or another judge call “clear” video chat systems often cut your audio for a second. This means (a) you should prioritize clarity to avoid this and (b) even repeat yourself when “clear” is called if it’s a particularly important argument.
3. I don’t like to read off docs, but if there's an audio problem in an online round, I will glance to make sure I at least know where you are. I would really prefer not to be asked to backflow from a doc if there's a tech issue, hence local recordings above.
4. You should probably be at like 70% of your normal speed while online.

· I aim to be a neutral party minimizing intervention while evaluating arguments made within the speech times/structure set by the tournament or activity to pick one winner and loser for myself. Some implications:

o The speech structure of LD includes CX. Don't take it as prep and don't go back on something you commit to in CX (unless it's a quick correction when you misspeak, or is something ambiguous). I generally flow cx and factor it into speaker points, but arguments must still be made in other speeches.

o The speech structure also precludes overt newness. Arguments which are new in later speeches should be implications, refutations, weighing or extensions of already existing arguments. Whether 2N or 2AR weighing is allowable is up for debate and probably contextual. Reversing a stance you have already taken is newness -- e.g. you can't kick out of weighing you made if your opponent didn't answer it. (Obviously you can kick condo advocacies unless you lose theory.)

o I won't listen to double-win or double-loss arguments or anything of the sort. You also can't argue that you should be allowed to go over your speech time.

o Being a neutral party means my decision shouldn't involve anything about you or your opponent that would render me a conflict. If I were involved in your prefs, I would consider myself to essentially be a coach, so I won't listen to pref/strike Ks. If other types of out-of-round conduct impact the round, I will evaluate it (e.g. disclosure).

o Judge instruction and standards of justification on the flow are very important, and if they are not explicit, I look to see if they are implicit before bringing to bear my out-of-round inclinations. If two debaters implicitly agree on some framing issue, I treat it as a given.

o Evidence ethics: I will allow a debater to ask to stake the round on an evidence ethics issue if it involves: (1) brackets/cutting that changes the meaning of a card; (2) outright miss-attribution including lying about an author's name, qualifications, or their actual position; (3) alterations to the text being quoted including ellipses, mid-paragraph cutting, and changing words without brackets. Besides these issues, you can challenge evidence with theory or to make a point on the line-by-line. For me, you should resolve the following on the flow: (1) brackets that don't change meaning; (2) taking an author's argument as a premise for a larger position they might not totally endorse; (3) cases where block quotes or odd formatting makes it unclear if something is a mid-paragraph cut; (4) not being able to produce a digital copy of a source in-round. If another judge on a panel has a broader view on what the round can be staked on, I'll just default to agreeing it is a round-staking issue.

· Despite my intention to avoid intervention, I am probably biased in the following ways:

o On things like T framework and disclosure I think there is an under-discussed gap between "voting on theory can set norms" to "your vote will promote no more and no less than the text of my interp in this activity."

o I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.

· Other:

o Speaks: each speech counts, including CX. Strategy and well-warranted arguments are the two biggest factors. My range typically doesn't go outside 28 to 29.5. I adjust based on how competitive the tournament is. I don't disclose them.

o Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.

o I am usually unpersuaded by rhetorical appeals that take it for granted that some debate styles (K, LARP, phil, theory, tricks) are worse than others, but you can and should make warranted arguments comparing models of debate.

Oliver Sussman Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 15, 2021 at 12:11 PM EST

Hi! I debated for Cambridge Rindge and Latin in Massachusetts and graduated in 2017. Please add me to the email chain: ollieqs@gmail.com. I have fewer thoughts now that I'm not super involved, so here are just a couple important things:

I don't flow off speech docs, yet also have relatively poor spreading comprehension -- please slow down a little bit overall, and slow down significantly below that for analytics
I'll vote on anything with a warrant except for [awful thing] good; I was fairly "flex" as a debater
Defaults: presume neg, fairness is a voter, competing interps, drop the arg, perms are a test of competition (btw, in my view this means they don't need net benefits)
Prep ends when you're done assembling your speech doc, and I'll probably think you're cheating if you take more than my arbitrary standard for a reasonable amount of time to email/flash
I am not (consciously) biased against K's or K affs - I just don't think I'm very good at evaluating them. If you run them, please explain using clear, concise sentences with small words, and be very explicit about framework, weighing, and how the alt/advocacy functions
Affs should have a framework. If you don't read one, I'd be pretty receptive to a 1NC that reads any framework + args that you don't get to read a new framework in the 1AR
I'm ok with tricks that are "tricky" in virtue of having clever justifications/implications; I do not like tricks that are tricky because they are hidden and short. Also, I will not vote on tricks that genuinely make no sense (as in I truly couldn't explain the warrant in an RFD), even if dropped. Bear in mind: the more blippy it is, the less likely it is to make sense.

Random notes: I don't understand the need to distinguish permissibility from presumption. Permissibility is a subset of presumption. Also, I dislike truth testing vs. comparative worlds debates. Comparative worlds is just truth testing minus NIBs, so the real debate is just NIBs good/bad.

Things that are a waste of your speech time: prewritten overviews, extending the text of interpretations/voters/paradigm issues, self-evident theory internal links, "here's how the round breaks down"'s that are really just repetitions of every argument in the debate
Speaks bonuses: tech, being completely comprehensible, being friendly and having fun, giving me a debate I haven't heard before, having the smart answers to arguments rather than the obvious ones, sitting down early when you know you can
Speaks penalties: ASKING FOR A 30 (-1 speaks), yelling, general hubris, being rude, not disclosing, inefficiency, not understanding/actively misunderstanding your own arguments, being exclusionary to novices
Random things I dislike: waving your arms around in disbelief during your opponent's speech (I probably did this though don't @ me), using "we," referring to me by name during your speech

If you have questions about anything else, don't hesitate to ask!

angela yufei zhong Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 6, 2023 at 1:15 PM CST

intro:

ld @ cypress woods high school '20, parli @ harvard '24.5. dabbled in worlds (usa dev '19)!

please time yourself

worlds:

ask me anything before round!

ld:

i qualled to the toc my senior year and taught at nsd flagship & tdc. if you have questions / for sdocs: angelayufei@gmail.com

shortcuts:

1 - phil/theory. i probably give more weight to k v phil interactions, phil v theory interactions, and k interactions in a truth testing paradigm than the average tx judge. i also enjoy interesting paradigm issue interactions on theory

2 - tricks/larp. i’m not familiar with the topic though, nor do i know what the principle of explosion is - you still need to explain things!

3 - k unless they're reps ks, which i read a lot of. i prefer lbl to floating overviews that im not sure what to do with.

speaks:

- have the doc ready to send ahead of time

- i enjoy a good cx

- i'll call slow and clear as many times as i need to but speaks will drop. im fine w ur opponent calling slow/clear too as long as it's not malicious.

- scripting the entire speech and/or big words without explanation is an ick - i have no idea what, for example, hapticality is.

- postrounding / being aggressive (esp against trad/novices/minorities) makes me sad

miscellaneous:

- you have to provide evi to your opponent/judge. that does not mean you have to disclose (you can have that debate) but should show them, if requested. evi contestation (clipping, miscutting, etc.) is evaluated however the debaters decide: theory shell, stopping the round, etc.

- reading problematic args (eg racism good) is obvs an L. however, the validity of death good, trigger warnings, etc. are debatable (at least in front of me)

- online rounds - record your speeches in case internet gets funky

- i think the ability to spin evi should be rewarded; having good evi helps but "call for the card" puts me in a weird position. do that weighing for me.

- send any relevant screenshot for violations

i don't want to use defaults but here they are for accountability:

- comparative worlds

- permissibility negates, the side with less of a change from the status quo under comparative worlds gets presumption

- epistemic confidence

- dta on theory, dtd on t, competing interps, no rvis

- no judge kick

Ava Zinman Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri May 10, 2024 at 12:02 PM EST

Short version

Hello! Being nice gets good speaks. Feel free to be creative and try new stuff in front of me. If you must read theory or T, make your arguments smart and original. Go 75% your top speed. Familiar with most but not all k lit but that doesn't matter because it's your job to explain your theory of power to me. Warrant your arguments, I will not vote on blips. Try to have fun debating!!!!

About me

Hi! I’m Ava, I use she/her pronouns, and I debated for Harrison from 2016-2020 with 6 career bids. Be kind and inclusive and we will be best friends!

People who have heavily influenced my views on debate: Chetan Hertzig, Chris Randall, Elijah Smith, Riya Ganpati, Mina Lee, and Jenn Melin. If you don’t want to read my paradigm, you can just debate like you would in front of one of the people I listed and you’ll probably be fine.

General stuff

- Leave Debate better than you found it. This is the most important thing I can say.

- My favorite things to judge: performance, Ks, high quality counterplans. THAT BEING SAID,,,,,,, I will judge anything and want you to read what you feel most comfortable with.

- Explain everything to me assuming I know nothing about it-- I am familiar with certain areas of indigenous, feminist, and black scholarship but within those literature bases there is still so much for all of us to learn. You must do all the work to build your theory of power! I will not fill in the gaps just because you’re reading something fairly common on the circuit.

- Argument quality > argument quantity. All arguments need a warrant. (There seems to be some confusion about what qualifies as a warrant. For example “presume aff because 67463 time skew” is NOT a warrant.)

- 2NR explanation on the K must be CLEAR

- I default to reasonability, drop the debater, and yes RVIs, but I will use whatever paradigm you tell me to if it is uncontested

- Don’t say it’s evidence ethics unless you’re actually stopping the debate and staking the round on it

- There’s a difference between being rude and being sassy. I will NOT tolerate bullying in CX. Don’t test me.

- Don't date your cards unless the date is relevant to the content (e.g. for politics DAs, yes; for phil NCs, no)

- No tricks

- I will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or bigotry of any kind. L 0.

Procedural stuff

- Always put me on the chain-- avazinman@gmail.com

- RECORD YOUR SPEECHES. RECORD YOUR SPEECHES. RECORD YOUR SPEECHES.

- Flex prep is fine but it should be only/majority clarification questions

- Signpost or I will be sad :(

- Disclose or make yourself accessible/engageable if you have a reason not to

- Go slow on interps

- Start slow because I don’t judge often

- Look up because I’m pretty expressive

My advice to win in front of me

- You should believe your argument in some capacity. Meaning do not read silly arguments like a prioris or moral skep.

- Talk about something that matters

- 3 offs or less. 4+ offs is too much for each one to be sufficiently developed IMO

- Be the debater you wish you were debating! Don't avoid questions or purposefully waste time in CX (there are exceptions if your opponent deserves some sass, but don't overdo it

Things I will reward with high speaks

- Proof of donation to BLM ($1 = +0.1 speaker point. Limit $10 to prevent wealthy debaters being able to warp the speaker point system.)

- Kindness

- Humor and energy! Make the round fun!

- Sending analytics or just any notes you have that can make your speech easier to follow

- Not spreading if your opponent isn’t

- Spending a lot of time on the aff if you’re neg

- Reading high quality cards

- Complimenting my hair

- Fun clothes/self expression!!

Login to Tabroom

Harvard Round Robin

2022 — Online, MA/US

Lincoln Douglas RR Paradigm List

Judges