Tabroom.com

Middle School TOC hosted by UK

2022 — NSDA Campus, KY/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Arush Adabala '22 Greenhill School

Naomi Alan Marlborough School

Evan Alexis HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Diana Alvarez Marlborough School

Diego Arcos HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Suresh Balivada Bob Lanier Middle School

Joseph Barquin Marlborough School

Last changed on Fri May 26, 2023 at 4:01 PM PDT

Affiliations:

LAMDL. Previous affiliations don't really matter as of now.

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+

Evid 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.

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.

I lean neg on condo, go for whatever cp you want, and I love well articulated theory arguments. Key words Well Articulated.

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, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

Judy Becker Alice Deal

Last changed on Fri January 27, 2023 at 4:00 PM EDT

About Me: Hi! I'm a parent judge who's judged a number of LD tournaments over the past 2 years. I was not a debater in school but I'm a (former) litigator whose instinct is to view LD as analogous to some of the hardest fought cases I argued in court.

Framework/Standards Debate: Set a standard for the round that makes sense in terms of the activity. If you are debating LD, I want to hear about the resolution.

Case Structure: Contentions should be carefully crafted, contain warrants and impacts, and link back to the standards to provide a well-researched, well-reasoned case position. I will be listening for case positions that are supported by research and evidence.

I strongly prefer argument-focused rounds over technicality- or definition-focused rounds. I won't be able to follow the intricacies of a technicality-focused round, so it will not help you anyway.

I will flow anything that I can of what you run, and evaluate based on my flow. I am not familiar with the K or with theory. If you're running either I expect you to slow down on taglines, provide clear links and impacts (and a well defined alternative for the K). If I can't understand it, I can't evaluate it.

If running abstract Ks, complex theory with few links, or blippy philosophy with no clear in round and out of round applications, I am not the judge for you. I'm looking for something better developed and more understandable.

Speed: I take detailed notes throughout a round (don't worry; I'm a fast typer). Speaking too quickly -- especially spreading! -- likely just means I will miss a key point. Please speak slowly enough to ensure I catch every contention, piece of evidence, and rebuttal.

Time: Feel free to time yourself, but I will also track time. When time finishes, I will let you finish a word or phrase, but then I will cut you off.

RFD and Speaker Points: My decision will be in favor of, and I will award the most speaker points to, the debater who best provides analytically sound arguments that tie directly to the resolution, effectively rebuts their opponent's arguments, establishes points in a logical, cogent manner, speaks clearly and confidently, holds my attention, particularly through (appropriate) humor and/or interesting but not convoluted or overly technical language, and maintains standards for decorum.

Good luck!

Jacob Bosley NSU University School

Last changed on Thu September 8, 2022 at 7:06 AM EDT

Speech & Debate Teacher / Assistant Coach at NSU University School

Conflicts: Indiana University, North Broward Preparatory School

Last Update: September 2022 - Added a couple Topicality thoughts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Big Picture

Yes, put me on the e-mail chain.

Policy: uschoolpolicy@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

LD: uchoolld@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

Public Forum: uschoolpf@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

I am not a "blank slate," but my preferences are not immutable beliefs. I am actively research both the high school Policy and PF topics. I enjoy technical debates, but often find myself in "clash" judging purgatory.

In terms of "tech vs. truth." Tech matters, but when issues are closely contested I err towards intuitive and well-explained arguments, or am willing to give leeway if there are intuitive ways arguments interact.

I find the "offense/defense" paradigm useful, but not absolute. Risks can be negligible and defense can be "terminal," but I generally view issues in terms of relative risk.

The clearer you frame the debate, the better.

II. Judging and Debating Practices

Please scale back your top speed slightly. I flow on a computer and try to type as much as possible without much shorthand.

I read evidence during debates. If evidence is contested in CX, I will likely jump to it. This influences how I hear and understand arguments. The lower quality of evidence or highlighting, the more leeway I am likely to give in answering the argument, consciously or not.

You do not need to read aloud small re-highlightings of evidence, but do not expect me to read large un-underlined portions of evidence to figure out if you are right. Similarly, I am fine with "inserting" charts that are difficult to verbalize.

The more late-breaking an argument the more open I am to new responses. My perception of what is "late-breaking" or "new" is based on how I understand an initial argument. Do not sandbag opponents to the point that you are also sandbagging me.

For "decorum," reasonable sass, snark, or shade are fine. I am not a good judge for more hostile approaches, such as interrupting opponents mid-speech.

I am also not a good judge for "alternative" practices such as calling for double wins, "stealing" my ballot, kicking participants out, breaking time limits, turning the debate into a different contest or game, etc. I will flow a debate and award a win.

I take longer to make decisions than most judges. I spend time working through each part of the debate because I lack "intuition" about how arguments tend to be resolved. A long decision time does not necessarily reflect the debate being "close" or "messy" (though it may).

III. Digital Debate

I trust you will follow the standard best practices. There are a few things that may be different when debating in front of me.

If my camera is not on, I am not present. Do not take my silence plus camera off when you ask "is anyone NOT ready?" to mean I am ready.
When you are moving your computer to set it on a stand, please turn your camera off. It is dizzying to see the camera spinning.
I do not plan on being particularly strict in tracking "tech time" as long as everyone is giving their best effort to promptly resolve issues. Do not abuse this leniency.
If a large section of a speech is cut out or incomprehensible, I will default to the tournament's procedures. If it is up to me, I will ask clarifying questions after the speech about portions of the speech I missed. It would be ideal if you have a local recording of your speech you could attach to the email chain instead.

IV. Topicality

I enjoy good T debates. If asked outside of a debate, I think more narrow topics are preferable. Proving the topic is at all narrow seems difficult for both high school and college topics this year.

I tend to think in terms of competing interpretations. Even if asked to default to "reasonability," I have a hard time determining what is "reasonable." This is best explained to me as either a "functional limits" argument or a reason why sufficient defense is enough to vote affirmative. Even then, affirmatives are better off prioritizing offense for their interpretation instead of relying on me to decide what is "reasonable enough."

In terms of categories of T arguments:

1. Security Cooperation

I'm sympathetic to many visions of the topic the neg has, but am unsure if the evidence supports many meaningful limits on "security cooperation" or any of the topic areas. I think contextual definitions from DOD/DOS/NATO sources are likely preferable or more predictable than other definitions, even if other definitions are more reasonable, but this is up for debate. This also lends me to think this topic is likely bi-directional. Again, that's potentially up for debate.

I do, however, think affs should have evidence that actually discusses their plan's mechanism in the context of "security cooperation" to prove they're predictable. I'm fairly sympathetic to the argument that the topic is large enough without shoehorning in affirmatives with word-salad plan texts.

2. Personhood

I am doing zero college topic research nor judging practice debates. If you have me at a college tournament it is because I had a free weekend. You will need to overexplain terminology, community trends in affirmatives/ground, etc.

3. Specification

I default to a middle ground. I understand that there's an incentive to make plan texts vague-ish to avoid the worst PICs, but I prefer if teams are upfront about the most likely interpretation of what their affirmative does in practice. Vague CX responses make me grumpy and more willing to give the neg leniency in spinning the aff.

4. "New Affs Bad"

"New Affs Bad" as a reason to reject a team is generally unpersuasive. However, new affirmatives may justify the neg getting argumentative leniency.

V. Framework

These debates are generally frustrating. Two things you can do to make them less frustrating.

Have a robust defense of your model of debate, including what debates look like, what is the role of each team and the judge, what are the unique benefits, etc.
Pick and choose more. Many times it feels like teams are reading packaged overviews without resolving or comparing key points of offense.

I believe affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic. At the bare minimum, affirmatives should "affirm" something. I am much less sympathetic to affirmatives that are purely negative arguments or diagnoses of the status quo.

Many of the discussions about whether debate is "just a game" or a "site of subject formation" seem shallow and strange. I don't think it's credible to outright ignore either the competitive or educational aspects of debate. Instead of running to the extremes, you will be better served by defending a model of debate that accounts for both. Still, I've certainly voted on impact turns or nihilistic views of the activity.

In terms of terminal impacts, I used to be pretty strongly in the "fairness is just an internal link camp." I am less so now. I think both "clash" and "fairness" can be impacts in themselves if supported by a thorough defense of a model of the activity and how my ballot functions.

I am generally less persuaded by "truth testing" style arguments. Even if "iterative testing" matters, I am unsure why that means I should outright "presume" against the content of the 1AC, since both and the aff and neg arguments will rely on assumptions of argumentation and the world more generally. If you want me to skeptical of the aff, I am much more persuaded by arguments about how the structure of debate incentivizes polemical arguments that both warp content and provide poor pedagogical opportunities.

"TVAs" can be helpful, but need to be specific. Solvency evidence is ideal, but not mandatory. If the 2NR is going to sit on a TVA, be explicit about what offense you think the TVA accesses or resolves.

I am generally unpersuaded by arguments that the reading of topicality itself is violent. There may be serious problems with the curriculum a particular model encourages, but it is hard to convince me that merely introducing topicality is analogical to "stop and frisk," "forced outing," etc.

VI. Critiques

While I believe I have a decent familiarity with critical theory, I am not actively reading. If there is some critical difference between your argument and similar arguments, clear explanation is paramount. Buzzwords and author-names-as-arguments annoy me. Even if evidence is not specific, explanation of links, “turns case” arguments, permutations, etc. should be.

Uniqueness still matters. The neg needs reasons why the alternative actually resolves their link arguments/generates uniqueness, or a reason why it does not have to. The aff should press poorly explained alternatives and link uniqueness.

I default to assuming the aff can test the mutual exclusivity of alternative advocacies. However, I am open to alternate standards of competition. The less the aff outlines a clear method or advocacy, the more I am persuaded by “no plan, no perm.”

I prefer permutation texts. I am sympathetic to the perm's explanation shifting as the alternative morphs, but your explanation must rise above “do both.”

“Counter-perms” are not a thing. Just defend a PIK or explain why portions of the aff should not be considered intrinsic offense.

VII. Counterplans

It is relatively easy to convince me CPs rooted in topic literature are legitimate, especially PICs. CPs that compete solely based "certainty," "immediacy," or "ban the plan" planks are much easier to convince me are illegitimate.

I think CPs probably should have solvency advocates of "comparable quality" to the 1AC. I can be persuaded that Advantage CP planks that are based on 1AC evidence do not need a separate solvency advocate. But card-less Agent CPs, "Con Con," etc. do not pass the smell test.

2NC CPs out of new impact turns, add-ons, or shifts in aff solvency explanation seem reasonable to me, but that's up for debate.

I do not automatically judge-kick CPs. If asked the status of the CP, I understand the phrase “the status quo is always an option” to mean "the status quo is always an option for the 2NR." If you want me to separately evaluate the status quo versus the plan if I conclude the CP is a bad idea, you must make additional arguments.

VIII. Disadvantages

Framing is everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

I find most "DA Turns the Case" / "Case Turns the DA" debates spend too much time on terminal impacts and not enough time on internal links.

Most 2AC theory blips against Politics DAs do not rise to the level of a complete argument. “Fiat solves the link,” "black swans thump the link," or "a logical policymaker could do both" are incomplete. That being, I am open to arguments about the intrinsicness of DAs.

IX. Theory

Quality over quantity. Give me typing time. A “dropped” argument is only a true argument if it was properly explained and flow-able in the first place.

Limited conditionality is probably reasonable. It is difficult to persuade me that one or two conditional advocacies wreck the activity. Performative contradictions could raise additional problems, but it is up for debate. I think there are substantially fewer issues when considering advantage CPs and conditionality. Negs should still be clear under what conditions, if any, they can kick individual planks.

Outside of conditionality, it is difficult to persuade me that theoretical objections to particular CPs, permutations, or arguments are a reason to reject the team, especially if they do not make it into the final rebuttals.

X. Non-Policy Formats

A. Lincoln-Douglas

I am a policy critic at heart and have little experience with LD. I am indifferent to whether the discussion focuses on competing philosophical/moral models or a policy proposal. Given my background, there are some things you may need to adapt.

Line-by-line refutation matters. - I appreciate the value of embedded clash, but there are limits. You should at least be attempting to line arguments up. You should completely extend arguments in later speeches and not assume I will fill-in arguments you reference.
"Theory" arguments have their place, but should not replace substantive debate. - There is a difference between a "cheap shot" or "spike" and a healthy objection to a particular debate practice. You should know the difference before "going for theory" in front of me.
Assumed I am informed, but not an expert, on your philosophy. - I have both an academic and coaching background in a range of critical arguments and theories. However, I am reading less critical work these days. Additionally, the terms you use for an argument may not be the terms I'm familiar with for the same argument. You are always better off over-explaining and avoiding unnecessary jargon.

B. Public Forum

I am not a "lay"/"flay" judge nor a "blank slate." The overwhelming majority of my coaching and judging experience has been in policy debate. I will flow extensively, including "crossfire." I do not think every issue must be an "existential crisis" to matter for policymaking, but I expect complete and well-warranted arguments.

1. I am not a fan of "paraphrasing." - I think it is a harmful practice that hides evidence from scrutiny and provides cover for academic dishonesty. Evidence should be presented in full context with a complete citation in real time. That requires:

a) Complete citations.

b) Complete paragraphs that excerpts are drawn from.

c) Excerpts that are read are clearly indicated with underlining or highlighting.

d) Evidence that is likely to be cited should be sent to opponents before a speech is delivered. Having evidence available "upon request" is not sufficient.

If you simply paraphrase and do not read a sufficient amount from a piece of evidence to support your interpretation of that evidence, I will consider your argument merely your opinion.

2. Line-by-line refutation matters. - This means both:

a) Answering arguments in a coherent order relative to how they were initially presented.

b) Completely extending arguments and their warrants in later speeches.

I will not extend arguments for you into later speeches. I will, however, put in work to determine if arguments are intuitively answered in other portions of the flow when comparing the final speeches when things do not line up.

If neither side seems to be extending much of a complete argument by the end of the debate, expect me to intervene.

Scott Brown Honor Academy

Liz Brusseau Isidore Newman Middle School

Rushil Chetty HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Fri May 13, 2022 at 10:50 AM CDT

Hey, I'm Rushil (he/him). I'm a rising senior at Strake Jesuit and have debated Lincoln-Douglas for three years. I have two career bids and a bid round and have qualified to TFA State twice, TOC, and NSDA Nationals.

Add me to the email chain: rechetty23@mail.strakejesuit.org

Tech>Truth to a large extent, I should have little work to do at the end of the round and your final speech should write my ballot

Prefs:

LARP/Trad - 1

Theory/T - 1

Kritiks - 2

Phil - 3

Tricks - 4

LARP:

Read whatever you're comfortable with

Weighing and clash are super important on both impacts and evidence

I love a good framework debate, CPs and Politics are great too

Theory:

I default competing interpretations, no RVIs, DTD, and Fairness unless told to evaluate differently

Please don't read frivolous theory lol

Weigh well between voters and standards

Slow down if there's no doc

Please be specific and explain your arguments and weighing well

I'm not a fan of Non-T affs so my threshold for responses is not very high

Kritiks:

I've read mainly SetCol and Cap but understand a few other Ks as well

I'm okay with reps and not a huge fan of K affs

Don't use this to evaluate what you read though because I will not fill in any gaps for you or vote off anything that is not well-explained - especially if it's clear to me that your opponent does not understand your explanation as well

If you're asked to explain the K in CX and talk really fast and use a lot of jargon that your opponent clearly cannot understand, it will hurt your speaks

I prefer material alts but I'll still evaluate refusal - explain why it's good and solves case if possible

Please don't throw in a floating PIK out of nowhere, at least hint at it in the 1N

Phil:

Not a huge fan of Phil and not the best at evaluating it either, but I'll do my best to listen to your arguments

Weigh well and explain your warrants

I default to truth testing and presumption and permissibility affirm

Tricks:

Yeah please don't read any lol, this includes skep triggers and a priori

I'll still evaluate them but my threshold for responses is really low - if your opponent tells me to throw them out because they ruin debate I'll 100% listen to them because I agree lol

I'll allow responses to "Evaluate the debate after X" in all speeches because I really don't like voting on these and don't like them in general

If you do read tricks and are really dodgy about explaining or identifying them in CX, it will hurt your speaks

Miscellaneous:

Keep local recordings of your speeches - anything that I don't hear does not get flowed unless you can send me a recording of it

Be polite and don't swear - I find it really annoying when debaters feel the need to swear in round or try to one-up their opponents - it's not ethos-y at all and doesn't make you a better debater

Please don't read or say anything offensive or intentionally misgender your opponent - I won't drop you if you accidentally do it but if it becomes obvious I'll be more receptive to arguments they make. Obviously if you do something offensive, please take time to apologize for it WITHIN THE ROUND

I won't read off the doc, so make sure you are clear

I'll call clear twice before I stop flowing anything I can't understand

I'll flow CX

Please make the round accessible - this doesn't mean always debating trad against a novice, rather explain your arguments very well and don't spread

Arguments must be extended through every speech to be evaluated

If you concede it, it's true

No new responses in the 2NR/2AR unless you're going for meta theory or responses to 1AR shells

Noah Christiansen ModernBrain

Last changed on Sat January 28, 2023 at 2:23 AM PDT

Here's my email - I don't use my personal one for debate anymore - please put me on the chain: noah@modernbrain.com

ModernBrain Coach '19-Present

Valley International Prep Coach '21-'22

Polytechnic Coach '22-Present

I debated for four years in policy debate at McQueen high school, two years at CSU Long Beach (where I qualified to the NDT twice), and am currently on the Trojan Debate Squad at USC. Currently, I am a speech and debate coach for ModernBrain which means that at times I have to judge public forum, ld, congress, etc. (even though I judge policy more). For all of the non-policy people that I judge - please don't change your debate style just because I did policy debate. I'd much rather see you do what you do best instead of try to spread and read arguments that you aren't familiar with.

Debate is simply whatever you want it to be. Are there specific rules that should be desired over others? Is debate just a game or is it a revolutionary game with potential for change? I think there are a litany of questions that occur in debates that should be left open for the debaters to answer. With that being said, I appreciate all types of debate whether you're policy or kritikal and am open to vote on anything.

Disclaimer: Question to all of the judges that auto-vote FW: If I auto-voted on the K or a K aff would I be a bad judge? I will never ever ever understand how some judges will auto vote framework. I see a lot of these judges and it's ridiculous. Even the judges that say they will never vote on framework. Like, what? We are better than this. We are judging people who are taking time to craft out strategies and you have such an ideological bias for a side that you will vote kids down because you disagree? Literally, the fact that I coach some K debaters and our pref sheet is at such a disadvantage is so sad to me. So, for the debaters, be yourself and read the arguments you want in a debate with me as your judge because that's what I'm here for.

Some specific stuff:

T - I enjoy T debates a lot, ESPECIALLY when the topic allows for great T arguments. The China QPQ T and the Education Curriculum T allowed for some great conversations that were in-depth and allowed both sides to have good reasons for their model of debate. I find it difficult to adjudicate topicality debates when it's incredibly minute (not that I wouldn't vote on it, but the model of debate and potential abuse needs to be EXTRA clear). In high school, I see a lot of debaters either a) spending a ton of time on the interp debate, or b) only spending time on the impact level of the debate. Clearly, both of these things matter, but if the aff appears to be topical on face then you need to be really clear on this question. Fair warning - I haven't judged a lot on the policy topic, so make sure T is clear...

DA - DA's are always great debates if it's unique and coupled with a great CP. Usually in policy debates, both the aff and neg like to throw around a lot of buzz words and spend a lot of time on the impact level, but I really like to see specific link stories that have a tie to the aff rather than a super generic one (unless the aff itself isn't super unique, then obvi, fair game). If you have a CP that solves the DA, great! Explain why it solves the DA and avoids the net-benefit, but if you don't have a CP or don't go for a CP, then make sure there is some turns case analysis/DA outweighs.

CP - I don't go into debates thinking "I think X CP is a cheating CP" - It should be left up to the debaters what types of arguments should/shouldn't be allowed in debate. With that being said, any CP in front of me should be fine, but please have the CP solve something... I've seen/judged a lot of debates where the CP sounds good but doesn't actually do anything. I won't kick the CP if you don't tell me to. This doesn't mean you have to take forever explaining to me why I should kick it, but there should be some justification. One important thing to note: I want to do the least amount of intervention as possible. With that being said, I don't auto judge kick if you're winning the DA and losing the CP. All you need to say is: "If you don't buy the CP kick it for us." Preferably, you should have a warrant because if the aff gets up and says, "no judge kick for fairness/education" and you don't have a warrant for judge kick, I'll have to default to no judge kick.

K - I mainly went for the kritik, but that doesn't mean I'm a "k hack" by any means. I do a lot of reading now (much more than I did in previous years) and I'm starting to see the nuances in a lot of critical theory. I understand that these theories can be super complex (especially for high schoolers), so I am understanding to the fact that warrants might be not incredibly in-depth, HOWEVER, please try your best to explain k as well as possible. Just because I do read the literature doesn't mean you should assume that I know what you're talking about. The judge kick stuff from the CP above applies here as well if you kick the alt.

FW - I think that engaging the aff is something the negative should do, but I do not think FW should be taken away completely because FW is saying that you want to engage with the aff, but are unable to. The aff should defend why their content and model of debate is good, so FW is a viable strategy. In college, I went for FW against K affs, but when I was a 2N in high school, I would usually go for a k against a k aff. So, for the FW teams, just because I like the K doesn't mean you shouldn't go T. Good TVA's are always great. A lot of affs that I see don't necessarily need to be untopical, so I feel that the neg can point that out with a TVA. In general, I personally like indicts on case coupled with FW (especially policy-making good, presumption, etc.)

K affs - I love a good k aff that is engaging. The aff definitely needs to defend: Why the ballot solves, what their method does, and why their model of debate is good (applicable in a FW debate). I think the FW debate is an important debate to be had due to the divisiveness in the debate community about it. The big problem I've noticed with people running k affs is that they don't do enough ballot key analysis. I'm open to any theory and can follow along with whatever you're talking about. I prefer an advocacy statement in these debates because if there isn't one, I don't know why my ballot matters to you. Again, I'll vote on anything, but I'll be especially sympathetic to FW if I'm not told what the endorsing of my ballot does/indicates. Like I said above, I understand all types of theories and am open for any type of k aff. Against k's, you have to have a competing theory of power that solves for their impacts or avoids their impacts.

Policy affs - Not too much to say here. If the aff is a good idea then the aff wins.

Be yourself. Debate can be pretty exhausting and frustrating at times, but a lot of us forget that it's an activity that should be enjoyed. It's amazing to be in debate because a lot of people don't even have access to the activity. Debate has opened up so many opportunities, allowed me to make some amazing friends, taught me how to be a better person, made me smarter, and made me an advocate to stand up for what's right. I remember being incredibly upset and angry after losses because I felt that it invalidated who I was when, in reality, a judge didn't perceive my argument to be the winning one. Debate is so much more than winning and the TOC. It's a place where you can activate your agency. #AbolishTheCoachesPoll

Don't be morally repugnant.

Brett Cryan HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Fri May 19, 2023 at 4:38 PM MDT

add to chain/speech drop:

backslash309@gmail.com

I debated policy on education, immigration, arm sales, did LD 2019-2021. Doing policy for the University of Houston on the antitrust topic and legal personhood. I now coach a lot of high school LDers on a variety of arguments. My background in debate doesn't necessarily overdetermine how I evaluate rounds, but it may inform my understanding of certain arguments, so I felt it is worth mentioning.

top level---(updated after 22-23 TOC):

TLDR: I will vote on anything.

Policy and K debates are my favorite, but reading what you want and giving a good speech is much more likely to get higher speaks than trying to tailor what you read to what you think my ideological preferences are.

Tech > truth, but truth determines the extent tech matters. A blatantly false claim like "the sky is red" requires more warranting than a commonly accepted claim ie "the sky is blue". Unwarranted arguments in the constructive that receive warrants later on justify "new" responses to those warrants. This doesn't mean I won't vote on tricks or theory, but the ability to say "X is conceded" relies on "X" having a full Claim/Warrant/Impact - the absence of crucial elements of an argument such as warrants will mean that adding them in later speeches will justify new responses.

random thoughts:

--- Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

--- In the absence of paradigm issues on my flow, I'm going to evaluate theory as no RVIs, reasonability, drop the argument (unless its incoherent, such as condo bad). For example, if a 1AR tells me "PICs are a voter cuz they steal the aff", I am going to be very convinced by a 2NR that says this is unwarranted and drop the arg. These defaults can be changed through warranted, extended arguments.

--- Most Ks that people get away with in LD have horrible warranting in the 1NC. Blowing up blippy Ks with elaborate turns case analysis, framework arguments, thesis explanations, etc that is not present in the 1NC obviously merits 2AR responses that I will give full credence to.

--- I will not judge kick a counterplan or alt unless I am told to.

--- I default to presumption affirms when the 2NR extends an alt/counterplan, as there is a new world that has been introduced that is a greater shift from the status quo than the plan. But please don't make me vote on presumption.

--- Process and agent counterplans are great. So is in-depth competition theory.

Blake Dee ModernBrain

Nathan Fleming The Harker School

Last changed on Mon January 3, 2022 at 2:07 AM PDT

I debated at Berkeley. Go Bears! For college debates, please add nathankarlfleming@gmail.com

I will totally talk during your debate. I haven't judged on this topic since camp, so I might ask yall to clarify acronyms since those are big this year, or just skip bad arguments I'm not interested in (cough, new affs bad theory, cough cough).

Ks & Framework: I like clash. I think debate is special because of the depth of debate it allows. That means if your K aff is only for you, I'm not. If your K aff defends topic DAs and has a cool spin on the topic though, I'm your guy. I don't believe that heg good isn't offense, and people should feel comfortable going for impact turns against the K in front of me, because it's cleaner than T a lot of the time. Fairness is an impact, but it's way worse than skills.

Theory: rarely debated well, but gorgeous when perfected. With that in mind, I have some biases here:

Aff Biases: Ifiat.

Neg Biases: Condo. I'm a bad judge for going for Condo. Consider this the strongest opinion in this paradigm.

Nobody who understands debate dislikes hearing a debate about the case or go for a DA. They don't get their own section. Do it.

A few closing comments: unsorted

-I'm kind of an ev hack. I try not to read cards unless instructed, but if you read great ev, you should be loud and clear about telling me to read it, and if it's as good as you say, then speaker points may be in order.

-Sometimes recutting the other team's card to answer their argument is better than reading one of your own. If you want me to read their card on your terms, include highlighting in another color so we're on the same page on what part you think goes the other way.

-Creative strategies are great, and I love a new DA as much as the next person. With that in mind, politics rules, and sometimes if it ain't broke don't fix it.

-Arguments I won't vote for

-X other debater is individually a bad person for something that didn't happen in the debate

-saying violence to other people in the debate is a good idea

-speech times are bad or anything that literally breaks the debate

-new affs bad

Lincoln Douglas

I judge this now, but I'm still getting used to it, so go easy on me. So far, my policy debate knowledge has carried me through most of these debates just fine, but as far as I can tell these are the things worth knowing about how I judge these debates.

-Theory doesn't become a good argument because speech times are messed up. Dispo is still a joke. Neg flex is still important. That doesn't mean counter plans automatically compete off certainty/immediacy, and it doesn't mean topicality doesn't matter. It does mean that hail-marry 2AR on 15 seconds of condo isn't gonna cut it tho.

-Judge instruction feels more important than ever for the aff in these debates because the speech times are wonky.

-I generally feel confident w/ critical literature, but not all of the stuff in Policy is in LD and visa-versa. So if you're talking about like, Kant, or some other funny LD stuff, go slow and gimme some time.

-This activity seems to have been more-or-less cannibalized by bad theory arguments and T cards written by coaches. I will be difficult to persuade on those issues.

-I don’t flow RVIs.

Nishanth Gaddam Charlotte Latin School

David Griffith Hire

Last changed on Thu April 13, 2023 at 7:00 PM EDT

David Griffith (he/him)

Oak Park and River Forest '20

University of Kentucky '24

griffithd2002@gmail.com

If you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about UK, please feel free to ask me via email or at tournaments. I always have Kentucky Debate stickers in my bag, and I will give one to anyone that asks.

Send a card doc after the debate if your final rebuttal involved extending cards. I don't like reading cards, but I will if you want me to.

How do I decide debates, and what do you need to know?

Tell me what to do---the foundational principle for the rest of this paradigm is that technical debating will win you debates in front of me. I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible. I will always make it explicit when I feel I have intervened and explain why. Clear narratives about what you think the world looks like if I vote for you are paramount if you want to avoid leaving me to my own devices. Judge instruction is also key. I'm more likely to give a decision that you like if the final rebuttal clearly explains the implication of you winning your most important arguments.

What will I vote for?---pretty much anything made and impacted in a final rebuttal. The only limitation I have is arguments pertaining to things that happened either in other debates or outside the tournament. This is because I have no way of verifying the truth value of claims made by either side, and I am uncomfortable intervening to try and make that determination to such a degree that I would rather just choose not to adjudicate the argument.

If you think I care about something, I probably don't---I am not in the weeds enough on macro-level debate things to have super strong ideological leanings. I'm much more concerned with strategy than with truth, and so long as you disagree with the other team or have justify not disagreeing, I'm game for whatever.

Zero risk exists---in my view, it's a logical extrapolation of the belief that dropped argument are true. However, because of the way I was taught to think about debate, I probably see it more often than the average judge because I tend to see solvency as a yes/no question rather than a sliding scale. This isn't a conscious choice but one embedded in me because I was taught to debate by an old man. The way you can overcome this is through a boatload of "even if" statements or a nuanced solvency explanation that at least tries to avoid whatever deficit the other team is extending. An added caveat to this is that zero risk does require a high level of 2NR/2AR explanation. A good rule of thumb is that if I have to read evidence to determine the truth value of your claim, it is extremely unlikely that I will be voting on presumption/zero risk of an argument because the demand to read evidence inherently requires intervention on my part to determine the implication of what the card says.

Ask questions---If you think I'm wrong about something, that is okay! I will explain my thinking to the best of my ability if you want me to. If you want feedback, I'd be happy to provide more of that too. I'm also glad to answer questions via email if you have them.

Going for conditionality is for the weak---I am growing increasingly frustrated by 2ARs that go for conditionality in debates where substance is remotely close and/or when the neg doesn't drop important arguments. Unless you screwed something up majorly (dropped a DA/impact turn/CP etc.), I am likely to be extremely deferential to the neg because I genuinely believe theory is the worst possible debate to have because it mostly involves each side whining about how they were unprepared.

Will I vote for/against framework?

Yes and yes---I'm agnostic towards both the "best impact" to framework and the "best" way to answer it. Framework is ultimately a strategy like any other argument, so if you are good at debating your side, I'm likely to evaluate the debate in a manner no different from any other round.

Don't forget that the burden of proof still exists---I find that teams will often repeat lines of argumentation that they assume to be true without explaining them. For neg teams, this is oftentimes asserting that fairness is an impact without any of the explanation required to prove such a claim, and for aff teams, this usually looks like asserting some structural problem with debate and/or the topic without explaining why that problem exists/why the aff solves it. This is where my bias comes in: because I am more familiar with the neg side of things, when underdeveloped, I am more likely to intervene for the negative simply by virtue of the fact that I have only been on the aff side of these debates a few times long ago.

Internal links often matter more than impacts---what I mean by this is that teams seldom disagree with one another about whether debate has some value. The question that each team should try to answer in front of me is how we can maximize debate's value wherever it exists. A good portion of the final rebuttal needs to be dedicated to explaining why the model that you have forwarded does that better than the other team's can. This may just boil down to "do impact calculus," but I find that framework debates are more engaging to watch and easier to evaluate when teams explicitly focus on comparison as opposed to making large, structural claims and trying to get me to connect the dots for them.

Don't get tunnel vision---I have no idea why you wouldn't take the opportunity to go for a topic DA if the aff will give it to you. I have no idea why K teams won't go for theory against other K teams. Clash debates are often stale rehashes of the same few lines of argumentation. Teams that deviate from that trend through creative or otherwise new approaches are likely to be rewarded with speaker points and perhaps my ballot if the other team does not reciprocate.

I don't care about small/big schools---the topic is often not the reason that smaller programs cannot compete. It is ridiculous to suggest that smaller schools cannot keep up with topic research. As someone who has been on both "sides" of this ultimately false binary, there is no universal solution to the problem of access in debate, but getting rid of or enforcing the topic more would neither solve the problem nor make debates easier. Please stop making this argument. This is really the only part of this paradigm that you should not take with a grain of salt.

What if I am neg and want to go for the K?

Framework only sometimes matters---unless there is very good judge instruction, my brain does not tend to care very much about framework. My default is always to evaluate reps links equally to the aff advantages. A plan without justification has not met the burden of proof, so disproving all aff representations meets the burden of rejoinder. Inversely, if reps links do not disprove the entirety of the case, framework matters a lot more because it is the only thing other than a PIK to stop me from voting on aff outweighs. Beyond those gripes, I will probably just do what you tell me if framework becomes a big deal.

Vagueness favors the aff---I'm finding myself increasingly frustrated when teams going for the K have arguments that could serve as case defense that they then vaguely assert in the 2NR and don't apply them to the aff, particularly when these arguments are often well warranted in the block. This is all to say go for tricks, but do not assume that their mere existence is sufficient for me to vote neg absent explanation.

I know some stuff---I am a philosophy minor and therefore read a bit outside of debate. I also have gone for the K against a policy team an astounding one time in my three years of college debate. So, I'm likely to have at least some intuitive grasp on your argument and explanation will likely get me the rest of the way.

A note on arguments about death---debates about death are more valuable than most other things we talk about in debate. I will never vote on "death good is a voter" or anything similar. I am glad to discuss why if you really want to know.

Stop dropping the alt---I have voted neg on the K an uncomfortable amount this year because the 2AC has dropped the alt or read that realism card from 2014 that doesn't really answer the K in any meaningful capacity. Remember that if the 1AR goes for extinction outweighs but drops that the alt solves the aff/an extinction impact, the aff will almost certainly lose the debate!

I don't care very much about theories of IR disconnected from the aff---theses debates are so stale and boring. Just say what the 1AC said was right or wrong.

Do you like T?

Sure do---some of the best debates I've watched, judged, and have participated in involved T. Good T speeches earn very high speaker points.

Predictability matters vastly more than anything else---I think that the more precise or predictable an interpretation is, the less it matters how good its limits are on the topic in a vacuum. If a "bad" definition is more precise or predictable, limits are solely a reason we should've written the resolution better. This also means that I believe that precision is possible. Certain people in debate have convinced themselves that one definition cannot be more "precise" than another. Tell that to a lexicographer, and they will laugh in your face. This is what T debates should be all about. While I agree that "random court definition" is not a desirable model, there is always a debate to be had over the applicability over those "random court definitions," and the case facts, context of the definition, and outcome of the opinion certainly are relevant when reading the resolution. In past debates with insufficient impact calculus in the 2NR/2AR, I have intervened in favor of the team that more convincingly articulates predictability as an internal link because of this view.

This topic blows---like, a lot. I don't blame neg teams for going for T a lot. I don't blame aff teams for being frustrated given how terribly this topic is worded. However, none of this will change how I evaluate the debate. Functional limits will always be a compelling argument, as will reasonability. With the way high school topics have been written of late, I think I can safely leave this section in my paradigm for the foreseeable future regardless of what the topic actually is.

T-Article V is not a complete argument, and I encourage 2ACs to answer it minimally. Simply saying "We meet---they did not define a word in the resolution" is enough.

What about counterplans? Can I have a list of random counterplans related thoughts?

You sure can!

Judge kick is my default---I like the status quo. 1AR/2AR both have to tell me not to.

Not great in complex competition debates---just not something I think about a lot. I find myself voting neg a lot just because of technical concessions and a lack of 2AR judge instruction in these debates. The neg argument often seems more intuitive to me when I'm left to my own devices.

Impacts matter---solvency deficits need them. If I can't explain why a delay/certainty deficit matters in the context of an internal link after the 2AR, I'm not going to do that work for the aff.

If theory is the strategy, proceed with caution---in truth, I'm a fine judge for most theory arguments. However, the more arbitrary the violation, the less sympathetic I become. Theory arguments often turn into "CPs that solve the aff are a voting issue." Avoid this where possible, and contextualize your argument to the particular type of CP instead of just asserting that the neg "stole the aff." I generally will be a very crabby guy if you go for theory in the 2AR, and your speaker points will suffer if I don't think it was the best 2AR option as I believe that people often only go for theory only when they are getting beaten to a pulp substantively, and I don't want to incentivize going for it in any other context.

Send perm texts---just a procedural thing. Make sure they're in the card doc too.

What if I have the misfortune of needing to go for the status quo?

Take it as a blessing in disguise---I much prefer DA + case 2NRs to the alternatives.

Impacts matter, and I can't believe I have to say that---The team that does better impact calculus usually wins. I find that I care more about terminal impacts than some other judges. I default to the assumption that extinction is categorically distinct from even 99% of the human race going away.

Evidence quality matters---I'm finding myself increasing frustrated by evidence quality in DA v. case debates. The best research in these debates will generally be rewarded. Debates over bad evidence tend to result in more intervention. This means that if you're going for the status quo with a DA that doesn't have the best evidence, you cannot afford to let your cards do the debating for you.

Thumpers are boring and cowardly---I am a bad judge for you if you rely heavily on generic "NATO exists" thumpers to beat a DA. I have been uncompelled by the argument that "NATO do thing now" in multiple instances this season, and until aff teams start to explain WHY a thumper thumps a DA instead of just asserting that it does, I will be voting neg a lot.

Be smart---I'm a good judge for cardless arguments. Smart arguments as an alternative to getting lost in the cards will not only increase your chances of winning, but it will also boost your speaker points.

Uniqueness is a necessity---it is frankly shocking how often teams will simply not read impact uniqueness evidence. I do not believe in "linear DAs," and I certainly believe that teams must prove the necessity of a departure from the status quo through uniqueness evidence. If growth is fine now, why should I care if the aff boosts the economy? Inversely, if NATO allies are unified now, why should I care that the aff unifies NATO?

Vague plans lose---I am an absolute sucker for circumvention arguments based on plan vagueness. I generally think that vague plans have gone too far, and the PICs objection to them is a reason aff teams should have to cut CP answers, so any neg team that is able to capitalize on bad plan-writing is likely to find a sympathetic judge in me.

How can I get better speaker points?

Not much---I think I am about average for speaker points. I usually start around a 28.5 and go from there, and I probably average a 28.7-28.9, though I haven't done the math.

Be yourself---the worst form of overadapting is when serious people try to be funny or funny people try to be serious. I can tell when debaters are trying their best, and I try to make speaker points a reflection of how well the effort you put in was communicated to me. So, do whatever you think makes you good at debate. If you don't know what that is, you should pretend you do.

Why is your paradigm so long?

I like reading long paradigms when I am bored. It generally shows that someone cares deeply about judging, and I aspire to put as much care into my judging as my favorite judges do.

Lilia Guizatoullina HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Tue May 2, 2023 at 11:01 AM EDT

hi! i'm lily :) lilia.guiz@gmail.com they/she

i am in my 5th year of debate (4 hsld and 1 cpolicy @ bing)

what should i pref you? i was mostly a k debater but i was also pretty flex, you should pref me high if our ideological views match up and worry less about style choice.

what should i read? i am fine adjudicating pretty much any args u feel like going for in front of me, i find explanation/execution far more important than style choice. i have probably debated in your style at some point anyway

how should i debate? doing policy has made me appreciate good explanatory work and i now have a higher bar for explanations/implications -- i still vote on stuff like condo logic and pomo but yall gotta make sure everything is laid out and explained well. i think it's absurd ld judges vote on arguments they can't re-explain in the rfd and i'm not doing that for any of you. i chose the past of least resistance and avoid intervening. don't expect me to do work for you and know i care a lot about framing arguments.

other stuff

[1] reading graphic descriptions of sensitive events like assault/suicide will lead me to stopping the round, i really do not care if there's a trigger warning or not. otherwise i think trigger warnings are helpful and will be tab on tw theory

[2] cps/k alts: default to no judge kick but am willing to. imho cps tend to overestimate how competitive they are with the aff, and affs underestimate how competitive k alts are.

[3] for full transparency here are my takes on tricks:

not a good judge for tricks/skep v k affs. it's not that i'd never vote on it, but so far i haven't + almost any other strategy is preferable. well executed phil nc like kant or theory will make me happy against these affs. i have a lower bar for tricks affs against ks, but will have trouble voting aff if you go for "colonialism doesn't matter under my index so u affirm" so its contextual
i do like tricky debate when it is warranted in the original speech and is well explained in the backhalf. i enjoy k tricks, skep triggers, paradoxes & paragraph theory much more than theory spikes, indexicals and a prioris. if you debate any of the latter, do a good job out-framing them and you will probably win

[4] i do not flow off the doc. it is in your best interest to slow down and prioritize clarity. this also means i get really annoyed when people ask for marked docs because it delays the round a ton and makes prep stealing too easy. if you want a marked doc of analytics you need to take your own prep time for that. if your opponent is unintelligible feel free to clear them and know i'm probably not flowing them

[5] i get annoyed when rounds get delayed bcos it cuts into both my decision/rfd time. it's 100x worse in online debate when everyone is getting zoom fatigue and i probably have stuff to do in between rounds. i have yet to dock anyone's speaks for this, but it will probably happen at some point

[6] i like impact turns and wish people would read/go for them more often in front of me

ev ethics:

anything that goes against the code of conduct at most unis (so plagiarism, fabrication & falsification) & clipping are cheating. there are "end the round" issues -- i'll stop the round if they're very egregious, but otherwise just point them out. w30 for whoever wins the appeal and l25 for who loses
bracketing, "they continue", dishonest disclosure, not including links and similar violations are bad practices but not stop the round issues, resolve these with procedurals within round

disclosure:

i find o-source has been v beneficial to ld, and i like disclosure theory though i've voted against it before. i do get annoyed if it's frivolous and will probably be persuaded by reasonability if you have 1 doc or 2 round reports missing
i'm also sympathetic to debaters that can't disclose for personal reasons (i couldn't). you should still try to disclose what you can and over dms, and if you don't, you should be prepared for the disclosure debate
there are many reasons why disclosure isn't a good norm that i'm willing to vote on even if i personally disagree with them. if you don't want to disclose, i would much rather listen to this debate rather than you trying to tow the line with stuff like misdisclosing

Jack Han QD Learning

Wyatt Hatfield BASIS Independent Silicon Valley

Last changed on Thu February 16, 2023 at 3:26 PM EDT

Strake Jesuit Class of 2020

Fordham 2024

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game, first and foremost.

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

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

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

Triggers - French Revolution and Freemasonry

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

Speaks -

How to get good speaks

- be entertaining either with good music, good jokes etc

- If you are against a novice win the round then use your remaining speech time to sing an Avril Lavigne song

- making arguments that I like or agree with; this includes Catholicism and Monarchism.

- Drip

- Reference something from Scooby-Doo

Do any of these things, and you will for sure get above a 28.5

How to get low speaks

- Having bad strategy choice

-being really rude or mean. Aggression can be a part of a good strategy but being aggressive to the point of making your opponent uncomfortable is what I mean.

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

Styles of Debate -

Before I get into every style just know that I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them, this is just to say what my bright line for winning the arguments tends to be.

K - Just make sure to explain it super well, as I think a well-done explanation allows you to use the K in a more strategic way on other flows. I will not vote on something I don't understand. Be warned I will not walk into the round thinking an impact is true; I will vote on impact turns to any argument, you need to be ready to defend the impact of the K as I'm not going to accept it as true automatically.

Larp - Being a good larper requires knowing your evidence more than your opponent and CX is where this becomes clear. If you know your Aff and you have good evidence you will get good speaks.

Tricks -I read a lot of tricks but like most judges find them less interesting debates to judge. If you just blip storm a ton of aprioris I will probably miss some so please be clear with what you're doing. That being said if you are just reading some stupid generic aprioris or skep I will not be impressed and you will not get higher speaks. please be innovative.

Theory - Make sure to be clearly extending and weighing your standard and please read paradigm issues. I don't get this new trend of not reading voters. I will vote on anything no matter how frivolous if its won. If the round becomes a messy theory debate with little to no weighing done I will be leaning towards fairness impacts first and default competing interpretations.

Phil - If you have skep or permissibility triggers make sure to do a good job explaining why they are triggered just saying "extend this card it says trigger skep in the tag gg" does not do it for me. Side note I really enjoy theological debate if it’s possible. I promise good speaks if you make the debate interesting. Do with that what you will.

Sunay Hegde HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Sun December 25, 2022 at 3:34 PM EDT

Hey, I'm sunay (he/him)

Montville Highschool 23'

Email:sunayhegde2017@gmail.com

Shorter version:

Pref Sheet for all Events (1 is highest, 5 is lowest)

1 - Policy/theory

2 - K (security, cap, grove)

4- phil

5 - tricks

5 - pomo, performance

Defaults

Theory - Dtd, C/I, no rvis

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

Long Version:

tech > truth

As a general note, my favorite rounds to judge are really solid Policy/theory/K rounds, but i really dont care what you read, so do whatever you want - just be aware that things that are on the lower side of my pref list means that im worse at judging them/less familar, so err on the side of over explanation for that stuff if your gonna read it.

Policy- favorite style of debate. I really like smaller affs and specific case debate as opposed to generic impact d.

Cps are great, dont really care how abusive it is. I dont have any real stances on CP theory. Slight disclaimer that I think condo is probably good, so i'll probably be more receptive to condo good. Make sure to weigh on the impact lvl to protect agaisnt new 2ar weighing/2nr weighing/make round easy for me. Blippy 1ar shells like a 5 second condo paragraph shell will have a much lower brightline of response in the 2nr.

DAs - make sure to impact it out, and make sure you have your turns case analysis, weighing, etc... Good spins on links go a long way. Good weighing in the 2NR/2AR is the easiest way to get my ballot, no weighing makes me frustrated and makes it harder to adjudicate rounds.

Theory - Dont care if its friv. Go a little slower through analytics and on the interp text/counterinterp text, esp if its analytic, since if u go full speed through like 3 shells good chance im gonna miss stuff. . Disclosure good, but if you use it to abuse some novice speaks will probably be lower. Good standard comparison and clear abuse stories make these rounds easier to judge.

T - I love T debates, not much else to say here. I'm def more of a hack for T since I was usually on this side, so just be sure to make a good fairness/skillpush, have some sort of tva, and be ready for the impact debate.

Tricks - I dont have any issues with tricks but fair disclaimer that im probably not the best for them since I havent really ever debated them much. If you want to read em - delineate them, err on the side of overexplaining the arguments (like don't be blippy) and be up front in CX. Also, reading them on a novice or trad debater will cap your speaks at 28.

Phil - Im not well read on a lot of type of phil. I know the most basic ones like kant, locke, etc.. but for the most part find most this stuff to be pretty confusing. If u wanna read it go ahead, although im probably not the best to evaluate these debates. If you do go for it j make sure to explain it coherently and not just use a bunch of buzz words. I also really find permis/presumption debates to be pretty tedious, so if your nc/ac is just a bunch of permis/presumption triggers im probably also not the guy for you. This also means if skep is your strat im probably not the person to pref.

K - I've only really read cap and security as a debater so assume I don't know your lit so err on the side of overexplaining the theory of power in the 2NR. I really like well done K debates, so please don't forget the line-by-line for overarching overview answers and shallow explanations of the arguments that regurgitate buzzwords,. Including examples to explain the theory of power and/or alternative are also good. I also like specific links to the 1AC, generic links are fine but specificity will always better your chances of winning and/or getting good speaks. Make sure to have turn cases or alt solves stuff in there too. Also pomo makes me confused, so just be sure to explain it, im not gonna be able to vote off weird buzzwords i dont understand no matter how tab i try to be.

K affs/performance - I don't really know the ins-and-outs of this style of debate too well because I never really debated in this style, but I will say I tend to lean on the neg side of T-framework just because I ended up on that side in a lot of debates. Although, this is not to say you cannot read these arguments, just make sure your ci is not super vague and ridiculously blippy, and be ready f turnor the impact debate since thats your best shot here.

There is probably a bunch of stuff im missing just because i dont want this paradigm to be too long, so if you have a specific question just ask it before the round.

Xin Hu Sugar Land SpiderSmart

Curtis Jefferson ModernBrain

Last changed on Fri February 3, 2023 at 4:40 AM PDT

Experience: Competed in LD, Congress & Policy in MS & HS; LD for two years in college. On the IE side, competed in pretty much the entire range of interp and original events, both prepared & extemporaneous, in HS and college. Have judged in middle school, high school, and college circuits off and on over the past 20 years.

For all formats of debate: Remember that at its core, debate is the art of convincing your audience, through civil discourse, that your position on the resolution (aff/neg) should be upheld. Don't be condescending (to your opponent or your audience), but don't expect the audience (and the judge) to do the analysis work for you. Clear arguments in support of your position, with appropriately connected and explained supporting material, will win over simply bombarding me (and your opponents) with a mountain of potential arguments and piles of evidence. Quality can be more important than quantity; you may extend if your opponent drops an argument, but don't necessarily assume a dropped thread or two wins you the round. Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. I need to be able to understand, follow, and flow; I can't give you credit for points I don't catch as you go along, and the art of debate, as a speech activity, is in the oral delivery of your speeches and arguments--not me reading the text [technical issues that may occur in online rounds excepted]. I don't enter any round looking for specific arguments or issues to be addressed; it is up to you to convince me that your argument/proposal/approach/perspective is superior, within the general expectations and framework of the event format.

LD: I'm a flow judge when it comes to LD. The arguments made in round, the clash between those arguments, and how well you support your position and connect your arguments typically weigh heavily in my decision--value clash is an area I find can be key to the overall debate. Ks and CP arguments are fine by me, though I find it is most effective if you can make very clear links when doing so. I will consider theory arguments, but be sure they do in fact specifically connect to what is going on in the round. I'm not a fan of spreading in LD; I won't drop or mark down a debater if they can do it effectively, but I defer to the quality can be more important than quantity idea in this respect. Bear in mind that, at its core, LD debate should be framed through the lens of values and what ought to be. The side that can most effectively argue for their position as a general principle through a compelling value framework is likely to get my vote.

Policy: I take essentially a tabula rasa approach when judging policy/CX debates. While stock issues, disads, etc., can (and very often do) all play a role in making my decision, I am open to hearing from both sides what issues should be weighed most heavily in determining the outcome of the round--as I recognize the importance of each can change not only based on the resolution but also based on the issues that are raised in the course of the round itself. I will entertain theory arguments, but be careful that they don't end up obscuring the arguments you are presenting in support of your side of the resolution or your plan/counterplan/advantages/disadvantages.

PF: I am open to considering any type of argument (progressive is fine), as long as you clearly link it to the resolution. PF is meant to focus on advocating for a position, so don't get bogged down in specific plans or counterplans for implementation. I generally find it hard to consider completely new arguments in summary or final focus. In my experience, I tend to decide rounds based on impacts, so be clear with those and be prepared to convince me that your impacts weigh more heavily than those on the other side. Clash is important. I will consider theory arguments (see first sentence of this section), but I find they can muddle the overall debate if not executed well--just sharing that so you're aware of my perspective.

Mitsuki Jiang Bob Lanier Middle School None

Graham Johnstone HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Thu January 19, 2023 at 6:42 AM CDT

Hi, I'm Graham. I competed on the nat circuit at vestavia hills for two years, acquiring two bids and qualifying to the TOC my senior year.

Add me on the chain- grahamjo@stanford.edu

TLDR: Read anything (other than what I think is problematic/triggering below). The pref chain is just indicative of what I read as a debater/how comfortable I am with each style. Basically, argumentative dogmatism is bad.I also heavily align ideologically to my former coach sira ahuja, whom I will quote multiple times in this paradigm.

Pref Chain:

K - 1

Policy - 1

Theory - 2/3

Tricks - 3/4

Normative Phil - 4/5

Miscellaneous Thoughts

- Most familiar with IR K's, Baudrillard, Set Col, Psychoanalysis, Weheliye, Cap (Mainly Beller), and Queerpess.

- i like to read evidence (especially in policy rounds) - if you read good, warranted evidence and follow it up with contextual, warranted analysis that makes it to where I have to do less reading, your speaks will be rewarded tremendously.

- lean neg on process and condo, lean aff on multi-actor, international, etc.

- Topicality debates often become rendered almost irresolvable by two things - 1. lack of comparative weighing and contextual explanation of semantic interpretations of the topic and 2. lack of comparative weighing as to why your model of debate would be net better than your opponent's.

- Big fan of new 2nr evidence - will limit it to 5 cards at max.

- Didn't think I would need to say this but K tricks should be flagged at least to some degree in the nc. i'm not gonna vote on a floating pik that the 2nr just pulls out of its ass.

- With regards to T-Framework, I actually really love framework debates. Despite reading mainly K Affs in high school, I have been on both sides of the debate many times and am as neutral as can be. That being said, K 1ARs against framework with little-to-no offense on clarity regarding the affs world of debate will lose in front of me.

- fairness as an impact is fine i guess, but I personally think that a clash or skills 2N is much more strategic against most k affs.

- zero risk is a thing.

- I love creative arguments regardless of which style of debate they're categorized as. Things like Clash Royale theory, the 21 Savage Kritik, the Rider Disadvantage, and Alien Wipeout are things I enjoy very much. Creativity/Interesting strategy will be rewarded with better speaks IF EXECUTED WELL!!! (this does not mean spamming random 1ar shells. if you do that, your aff deserves to lose and your speaks will reflect that.)

- Debate is largely a game, but it is a game which has the capacity to build strategies and alter subjectivities.\.

- Impact Calc!!! Please!!!!

Things I don't like/ Will refuse to evaluate:

- Patriarchy Good, Racism Good or other edgelord impact turns of similar discipline

- Reading an argument that violates a pre-stated accommodation.

- Very high threshold for disclosure against novices and/or small school trad debaters (anything else is fair game tho, i just think disclosure against debaters who don't know how to disclose/know what it is should be taught out of round.)

If you do ANY of these things (except maybe disclosure), expect a 25

Speaker Points:

I believe that speaker points are pretty arbitrary because they're wildly subjective for the most part, so I'm pretty receptive to speaks arguments. Absent anything of the sort, I believe that I am a bit of a speaks fairy so take that as you will.

Chrishma Karkada The Golden State Academy

Last changed on Thu November 26, 2020 at 8:20 PM EDT

Hey guys,

LD

I’m a parent judge, but I have some familiarity with more progressive argumentation. I’m going to do everything I can to make it a productive round for you, but please make sure you do everything you can to make sure that I’m able to do that.If you get put in front of me for a round, please make sure you do the following:

-Send a speech doc WITH basic analytics. I don’t need your speech word for word, but make sure it’s organized, in the right order, and make sure I can follow along.

-Send me a speech doc of the 1ac before the round. I will flow it and read it to understand.

-Don’t spread outside of contentions. If you go anything faster than conversational in the rebuttal, I will be unable to flow you. I will call clear if you’re unclear.

-I strongly recommend that you stick to utilitarian arguments, as those are the most logically true and easy for me to adjudicate. Make sure that you do a ton of impact calculus, as that’s what determines the round. Tell me why your side is more likely to cause extinction/is going to cause it faster, etc.

-If you HAVE to read another type of argument, do so at your own risk - it is entirely possible that I misunderstand an argument and can’t vote off of it. But here’s my thoughts:

-K - From my understanding, a kritik can function like a normal contention, but with different framework and impact. If you run something really bizarre and weird, I may not be able to understand it - something critiquing capitalism or racism might be easier to understand.

-Theory/Topicality - Don’t unnecessarily use this. I find it very difficult to judge this type of debate. If something actually happened, go ahead, but try your very best to avoid it as I don't know much about these arguments.

-Philosophy - I do not know how to judge this

-Tricks - I do not know how to judge this

EXTEMP

I don’t know if paradigms for Extemp is the norm, but I have one anyway in case you wanted to take a look.

I’m going to weigh both performance and substance quite highly. A well delivered speech full of awful analysis is just as bad as a badly delivered speech with good analytics. I will say that I have the most experience with Interp events, so I do enjoy a speech which is delivered in an upbeat, confident manner over a more monotonous dump of facts.

I’ll default to the following time signals
-down from 5 every minute
-C at 30,
-Count down from 10

Please give me at least 2-3 solid pieces of evidence per argument. Please don’t make blatantly false statements or give me a speech with fabricated data/analysis. A very well delivered speech talking about Barack Obama the Republican is not going to go over well!

As we’re online, I’m going to be very lenient to those with technology issues. If you drop out or cut out, I’ll do everything I can to make sure you get to give your speech in it’s entirety, at least as much as the tournament permits.

Please do not cheat! It is VERY obvious if you’re looking at your outline during your speech. I’ll give you a LOT of leeway, given that you’ll inevitably have to look at the timer, have your eyes stray from the camera, etc, but make sure that you just look somewhere near the computer for the entirety of your speech. Cheating on that helps nobody and certainly won’t help you grow.

Overall, just do your best, good luck, and most importantly - HAVE FUN!!

David Kilpatrick The Harker School

Last changed on Sun February 12, 2023 at 10:16 AM CDT

New Note - I'm totally uninterested in adjudicating arguments that endorse self harm. I won't auto-vote against you but if someone you're debating asks me to stop the debate I will. If I end up voting for you, you will not like your points.

Things like wipeout/spark/other impact turns or like "death k" are a little different than this category for me and you can still read those types of hypothetical impact turns as they don't feel the same as [self harm good].

In person thing - its easier to flow your speeches if you face towards me when you give them - giving speeches with your back to me is :c

I am a coach at the University of Texas-Austin, Liberal Arts and Sciences Academy and The Harker School. Other conflicts: Westwood, St Vincent de Paul, Bakersfield High School

Email Chain: yes, cardstealing@gmail.com

Debate is an activity about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand what you are saying because you are unclear, haven't coherently explained it, or developed it into a full argument-claim, warrant, impact, it likely won't factor in my decision.

While there are some exceptions, most debaters I've judged the last few years are pretty unclear, so its likely I will miss some arguments. Zoom has magnified this issue for me (not necessarily the debaters fault). Final rebuttals offer you a space to retrace the part(s) of the debate you think are most relevant to the decision. This both makes it much more likely I will understand your argument and will likely improve your speaker points.

The winner will nearly always be the team able to identify the central question of the debate first and most clearly trace how the development of their argument means they're ahead on that central question.

Virtually nothing you can possibly say or do will offend me [with the new above caveat] if you can't beat a terrible argument you probably deserve to lose.

Another new thing - my favorite debates are ones where the affirmative defends a topical example of the resolution (how you interpret the words in the resolution are up to you, but in this scenario you would defend a change from the status quo and defend the implications of your change w/either a traditionally topical plan or a well thought out and carded counter-interpretation) - the negative then criticizes the representations, justifications, philosophy, ethics, or method of the plan and make arguments about whether I should weigh the plan or prioritize something else first. Obviously you shouldn't try to over-adapt and do this if its not your thing, but well executed policy v K debates with lots of research, examples, and high quality evidence will be rewarded with extremely high points for all four participants.

Framework-

newer - I don't judge many non-framework debates anymore. I tend to vote neg when the neg wins clash is the biggest/most portable impact + explanation for how it improves over the year as a result of their interp and access aff offense via TVA or SSD. I tend to vote AFF when they win an impact turn to the end result of clash alongside robust answers to the NEG ballot can't access that offense args. I think 2NCs that lack an explanation of how 2nd and 3rd level testing occurs under their interp and changes over the year, with examples, lacks credibility when going for only clash matters (you can maybe win the debate on a different terminal impact, but lately I haven't really voted on other ones). Fairness is both an internal link and an impact. Debate is a game but its also so much more. You can persuade me to think one way or the other in any given debate and I've learned to love judging these debates because I often learn new things about the activity and its potential.

older - but not un-true

I find myself voting negative a lot on procedural fairness a lot, even though I don't think this is the most persuasive version of T. The reason is that K affs seem to have a lot of trouble deciding if they want to go for the middle ground or just impact turn--pick a strategy and stick to it 1AC-2AR and you're more likely to be in a good place. The block is almost always great on T, the 2NR almost always forgets to do terminal impact calculus. Testing arguments become much more persuasive to me when you give specific examples for how those would occur. What neg args would you be able to read against a potential TVA? Why is it good for the 2AC to research those positions, how would you researching answers to their answers be beneficial? A lot of this stuff just gets assumed and I think that a lot of repetitiveness from most framework 2NCs can be substituted for this kind of depth early in the debate. 2NRs sometimes seem to spend so much time on why they access AFF lit base/impacts that they don't end up extending a terminal impact or external offense at all. I think it's difficult to win a debate when you basically go for a CP w/o a net benefit.

Counter-plans-

-spamming permutations, particular ones that are intrinsic, without a text and with no explanation isn't a complete argument. [insert perm text fine, insert counter plan text is not fine]

-I'm becoming increasingly poor for conditionality bad as a reason to reject the team. This doesn't mean you shouldn't say in the 2ac why its bad but I've yet to see a speech where the 2AR convinced me the debate has been made irredeemably unfair or un-educational due to the status of counter plans. I think its possible I'd be more convinced by the argument that winning condo is bad means that the neg is stuck with all their counter plans and therefore responsible for answering any aff offense to those positions. This can be difficult to execute/annoying to do, but do with that what you will.

Kritiks

-affs usually lose these by forgetting about the case, negs usually lose these when they don't contextualize links to the 1ac. If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs.

-link specificity is important - I don't think this is necessarily an evidence thing, but an explanation thing - lines from 1AC, examples, specific scenarios are all things that will go a long way

Disads

-they should be intrinsic to the plan, with enough time investment affs can potentially win that agenda politics disads are not a logical opportunity cost.

-uniqueness controls the direction of the link typically makes the most sense to me, but you can probably convince me otherwise

LD -

I have been judging LD for a year now. The policy section all applies here.

Tech over truth but, there's a limit - likely quite bad for tricks - arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete. Dropped arguments are important if you explain how they implicate my decision. Dropped arguments are much less important when you fail to explain the impact/relevance of said argument.

RVIs - no, never, literally don't. 27 ceiling. Scenario: 1ar is 4 minutes of an RVI, nr drops the rvi, I will vote negative within seconds of the timer ending.

Policy/K - both great - see above for details.

Phil - haven't judged much of this yet, this seems interesting and fine, but again, arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete arguments.

Arguments communicated and understood by the judge per minute>>>>words mumbled nearly incomprehensibly per minute.

Unlikely you'll convince me the aff doesn't get to read a plan for topicality reasons. K framework is a separate from this and open to debate, see policy section for details.

PF -

If you read cards they must be sent out via email chain with me attached or through file share prior to the speech. If you reference a piece of evidence that you haven't sent out prior to your speech, fine, but I won't count it as being evidence. You should never take time outside of your prep time to exchange evidence - it should already have been done.

"Paraphrasing" as a substitute for quotation or reading evidence is a bad norm. I won't vote on it as an ethics violation, but I will cap your speaker points at a 27.5.

I realize some of you have started going fast now, if everyone is doing that, fine. However, adapting to the norms of your opponents circuit - i.e. if they're debating slowly and traditionally and you do so as well, will be rewarded with much higher points then if you spread somebody out of the room, which will be awarded with very low points even if you win.

Amir King Kudos College Of Youth Leadership

Gordon Krauss ModernBrain

Last changed on Tue May 30, 2023 at 2:24 PM PDT

Gordon Krauss

gordondkrauss@gmail.com

Debated at Claremont, 2019-2021

Coaching for Peninsula, 2021-Present

General

Last updated: extremely recently to re-write the same thing with different words :)

Please have the email ready to send before start time.

I will evaluate debates according to the arguments made. Two important notes:

- Arguments need warrants in the speech they were introduced. I'll be willing to ignore new arguments entirely if something is said about it or if it is introduced in the 2AR.

- If debating is relatively equal, I will read cards to decide who has a better argument that is consistent with the explanations given in the final rebuttals. Sometimes I will read cards regardless, especially if instructed to do so.

Policy

I most enjoy policy arguments that are supported by recent, high-quality evidence. I think zero-risk is incredibly unlikely, unless a team makes an argument that is incoherent (e.g. bill passed).

The 1AR generally under-explains deficits. It's usually the only thing that matters, so explain them more instead of reading bad theory arguments.

Against process counterplans, I am more persuaded by perm do cp with reasons that interpretation of certainty/immediacy is good. I could be persuaded by limited intrinsicness if supported by an argument that counterplans must be textually and functionally competitive, but I can be persuaded that textual competition is bad. Textual alone is an obvious disaster.

The neg should talk about the case. The aff should too.

Shortest section b/c few opinions. Read lots of cards and do lots of evidence comparison, and you're in a pretty good spot.

Theory

If it's in the 1NC, or not about a counterplan, you should probably take it out.

Theory arguments against cheating counterplans are good and I appreciate well-crafted interpretations. Here are a couple of arguments that I could (not) be persuaded by.

- International fiat. The neg can fiat functionally infinite actors, and any combination of them, to do whatever the neg wants them to. This makes generating deficits essentially impossible and is magnified when the neg fiats multiple actors. The best aff interpretation would probably depend on the topic, given 'USFG' is not in every resolution.

- Process CPs. You would need a much better interpretation than 'process CPs bad' but most that are read are blatantly illegitimate. They also don't compete, and in my mind, it is easier to win going for a permutation with reasons your interpretation of certainty/immediacy is good than advancing a theory interpretation that likely loses to an arbitrariness argument.

- If the counterplan is vague and not supported by evidence, I would be more persuaded by a deficit (regardless of whether or not you have evidence) than a theory argument about solvency advocates.

Conditionality: neg-leaning, but not impossible. The 2NR needs to do impact calculus, and actually play defense to aff arguments. The aff should give reasons why they need straight turns against CPs. Time and strategy skew don't matter because every argument intentionally skews both. The number has never had any bearing on my decision, because I care far more about why the neg should be stuck with straight turns than the 1AR being difficult. Pointing out why the way the neg reading conditional advocacies in a contradictory manner made it impossible to generate straight turns against each is good.

Topicality

I don't love judging topicality debates, but I judge them a lot. I tend to agree with the aff, but I probably vote neg more. The neg needs evidence that explicitly defines a word in the resolution. If the word the neg is defining, and claiming the plan violated, is in the plan text, the neg must present an alternative to plan text in a vacuum (in the 2NR). The aff needs to win that they meet that interpretation, or counter-define the words the neg defined.

I think predictability matters more than limits. I tend to think that trying to make the topic as small as possible usually results in an interpretation that no reasonable person could predict. I could also be persuaded by overlimiting arguments, and both sides should have a case-list to substantiate their limits arguments. Reasonability means that the aff can win if their interpretation solves a sufficient amount of neg offense for the substance lost to outweigh the marginal difference between the two interpretations. It does not mean anything if the 2AR is we meet.

I like the K. The best framework argument is that the aff gets to compare the consequences of the plan against critiques of their assumptions. I will probably be persuaded by the interpretation that is closest to this. I find 'K's bad' and 'don't weigh the case' equally bad, but I will hear them out. Arguments must be complete and consistent throughout speeches. Agreeing that the aff can weigh the case means the neg needs a turns case/alt solves the case argument, an existential impact, and/or substantial defense to the case. If the neg does have this, I will be confused if the affs only answer is extinction outweighs. The aff should focus on winning a permutation and alt fails argument, or impact turn the K. I am bad for the fiat K in all instances. It's not as easy to explain why the aff's epistemology or representations are bad and what we should do instead, but it does increase your chances of winning tremendously.

T-Framework

aff: If you aren't reading a plan, you should be prepared to explain why topicality is bad. I find that hard to understand when the 1AR proliferates short, very similar DAs to topicality; identify the impacts or internal links that you're turning and play defense to the others. Counter interp is usually irrelevant because it's arbitrary and unlimiting, but if you're interpretation is grounded in evidence that defines words in the resolution, or explained as only providing uniqueness for your stuff, I can be convinced that it matters.

neg: I'm better for fairness than clash, but either is fine. Defense is important, and the 2NR should pick a couple arguments and explain them in the context of aff offense. I can be convinced that debate is broadly capable of producing some sort of subjectivity shift, but I can also be convinced that a single debate is not capable of changing subjectivities, or that the neg accesses it better. You do not want me in a K v. K debate.

Philosophy

I am not the biggest fan of philosophy arguments and I have done very little reading. If your philosophy isn't tricks and is supported by evidence and examples, I should be mediocre. However, if you do not treat me like I know nothing, you may be disappointed with the decision.

I follow traditional framework debates much better than dense philosophy being read on the national circuit because the framework is explained like I'm 3 and no one drops (dis)advantages.

I vote for extinction outweighs against philosophy positions often and I think it's a good argument, especially when supported by arguments about epistemic modesty or humility.

Epistemic confidence makes little sense to me---some risk that you are right about your framework does not mean I should ignore an existential risk. Ethical frameworks serve as impact calculus, and they are not resolved yes/no. This is true in all instances. For example, if a soft-left aff were to read a framing argument, even if the aff wins that high-probability, low-magnitude impacts are most important, they almost never win that argument conclusively, so there may be a high risk of the impact framing argument, but it does not mean I will ignore the DA).

Misc.

Please number arguments whenever possible. Referencing the number in subsequent speeches makes it much easier to flow.

Insert re-highlighting if it comes from the original card. If you're reading sections of the article that are not in the original card, read it.

A marked doc does not mean deleting the cards you didn't read. Please minimize dead time and start cross-ex immediately after the speech ends, even if you need a marked doc. There is no waiting until it's sent. Hurry up.

Ask questions or post-round if you'd like.

Daniel Lee Honor Academy

Yoyo Lei HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Wesley Loofbourrow ModernBrain

Last changed on Sat May 13, 2023 at 5:24 AM PDT

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

Elissa Lu Dougherty Valley Bridge

Greg Malis Isidore Newman Middle School

Last changed on Mon October 10, 2022 at 4:23 AM CDT

I teach math and serve as chair of the math dept at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I retired from coaching high school at the end of the 2017-2018 school year. I coached Policy and LD (as well as most every speech event) for over 25 years on the local and national circuit. In the spring of 2020, we started a Middle School team at Newman and have been coaching on the middle school level since then.

I judge only a handful of rounds each year. You will need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

Email chain: gregmalis@newmanschool.org

My philosophy is in three sections. Section 1 applies to both policy and LD. Section 2 is policy-specific. Section 3 is LD-specific.

Section 1: Policy and LD

Speed. Go fast or slow. However, debaters have a tendency to go faster than they are physically capable of going. Regardless of your chosen rate of delivery, it is imperative that you start your first speech at a considerably slower pace than your top speed will be. Judges need time to adjust to a student's pitch, inflection, accent/dialect. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. In fact, I will only read cards after the round if there is actual debate on what a specific card may mean. Then, I may read THAT card to assess which debater is correct.

Theory. Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. I overhead another coach at a tournament tell his debaters to "always run theory." This viewpoint sickens me. If there is abuse, argue it. Be prepared to explain WHY your ground is being violated. What reasonable arguments can't be run because of what your opponent did? For example, an aff position that denies you disad or CP ground is only abusive if you are entitled to disad or CP ground. It becomes your burden to explain why you are so entitled. Theory should never be Plan A to win a round unless your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative. I think reasonable people can determine whether the theory position has real merit or is just BS. If I think it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

Role of the Ballot. My ballot usually means nothing more than who won the game we were playing while all sitting in the same room. I don't believe I am sending a message to the debate community when I vote, nor do I believe that you are sending a message to the debate community when you speak, when you win, or when you lose. I don't believe that my ballot is a teaching tool even if there's an audience outside of the two debaters. I don't believe my ballot is endorsing a particular philosophy or possible action by some agent implied or explicitly stated in the resolution. Perhaps my ballot is endorsing your strategy if you win my ballot, so I am sending a message to you and your coach by voting for you, but that is about it. If you can persuade me otherwise, you are invited to try. However, if your language or conduct is found to be offensive, I will gladly use my ballot to send a message to you, your coach, and your teammates with a loss and/or fewer speaker points than desired.

Section 2: Policy only (although there are probably things in the LD section below that may interest you)

In general, I expect that Affs read a plan and be topical. K Affs or Performance Affs have a bit of an uphill climb for me to justify why the resolution ought not be debated. If a team chooses this approach, at minimum, they need to advocate some action that solves some problem, and their remedy/method must provide some reasonable negative ground.

I think K's need a solid link and a clear, viable, and competitive alt, but I best understand a negative strategy if consisting of counterplans, disads, case args.

Section 3: LD only (if you are an LDer who likes "policy" arguments in LD, you should read the above section}

Kritiks. In the end, whatever position you take still needs to resolve a conflict inherent (or explicitly stated) within the resolution. Aff's MUST affirm the resolution. Neg's MUST negate it. If your advocacy (personal or fiated action by some agent) does not actually advocate one side of the resolution over the other (as written by the framers), then you'll probably lose.

Topicality. I really do love a good T debate. I just don't hear many of them in LD. A debater will only win a T debate if (1) you read a definition and/or articulate an interpretation of specific words/phrases in the resolution being violated and (2) explain why your interp is better than your opponent's in terms of providing a fair limit - not too broad nor too narrow. I have a strong policy background (former policy debater and long-time policy debate coach). My view of T debates is the same for both.

Presumption. I don't presume aff or neg inherently. I presume the status quo. In some resolutions, it's clear as to who is advocating for change. In that case, I default to holding whoever advocates change in the status quo as having some burden of proof. If neither (or both) is advocating change, then presumption becomes debatable. However, I will work very hard to vote on something other than presumption since it seems like a copout. No debate is truly tied at the end of the game.

Plans vs Whole Res. I leave this up to the debaters to defend or challenge. I am more persuaded by your perspective if it has a resolutional basis. For example, the Sept/Oct 2016 topic has a plural agent, "countries" (which is rare for LD topics). Thus, identifying a single country to do the plan may be more of a topicality argument than a "theory" argument. In resolutions when the agent is more nebulous (e.g., "a just society"), then we're back to a question as what provides for a better debate.

Kaavya Mehrotra Dougherty Valley Bridge

Last changed on Fri March 24, 2023 at 5:58 AM PDT

Debate PF at Dougherty Valley but have experience in policy, LD, and speech events

add me on the email chain: kaavyamehrotra@gmail.com

tech>truth

weigh! it's fun and wins rounds

speed is fine but sending a doc is always safer and better

If its 8 in the morning i probably will be asleep so advise against just blasting into top speed immediately

not afraid to make an 'i didn't understand it' rfd

I disclose if the tournament allows and I can disclose speaks if everyone in the round wants (i give 29.6 block unless you made the round unsafe but if you look to the bottom it's very easy to get a 30)

don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, rude, or xenophobic. Just be a decent person!

TABULA ROSA!

Everything in the final should be in summary (obviously, don't know why I should have to say that)

If you have two cards that directly contradict each other, please weigh them. If I get no reason to prefer one card over another, then I won't evaluate either.

I don't listen to cross so if someone concedes something in a cross then mention it in your speech

To save time just send all the cards you are reading before your speech. I can also tell when you steal prep so I will dock your speaks

Progressive arguments require a speech doc and no paraphrasing

I don't mind theory but I would prefer not to listen to it.

Usually theory debates just become teams yelling at each other about their opponent’s character and gets overly aggressive for no reason
Paraphrasing is bad if they don’t have cut cards and i don’t care about disclosure

Policy

Don’t know anything about the topic so just explain like im genuinely stupid

Like DAs and CPs

Ks were not really my strat but i like them

Never read k affs and usually read fw when i hit it

No tricks or phil

Preferences (for strikes)

LARP - 1

Theory/T - 2

Kritik - 3

Non-T Kritik - 4

Tricks - 5 (strike)

Phil - 5 (strike)

Performance - 5 (strike)

Speaks

tournaments are stressful and I don't want to make it worse by giving bad speaks

30 speaks if you reference Taylor Swift

30 speaks if you bring me food

If you make the round fun by telling jokes or making everyone feel comfortable, i give 30 speaks.

Congress

my sister placed 5th at TOC, 5th at Nationals, and championed ASU, and made finals of several national circuit tournaments so look at her paradigm. She is Divya Mehrotra.

I love crystal speeches if done well and if you take that risk to give one then, please do proper weighing

Ross Miller Bob Lanier Middle School

Tara Miller Bob Lanier Middle School

Avay Mishra Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Rhys Moon ModernBrain

Last changed on Sat January 14, 2023 at 1:30 AM PDT

rhys.e.moon22@gmail.com

Peninsula 22 | Harvard 26

All of my preferences are somewhat malleable, but like every other judge, my history in the activity informs the biases and frames of reference through which I view certain arguments.

Policy:

Most comfortable with this. Condo is fine. I find that many affirmative qualms with counterplans can be resolved through competition debating rather than theory. Not the biggest fan of politics. Good for impact turns.

Kritiks:

These are fine. CX really matters here (on both sides). 2NR floating PIKs + framework interpretations are new arguments, and I won't evaluate them. I think that most kritik alternatives can't solve the links and definitely can't solve the case.

K-Affs:

I think that affirmatives should defend a plan. I strongly prefer fairness impacts over clash/movements. Good for the Cap K. Amenable to arguments that K-Affs should be held to a much more rigorous standard re: permutations.

Philosophy:

Probably bad for this, as you might expect. You should err on over-explaining your syllogism, and make impact calculus arguments on the contention or at least try to compare your offense against their turns/defense. I'm absolutely horrible for this if your strategy relies on calc indicts, frivolous theory, random independent voting issues...similar nonsense.

Theory:

I am convinced by reasonability + DTA. My interpretation of reasonability is that I should weigh the impact of the shell vs. the DA to substance by foreclosing a debate over the topic by voting on theory. I am unconvinced and confused by most "brightlines" for reasonability and find them arbitrary.

I'll probably tailor your speaks to the ridiculousness of the theory argument and significantly lower the bar for responses.

Other:

I am not interested in judging rounds where the primary strategy on either side is to read tricks, frivolous theory, or other similarly unwarranted arguments that necessitate being dropped in order to win. I will actively stop flowing if you blaze through twenty spikes in monotone without ever pausing between arguments.

Show your opponents respect! Have fun if you can.

Hakeem Muhammad ModernBrain

Saul Munn ModernBrain

Last changed on Fri January 6, 2023 at 9:55 AM PDT

saul munn

he/him or they/them whatever you're more comfortable with

peninsula ld 2020-2022

peninsula parli 2018-2020

undergrad at brandeis studying philosophy

add me to the chain saulsmunn@gmail.com

---

NOVICES: LOOK AT THE NOTE AT THE BOTTOM!!!

---

PREFS

i'm not amazing at (circuit) debate, lol -- sorry

1 - policy

2 - stock phil/stock theory/annoying policy stuff like politics DAs and agent CPs

3 - non-stock phil/K/non-stock theory

4/5/strike - trix

---

i'm not really that familiar with non-stock phil and non-stock K — feel free to go for it but you should explain it more than you normally might. write my ballot in the 2nr/2ar to make it easier to vote for you.

trix are a great way to get bad speaks and probably an L

---

RANDOM STUFF

- IMPORTANT: PLEASE do not send cards in the body of an email -- add them to a doc and send the doc :)

- IMPORTANT: SET A WIN CONDITION AND EXPLAIN HOW YOU MEET IT! please write my ballot for me in your rebuttals — explain what your arguments mean for my ballot, don't just make the argument.

- 0.1% chance ≠ 0% chance — read up on nassim taleb

- send analytics if you have them

- be nice

- don't be racist/sexist/homophic/classist/any other type of discrimination/exclusion

- be funny (pls & ty)

---

SPEAKER POINTS:

do:

- use correct grammar

- bring some massive energy

- have good & consistent formatting in your document (blank line between each card, each offcase cleanly listed, same highlighting color, same font, no bullet points, etc)

- have a clean and c r i s p wiki. i'm not going to go looking, but if you think yours looks clean and crisp, point it out to me (before the round starts)

- make me laugh (in a good way)

don't:

- use bad grammar

- have an unorganized speech/don't give an order/dont follow the order you gave/etc

- have bad strategy

- show up late/have to use the bathroom halfway through/generally disruptive/rude

- be annoying -- either to me or to the other team (what's a floating pik?)q

- make me laugh (in a not so good way)

---

FOR NOVICE/PF/PARLI/ETC:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE send the documents you're reading, if you're reading from any documents. send the document right before your speech (preferable), before the whole debate (less preferable), or after the debate (really not preferable and i'll probably dock your speaker points). you don't need to send it to your opponent, but are you really that afraid to have a quality debate?

the reason i need your document is that i need to check to make sure that you're using your evidence correctly. for instance, if you misquote an article, or say that evidence came from 2021 when it actually came from 2015, or claim that your author has a PhD when they actually don't – that's an instant loss, even if the opponent doesn't point it out. if you see something with bad evidence ethics, point it out to me during your speech as a theory argument (if you know how to make them; if not, then just point it out).

---

a haiku:

if you're in pf

and you choose to paraphrase

please expect nuked speaks

-saul munn

Kirthi Narayanaswamy Redwood MS

Anusha Neupane ModernBrain

Bill Nichols Alice Deal

Stephanie Odom ModernBrain

Nelson Okunlola Marlborough School

Last changed on Sun April 16, 2023 at 8:50 AM CDT

THE EXPECTATION IS THAT THE 1AC IS SENT PRIOR AND THE FIRST AFFIRMATIVE SPEECH STARTS BY THE DESIGNATED START TIME. IF THE START TIME IS 8:00AM I EXPECT THE 1AC TO BE SENT BY 7:58 AND THAT THE SPEECH STARTS EXACTLY AT 8:00AM. YOU SHOULD NOT START SETTING UP THE EMAIL CHAIN AT 8:01.

Email: okunlolanelson@gmail.com [Add me to the chain]

About me: I debated in Texas mostly in LD (TFA, TOC, NSDA) and some Policy (TFA). I debated at Northwestern for a little. I teach at an LD camp in the summer.

General/Short version:

- Tech > Truth

- Assume I don't know much about the topic or about your author or philosopher

I'll listen to anything but its your obligation to explain your position

- I'm not flowing off the doc and won't look at the doc/cards unless I need to after the round (9/10 times I don't need to)

Don't wait for me for the email chain, I'll get it if I need it post round
I flow what I hear not what I read - if I miss any analytics that are blitzed through, thats your fault
Its your job to explain and extend cards properly
Clipping and evidence ethics violations are left in the hands of the debaters

- Prep time ends when the doc is sent.

- PLEASE BE CLEAR. I will yell CLEAR if you are not clear. CLEAR doesn't mean SLOW

- You can debate whatever and however you want as long as you're not violent and you do not make the space unsafe

- Decision calc is who has the most offense under the highest framework - this means frame your impacts and weigh your impacts. Else I'm presuming util

- Don't start at full speed and slow down on tags/analytics/theory. Go as fast as you want as long as you are CLEAR

- ****I don't know analytic philosophy or LD fw tricks. I'm willing to evaluate and listen to this, but for dense/intricate philosophical debates please slow down and explain or else things will go over my head.

- I like good theory debates but HATE bad ones. I won't categorically reject bad theory argument, my threshold for responses will be low though

- You will auto-lose if you clip cards or falsely accuse. You will lose for evidence ethics violations

- You will get good speaks if you give good speeches (good overviews, line by line, and crystallization) and don't debate like a robot

- I don't care how far away or how close to the topic you are but you should justify your practice. I love a good T-FW debate and can/will vote for either side in these debates. If procedural fairness is your thing go for it. If impact turns are your thing go for it. This is your debate/activity, not mine

- If there's an important CX concession, please flag it and/or get my attention in case I have zoned out

Observations from judging:

- Debaters seem to give black examples when I'm judging and this sometimes makes me uncomfortable. e.g "so you're saying if I were to punch a black person in the face for no reason, your fw justifies that"

Graphic descriptions of antiblack violence triggers me. Also please examine your relationship to blackness and antiblack violence

- If wont kick the cp for you unless you tell me to AND justify why i should. I won't make assumptions for you

- Just because someone makes a bad theory argument doesn't mean you don't have to answer it. Don't assume that I "obviously know that this is frivolous theory"

- ****I've noticed Util v Kant debates to be confusing. Please give me big picture explanations for why I prefer your FW. Don't just do the line by line and expect me to decipher through it. I will be confused, you must tell me meta level decision making reasons to prefer you FW.

- Referencing college teams or other teams doesn't really get you anywhere, "our models allows for Iowa ST vs Berkeley FU debates" I simply do not know or give a _____ about these teams

The Long Version:

- I don't care what you do or read but assume I know ABSOLUTELY nothing. I'm willing to listen to anything as long as you explain it to me. But Assume I am unfamiliar with your position and debate accordingly. Don't think that I accept common norms even those widely accepted by others. I don't default to anything, and you should obviously direct me when it comes to paradigm issues. Treat me like some random dude on the street who's pretty logical.

- Please for the love of God be CLEAR. High School debaters are incredibly unclear and judges are only pretending to flow you. One thing that really grinds my gears is when the 1AC is incomprehensible, (no judge yells clear for one reason or another) then the 1NC takes that as leeway to be equally (or even more) incomprehensible and then none of the constructives are flown. I feel more and more comfortable voting for one side simply because they were clearer and I understood their argument and didn't have to reconstruct the round for them using docs. You don't need to be blitzing through card tags/analytics/blocks/theory. If you're not doing at least an hour of speaking drills a week you're doing something wrong.

- As far as policy goes, I didn't compete in the event long enough or intensely enough to know or really care about the "norms." This means for example I don't "obviously know that process cp's are cheating." This doesn't mean that you can just say anything though. Like sure I'm probably more willing to listen to 5 condo good than the next judge, but that's still an uphill battle for you.

- If you need to know something specifically ask before the round.

Good luck, do your thing, and have fun!

Joseph Or ModernBrain

Last changed on Wed February 23, 2022 at 1:28 AM PDT

hi!

email: 25josephor@gmail.com

for novice/ms debaters: if you're reading this paradigm, you’re already on the right track! do your thing, and don’t count yourself out. we’ve all had a first day, and it only goes up from there! all the feedback/constructive criticism you receive and opponents you hit will shape you to improve and become a better debater over time :)

accessibility is important to me!! as far as i’m concerned, i’m mostly judging novice/ms teams for the time being. these divisions are here to provide spaces for newer debaters to learn and grow into more experienced ones. this means that if the ac reads 6 mins of trad and is clearly newer in cx, your speaks will not appreciate your 5 off spread + tricks.

for trad: engage in the contention debate and explain how each argument links back to your framing. (value/vc stuff). HOWEVER -

- only invest time in the value debate if your values actually clash (ik morality v. justice is common in trad but it probably won't be the crux of my rfd).

- sure, debate the value criterion, but if they're similar like preserving human life v. util/maximizing expected well-being, focus on contention debate (and weigh!)

---

FOR PROG:

policy -

yes cards ------------X--------------------------------- less cards

ok ptx -----x--------------------------------------- ptx sucks

condo bad --------------------------------------x------- condo good

pics good -----------x-------------------------------- no pics

yes agent/process cps -------------x----------------------------- no

perm blip storm -------------------------------------------XXX- real competition arguments

more off ---------------------x---------------------— more case

ks -

k affs ------------------------x-------------------- t-fw

(aff) creative interp of the topic --x------------------------------------- debate bad w/ little to no topic mention

cap/setcol/security/anthro/pess/futurism/etc --x------------------------------------- baudy and his besties

loooong o/v and "extend from the ov" for 5 mins --------------------------------------x------ line. by. line.

fw interp in the nc/ar -X---------------------------------- oh btw ik it's late breaking but here's an interp

specific/topic links ------------X--------------------------------- generic links

explain the perm -X---------------------------------- alt perm blip storm

floating piks (if hinted at in the nc) ------------------x---------------- nooooo

theory/t -

slow down -x------------------------------------------ a doc full of analytics at full speed!!

a long underview -----------------------------------x------- underviews are boring

friv interps ------------------------------------------x-- reading more substantive positions

rvis ----------------------------------x---------- noooo

doing definition comparison in t debates --------------x-------------------------------------- not?

clearly delineating a violation in a t shell -X-------------------------------------------------------- no flowed violation until the nr

phil -

overexplain -x------------------------------------------ assume joseph isn't a debater from california who doesn't regularly debate nuanced phil positions

straight up acs/ncs -X-------------------------------------------- phil w/ 283928392 trix inserted

going for substantive offense -X----------------------------------------------- collapsing to a 1 sentence analytic i might not have even flowed completely

have a good round! :)

(if ur a novice reading this -- mention you read my paradigm before the round for + speaks)

Rodrigo Paramo Greenhill School

Last changed on Tue March 28, 2023 at 3:46 PM CDT

i debated LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 5th year coaching @ greenhill, and my first year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-now);
program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22)]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com. would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and thoroughly enjoy 6 minutes of topicality or framework 2nrs [like, T-framework against k affs, not kant] if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

7 things to know:

Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.
i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.
I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.
please do not split your 2nrs! you will be far likelier to win if you develop one flow for the 2nr, and will be served poorly by the attempt to go for every 1nc arg in the 2nr. In principle, this is also true for your 2ARs. if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it i think that likely means the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.
i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page
IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.
Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature
affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds.

Byoung Chul PARK The Golden State Academy

Chan Park HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Wed March 8, 2023 at 8:29 PM EDT

Hi I'm Chan, I am a current debater at King High School in Florida. I have competed in both local and nat circuits, obtaining four bids and qualifying to TOC in my junior year and senior year so far.
Yes, please put me on the chain! - luckychanpark@gmail.com

TLDR: Read whatever you want, I am a firm believer in trying to stay as tab as I can. Obviously do not read anything that is explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. Other than that, if you just extend a warrant and do proper weighing I am willing to vote on anything.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quick Pref Sheet:

K (idpol, reps, generics) - 1

T/Theory - 1

Policy - 2

Phil (not dense lit) - 2

Tricks - 2/3

Traditional - 4

K (dense pomo) - 4/5

Phil (dense lit) - 5

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defaults:

- Judge Kick
- Presumption Affirms
- Permissibility Negates
- T/Theory > K
- 1AR Theory > 1NC T/Theory
- Fairness > Education
- CI > Reasonability
- DTD > DTA
- Truth Testing

Again these are just defaults, I can be convinced very easily to vote the other way, these are just here if nothing was said about these issues in the round.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Info:

- Tech >Truth

- When hitting a novice I do not care what you read. However, I do care the way you act. Do not be condescending or rude. I do believe everyone should have a chance to learn.

- Clarity > Speed, don't go fast just for the sake of going fast. If I can not hear you properly I will yell out clear 3 times after that I will stop flowing.

- Please do not feel like you have to overaccommodate for me. Don't read a K just because I have it as a 1, the debate is revolved around you and your opponent so have fun!

- Debate Influences: Brett Cryan, Vik Maan, Sebastian Cho, Joey Georges, Ethan Massa, Annie Wang, Arjan Kang, Arpan Bagui

Kritiks:

Love them! In my opinion, good k rounds are the best rounds. A very clear explanation of a theory of power is needed with the implications it has in the round. Make sure to include good alts that actually resolve the link (I also think that having an alt that solves case is pretty neat). Good link work is very important as well so make sure to include all of that especially if you decide to go for the K in the 2NR.

Please let me know if you are kicking out of the alt, if you don't I will assume you will be going for it.

If you are reading a floating PIK make sure to hint at it in the 1NC.

K Tricks are cool if that's your thing, just be upfront about it too with your opponent if they ask you.

I am most familiar with: Disability Literature, Queer Literature, Psychoanalysis, Reps, and most Stock K's like Cap.

K Affs:

Go for it. I don't care whether or not it is T/Non-T. Just give me a clear ballot story for why the K matters.

Not much to add here. Most of the stuff about the K from before basically applies here too.

T/Theory:

I'm down for T/Theory. Just make sure to be very clear with the weighing and making it as clean as possible.

Any type of shell is fine just warrant the standards and voters properly please.

The term "frivolous" is very arbitrary in my opinion. I know some shells might be "frivolous" but please warrant why. Simply saying something is "frivolous" is not enough for me to not consider the argument.

Nebel/Leslie/Subsets is cool.

Policy:

Good for policy vs other positions (i.e. - Policy vs K). But I will say very dense policy vs policy debates are not my thing. Read whatever you want. Spark/CO2 Ag/Other Impact Turns are fine.

2/24/23: Recently I have been more into policy style arguments so I should be better for it.

Phil:

I am good for anything that is pretty stock/not dense like Kant. But if you are pulling up with very dense phil I might not get it, I am willing to evaluate it just please explain it much more.

TJFs and other independent justification are cool.

Permissibility triggers also are cool.

Tricks:

I will vote on tricks. Like all other arguments, please extend a warrant and weigh. I won't doc speaks for reading them, unless you make the debate very very messy. A good tricks debate will make my ballot easy.

I think that you should be upfront about your tricks in CX to an extent. You don't have to give away all of your strategies but just don't be too shifty about it.

Bonus points if you have a good skep 2NR.

Traditional:

Sure, traditional rounds are fine. Like any other style of debate, make sure to make the flow good for me to have an easy decision. I usually think the value debate doesn't really boil down to anything but it can affect the round if it comes down to it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaks:

Nothing really much to say about speaks. I will try to be generous with speaks, but that can change depending on how the round works. Just have fun, debate is about the debaters not the judge so express who you are!

Here are some ways to increase speaks:

- Not being rude in the round.

Here are some ways to decrease speaks:

- Being rude in the round.

- Making the round very messy and hard to eval.

- Harassing your opponent during CX/Flex Prep.

- (there really isn't much you can do to hurt your speaks a lot just please be chill)

If there are any questions you have regarding anything just reach out to me before the round and I will be happy to answer! See you in the round and glhf!

Rishit Pradhan Stratford Milpitas

Christian Quiroz Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Last changed on Wed September 26, 2018 at 3:00 PM EDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yesh Rao Princeton Middle School

Last changed on Fri May 13, 2022 at 1:48 PM EDT

hi! im yesh

sophomore at san mateo class of 24! i qualled to the TOC in LD both years if its relevant

updated for middle school toc

yeshraofc@gmail.com for the chain although i prefer speech drop

read anything! i've gone for / debated against everything and think i won't be predisposed to any particular style of arguments

Policy Arguments: I'm good for these! impact calculus wins rounds, the 2nr should answer the aff and win either a substantial risk of cp solvency with at least some risk of a disad, or a large risk of a disad with small risk of the aff. Impact calculus should be the top of the 2nr, turns case arguments are underutilized and win rounds. Limited intrisicness is almost always arbitrary. Theoretical objections to most counterplans could better be read as perms/cp competition arguments but I'm okay listening to them as theory arguments too. I'll judge kick the counterplan if you tell me to and any 2ar reason I shouldn't might not be the best time investment but up to you

Theory: Also good for this! The 2ar/2nr on theory should spend the vast majority of your time doing internal link comparison and weigh between standards. I think weighing between voters like fairness and education is less persuasive, most standards have internals to both and are more nuanced. I'm good for 1ar shells but I do think they should have some development in the 1ar to be a complete argument. I default competing interps, drop the argument, and no rvi's. These are changed with arguments in the contrary but it's just to have a standardized way to think about rounds.

Phil: Probably the thing I've gone for least but one of the things I wish more people went for! I understand Kant, Hobbes, and Prag to an extent. I'd love to see you go for anything else but I'd suggest assuming that I don't understand it and go from there. I usually read util affs but I've also read/gone for kant and prag so I'm good for both sides of that debate in most instances!

Kritiks: I think I'm a lot better for this than my argumentative history may suggest but admittedly I don't know about most literature bases. I'd love to hear a good 2nr on any kritik or a k aff and won't be ideologically opposed to it in any way. I would like if the 1nc includes a framework block because LD makes the weigh case debate very very muddled if late breaking.

Non T Affs: I have gone for these a few times and think I'm okay for them. I'm better for impact turns to framework / reasons abdicating the resolution is valuable OVER defense to negative offense and less true I meet's. I've gone for 2NRs on both limits/fairness and skills but I think skills is more persuasive for me.

Speaks: I average a 28.5, and will go up/down from there. Speaks are based on strategic choices and persuasion. To get higher speaks, be nice in cx and make rounds easier to evaluate!

Email me if you have any other questions!

Tajaih Robinson Eastern Middle School

Nick Ryan Hire

Last changed on Sat October 1, 2022 at 1:57 PM EDT

Philosophy Updated 9-5-17

Nick Ryan – Liberty Debate – 10th year coaching/Judging

Please label your email chains “Tournament – Rd “#” – AFF Team vs Neg Team” – or something close to that effect. I hate “No subject,” “Test,” “AFF.” I would like to be included “nryan2wc@gmail.com”

Too often Philosophy’s are long and give you a bunch of irrelevant information. I’m going to try to keep this short and sweet.

1. I spend most of my time working with our “Policy teams,” I have a limited amount of working with our “K/Non traditional” debaters, but the bulk of my academic research base is with the “traditional” “policy teams;” don’t expect me to know the nuances of your specific argument, debate it and explain it.

2. Despite this I vote for the K a fair amount of time, particularly when the argument is contextualized in the context of the AFF and when teams aren’t reliant on me to unpack the meaning of “big words.” Don’t rely on me to find your “embedded clash” for you.

3. “Perm Do Both” is not a real argument, neg teams let AFFs get away with it way too often and it shifts in the 1AR. Perms and Advocacy/CP texts should be written out.

4. If neither team clarifies in the debate, then I default to the status quo is always an option.

5. These are things that can and probably will influence your speaker points: clarity, explanations, disrespectfulness to the other team, or your partner, stealing prep time, your use of your speech time (including cx), etc.

6. Prep time includes everything from the time the timer beeps at the end of the lasts speech/CX until the doc is sent out.

7. I think Poems/Lyrics/Narratives that you are reading written by someone else is evidence and should be in the speech document.

ADA Novice Packet Tournaments:

Evidence you use should be from the packet. If you read cards that weren’t in the packet more than once it’s hard to believe it was a “honest mistake.”

If you have any questions about things that are not listed here please ask, I would rather you be sure about my feelings, then deterred from running something because you are afraid I did not like it.

Shivakumar Seetharaman Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Anthony Shen Redwood MS

Kyna Shen Redwood MS

Christina Shi The Golden State Academy

John Sims Isidore Newman Middle School

Last changed on Wed December 1, 2021 at 7:25 AM CDT

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

Wyatt Skala Kudos College Of Youth Leadership

Last changed on Sun July 18, 2021 at 12:22 PM AKDT

If you don't think debate is a game and you have been debating for more than a year you are wrong you should feel bad about it. I did Policy in high school and bp now.

My Judging Philosophy: I like good argumentation. It is one thing to have a good idea, you need to be able to defend it. Tell me how to vote and I will vote for your idea. Debate is a game and you should be able to create a winning strategy by any means. I am a games player judge.

Dropped args flow 100% in the favor of the team that didn't drop them. That said I won’t extend dropped args for you. Same goes for voting tell me explicitly why I should vote for you. The debate is your playground I am here to moderate only. This should be about what you think is the best line for the position you have been given.

Speed: If we are at a national tournament and you don't speed I won't give you more that 26 speaks. In local or lay tournaments I will dock you points for speeding without your opponents saying there okay with it IN FRONT OF ME before you do so.

Spread: Tbh, do you but beyond 7 off case I will never buy a 'grouping bad' argument. Personally I have never seen or had a round where someone spread a good team out of round. If you default to running as many argument as you can to extend one through the block your not Woke enough. I won't weigh it in round but I will call you out on a lack of sauce on the ballot for your coaches to read.

Stock Issues Cases: I don't mind stock issues. If you feel this is the best path for victory or what you are most comfortable running run it. I like traditional impact calc, bonus points for Royals in 10 (LMFAO, please go for it kid). That said you have to basically be the next great orator to sell me a politics da. I will try to keep my bais in check but the ptix da has been the same dumpster fire since I was debate.

Aff K: I know quite a bit about K cases. I ran one at nsda nats twice and three times for NCFL. I know most about Agamben and Derrida based cases but have a lot of respect for Wilderson and Foucault cases. If you run it I expect you to be the expert on your case. That said don't do policy if you are not. Camp K Aff's are never good and they never had been. If this is the route you are going for try doing research.

NEG: Go wild, I think neg is the harder position. All I ask is you match your opponent's speed but I give you permission to fight dirty. No line of attack is off limits for you run. I have mad respect neg teams that can pull off sick fw and theory shells.

If you want to know my perfect round I'm looking for on any resolution.

- Aff runs a case with a plan text and leans heavy into a K through 1AC framework. [IE any pedagogy maters K.]

- Neg runs five off: 1 cp, 2 da, 1 t, cap k(With alt solves), in any order. Turns on advs and engage fw.

You get .5 speaker points for putting the word "Pepsi" in a tag line.

Abigail Spencer ModernBrain

Last changed on Sat April 29, 2023 at 4:50 AM PDT

MSTOC: Thank you so much to everyone who has pointed out this paradigm does not reflect judging PF very well. If you are at MSTOC, this is really the only thing you need to know

1. I coach/teach classes in ES and MS PF - even though I judge policy more often, I'm very familiar with PF as an event and don't expect you to act like high schoolers or policy debaters. Don't get overwhelmed by my paradigm! I can judge you.

2. Weighing arguments in summary/final focus is essential for me, more than any other thing. Weighing just means comparing your case to theirs and specifically telling me why I vote for you and not them. Just because your arguments are good isn't enough; I need to know why they're better.

3. Crossfire is not a speech, so if you make a good attack on their argument in cross that you want me to evaluate on the flow, bring it up in your next speech.

4. Extensions can be simple, I just need to know you haven't forgotten your case - like, you don't have to rexplain your whole case in every speech, but it also doesn't look good if you spend so much time responding to what they ay that you don't talk about your case after constructive.

Things that I give high speaks for:

Argumentative and strategic consistency and awareness- in every cross or speech you give, I can identify a clear understanding of your case and strategy. You're not just reading each speech in front of you, you're thinking about the round as a whole.

Also, I am always impressed by good topic knowledge. I don't expect this, since topics are broad and you're not required to be an expert, but for me I will definitely bump of speaks if you clearly know a lot about this topic from your research.

Finally, I don't really care about how you speak/where you speak in the room. I don't care about eye contact. What I consider to be good for "professionalism" is being accountable for prep time, speech times, and cross times. I won't be upset if you take a second to get ready when you are about to start your speech. But if you're consistently ending prep and speaking very promptly after, I will reward that with higher speaks since I do kind of dislike when people "end prep" and then very clearly continue to read through their speech and mentally prep until they start talking.

Be kind to your partners. Do not be overly cocky.

Paradigm last updated: 12/24 (significant overhauls of paradigm content based on recent judging decisions.)

TLDR: I'll find the cleanest path to the ballot on the flow. Tech >>> Truth. Don't be violent, make debate an educational activity and I'll probably be a good judge for you.

abigailnspencer[at]gmail.com.

There are five things in this paradigm: (1) an "about me" section, (2) a section about keeping debates safe, (3) a disclaimer about my thoughts on this year's topic, (4) my thoughts on K's, and (5) general thoughts on evidence/weighing. If you don't care about these things specifically, there is no reason to read the rest of my paradigm. Unless maybe you're bored, but I'd say a game of chess would be a better way to alleviate that. lichess.org is a good place for that.

(1) About Me

Community coach for McDade Classical School and Lindblom Academy. Assistant coach at Potomac Debate Institute. Graduate student at University of Chicago. Former competitor in NDT/CEDA policy debate and AFA-NIET speech. Semi-experienced judge (not reflected in my Tab history - I also judge collegiate parli and speech). I've done most events. I can flow. I did a lot of hybrid partnerships, so I've run arguments across the spectrum. Performance, trad, it's all cool.

I am always flowing. I have carpal tunnel syndrome (ouch) so sometimes I need to take breaks and sometimes I use keyboard shortcuts or other tools I've created for myself. If I'm not actively typing, that's because I've got it on the flow through other means.

(2) PLEASE BE A GOOD HUMAN

Disclaimer: I do not give you a W or higher speaker points for respecting pronouns. I think that respecting pronouns is a good way to make debate a safe and welcoming space. If you want to know my values, read my debate background. I am tired of being treated like a judge who will vote for you just because you asked for your opp's pronouns.

that being said, you should use they/them pronouns for anyone who has not disclosed otherwise in your round. I'm seeing an influx of trans debaters cling to this activity as a safe space - don't be what shatters that.

there's also an unspoken imbalance in the accessibility of pronoun disclosure. it takes 10 seconds to update your bio to tell the homies you're cis. for trans debaters this decision carries all the weight in the world and isn't always instantaneous. not disclosing pronouns does not mean you do not care. it is often because it is not safe to do so.

make debates safe before you make them winnable. your words may just change someone's life.

(3) A note on the 2023 NSDA Policy topic

I've been voting neg a lot this year. I'm not a neg hack, but I think a lot of affs forget how easy it is to vote neg and not intervene when the aff isn't weighed against the status quo. Please extend your impacts! An overview that's even 30 seconds in the 2AR is critical to explaining why the aff is a good idea if you want me to vote for it.

I am finding more and more debates decided during the last speech on each side. I think debates can totally be won or lost earlier, but I'm just not seeing that at the hs level. This is all to say - frame, frame, frame. Cool debaters have cool voters. I vote on the flow and I don't necessarily care that a card or two were dropped, unless you want to explain why it loses the debate. Spend less time extending cards and more time telling me why you win and they lose - I crave judge intervention less than you do, trust me.

(4) Your name makes you sound like a neolib, but you have college policy experience...can I read my K?

I fall into the category of K debater that appreciates a good K but has a visceral reaction to a bad one. I don't see the same novelty most judges do in your performance, I'm sorry. I hit a sex worker/call girl rage performance in college and since then I've realized that anything can happen in these rounds. Please don't assume that me having K experience means reading a K is the best strategy. I will totally vote for your K, but I will hold you to defending it properly and explaining how you solve your impacts - especially if you want me to accept a non-traditional ROB, like "always vote for this K, no matter what."

Essentially, debate the way you want to and I'll evaluate accordingly.

THE DEFAULT IS debate is a game, you win on the flow. You can read another interp though, I'll evaluate whatever you tell me debate is.

(5) The other, less interesting debate stuff you should know.

I will warn that coming from Policy I'm a bit sussed out by why the one card they dropped is more important than all the other work they did on your flow. Do not expect me to do the work for you. I'm looking for the cleanest path to the ballot, but please explain why I should vote on something. Conceded offense probably isn't great for you, but if you just extend a dropped turn that wasn't ever fleshed out and they're winning case, it comes down to who does the better comparative. Framework debates are cool.

You make my job so much easier when you define an aff world against a neg world. What actually happens when the resolution is "passed"? I don't want to re-read your link story after the round, and I'm more likely to believe it hearing it in summary and final focus than I am when critically evaluating my flow. Extend impacts, they won't do it by themselves (trust me).

Speed's cool with me if it's cool with all debaters in the round. I'd personally send out a speech doc after 300wpm because of the likelihood of lag in online settings. In general, if you want your arguments on my flow make sure you're loud and clear. I flow everything on its own sheet, so off-time road maps are cool. Signposting is even cooler.

Don't use unnecessary jargon. Unless this is visibly a higher level tech round, I do believe you should be doing everything in your power to make sure everyone in round has access to the same education you do.

Make debate educational, above all else. Accessibility is a pre-requisite to education. Exclude, you lose.

(6) I know I didn't put this in my roadmap, so this is a top secret section...Middle School Debate!

Who am I kidding...middle schoolers don't read paradigms. But then again, does anyone anymore?

Skye Spindler The Harker School

Last changed on Sat April 29, 2023 at 2:34 AM CDT

***PLEASE, I BEG YOU, if nothing else, read my note about speed/clarity!!! This issue is paramount in online debate!***

"Accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace - and maybe even glory." - Tom Robbins

Hello! I'm Skye. I graduated from Concordia College where I debated on their policy team for 4 years. I am a CEDA scholar and 2019 NDT participant. In high school, I moved around a lot and have, at some point, participated in every debate format. I have a degree in English Literature and Global Studies with a minor in Women and Gender Studies.

I have experience reading, coaching, & judging both trad policy arguments and Ks.

I have been coaching going on 3 years and judging for 6. I am currently the head policy coach at Wayzata HS in Wayzata, MN. I occasionally help out the Harker School in San Jose, CA and UMN debate in Minneapolis, MN. My full time job is at the Minnesota Urban Debate League, where I am serving my second Americorps VISTA service year as the Community Debate Liaison.

I love debate and I have loved taking on an educator role in the community. I take education very seriously, but I try to approach debates with compassion and mirth, because I think everyone benefits from it. I try to be as engaged and helpful as I can while judging, and I am excited and grateful to be part of your day!

My email is spindler@augsburg.edu for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :)

Top 3 Notes!

1. I FLOW ON PAPER AND HAVE POOR HEARING. I am OK with spreading, I think speed makes for much more in depth and rigorous debates, but with great speed comes great responsibility…

- please use a microphone in a headset/headphones if you have the tech, the laptop mics also pick up echoes and it makes it way harder than it needs to be for my ears

- please send out analytics if you are at all willing

- please send out marked docs at the end of your speech

- please SIGN POST & give me 1 second to move onto the next flow

- please use different intonation and sign posting to indicate you are going onto the next argument on the flow to give me the cue to finish up and move along with you so I can keep an organized flow. Not all speeches will be organized the same way, but if I know where to put things so they line up, then we are all in a better place.

- In the 2A/NC & rebuttals, spreading your way through analytics at MAX SPEED will not help you, because I won't be able to write it all down, or even really process the very dense argumentation and smart things you are saying.

If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because you did not accommodate me, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it. I am not afraid to tell you I did not get everything or missed something. To me, that is on the debater, not the judge. There are way too many people in this activity that like to pretend they can hear every word no matter what. I am not one of those people. This is still a communication activity, and I earnestly believe the debaters should keep that in mind.

2. When it is time for the RFD, I go to framework first. If any framework arguments were extended in the rebuttals, I will reach a conclusion about who wins what and use that to dictate my decision making. I will always do this, without fail, I promise you. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.

3. I default to evaluating debates from the point of tech/line by line, but arguments that were articulated with a warrant, a reason you are winning them/comparison to your opponents’ answers, and why they matter for the debate will significantly outweigh those that don’t.

Specifics!

"tag teaming cross ex": sure, just know that if you don't answer any CX questions OR cut your partner off, it will likely affect your speaks.

Clash debates, K aff: Fairness is probably not your best option for terminal impact, but just fine if articulated as an internal link to education. Education is very significant to me, that is why I am here. I think limits are generally good. I think the best K affs debate from the “core” or “center” of the topic, and have a clear model of debate to answer framework with. So the side that best illustrates their model of debate and its educational value while disproving the merits of their opponents’ is the side that wins to me.

Clash debates, K on the neg: As I’ve mentioned previously,framework will really guide my decision, so I encourage debaters to invest time there. The links are really important to me, especially giving an impact to that link. I think case debate is slept on by K debaters. I have recently started thinking of K strat on the negative as determined by what generates uniqueness in any given debate: the links? The alt? Framework? Both/all?

K v. K: Framework, friends, framework. Without framework we are but scurvy-ridden sailors in a sea of K goo. It may be helpful to know that I think of perms as a test of the links/competition, and not so much as an advocacy.

Ks, general:I feel that it can be easy for debaters to lose their K and by the end of the debate, I’m not sure what critical analysis actually happened in the round.No alt needed if you're worried about that, as long as there is framework/framing that supports it. I also think situating your K in/to the context of debate clarifies things for me quite a bit.

Condo/Theory: I am not opposed to voting on condo bad, but please read it as a PROCEDURAL, with an interp, violation, and standards. Anything else just becomes a mess. The same applies to any theory argument. I approach it all thinking, “What do we want debates to be like? What norms do we want to set?”

T: Will vote on T, please see theory and clash v. K aff sections for more insight, I think of these things in much the same way.

Plans/policy v K: Although I am personally ideologically predisposed to critical arguments in the ~real world~, I increasingly do not feel this is the case in debate. I also think there is an artificial polarization of k vs. Policy ideologies in debate; these things are not so incompatible as we seem to believe. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.; these worlds are not so polarized to me. I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.

policy, general:I am a simple soul here. I like refutation, LBL, evidence analysis, and collapsing down in rebuttals. You know, good debate.

LD, random arguments about wearing shoes or whatever: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.

Fun Survey:

Policy--------------------------X-----------------K

Read no cards-----------x------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---------------x---------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-------------------------x---------States CP bad

Federalism DA good---------------------------x--Federalism DA bad

Politics DA good for education --------------------------x---Politics DA not good for education

Fairness is a thing----------------------------x--Delgado 92

Try or die------------------------------------x-----What's the opposite of try or die

Clarityxxx--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits---------x-------------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption----------x----------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face-------------------------x----Grumpy face is your fault

CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency

AT: ------------------------------------------------------x-- A2:

Michael Stuckert HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Mon April 17, 2023 at 9:34 AM CDT

I'm a first year out, I debated LD for 4 years at Strake Jesuit. I qualified and broke at TFA State 3 times, and qualified to TOC Junior year with 4 career bids. Contact me/add me to docs at michaelastuckert4@gmail.com

You can call me "Michael" -- "judge" is fine but weird to me.

I'm tech > truth and I'll vote on anything.

tldr - run what you're good at, I'll try to act as a neutral party minimizing my intervention as much as possible, but keep in mind that I haven't judged that much and this paradigm probably makes me sound better than I actually am so please give me judge instruction/crystallization and collapse in the 2ar and 2nr - if you go for everything I'm not going to know how to vote. Whoever can present me the simplest and most coherent ballot story will probably win.

Also if you disagree with my decision please feel free to post-round me - I won't take offense to it and I'll probably be able to learn from it - that said do it atleast somewhat respectfully and realize I might have a second flight to go judge

Pref Sheet:

High Theory/Pomo K's - 1

Phil - 1

Theory/T - 2

Identity K's - 2

LARP - 3

Tricks - 4

Traditional -5

Miscellaneous:

- Spreading is fine

- (if online) Keep local recordings of speeches - if there's a technical error and you don't have one I'll doc speaks

- I WON'T read off the doc, but I'll have it open and glance at it to make sure I know where you are

- I'll call "clear" if I can't understand you as many times as needed - I WON'T doc speaks or anything if I have to call clear I'll just miss some arguments if you're not clear.

- I'll disclose speaks just ask

- I'll flow 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- Non-black debaters shouldn't read afropess - I'll have a low threshold for your opponent to win that

Larp:

I never really was a larper in high school so try to be especially clear in these debates

Do whatever you want just do a lot of weighing both on the impact level and evidence comparison and I'll be happy.

I'll judge kick the CP (if it's condo) if you tell me to but if you don't make the argument I won't.

I love impact turns

Politics is cool

I probably won't read cards unless you specifically tell me to

Theory:

Defaults: No RVI, Competing interps, DTD, Fairness > Education but don't make me default

I'll evaluate any shell no matter how frivolous but the less frivolous the happier I'll be

Make sure there's high quality weighing between voters and standards

Theory hedges are fine

Please slow down on the interps and short analytical arguments

Err on the side of overexplaining with clear arguments and comparative weighing in a semantics 2nr I don't know how grammar works lol

I'd prefer more specific arguments in the 2nr/2ar rather than reading off of a doc

I'm familiar with cap, security, Baudrillard, Deleuze, Weheliye, Afropessimism, Set col, Edelman, Adorno, and Habermas

Don't just read one of these because I'm familiar with it - if you can't explain what you're talking about, I won't be happy. I'm only familiar with most of these because I've debated against them and I wouldn't be able to explain them to you in depth so you run the risk of confusing me unless you have some explanation. If you're good at going for high theory and pomo great! I like this type of debate, but if you don't understand what you're reading then don't read it.

Even if you're reading something I understand I won't use prior knowledge to fill in the gaps so please have warrants and explain buzzwords

Overexplain your alt especially if it's refual alts, why is it a good thing?, if I don't understand it I won't vote on it

Floating PIKs are fine but please at least hint at them in the 1N

Alt solves case arguments that are specific to the aff are great and I'm persuaded by them

K Affs:

Non-T Affs are fine

Negs that engage on the case page and go for permissibility pushes against these will make me very happy

Reps Ks:

I won't enjoy friv violations but I'll vote on them if they go conceded

I prefer straight up Ks instead of word PIKs but I'll vote on a word PIK if it goes conceded

Phil:

I was mainly a Kant debater

I know Kant, Libertarianism, Rawls, Contractarianism, Hobbes, Rousseau, Levinas, Aristotle, GCB, Util, Particuarlism, and pragmatism

Please weigh between warrants

I like syllogistic frameworks over a ton of blippy reasons to prefer

TJFs are alright but I'd be happier without them

I'll default to TT > CW, Permissibility and Presumption affirm, Epistemic Confidence > Epistemic Modesty but don't make me default

Tricks:

I don't like hiding tricks in big blocks of text

I'll be persuaded by spikes Ks

Please weigh, I won't be happy if there's a bunch of random a prioris to evaluate at the end of the debate with no weighing between them

Skep triggers are all right

I'll buy evaluate the debate after the X, but I'll have a very low threshold for answers and I'll allow new 2nr/2ar arguments against them (unless you specifically win no new 2nr/2ar arguments)

Trad:

I'm fine with it, would prefer if you go faster

I'll vote on the flow even in traditional debates

If you are debating a trad debater make the round educational for them, as a formed debater I understand the struggle of trying to be educational and also trying to win, so you can still run your a strat just try to be nice. Just please don't try to blatantly out-spread them (some speed is fine but full speed against someone who's not spreading is excessive) or read a bunch of tricks or frivolous shells.

I've judged a couple trad debates and I'm always left with no idea how to vote, so if you're a trad debater please 1- Collapse and crystallize give me the cleanest most coherent ballet story and I'll probably vote for you, but if you go for everything in the 2nr/2ar I won't know where I should vote for you. By this I don't just mean giving voters at the end or flagging things as voting issues throughout the round I'll be extremely happy if in the 2nr/2ar you look at your flow and decide what your strongest contention is which one can you win the easiest? Then go for that and make it by far the biggest issue in the round with a lot of impact weighing and answering your opponents case. Winning one huge issue is a lot better than winning a ton of small issues. 2- Extend offense and 3- Weigh. Trust me it'll make me a lot happier. (Meta-weighing makes me even happier, and reading turns and going for them is great)

I don't think you need to extend defense, I think defense is sticky but if you read an offensive turn you must extend it or I won't evaluate it

Please don't extend through defense, answer your opponents arguments, the more clash the better

General:

Normal speech times please time yourself

An argument must be extended through every speech to be evaluated

Conceded arguments are seen as true

I won't allow new arguments in the 2nr/2ar (unless it's like a 1ar shell the 2nr goes for reasonability and the 2ar makes arguments against reasonability // or unless you win on the flow that you get new arguments) but I'll allow extensions and expanding on an argument. If I can point to somewhere in the 1ar that can warrant an argument made in the 2ar then I'll evaluate it.

Cheating and Evidence ethics:

If you stake the round loser gets an L20 (or lowest speaks I can give), the winner gets a W30.

You don't have to stake the round I'll evaluate it in a shell format.

For staked rounds, I'll follow tournament rules.

Think this requires more information and specifics so here's some scenarios I can think of (if there's a tournament rule contradicting any of these points I'll prioritize tournament rules over all else):

- If a card is cut in the middle of a paragraph, stake the round, I'll vote for whoever stakes

- if there's block quotes or weird formatting that makes it unclear if it's cut in the middle of a paragraph play it safe and read a shell

- If a card is straw manning without acknowledging it, NSDA rules says I should "vote against the debater who uses a straw argument and award zero speaker points" but if a debater indicates (NSDA says verbally acknowledge, but also for me if it's in the doc like in the citation then I think that's good enough to indicate) that they're reading a strawman argument then it's fine and not stakeable (but winning a theory shell is still fine ofc)

- If a debater distorts evidence (adding or removing words without brackets) and it significantly alters the original meaning I'll vote for whoever stakes the round

- If a debater uses ellipses to leave out large sections of the card, stake the round, I'll vote for the debater who stakes the round.

- If a debater brackets evidence read a shell, I'll vote against the person who stakes the round (unless you give specific tournament rules that says I should down debaters who bracket evidence)

If you clip more than 20 words and I catch it you'll lose - your opponent doesn't even need to stake please don't clip you never know sometimes I might be following along in the speech doc making sure

- Obviously saying cut the card here or cut this or something like that isn't clipping, if you make it clear that you didn't read something you're fine, but if you pretend that you read something that you didn't then that's clipping.

Jet Sun HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Anand Sundaram Athens Debate

Last changed on Fri November 18, 2022 at 6:21 PM EDT

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

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

For all Debate:

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

For Public Forum:

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

For LD:

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

Erik Sunde Bob Lanier Middle School None

Anya Tang Jane Addams Middle School

Last changed on Mon April 24, 2023 at 7:44 AM EDT

"Hope is a discipline." -Mariame Kaba

Please put me on the email chain or reach out to me with questions/concerns at 4ristotle.x[@]gmail.com. Let me know if you need me to speak to tab or an ombudsperson before/after/during the round. If the round is unsafe, and you would like to stop the round and ask that I speak to Tab, and I do not seem to notice, please please just stop the round and tell me. I will do everything in my capacity to advocate with you.

Background - I did Policy, LD, and PF, and now coach LD and PF. More art in debate. More art as debate. Tell me if what I am saying doesn't make sense and I will work with you to rephrase/rewind/remix my thinking.

PF: I have 5 minutes before round and I need a TLDR - I'm happy to vote for a team that does good work on the line-by-line. Debaters reading arguments they care about is my favorite part of this event. Grand crossfire is my least favorite part of this event. I err towards K teams getting alts in PF and believing that an alt is not a counterplan.

General/LD: I have 5 minutes before round and I need a TLDR - Ask me how I feel about (x) body of literature and I will let you know if I need you to err on the side of over-explanation. I would love to see more thoughtful and critical sequencing in this event. I don't know what fairness and education are unless you tell me how they are informed by your theorizing and the components of the pedagogical model you are defending.

Preferences -

1- performance, non-topical affs, K

2- LARP

3- theory

4-phil

5-tricks (pref me higher if there is some body of critical literature that grounds your tricks. pref me lower if you are reading bread and butter tricks.)

General - I judge each round with the default assumption that the role of the judge is to be an ethical educator and that the ballot endorses your formas content. Try not to focus too much on my face if I'm smiling/shaking my head/furrowing my brow. Sorry. I make weird thinking expressions, and that doesn't encapsulate how I feel about your thinking. I love performances, creative args, clash of civs, anything that experiments with the space and the activity. (I'm serious. If you use your 30 minutes before the round to write a poem/pick out a song to play and talk about the resolution as a metaphor, I will 100% reward your speaks and evaluate it happily, though I still expect you to rigorously defend your performative choices.)

Speaks - My speaks last season averaged a 29.4. They start/remain here most of the time w/ the exception of any egregious incidents.

Speed - Spreading is fine. Please number your responses -- I have horrible hearing and worsening tinnitus. This means I may accidentally combine or miss lengthy overviews/underviews if they aren't numbered. Numbers help me distinguish between your responses and double-check my flow for anything I've missed. This also means that the more things there are on the doc (even if it is just '12 responses' and the rest is on your flow) is good for me to follow along. If your opponent asks you to not spread, please don't be that person who does so anyways.

Here's how I evaluate the round:

1- I look at my flow for arguments that are warranted as coming before any explicit framing in the round or arguments that tell me to intervene. Especially for arguments labeled as independent voter issues, there needs to be a warrant why I don't evaluate any of the framing prior. If I'm told to throw out the flow for a compelling reason, I will do so and close my laptop/fold up my flow. The IVI needs to be sequenced to the best of your capabilities, or I need to be told why you can't sequence it.

2- I evaluate the framing. I then vote however the winning framing mechanism tells me to.

3- I look for the path of least resistance to the impact I am told is most important. An argument has a warrant. I look at the remaining offense in the round and then evaluate the comparative under the framing.

Defaults - Competing interpretations, no reverse voting issues, and drop the argument. I don't err one way or another on if debate is good/bad but I think it's an important discussion to have. I will not vote on any argument that frames a structure of violence as good (i.e. racism good). I presume the negative when there is no offense/when all offense is violent (i.e. racism good vs. sexism good).

Online Debate - In case of any wifi drops/disconnects, please have a local recording of your own speeches. If there's a disconnect and you have a local recording of your speech prepared, I will bump your speaks by 0.5. If you need to turn off your camera to debate, that’s fine. The Association of Black Argumentation Professionals (ABAP) has a "Digital Debate Bill of Rights" (you can find it online by googling "ABAP Digital Debate Bill of Rights") that informs my philosophy on safety and inclusion in online debate.

Community Clause - For 30 speaks, go above and beyond in-round to advocate for material action or to create affirming spaces for yourself/your community. Some past examples include but aren't limited to -- proposing and testing community projects through debate, mutual aid, passing out educational zines, listing action items to support local circuits (volunteer judging, helping tab or teach, pledging mutual aid).If you include at least 1 organic scholar as evidence/offense in your debating at any point in the round (and explain to me why this is an organic source/what your source does for affirming or negating), and point it out to me, I will give you a 30. Ask me if you're not sure who/what an organic scholar is!

Note on Post-rounding - I'm happy to answer your questions -- please hold me accountable! And also feel free to ask me for lit recs. (Critical literature, poetry, prose...)

Last thoughts - For every student I judge: I know firsthand that debate can sometimes be hard, cruel, and exhausting, and I hope you all find/have some sense of community and joy here. I hope you all have wonderful support systems of educators, trusted adults, and peers. We are all here to learn, in one way or another, and I find myself leaving every round having learned something new. Thank you for trusting me to be in the back of the room for your round. You are going to change the world -- be proud of yourself. From Audre Lorde's The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master's House: "Without community, there is no liberation."

Lengthier version here: Ask me for questions/preferences/opinions. I am comfortable evaluating most things. Otherwise, please just do a good job on the line-by-line.

Note on scholarship: A description of the scholarship I enjoy evaluating (because I have realized the borders between bodies of literature are always overlapping/shifting/changing/imagined): I like debaters who do not forget the ways racial capitalism grows and changes in response to new landscapes. I love learning about: queer studies, trans studies, coloniality, Asian American studies, performance studies, fugitivity, study/planning, semiocap, capitalism. (Students also like to read Deleuze and Lacan in front of me. That's fine. Just know you're on thin ice -- and I say this semi-affectionately -- when you pull out the Zizek evidence. I won't not vote on it, but I will be happier to vote on something else.)

I am excited to hear about your original contributions to critical scholarship -- your identification of weak points in systems of domination, ways we can apply pressure, and how they shift/change/adapt. Do not just read old taglines and uncontextualized work! These systems evolve, grow, and change in response to us pressing on its weak points. You need to reflect and acknowledge that. I will reward innovative/creative affs and negs.

I am absolutely a good judge for you if you are new to the K and you are doing your best to engage! I always think more people should read/engage with the K. Unless you have a really good reason, please extend K/case/performance/whatever kritikal argument you want me to vote for. If I don't know what the aff does/you are just reacting to whatever is said in the last speech and not leveraging the case page, I will be very sad and have a very hard time voting for you.

K aff: Do what pleases you (or do nothing if that is the aff). I appreciate when kritikal affirmatives include a ballot story. Later in the round -- leverage the 1AC! Effective sequencing is how I find myself voting for the aff, and I appreciate well-warranted sequencing that tells me how an opponents' strategic decisions (i.e. their collapse) can reflect or influence the sequence of evaluating arguments in each debate. The theorization in the affirmative should be used to indict the theory/topicality page -- how you debate is intertwined/produced from what you debate, and vice versa.

Against the K aff: I am excited to see new strategies that rely on scholarship/strategies that you love. I think this sets up the round for great debates around competing methods. I am not excited to see multiple blips as offs and a 2NR strategy that relies on going for the most undercovered off. I appreciate it when teams identify framing deficits and propose creative CROTBS. I appreciate it even more when the framing debate is specific, prioritized, and applied to the space that we take up in this round.

T-FW: If you are reading the same old "the 1AC plays with hand grenades" shells, please seriously consider just reading a counterperformance and finding a song to play that you really care about instead if you want my ballot. I think T-FW needs to have a TVA with some form of solvency advocate (doesn't need to be carded, I'm happy to evaluate warrants, please just tell me why the TVA solves). I live for creative TVAs. The TVA to "dismantle anti-queerness in the workplace" compels me less than the TVA to crash the courts because the former engages with the aff in a much shallower manner than the latter. I would like to see more forms of TFW that experiment with what it means to be topical, or why topicality is necessary to access liberatory impacts. I would like to see less forms of TFW that go for fairness as a voter, "ballot subjectivity impossible," and "debate is a game." These arguments tend to be overhashed and non-interactive. I default to fairness as an internal link to education but have been compelled to vote otherwise. Tell me why TFW forecloses aff outs (i.e. epistemic suspicion).

Performance: See K aff section. I notice I tend to be a little harsher when judging performance debaters if they neglect the performance and sit on the theory -- synthesizing your theorizing with your practice is your path to the ballot. I am on board with almost whatever you choose to perform. I am super compelled by arguments that identify performative offense on any page (i.e. their collapse, reading evidence/not reading evidence, actions in cross). Don't be afraid to sit on things and just sequence it out! The flow is never my end-all-be-all in these rounds. The performative contradiction needs to be sequenced. I'm less compelled by reasons why the perfcon decks fairness than I am by reasons why the perfcon reinforces a system of domination or damages the team's pedagogical/liberatory value. If you are going to include me in the performance that is fine, please just be clear what your expectations for my participation are before the speech (i.e. the judge should play Mahjong during the 1AC).

My one exception to your performance choreography is that I will not physically touch a debater I am judging. Please extend the performance beyond the constructive. It is good offense and you should be able to synthesize your theorizing and your performance to articulate how it affects you, me, us. Be safe when you perform (i.e. please do not injure yourself and/or others) -- if you are reading an argument and you are worried anyone other than you/your partner will read the ballot, PLEASE LET ME KNOW and I will alter my language on my ballot to give you educational feedback while respecting your privacy and give you a longer verbal rfd.

K: Link evidence needs to be specific in both tags and analysis. Please pull quotes!! If you are reading a K with pulled links from another round, I can tell and it will make me sad. I think it is incredible and reflects how rigorous your work is as a debater when you historicize the K or provide compelling reasons as to why we shouldn't/cannot. I think it is even more incredible when you can point to your experiences in debate or in this round and say, "Here is how the theory of the K has influenced the way we act and talk and judge in this round." I am happy when the K builds links from the form of the affirmative debater and justifies why performances in collapsing, cross, docs/cites, etc. are all links to the K. I am sad when the K overview is only an extension of your theorization and not a reactive implication of how the K out-sequences or interacts with the rest of the round. Against the K, perms I am not compelled by are often a little too blippy and don't ID a net benefit or contextualize themselves through the aff. I would love fewer well-contextualized perms instead of plenty of underdeveloped perms.

A note on the K in PF: I know times are shorter. I will not fault you for not completely hashing out a theory of power so long as the extension/overview contextualizes the K to the round. Please stop reading a K and also your case. Just use the full time to sit on the K. Trust me. I will be happier with four minutes of a kritik as opposed to two minutes of the K and two minutes of why U.S. diplomacy is key to resolve oil prices.

LARP: I like creative case turns. I like impact scenarios with rigorous internal links. I like when debaters can defend or draw on increasingly-recent events and historical trends to explain situations as more than isolated events.

DA: See LARP.

CP: There comes a point where there are diminishing returns on the number of conditional advocacies you choose to read. Please include full text in your doc/please don't extemp your text. I am also not super convinced by "risk of net benefit" as a reason to instantly write a negative ballot. I am super convinced when the affirmative is able to takeout or weigh against the net benefit, because this makes it easier for me to understand how offense at the end of the round interacts with each other under different metrics. I don't think process CPs, internationally-fiated CPs, or PICs are terrible. I think creative CPs (i.e. consult tumblr) are incredible.

Phil: I'm fine for most foundational authors and some of their secondary literature. This is definitely the section where you should ask if I am familiar with (x) author. If I am not, please slow down and over-explain the evidence. I recognize the overlap between phil and kritikal scholarship (i.e. Spinoza and Deleuze), and I'm able to follow along best when you explain things in K terms to me (sorry). Generic arguments about non/ideal theory good/bad are not super compelling to me in the backhalf -- instead, they are excellent foundations for you to enter a critical conversation about scholarship, and it helps me to evaluate phil debates better when you're able to use them as the foundation for contextualized criticisms of the aff/neg.

Theory: I am happy when I judge a shell with standards that are comparative and isolate unique benefits of your interpretation. I get more persnickety about theory the later it's introduced and I absolutely need to hear an interpretation, violation, and standards extended to vote on it. The blippier it is the less compelled I am to consider it. See notes on defaults at the top.

Tricks: I understand if this form of debate brings you joy. It usually does not for me and I am probably not the best judge for this. If you are reading this ten minutes before your round and have nothing prepared except for skep/paradoxes, please know I am more compelled by you reading/writing a poem in these ten minutes as a path to the ballot than I am by tricks. Please. Give me poetry instead of tricks.

Things debaters do to make me vote for them:

-Taking the time to compare between different warrants, or compare methodologies, or compare evidence.

-Numbering responses.

-Winning the framing page.

-Original scholarship.

-Adding me to the email chain or flashing me your speeches (Please don't do the latter unless absolutely necessary--I would prefer to social distance).

-Being kind to yourself and to others.

-Art. (Music, poetry, dance, sitting in silence, meditation, etc.)

Things debaters do that will result in the proverbial hot L (and will likely result in a conversation with tournament administrators and/or your school):

-Any form of impact turn on racism/sexism/fascism/a turn that frames a structure of violence as good. Seriously? Debate has no space for these types of arguments. I am hard-pressed to find pedagogical value in them, and even as some form of satire/accelerationism/whatever justification you come up with, I find it difficult to justify the harm that's being done in round if I endorse violent content. I did not think I would have to include this on my paradigm, but I am sad that arguments like these are still run. I would like to believe that debaters are brilliant, kind, and caring towards each other in the community. I will drop you immediately and assign the lowest speaks possible.

-Misgendering. Language like "they," "the aff/neg," "the rebuttal," is good and should be your default. Disengaged arguments about "non-verifiability," "mutual harm," "lying for the ballot," or "new in the 2AR/NR" will not convince me and will make me unhappy. I understand that mistakes happen. However -- if you are misgendering another debater repeatedly and that debater introduces it as a reason to drop you in the round, I will vote on it and give you the lowest speaks possible. If you have 5 minutes to prepare for your next round, you have 5 minutes to practice your opponent's pronouns and avoid using gendered language that misgenders them. If your opponent has not disclosed pronouns, please use gender-neutral language. One way to practice: "They dropped the argument." "This is their flow paper." "The charger belongs to them." Using students' correct pronouns is important for them to feel safe and engage with the debate round at a level that is educational for both you and your opponent. If you wish, you can include your pronouns on Tabroom to be sent in blasts in your profile (the icon of a person) here.

-Theory arguments that criticize your opponents' presentation -- shoes theory, hat theory, formal/informal clothes theory are the fastest ways for me to cast a (losing) ballot before first cross. I will not evaluate these arguments under any circumstances -- not even as time-fillers or as the only offense in the round. If you have a genuine concern about something your opponent is wearing, notify the tournament administrators or a coach. I will not use my ballot to tell a student how to dress.

Patrick Tapia HS2 Academy

Paul Tatton Alice Deal

Last changed on Thu May 12, 2022 at 3:22 PM EDT

Avoid at all costs: Tricks, non-topical positions, wasted time in rounds doing doc exchanges, off-time roadmaps, time suck arguments.

Framework/Standards Debate--Set a standard for the round that makes sense in terms of the activity. If you are debating LD, let's hear about the resolution. Ensure resolution ties. I vote on whether to affirm or negate the resolution...not a critique on the consequential outcome of forced policy parameters.

Case Structure: Contentions should be carefully crafted, contain warrants and impacts and link back to the standards in order to provide a well researched/reasoned case position. A case position that is founded upon theory arguments that is without research or evidence to support the basic claims are simply assertions and will be treated as such. I am not a judge that will vote for tricks, time suck arguments, or spreading intended to overwhelm the opponent.

Speed—I take notes and flow. Speed of discussion should not be so fast as to lessen the judge’s ability to record. If it is unintelligible or full of debate jargon that doesn't either further the argument or advance your position then I will be far less compelled to write it down, understand it, or vote for it at the end of the round. Simple lines of analytics are not arguments...they should be explained.

Flowing--I do

Time--Feel free to time yourselves, but I will be tracking time as well. I will let you know when time is up.

RFD: It is based upon the debater that provided--throughout the round--a logically sound set of arguments that are presented in a cogent manner. I put great weight on effective rebuttals than constructive speeches.

Speaking: This is a communication activity that carries with it standards for decorum. If you are appearing before a judge for the first time, I urge debaters to always put their best foot forward. Address your advocacy toward the judge, and show a level of courteousness that one might encounter in any professional work environment. Speaker points reflect all of these elements.

Annie Thomas Frank Black Middle School

Kate Totz Marlborough School

Last changed on Sat January 7, 2023 at 11:32 AM CDT

—Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)

William Turner ILearn Education

Shalini Tyagi Milpitas High School

Ethan Van Nostrand Bob Lanier Middle School

Aiden Wang Youth Voices

Catherine Wang HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Sat May 14, 2022 at 7:44 AM CDT

hey, I'm catherine!

I'm a junior (rising senior); tams '23

add me to the email chain: catherineewang07@gmail.com

background: I've competed both locally and nationally for a couple of years now w/ moderate success (2x tfa state qual, elims/placed at locals, meh on natcir (positive records/elims). I definitely have more experience competing locally vs on natcir just bc of limited opportunity at my debate program (I've prolly competed at like 4 excluding state) but I think I'm pretty well-versed on most things u might read.

tldr: I haven't debated the 2021-2022 season AT ALL (so I'm very rusty) and I have no understanding of the topic lit so PLEASE EXPLAIN whatever you're doing and don't assume I know anything. in my freshman/sophomore year, I mostly read policy and postmodern k stuff, but u should read whatever you're best at. reading what you're most knowledgeable about rather than reading smth just bc I'm more familiar with it will yield a more educational and enjoyable round for everyone involved. with that being said, if you are reading something very obscure, please explain it extra well or we will all be confused for 45 minutes.

here's a "prefs shortcut" based on what I'd be most comfortable evaluating:

1 - policy (cp/da/pics), pomo/high theory

2 - T/theory

3 - other Ks, phil

4 - tricks

I think u should take this w/ a grain of salt bc I am very rusty in general (if I were being judged by myself, I wouldn't trust myself to evaluate any of these things at a very very high technical level) so definitely err on the side of over-explanation.

---

Policy

pretty comfortable with cps/das/pics, not so familiar w/ more legislative stuff. 2n collapse + impact weighing = happy judge. please do it or there will just be random floating impacts that idk how to evaluate.

I know the most abt deleuze, bataille, and weheliye, and I know a good amount about baudrillard, glissant, setcol, model minority, generic cap, and probably some more I'm forgetting. again, take this w/ a grain of salt and don't underexplain anything just because I'm familiar with it, and feel free to read any Ks that I didn't list here as long as u explain it thoroughly.

- Ks ideally have a theory of power that explains how the world operates + explains why aff impacts are bad

- strong link work and defending the framing/theory of power >

- contextualizing k to aff is compelling

- k tricks are always neat

K Affs / Performance

- k affs need to answer why the topic is bad, why it belongs in the debate space, and why I should vote aff

- performances are cool but it's often unclear what it actually accomplishes, so make that clear and answer the same 3 qs above

Theory

I read it but it was never my main strat. if you're collapsing to theory, please weigh between standards instead of just lbl or it will get very confusing very fast. independent voters tend to be blippy and not warranted very well, so if you're going for one you need to extend and elaborate on why it should actually be an independent reason to down someone. I default drop the debater, competing interps, no rvi, but a default is all it is.

- friv theory is fine, but the more frivolous the shell, the lower my threshold for response (u still have to win paradigm issues tho)

Phil

familiar w/ conventional phil fws (kant, hobbes hegel, levinas) but I've never really gone for them myself. explain clearly and thoroughly and I'll probably understand what you're saying.

Tricks

never read them, never particularly enjoyed debating them, if you want me to judge it, I guess that's your call. just try to make the round as clear as possible and explain why things matter

Other

- WRITE MY BALLOT FOR ME. give judge instructions, esp for 2n/2a weighing.

- please collapse in 2n/2a.

- PLEASE EXTEND.

- speed is probably fine, but 1) since we're online u should go abt 80% of ur original speed 2) ngl i have not flowed in a very hot second (and i was never superb at it) so maybe go another 10% slower (if i didn’t catch an arg i can’t evaluate it). clarity > speed

- have fun!

Ke Wang Sugar Land SpiderSmart

Lydia Wang HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

William Wei ModernBrain

Last changed on Thu March 9, 2023 at 2:41 PM PDT

Email: w267ww@gmail.com

pvphs'25 he/him people who change my understanding of debate: Gordon Krauss, Scott Wheeler, Julian, Dosch

Time urself and ur opponent

General

RUN WHATEVER U WANT. DO WHAT UR GOOD AT. DON'T CHANGE HOW U DEBATE BC OF MY PARADIGM. (Except no rvi lol)

I am NOT the perfect judge, I will try to let you know what I know about the debate below with each type of argument.

please slow down a bit on the analytic argument,

Tech > Truth, but true argument easier to convince me.

If the neg does not debate the framework, I will default to 1AC's Framework.

Dropped Argument is true only if you point it out and explain why it matter

Speed is fine, be clear

Do what you do best, I am fine with any argument BUT I am more familiar with the policy

You not suppose to ask your opponent did you read this or what argument did you answer for... YOUR SUPPOSE TO FLOW, it either he was not clear and I would not have gotten the argument or either it your fault

Speech Point

Clarity, good organization, Polite = High speaker point

aggressive and fast don't mean high speaker point

Don't be rude in cx

my favorite thing to do is sped like 6 off and go for the one they undercover

if it happen you should try to straight turn all the off

Impact clac important, dont just read your prewritten 2ar block, acc comapre your impact with your opponent impact, it can also compare your link argument vs their link turn argument

timeframe important as it means your impact happen before other and turn

tell me what argument they didn't answer or didn't answer well that WHY that important and affect the debate

Counterplan

cp is pretty cool in my mind, and yea if cp solves all aff and avoids da it win the debate

def more toward pic bad for the abusiveness, I think condo good when it less then 3, go for theory see below

When go for counterplan theory argument if only aff explain the true reason why it is bad.

win perm wins cp

Kritik/Phil

I default to weighing the case, comparative world

l feel link and alt should be most important part

I think T should be read against K aff, all the other "argument" just too hard to win. Impact should be fairness

I never run it myself, so there is that

Topictality

I feel interps is the most important part, caselist also important

both fairness and education important persuade me

I tend to find T debate a bic repepative, I only like to go for T when I really can't go for other argument.

not going to vote for rvi

Theory

in round abuse only, I might judge intervene depend on how stupid it is (ex: snoring theory auto ignore)

I think dislcousre theory is a real theory, personally I always send my 1ac file as soon as paring come out even if it 2 hour beore round. I think clash is never a bad thing, impact should be fairness

Funny argument that stupid--------------------X real argument

sped everything----------------X----Slow down for tag

just debating-X-------------------trying to talk to judge to make them like you at lay tournament

Josh Weingarten Honor Academy

Ethan Wilkes Youth Voices

Last changed on Sun May 7, 2023 at 8:44 AM CDT

Hello, my name is Ethan (he/him)

John Paul Stevens '23

UT Austin '27

I have experience in congress, LD, PF, WSD, and extemp. I believe debate is a game with educational implications. The purpose of this paradigm is not to tell you how to debate, it is simply a way for me to communicate my argumentative bias and broader debate philosophy to competitors. With that being said, if you think my decision is incorrect, post round me

I'd prefer speech drop, but if not, put me on the email chain: ethanjwilkes@gmail.com

If for some reason I am your judge for policy, defer to my LD paradigm. I've watched my fair share of NDT rounds, not the most qualified policy judge but I can follow fairly well.

Congress:

During congress rounds, I keep a scale in my head of which side I believe is winning the debate. At the end of the debate, I will rank the debaters by how much I believe they changed my scale of who is winning. I will rank all bills separately then cume them all together to determine my ranks. If the chamber does 3 bills with a base 2 or some other unconventional organization of the debates, I will determine some equitable way of ranking the round, but forgive me because it really is difficult comparing two speeches on separate debates without intervening. Here is an explanation of how I determine who I think is winning the debate/my general thoughts on congress:

1. It is in your best interest to refute the best argument in the round from the other side. It is also in your best interest to meet burdens your side has not met (no, this doesn't mean your lazy quantification of a problem, it usually means terminalization of an impact or maybe even pointing out you have the best solvency card in the round)

2. I hear a lot of arguments that are exclusively defensive (constitutionality, enforcement, etc.). I also hear a lot of arguments that don't follow the laws of uniqueness (not being dependent on a change in the status quo). So simply put, I believe that the affirmative's job is to prove the bill is better than the status quo (and nothing else) and the negation's job is to prove the bill creates a worse world than the status quo. (this also means I will not evaluate your counter plan)

3. I think philosophical/principle/value based arguments have a place in congress but I don't see them ran effectively very often. I'm not talking about unconstitutionality or 3 minutes of defense, I'm talking about the moral stance that a bill creates. If you're wondering what I think a good example of this is, watch Zach Wu from Yale finals 2021 on first bill. I default to evaluate impacts under util but I'm susceptible to buying implicit moral frameworks that are intuitive (Zach does a great job of this), think of this similar to a principled argument in world schools.

4. Weighing is important, but not as important as the congress community likes to pretend it is. Yeah, I need a reason to prioritize your argument over someone else's but since there are so many arguments in a CD round, it is not easy to individually weigh your argument against everyone else. So, whenever you decide to weigh, my advice would be to treat it like comparing worlds more than it is actual weighing. This also means that uniqueness is very important in my eyes because that's what characterizes each world in the debate. Below, I have the order that I care about weighing mechanisms in a congress round (it is purposely different than LD)

Pre requisite > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame > Probability

LD:

I'm willing to vote on anything with a warrant, tech>truth, i have bad hearing so i cannot keep up with your speed unless i have a speech doc (this includes analytics lol)

Analytics are fire, I'm tanking your speaks if you can't explain your argument in cross without relying on your author, biggest pet peeve

For your prefs:

T/Theory - 1

I am willing to vote on RVIs more than most judges but I still default to competing interps

the more friv the shell, the lower the bar for answering it is -- I hesitate to vote for shells that are based on very inaccessible interps (very elitist disclosure norms and such), the nat circuit should avoid scaring people away

I default DTA for T violations (but can be convinced otherwise) unless there's no difference (entire case is violation of T), I am otherwise impartial on DTA or DTD

I will not vote on a shell that is about the appearance of your opponent (yes, this includes shoe theory)

K - 1

If the aff is non-T, be prepared to answer the T, cap k, presumption, case pushback from the 1N

I think you should be able to defend the alt as some action that someone can take -- even for all my set col debaters out there, you should be able to defend the pragmatic implementation of your land back alt, almost as if it was a plan. I especially dislike 2NRs that can't explain the alt or explain why it's contextual to the aff/what it does for the purpose of the debate

I view Ks as DAs with a CP, if you want to kick the CP (alt) and go for the K as a disad of the aff, be my guest

I think teams going against the K should go for framework + extinction outweighs more often

not afraid to vote on a floating PIK as long as it's hinted at in the NC

I am willing to vote for cap good, heg good, etc

(goes with phil) Literature base I'm very familiar with:set col, marxism, security, mollow/crip pess/disabilities, afropess, baurdillard, deleuze, queer pess

Assume I know nothing about anything else

Trad - 2

Kinda boring but not all that bad, I'll judge this as tabula rasa as I can

Policy - 2

CPs should be competitive with the plan

Mostly impartial on whether or not PICs, consult CPs, actor spec, etc are abusive, can be convinced either way

Pls tell me what your permutation looks like "perm do both" will leave me clueless with what to do on my flow

I appreciate good impact turns, reading your spark or dedev backfile is cool, but creativity is even cooler

Pre requisite > Probability > Scope/Magnitude > Time frame

Phil - 3

I've become increasingly more tolerant of phil debates, I think you should engage more on the contention level debate rather than banking these rounds on framework. Reading cards about how problematic certain authors are is really compelling to me.

Comparative world > truth testing
Presumption affirms < presumption negates
Permissibility affirms > permissibility negates

Di wu Briarcliff Middle School

Jarvis Xie HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Sat March 11, 2023 at 6:33 AM CDT

Things that can get you higher speaks:

AUTO 30 (for online): Give the 1AC/1NC with either your little brother/sister staring at the screen in the background or with your pet (dog/cat/turtle/etc.) in your arms/visibly near the screen
+1.0: GETTING ME FOOD (protein bars/shakes and tuna sandwiches is nice, but nothing too unhealthy (except maybe boba))
+1.0: Call your parents (or guardian or any significant role model in your life) before the round starts and tell them you love them
+0.5: Showing me screenshot evidence that you have followed LaMelo Ball on Instagram, reshared his most recent post on your story, and changed your ig bio to "1 of 1"
+0.5: Winning while ending speeches early and using less prep (let me know)
+0.3: Making fun of your opponent in a non-obnoxious manner
+0.3: Making references to goated shows in your speeches (Naruto, Suits, the Office, etc.)
+0.3: Being funny
+0.2: Drip (extra speaks if you didn't have to drop a rack on your fit)
+0.5/0.1: I will have my switch with me before the round: if you and your opponent both want to, y'all can play a 1-stock game - winner gets +0.1, loser gets -0.1 OR you can play individually play me - winning gets you +0.5, losing gets you -0.1
+0.2/-0.2: Feel free to play music pre-round: if I like the songs you play, I'll boost your speaks, but if I don't like them, I'll take away speaks (I won't deduct more than 0.2). For refernce, some of my favorite artists are Fivio Foreign, Pop Smoke, Lil Uzi Vert, and Trippie Redd, but I do enjoy my fair share of indie/alt, pop, k/c/jpop and disney music
Note that most speaks additions/substractions is subject to change based on the quality of your execution of the task

Shortcut:

I debated for 3 years at Strake Jesuit and got 12 bids. Email: jarvisxie03@gmail.com

T/Theory: 1

Basic Phil: 1

LARP: 2

Basic K: 2

Tricks: 2

Weird Phil/Weird K: 4

Debate is a game. Tech over truth. I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.

Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity.

Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during prep. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip.

Anna Yang ILearn Education

Thane Zeeh The Harker School

Last changed on Wed February 22, 2023 at 1:14 PM MDT

Add me to the chain, (thanexzeeh@gmail.com), or alternatively, use SpeechDrop.

General information:

1. Background:I debated for three or so years between Policy and Lincoln Douglas (LD) debate in high school, I debated for three years on the NFA circuit in LD as well as BP in college (UT 22'), and I do a little bit of coaching here and there (CCHS and Harker).

2. At a high level: I generally view myself as prioritizing technical concessions over truth. At the same time, for me to vote on an argument, the Toulmin model must be present. Claim, grounds, and warrant.

3. My position on "unconventional cases": Arguments are arguments ... performance, advocacy, non-traditional, soft left, etc. are all arguments. Questions such as "does policymaking outweigh individual resistance?" or "does activism come before ground?" are questions that are usually answered on a round-to-round basis.

4. Keep it nice: Spirt and heart, while necessary for debate, should never be conflated with being rude, mean, racist, sexist, or any other isms. If you are ahead, do not twist the knife, be supportive, and turn the round into a learning opportunity.

Procedurals:

1. Extending arguments: I will not extend a conceded argument for you if you do not extend and explain its importance in the latter part of the debate. I will presume you do not want that particular argument evaluated.

2. New arguments: I am willing to reject new arguments. I probably won't reject the debater but I will disregard the argument. I only will do so if a team brings up the specific argument that was new and why that new argument is bad/should be disregarded

3. When the timer goes off: I stop listening, flowing, and evaluating any argument made the moment the timer goes off.

4. Typing during cross-examination: If you see me typing during cross-examination I am probably tidying up my flow or typing out feedback.

Specific Arguments

1. Topicality, theory, and abuse: To win T or Theory you need to prove abuse. I won't vote for a "better vision of debate" because frankly, no one cares how I vote while me voting one way or another won't change communal norms. I also tend to defer to reasonability. Again, I tend to defer to reasonability. Quality of interpretations also matters (precision is probably good).

2. Kritiks: I enjoy the K. When judging the K, I view the debate through the lens of the framework. You have to have offensive reasons why your viewpoint and framing of the world come first. This includes going for policymaking good in answering the K, epistemology first in running the K, or anything in between. I also find I place more emphasis than some judges on "why my ballot matters", perhaps I've enjoyed the normativity K too much, but, I digress.

3. Permutations: They are a right the affirmative has as advocacy to check negative abuse. I defer to perms being an advocacy over a test of competition. In general, conditionality is good up to two advocacies, after that theory could start becoming a VI/cross applicable piece of the offense. Like T however, I need you to prove abuse.

4. DAs/CPs: I tend to avoid voting on a 1% risk of the disadvantage means a neg ballot arguments. I find that debaters generally lack the warrant development and explanation as to why their disadvantage matters and I won't do the work for them. If you're going for a disadvantage, timeframe and likelihood matter. Actor, consult, etc. CPs are fair game. Well-developed net-benefit debates are always a great strategy.

LD & PF - my take on speed:

1. LD Speed: The inclusivity of LD debate means that speed must be agreed upon between debaters. If you ignore the accessible standard of speed that your opponent has set up for you, I have no problem dropping you off of a ten-second speed theory shell.

2. PF Speed: PF calls for an accessible and public-based style of communication. This means eloquence, persuasion, and easy-to-flow argumentation will be rewarded far more than tech and speed. Of course, this does not mean discounting the role of warrants in your argumentation.

Aaron Zhang ModernBrain

Last changed on Sun February 5, 2023 at 1:02 AM PDT

UCLA 26'

Debated for Orange Lutheran for 4 years - qualed twice.

aaronzhng4@gmail.com

General

Be nice. (ad homs r bad)

Speaks start at 28.5 and go up or down from there

Evidence ethics is stake the round - see Samantha Mcloughlin

Clipping is an L20 but you need a recording to accuse someone

The doc is for cards - if I can't understand you then I'll miss the argument and I'm not great at flowing so pause between arguments

Death is not good

You can win on any argument if you debate well as long as its not morally abhorrent

If you already won the debate then sit down early/take less prep for better speaks

Policy

Favorite kind of arguments

Impact calc wins rounds

Know your positions

Default judgekick

Winning competition is usually a better idea than going for theory but dta on cps is underutilized esp for stuff like private actor fiat bad

Zero risk isn't a thing

Theory/T

Default competing interps and dtd on T

The 1ar is probably pretty hard - 1ar theory is smart but i slow down and i need to hear warrants for your offense or I won't vote on it

Default reasonability on 1ar theory but can be convinced otherwise

Semantics/pragmatics first is stupid - predictability matters and you probably won't win going all in for one or the other

Smart topic T shells are great!

No RVIs but will vote on it if its dropped and I heard a warrant for it thats not time skew

Kritiks

Debate is a game, fairness is good

Affs should be topical but if not, go for the impact turn + win defense

Not well versed in k lit so explain your argument clearly or I won't vote on it

Affs get to weigh the case, negs get links to the plan

K alts about a "mindset shift" usually don't make much sense and might be cheating

Debate is about arguments not people

Phil

These debates are usually pretty messy and I'm not well versed so make sure you explain it well

Default epistemic modesty, extinction is bad

No one even reads straight up phil in LD but if you do and do it well then these debates are great

Going for a million induction fails spikes in the 2nr probably won't win

Tjfs are bad

Tricks

Tech > truth but If I don't understand the argument then I won't vote on it

Default comparative worlds

More likely to vote for it if you aren't being sketchy - i.e. you know what an apriori is don't pretend you don't

Aidan Zhu HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Harvey Zhu HuaXia Chinese School - Houston

Last changed on Tue April 26, 2022 at 6:06 PM CDT

Harvey (He/Him) SJ '23

Put me on the email chain: harveyzhu05@gmail.com

I have one bid round, championed a few tournaments, and made it to deep elims at multiple tournaments as well.

As a debater, I mostly read policy arguments and the occasional Kant aff affirming, and I read a bit of everything negating.

No ad homs or arguments that apply out of round except for disclosure issues.

If something is overtly offensive, I will stop the round (i.e. calling your opponent a slur or reading racism good).

Non black afropess is bad, I will likely vote on the argument if you make it.

Lay rounds are fine and easier to judge. Basically anything that is easy to vote on is good for me. :)

Better speaks if you end your speech early rather than going for another position if you already won.

CX is binding.

If its a new debater, you don't have to change your strategy, just make sure they can understand your arguments and respond in some way and don't be mean pls.

Theory:

Slow down when you're docbotting theory analytics, if I can't flow it I won't evaluate it

I don't like judging frivolous theory that is ridiculous (something like shoes or sleds), but other theory arguments that policy judges might find "frivolous" I would be very receptive to (Unified solvency advocate, spec, PICs bad)

For 1AR theory, please weigh some in the 1AR, 2AR weighing is very new most times and not that persuasive

Have a caselist and examples

Explain what model of debate the aff justifies

Low threshold for extensions of case in the 2AR if T is the entire 2NR

LARP:

I like impact turns to policy positions (like dedev, spark, cap good, heg good/bad warming good, etc. is fine, but no death good). Disease good is on the line, but I will vote on it.

Terrible with K's but can understand basic ones. If you don't think you can explain it to me that well then don't run it. Cap is fine tho.

K affs:

Again, terrible with K's so I lean neg on framework but can be persuaded both ways by good debating

Phil:

I have only read Kant, so err on the side of explanation

If you go for permissibility, please make it organized

Tricks:

Like K's, don't really like them but take the risk if you think you are good enough at them.

Low threshold for answering these arguments

Speaks:

Will disclose them if you ask

Misc:

I largely agree with JP Stuckert's judging philosophy:

· 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:

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.

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:

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.

Login to Tabroom:

Middle School TOC hosted by UK

2022 — NSDA Campus, KY/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

Judges