Damien Middle School Pre TOC Prep Tournament
2022 — NSDA Campus, CA/US
Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show Hide| Policy Debate | Michigan '28 | Damien High School '24 |
email: william06agustin@gmail.com
Favorite judges who I try to judge like: Christina Phillips, Kevin Hirn, or basically anyone else on the Michigan staff.
TL;DR for before round:
- Tech > Truth ALWAYS - I will only go based off the flow and never add my own details. When I evaluate debates and debate myself, I look at offense like health bars in Street Fighter and defense can lower those bars. Very strange analogy but I genuinely see things that way, take it how you will.
- Mostly a policy debater in high school and college; however I lowkey have a good understanding of the K so I'll be fine on that as long as you're technical
- If you remember Damien MA or LA or know Michigan AO and you liked the way we debated or what we went for then I'm probably fine for you.
- Card docs are always helpful
- Don't go for condo in front of me unless dropped entirely; 87% chance I won't vote for it. "Neg Terrorism is good" - David Sposito i think. Also most of my career was made off of 10 off 1NCs and praying the opponent drops it. Don't be like me, I see now that this strat made me a scrub, but also idc if you are.
- MAKE THE DEBATE EASY FOR ME - good judge instruction >>
Things that will nuke your speaks:
- Being unclear for the sake of being faster; stop it its cringe just be more efficient.
- Clipping, I won't personally call you out, but if the other team does its an auto L. HOWEVER, if I catch you clipping a ton and the other team doesn't I will nuke your speaks
- Putting cards in the card doc that weren't there. I flow...
- Shadow extending cards. I would much rather you take the time to attach SOME warrants to the card you're extending.
More General Info:
- Love a good Counterplan and Disad debate.
- I love advantage counterplans HOWEVER I hate 2NC CPs and CP planks without solvency unless they are ban planks or something really basic. I will disregard 2NC CPs if there is theory against it.
- Generally think you can insert rehighlightings of evidence.
- I will NOT READ INTO THE UNHIGHLIGHTED/NOT UNDERLINED CONTEXTS OF YOUR EVIDENCE UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE. Your card can be smelly garbage but I won't discredit it unless the other team instructs me to further read into the context of a card. I've lost plenty of debates in which judges read in-depth into the quality of the article cut and I personally believe unless it was called into question it shouldn't be regarded. I will let you know after the round if your card sucks but I won't let it influence my decision unless instructed otherwise.
- I'm lowkey ok for the K. I worked on Edelman, Psychoanalysis, and various Cap Ks in high school. Even though I went for them, I don't like framework heavy Ks, but I'm not gonna reject it on face but I am more empathetic to fairness in those situations.
- Fairness is absolutely an impact.
- I can evaluate competition debates
- Generally lean NEG on theory except for international fiat, multiactor fiat, and devolution cps.
- I won't vote on out of round stuff. I'm not a washing machine don't air your dirty laundry in front of me.
Brief Intro
Hello, my name Ian and this is my first year debating. I am a freshman taking the Honors Debate course at Damien High School taught by our coach, Mr. Lewis.
Email - ipalix25@damien-hs.edu
General Judging
I judge by the overall presentation of the debate, from delivery and execution to the actual content and arguments brought up. Speaking clearly and a bit slowly will help make judging easier for me and give more accurate results for you the debaters. Please do not turn off your camera or mic so I might not take the assumption you are stealing prep time. Any suspicion that a team is cheating will be weighed in the final decision.
Case
- Aff., don't drop case
Counterplans
- If Neg. drops CP during the constructive portion, I'm voting Aff.
Disadvantages
- Include all parts of the DA (UQ, L, IL, !)
Topicality
- The highest priority off-case
- If Aff. concedes this argument, I'm voting Neg.
- Give reasons to prefer, not just a definition
Kritiks
- I need to understand what the Kritik is about
- Go in-depth on your argument (Ex: I do not want to just hear "they are racist")
baylor’26
from the river to the sea...
tldr - i am a junior at baylor university studying data science with a focus on machine learning and ai -- 2xNDT -- my senior year of high school, i had 5 bids to the tournament of champions, was consistently a top 10 speaker as well as consistent appearances in late elims of national circuit tournaments, as well as early and mid elims of most college majors if background/success matters at all to yall.
email chain -- odarwish22@damien-hs.edu
- Tech > truth, BUT my inclination to vote on certain positions will increase/decrease depending on the level of extrapolation present i.e. arguments must be fully flushed out in order to be given any semblance of weight in my decision.
- The first 30 seconds of your rebuttal speeches should crystalize the debate and ideally mirror my potential RFD.
- My decision calculus first and foremost usually comes down to what arguments are tailored to the casting of my ballot.
- Presumption goes to the team that deviates from the squo the least.
- I am a performance debater -- I like cx sass and assertiveness but just make sure you dont confuse those things with disrespect and aggressiveness
- I default to judge kick absent being instructed no judge kick
- Link specificity is very important to me.
- Do not insert evidence.
- Speaker points rate individual performance, strategic/bold pivots, general rhetorical appeal etc. because of this I generally give out a lot of low point wins.
- My camera is usually on, if its off seek confirmation prior to starting your speech.
Arguments --- I am accustomed to and have taken exclusively left leaning critical positions throughout the second half of my career, despite this I have no biases and will strictly defer to my flow for any argumentative inconsistencies. I will not fill in holes for you and you should act as if I don't know what the literature says while showcasing a superior explanation of your arguments.
- Theory --- Condo is generally good but I've voted otherwise in the past. Dropping utopian alts bad isnt an auto dub same goes for most theory arguments. Rejecting the arg generally remedies any harms created, you're going to have to do some work to make me vote otherwise.
- Framework --- I have no biases here. Procedural fairness is both an internal link and an impact just depends on how you deploy it in round. Things you should do that should seem obvious but dont happen: Go for only one impact in the 2nr, do impact calculus/comparison, articulate solvency deficits to their model of debate, explain how your model solves and interacts with said deficits visa vie tva/ssd, link analysis (most of their offense probably just assumes debate or the state), actually answering the 2ac and getting off your blocks, predict/preempt 2ar shifts and compensate by doing judge instruction, ballot framing, and model comparison, answering the affirmative in the 2nr. I think that debate is a game but I also think it has the potential to influence different material outcomes. I view Tvas as impact filters that don't need to solve the affirmative but should include aff literature. SSD becomes very convincing to me if the affirmative answers to T devolve into state/state education bad. I am a sucker for smart presumption arguments and have a higher threshold for aff solvency explanation. Although I do not go for framework in college, as a 2a, I am constantly responding to the argument as well as coaching my debaters to go for it. I really enjoy good framework debates but the opposite is true as well. If the level of framework debating described above seems synonymous with your style of debating you should probs prefer me highly.
- The K --- Try not to go for a k that you are unfamiliar with; not to say I wont vote for you if you win, but rounds where you constantly evade questions during cx and provide me with shoddy explanations that dont do your literature base justice are agonizing. I strongly prefer substantive critical debating and am not a fan of spamming contradictory critical positions derived from different schools of thought. I don't care about how you go for the k or what you read just make sure you are telling me a story that I can retell to the affirmative in the rfd. I dont like implicit clash, you should be doing the line by line on the k proper. Link contextualization and drawing aff/topic specific historical examples separate good and great k debaters. I think framework is the most important part of the K but it can become ultimately irrelevant if the rest of the critique is winning that either the plan exacerbates the harms you've impacted out or the critique is winning an impact turn to the aff. I will default to judge kicking the alt if it was conditional but you need a reason why I should if the other team makes a judge kick argument. I am most comfortable with language/post-structuralist criticisms but am still somewhat knowledgeable when it comes to identity critiques.
- K Affs --- I have experience defending and debating these types of affs and I think that the closer you are to answering the resolutional question, the better. I think that uniqueness is extremely underutilized in these debates and usually helps me weigh a lot of these ballot and impact comparison questions in your favor. When answering topicality YOU WILL LOSE if you dont have a competing interpretation of debate that you can solve your impact turns through because then they're just non-unique. Thats why I stress the importance of ballot and impact uniqueness in these debates. You should probably have some sort of advocacy text/statement or at least make the solvency portion of the 1ac clear. If I am left without understanding what the role of the negative is under your model thats probably a disad to it. When debating framework leverage your case as much as possible - I see a lot of teams struggling to decide on whether to defend a middle ground or the impact turn, just make sure you pick one so that the story of the affirmative remains constant, inconsistency in the different affirmative speeches both argumentatively and strategically warrant my neg ballot a lot of the time. I think explaining how the affirmative solves the individual pieces of offense you are going for not only clarifies the messy portions of the round but also just makes it easier for you to cross apply/group arguments in the rebuttals. I also won’t vote on an impact turn your model can't resolve so you need to explain how you solve the offense you consolidated down to. The best 2a's pick and choose a few things to go for in the final speech and talk about how these arguments interact with both what the 2nr is going for and most importantly how that influences the casting of my ballot. I default to giving the affirmative the permutation but I can be convinced otherwise.
If you have any questions about anything that was/wasn’t mentioned above you can email me.
@dylan barsoumian -- my guy
Peninsula Debate 2019-2021
Damien Debate 2021-2022
Top Level Stuff
Tech>Truth but truth doesn't hurt.
Offense/defense - zero risk only exists for theory.
An argument without warrants isn't an argument.
Dropped warrants are true - you still need some explanation to extend them though.
Neg on theory - infinite condo's good, judge kick, etc. Sole exception here is that while perf con obviously isn't a voter, I become very skeptical of certain "epistemology first/reps first" K framework arguments.
Inserts are fine.
Fairness is an impact.
Bias/Ideological Leanings
I'm a lot better for Ks v policy affs than I was a year ago, as they have become my most common 2NR. I especially have a soft spot for psychoanalysis as a security K. I don't have a predisposed opinion on framework (on the aff or neg) that can't be reversed with good debating (if you win that I shouldn't weigh the aff then I shouldn't weigh the aff, and vice versa).
Nevertheless, I always love and am familiar with classic policy arguments.
I'm probably not great for you if you read a K Aff, even simply on a level of familiarity, although I will do my best to adjudicate without bias.
Novice Notes
Try to only use word documents.
Don't say a count down before speeches.
Give an order of what FLOWS you'll be going to (ie "Case in the order of advantage one, then two. The X CP. The X DA").
Email: edeng25@damien-hs.edu
he/him
Policy debater for Damien, class of 25
*2024-25 Update*
I have absolutely zero topic knowledge this year as I has not done anything related to the IP topic. This means I do not know the debate norms specific to this topic, and I am completely unfamiliar with any of the topic specific arguments that you might be reading. This means you would need to spend a bit more of your speech explaining your positions to me as opposed to other judges.
Please don't be rude to your opponents before, during, or after the debate. Being rude will affect your speaker points and will result in a ballot for the other team for serious offenses.
Clipping violations need to be proven with a recording unless it was very obvious that the opposing team was clipping in their speech (ex. they took 5 seconds reading a card that was 2 pages long).
As a general note, read what you want, I don't have a strong opinion on any policy arguments.
I try to be tech over truth, but I won't vote on nonsense arguments unless completely dropped by the other team. This is especially true about novices hiding ASPEC under T violations. If you want to actually run ASPEC, make it a separate off. I will honesty allow new aff answers to hidden procedurals in novice since losing to hidden ASPEC is not a good learning experience.
Rehighlights should be read instead of inserted.
Please time your speeches yourself, I often forget to set a timer.
I am not the best at flowing, but I will not flow off the speech doc. I am okay with speed, but I won't be able to flow is the speech is too unclear for me. To help me with my flow, you should slow down on tags, and differentiate between the tag and the card itself. You can also try to pause for a second between arguments, to give me sufficient pen time to flow those arguments. Also, you should still add me to the email chain in case I need to read the cards if the debate is close.
As a general note, please give judge instruction, such as explaining why winning each argument would matter, or explaining why X argument does not matter in the larger debate. This would allow me to reach my decision faster and reduce the risk that I misunderstand your argument.
T:
I usually prefer Competing interps over Reasonability - especially on affs that don't seem that topical, but that issue can be debated out.
For the standard debate on T, doing impact calculus on the standards will make a big difference on how I should evaluate the interpretations, so you should do it.
CP:
Most CPs are probably theoretically good, and a reason to reject the argument at worst.
Condo is Ok. I will lean more towards the aff on condo in novice year. However, that does not mean I will always vote for condo.
Any permutation should be paired with some offense to make it more likely I vote on the perm. Even though presumption flips aff when a CP is read, a perm without any offense would mean any risk of the perm not solving the net benefit would mean I should vote neg.
Even though a specific CP to an aff is very good, a generic CP made specific through a good solvency card is also persuasive to me.
DA:
0% risk of a DA is possible to achieve, but it will probably be very hard to achieve it. This means there should be some other offense on why the DA is bad or the aff outweighs the DA.
Impact calculus on the impacts of the DA or aff also make it much easier to evaluate which impacts of the DA comes first. That means you should explain why your impact outweighs theirs.
K:
The argument I have the least experience with is the K, so make there is a good explanation of it for me to be comfortable voting for it, especially if the K has a high complexity to it. However, don't make your overview too long so that you never really answer the line-by-line.
On FW, you should give a bigger explanation on how your FW implicates the round, and how the role of the ballot or role of the judge calls for me to do.
K-Affs:
If you want to read a K-Aff in front of me, you need to explain what exactly the ballot does in order to make me vote for you. Also explain how your theory of power implicates the neg's arguments, do not assume I know what your theory of power is. For the neg, I am willing to vote for presumption, especially if I do not know what the ballot would do for the aff.
Other types of Debate:
I don't know much about other types of debate besides policy debate, so make sure to explain what each argument would do in terms of the round.
For LD, the only difference in my judging philosophy is that I would be more lenient towards the aff on condo due to the shorter speech times, but as before, that does not mean I will auto-vote for it. I have a very high threshold on voting for philosophical arguments in LD, try to engage the debate in another form.
For PF, I do not really know much about it, so please explain what winning each argument would mean for me.
For congress, I have zero experience with this type of debate. You should probably treat me as a lay/parent judge.
Feel free to ask me anything about my paradigm before the round starts.
Hello my name is Axel Garcia
I'm currently attending GCU (Phoenix, Arizona) and Majoring in Forensic Psychology and Minoring in Sports and Performance Psychology. I debated in high school for 3 1/2 years as a debater/competitor. I am a debate Coach/Judge (3 years now) for Damien High School if they need help. I debated in public forums and policy debates in high school. I mostly Judge Policy.
Email AxelAGarcia31@gmail.com
-- I am a policy judge but also a lay judge kind of, and haven't judged in a while
- I have not judge in a while so a little rusty, try to persuade me, i will do my best to keep up, but again haven't done research in the debate world for a while
- Tech ^ Truth
Policy
- I prefer Policy
- I allow tag team CX
-I like any type of argument you run!
- Don't like K's, I will try my best to flow it.
- Everything else I'm good with.
-
LD
- I rarely do LD debate, Spend a lot of time contextualizing your card/s if you're relying on it to win the round. Even if it was already constructive, it's a good habit to cover it thoroughly a 2nd time just in case I missed something.
PF
- Sometimes I would do PF but not always. I prefer PF
- Remember to Spread as long as you articulate and are clear.
- I rebuttal speeches show me the most important issues and why they favor your side, we already had rebuttal speeches and 2 crossfires (PF).
- I appreciate puns in rounds.
- Tag team cx is allowed
Big Question
Big questions once during high school don't know much about it. Except to do your best and I value one overarching argument that's successfully upheld throughout the round over winning on the flow. Big picture analysis
Random bonuses like things that would boost your points
- Using your time wisely. ( not just sit there and do nothing. Think about what you are going to do next )
- Try to act confident, even if you're not, by making eye contact with your opponent and standing up straight, which can make your argument appear more believable.
- Remain calm at all times, and never shout or get angry since it will only make your argument seem weak.
- Extras points if you refereence some kind of EDM (Electronic Dance Music) in you speech #EDM4Life
- Always have your camera on when speaking and stand up when speaking
What not to do:
- If you intentionally make any racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory comments, I will give you extremely low-speak and notify your coach.
- Try not to clip, if you do and other teams catch it. you lost the ballot, if you are wrong another team loses. But the debate will keep on going.
- Don't play games when you are done speaking or when your opponent is speaking
- Don't go on your phone, to call, chat, or play games, ( you can use your phone to be in call your partner and or if you are using prep time ) <--- on only zoom
-Have Fun!!!
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=171692 Other Profile can see my record and past judging if needed
Here is my email: Rghibaudo23@damien-hs.edu
Debated Policy in Highschool for 3ish years
comfortable with anything -- don't be mean to the other team....
TLDR - I am a Senior at Damien high school, please excuse any miss spellings in verdicts.
Add me to the chain please -- email -- kagrabowski24@damien-hs.edu
What I like:
-Debate is a learning environment and a fun game so please keep it that way
-I am cool with tag-team/open cross
-tech over truth
What I don't like:
-Non-disclosure (unless breaking new aff)
-Toxic behavior
-People being late (There are some exceptions)
-I am not really the judge for k aff's, I respect them and if you do go for one please explain clearly how you solve the issue
Overall & Other Things-
Have fun!!!
-K's are ok but be clear why you solve or they link
-If you have read this far and if you tell me before round your favorite band and why I will give you .5 extra speaker point
If you have any questions about the debate please contact me I am happy to help, we are all learning here, and don't be afraid to ask questions
Also, please email Omar Darwish he is an outstanding debater and friend if you have in-depth questions about debate as a whole, he would love to help any new debaters:
Omar Darwish -- odarwish22@damien-hs.edu
Hello, I'm John (Jack) Hannan and I've been a Novice/JV Debater for Damien High School for one year now as a 1n/2a. In the debate, just call me Jack, no need for judge or anything formal like that.
I'm a he/him and I would prefer it if i was on the email chain under jwhannan25@damien-hs.edu, and please when creating email chains use specific titles (like name of teams, aff and neg, round #) just so that when looking back it is easy to find.
I'm not exactly a perfect debater or judge (no one is...), so there will be chances where I miss something or make a mistake. I hope you understand that I might mess up, and if you were unsatisfied with my judging, you can talk to tlewis@damien-hs.edu, my current coach.
In online debate, I know how easy it is to get away with extending prep time by blaming due to technical difficulties and other problems, so everyone, just be accountable and if actual problems are happening, I'll be very patient and understanding.
While what is on my flow will be a major part of my decision-making, your overall presentation and persuasiveness will have a big factor in my decision. I believe someone's information is only as good as the way they present it. Attitude will also have a role, for if one of you is just being a jerk and disrespectful towards your opponents and teammate, then I will make note of that. Is my policy a bit odd, probably, but I want to ensure that the future generations of debate are taught to respect one another and the game. In the end, being persuasive, having a good attitude, being a good sport, and not acting like a jerk will likely help you.
Ethos and pathos are important skills to have in my book. Someone who just reads off information like a robot is not very persuasive, and if the reader doesn't have a certain passion towards what they are advocating for, then why should I back it? These little points mean a lot to me, so take note of that.
With that said, don't be too crazy about this stuff. I've seen debaters exaggerate way too much to the point where they look kinda silly and unjustified in their claims. It's a balancing act, and those who can find the balance are the ones that are the strongest debaters.
The 2NR and 2AR's are very important speeches in my book, probably the most important, for they are ones I see the most people screw up on. So many people go for a very bland and lifeless speech that feels pre-written, and I'm always left super unsatisfied in the end of the debate. So make those last speeches special and from the bottom of your heart, for it is a time where you can let your speech writing and creative voices shine. They're a big deal, at least to me, so treat them like they are.
My thoughts on speed? Go nuts, although I will warn you I do not have the trained ear of some varsity debaters, so my skills at listening to very fast speeches may not be up to par. My preference is just clear enough to understand, that's all.
Ok, here are my opinions on a few things (they are subject to change depending on how well or poorly you present them...)
Planless Affs: I'm not very comfortable advocating for these, for I haven't seen too many preformed that well, but hey, if you can convince me, I'll vote on it.
Theory: Don't go too crazy with the theory violations, for I find it's a cheap win to bombard the other team with them and cause them to miss some. If not answered by the opposite team or answered poorly, I will vote on it however.
Topicality: If you can explain it and advocate it all the way better than the opposing team, I'll vote on it.
DAs: The Disad can be a powerful tool in debate, if used correctly. So many people brush it aside as just a contributing factor to another argument, but they mean so much more. Treat your DAs carefully, and use them to your advantage. The Uniqueness in these is huge, don't mess them up! I also love the Impact arguments that come from these, so keep that in mind.
CPs: If you can explain how they are different, how they solve more of and all of the plan, and some reasons the plan is worst, I'll vote for it. Would prefer an external net benefit, for that is more interesting, but internal net benefits aren't the end of the world.
Ks: Oh dear, I'm not an expert of Ks, and I wouldn't expect the best answers to come from me when asked about them. I know the basics (like framework, etc.) but in a complicated Kritik debate, I'm not your man for the job. I will do my best to judge fairly in a K debate, but I will not be perfect, see paragraph 3 for more info.
Impact Calc: I love Impact debates, the drama, the stakes, all of it! These are the most fun in my eyes, for it discusses what a plan or CP prevents, what's at risk if I vote one way or the other, and it just creates really interesting debates. There is a lot of creativity shown in these, so I encourage you to go for them (as long as you'll back it up right).
Other than this stuff, that's pretty much all you need to know about me. Once again, if you have any questions, need any life advice, or you want a commission for pixel art, contact my work email jwhannan25@damien-hs.edu, or my discord for a quicker and less formal response ProtoBroFroYo#8380. Thank you so much and good luck!
my email: josephjhong06@gmail.com
please add: damiendebate47@gmail.com if I am judging for Damien
not active in college debate
debated from 2020-2024
zero topic knowledge
first year out so i vot easiest way out - tech>truth
if you read a K in front of me, explain your theory of power and explain your alt (unless u kick the alt and go for fw but thats a different story)
I think I have a higher standard for the K - if you don't know the authors then don't read it
pomo Ks> everything else
not evaluating RVIs (unless dropped)
my previous paradigm randomly deleted itself idk why ill fix it soon (maybe)
About Me/Debate Background:
My name is Sean Kassounian, I am currently a Freshman at Damien High School and I am taking an Honors Debate Course. Next year, I have enrolled in AP Debate for my Sophomore year which is taught by Mr. Lewis, the Damien Debate Coach. I have a good experience revolving around the basics of debate and how a team should perform, and I have flowed multiple high school debates.
Email: sjkassounian25@damien-hs.edu
How do you judge?
I do base a lot of my decisions on argumentation and the severity of dropping arguments and if they were poorly executed, but I also have a strong belief in how debaters present themselves. You should definitely have a good understanding of what arguments you give to the debate; don't have a DA or CP that you have no idea of what it's about.
More about my judging style:
I don't have an issue with people reading fast, but only if they are skilled enough. If you want to read fast, make sure you are able to be heard clearly and to not make many speaking mistakes. However, I do prefer if you read at a medium pace, but I won't hold anyone against how fast or slow they speak. I'm not a big fan of kritiks due to many debaters not having enough knowledge about them, so I don't prefer teams debating on it.
Affirmative Expectations:
-
Make sure you get to solvency (I don't mind where you put solvency in your 1AC, as long as it is read)
-
Know the speech order of a generic 2AC (ex: where case should be and what the offcase order is)
-
Do NOT drop any offcase arguments in the Constructive speeches (any offcases dropped in the 2AC will affect my decision)
Negative Expectations
-
Have more than 1 offcase (I prefer 3-5 if possible)
-
Use CPs and DAs that are understandable for YOUR team, I won’t take off points based on how prestige your CP or DA is.
-
Don’t overload on many offcase arguments when making your 1NC, it could put you at a disadvantage. However, if you are able to handle over 6 offcase arguments, I don’t have a problem with it.
Extra Expectations
-
I expect both teams to be respectful of each other, any form of trash talk or rudeness will weigh into your team's overall points.
-
HAVE FUN! This should be a good experience for everyone and I want debaters to have some fun and not be extremely serious.
-
Be lively with your speeches and CXs. Have some confidence in your arguments and enunciate your speeches; this will make me feel that you are compassionate about the topic and you care.
-
Make sure you know the majority of your arguments top to bottom, having clear and well-researched answers and evidence when debating. This will be beneficial for your team when I am making a decision.
add me to the chain - stephenlewisdebate@gmail.com
damien '23, msu '27
whether new arguments are allowed in the last rebuttals is for the debaters to point out and decide. unless its the 2AR. then you get no new arguments.
tag team cx is fine for answering but not for asking - more geared towards novices, if you're varsity do what you want (if you are constantly talking over your partner/opponent and being rude your speaks will suffer dramatically.) be aware that the less able you are to ask/answer cx questions will impact my ability to give you speaker points.
tech > truth
generally feel comfortable evaluating and keeping up with any style of debate whether it be a KvK debate or a very detailed and probably monotonous counterplan competition debate. obviously i have argumentative preferences, but i would never insert those into a debate i was judging and would consider myself incredibly flow centric which means if you think there is an argument that you think will win you the debate, you should ensure i have it on my flow by balancing clarity with speed.
i don't really feel the need to give some long explanation about how I feel about every little thing in debate, simply because I feel debates should purely be judged and decided by what was communicated to me. chances are i understand what's going on, and if you have sufficiently explained why you should win in the context of most debate arguments, you will win. so, if you're trying to pref me and decide not to because I didn't give you a paragraph explanation about whether or not i think fairness is an impact, sorry I guess.
LD addendum
not familiar with anything in LD that doesn't resemble policy debate. this includes tricks, phil, or whatever. i'll evaluate anything, but the likelihood i give a decision that makes sense starts to severely decline the farther away you go from traditional policy/k debate.
don't be annoying. that includes being overly aggressive/rude (there's a pretty clear bright line between being assertive/confident and being annoying), racist, sexist, or what have you. in the event that something of this nature occurs, i will nuke your speaks or intervene with tab if i feel it's necessary.
above all else, have fun. making me laugh will help your speaks.
+0.1 points if you make fun of omar darwish in an actually funny way
feel free to post round
policy debater for Damien High School, TOC'23, '24,
Please include both on the email chain: yoshidebate@gmail.comdamiendebate47@gmail.com
Preference: All emails should have “Tournament Name+ Round# + aff team code+ neg team code” in their title. please send the email before the round start, with the obvious exception that you are breaking a new aff.
I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.
(Surprising, Tragic, and deeply saddening) Peninsula Invitational Update
I CANNOT BELIEVE I HAVE TO SAY THIS: no brain rot, you will get deducted speaker points for excessive brain rot usage.
TLDR
in an ideal world: I think debate is a game of persuasion and you should be able to present any argument and my only job as the judge is to flow and make a decision based on the technical argumentation. This means if you want wipeout, coercion DA, PoMo K, or manifest-your-inner-WGLF debate, go for it. That being said, not all arguments are created equal. Proper argument development will get my vote on any arguments. (1 sentence aspec is not a complete argument and will not get you the auto win even if dropped).
In reality: Remember that your judge is a human, not a robot. My threshold for No-BS is likely to increase as a tournament progresses given the inevitable exhaustion. If the debate gets messy my intuition is most likely to prefer to punish the worst mistake in round than to evaluate every single detail of strategic moves, i.e. the last rebuttal should always have judge instruction.
My face is expressive during debate but pls ignore it bc its not always what it looks, I might just be surprised, thinking, or reading your ev, frowning is not always a bad signal and vice versa nodding don't always mean I agree.
I have to admit that sometimes judging novice feel like "which team has the better block", which is not a very enjoyable kind of debate for me. Please at least show me you know the argument.
Lets be real here, people, we all try to evade clash. but dont be scared of clash, you need them to win debate.
Top-level
Tech >>> Truth
Condo is good but also the only CP theory I would vote on (longer rant at the very bottom)
dropped arg are tru, but need to be extended
The burden of Proof determines the Presumption
T
50-50 on reasonability vs competing interp
pls quantify ground and limit
T >> Condo
Read a real T on this topic pls -
Do you want a plan in 1AC ?
K args are fine on either side, at this point its just a technical debate.I am of the personal opinion that debate is fundamentally a game and fairness is intrinsically good, but not very ideologically attached to this "clash of civilizations" thing.
I enjoy K aff which is nuanced.
I strongly dislike arguments that call into the humanity/identity of the debater in the round and/or reference to what happened outside of the round, because I am not sure what I as a judge supposed to do with these kinds of arguments. Not that I would not vote on them, but I think you need to contextualize them to the debate or convince me it's not just an accusation of sorts.
Who wins the strongest IL to their impact + impact calc wins this kind of debate.
Not a philosopher yet, so pls explain theory.
CP
perm is just a test of competition
CP competition is based on mandates
Competition is not Topicality (e.g. T-should)
need instruction if you want me to judge kick
I will not vote on no-solvency-advocate theory as a voter, but willing to raise the threshold of solvency
DA
Zero risk exists, rarely happens
UQ determines the direction of the link
I like turns case analysis
Ev quality is very important - I am done with teams cutting "it passed the committee " as a ptx UQ
Offense, Offense, Offense, OFFENSE!!!!
K (on the neg)
love them, specificity and good clash will get me to vote on any kind of K, but inversely, I loathe block-botting and generic K strategy.
Ks I have went for my debate career: Cap, set col, security, psycho, Lee Edelman, antiblackness.
1AC rehighlights is good
Phil comp is bad (but will vote for it)
if you read 7+ OFF just to explode 13 minutes of K you are a coward, but who cares if you end up winning
Minor Pet Peeves
ask for marked doc when it's like just a few cards skipped/cut
"they drop it" with no explanation"
"they drop it" when they did not
"if you do not like it go do LD/PF "
"we will answer that if you make the argument", pls my brother in Christ just answer the damn question.
long ov that could have just been line by line,
marking multiple cards in the same speech
theory prolif in the 2AC
send out 7+ OFF and can't finish them so you skip
DO NOT DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
Steal preps
Clipping
Insult your opponent
be anti-disclosure
Condo Rant
For all you 2As out there, I feel ya, it is terrifying when there are 13 OFF 1NC and 5 of them made it to the block. Hence I am not gonna outright worship infinite condo like a good 2N should. But if I am being honest, time skew is also the worst way to debate condo in front of me. You need to have a good interpretation that can solve for time skew, and I hardly see myself voting on that time skew is a uq impact of condo. Instead, if the 1AR is gonna carry the cross of condo, it needs to talk about research, depth vs breadth, strat skews, and why the model of condo is bad, etc. Yes, the 1AR needs to start the full condo debate, I will not give new 2AR spin on standards. Moreover, you need to connect all of standards to your Counter-interpretation, why does that solve? The neg always wins condo when they are like "Yeah, condo def sucks for the aff, but any other alternative only kills neg flex and arg testing since skews are inevitable" and the 2ar just keeps extending horror stories of condo without telling me why is dispo/limited-condo/their CI/ a good alternative that solve the unforgivable sins of condo.
EMAIL: JLoza25@damien-hs.edu
Pronouns:He/Him
I love clarity, emphasis, all that. Be confident when you're speaking.
MAIN ADVICE:
Just have fun with this.
About Me:
Freshie at Damien HS and did policy for a year.
My name is Justin Loza, and just call me Justin, or Loza, I don't really care.
How I Judge:
If you get through half an argument in your opening speeches, I probably won't count it, but if you want try to persuade me otherwise. I'm always up for that. If you want to know what argument preference I have, you're in luck, I don't have one. Just explain yourself to the fullest extent and don't give half baked arguments (watch out for this in your rebuttals).
I like debate's that don't just go back and forth about cards, I like debates where the people talking actually understand what their saying and could explain it good in their own words.
ADVICE:
-Don't clip (skip around)
-No name calling, slurs, just Negative stuff like that, but if you're here you probably know better, I hope...
-Please give roadmaps/orders, and also make sure everyone is ready to go, before you go
-Be a good teammate, and overall good person in your round, if you do this you probably have bigger goals on your mind, make it easier and make a good name for yourself
SPEAKS:
I score my speaks based off of, again, how confident they are speaking, as well during Cx you gotta be on top of it to get good speaks.
My average will be a solid 27.5-28
+.5 if you just are awesome at all aspects (you'll know)
+.5 if you're funny, we need more laughter in a debate
Nárhi jámaxakia
Email chain
2. damiendebate47@gmail.com (Policy Debate Only)
TL;DR:
Affiliation: Damien (Debater): 2020 - 2024 (Coach): 2024 - Present; Northwestern (Debater) 2024-Present
2x TOC Qualifier
Call me: Mark/Markos - Judge will make me cringe
Assume I have 0 idea of what the topic says - you should break down acronyms and try and have detailed explanations over assuming I know anything about the topic
I am fine voting on anything -except if it's an impact turn to structural violence (i.e. racism good; colonization good; etc) -- I will not flow it, I will not evaluate it, I will doc your points, alert tab, and your coaches about it.
Preferences:
I enjoy K v K debate (or K debate writ large) I mainly ran Kritiks that would fall into the CRT category, but I am familiar with most lit bases as a result of being in the community and just reading the lit. I was mentored by people like Joshua Michael, Tim Lewis, Joshua Harrington, and many others. I did however read both Policy and Kritikal Affirmatives in my High School years - I am fairly flexible to both sides on the K from a tech perspective.
Random Things to ponder if you need to gage the situation: Yes Spreading - Just be clear; Marked docs are annoying and prob take more time and ethos away by asking for it than just flowing; Tech > Truth but it is hard to out debate truth and will probably make you look silly.
How I think about rounds:
This mainly occurs on a round by round basis but my typical evaluation framework comes down to How I should evaluate debates (i.e. FW/Role of Judge/Ballot/wtv) and then filtering through the key offense points in the 2NR/AR. I find that it becomes harder to think about what my "role" as a judge should be without any understanding of what the buzz words/ theory dictate that I am (i.e. if I'm supposed to accept an invitation to X explain what is X what does joining X do in the round and what does my presence do for that) absent that I tend to default to what was happening in round as opposed to thinking about the larger issue that I am supposed to be working towards. If for whatever reason I end up with nothing to frame my mind I am going to default to my biases which you can extrapolate within the paradigm
Ks:
Yes! I love the K - my philosophies range from Some PoMo to Settler Colonialism (so Set Col, Psycho, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Cybernetics, Queer Pessimism, Orientalism, Feminism, Afro-Optimism/Pessimism, etc), but I am good with a majority of philosophies, as long as you can explain the links to the aff and they are developed well within the block, you should be fine. I like K debate where there is nuance, if you are reading blocks that your coach wrote prerd and dont know what you are saying, dont read the K!
Link Debate: IF by the 2nr you have not given me a clear explanation of the link to the aff... you're not going to like how I vote.
Alts: you can kick it - but you better have a really good link story as to why your links outweigh/negates any risk of the affirmative solvency mechanism and a great FW debate
Theory:
I've found myself going for T in the 2NR more often than not so I have some idea of what good T debates should look like. I don't want to say make T your A-Strat because those debates are VERY boring and probably make me sleepy and yawn throughout the entire debate. To get my ballot on T you need to: 1. Have a good story as to why the aff isuntopical 2. Cite in round abuse (Losing links/ CP ground, strat skew, etc) 3. Tell me why I should care specifically about cheating in that rd - if your T arg is way too vague, ill will not vote for it.
CPs:
I dont think that CPs need a Solvency Advocacte, especially if it's something that just came to you prerd. DO NOT take advantage of this and start reading 20 CPs with no Solvency Advocactes (I think the limit for me is 3 CPs)Read them as you want - explain what the mechanism of the CP is and why I should prefer it to the aff. Explain how the CP avoids the net benefit and we shouldn't have a problem.
DAs:
I'm going to quote one of my judges when I started debating "I don't know why people don't just go for the squo" If you think that the DA is sufficient to win a turns case argument - just go for the DA and case defense. If I don't have a clear explanation of the link story by the 2nr - you have made a mistake and will probably lose this debate (give me warrants as to why the aff doesn't solve but links to the DA.)
Notes/Random Stuff ab me:
- If you feel like you still have Qs about my paradigm feel free to ask me b4 the round/email me - I have nothing better to do in that 30 minutes of prep lol.
- I tend to listen to music during prep time/during my rfd writing time; if you have any recs ill take them
TLDR - I am a senior at Damien high school, and I have been debating since freshmen year
Add me to the chain please -- email -- rrmurphy24@damien-hs.edu
What I like:
-I am cool with tag-team/open cross
-tech over truth
-frame the ballot for me in the rebuttles
What I don't like:
-Non-disclosure (unless breaking new aff)
-Toxic behavior
-People being late (There are some exceptions)
Overall have fun
If you have any questions about the debate please contact me I am happy to help, we are all learning here, and don't be afraid to ask questions
Specifics-
aff- read whatever, policy or k, if you read policy I prefer plan texts that are really specific and aren't just restating the resolution
theory- to win theory you need to prove in round abuse, if you don't you won't win on this
t- I don't especially like to watch t debates, you can go for predictability or debatability, just impact either one of them out
da- generic links arent great, the more specific the link the better the da,
cp- I enjoy adv cps or unique ways to solve the aff, I also enjoy creative pics
k- I'm an ok judge for the k, I'm good with basic stuff like cap and security, if you go for higher literature its probably safer to have a more in-depth explanation about it throughout the debate
- If you make a joke about a person named William Agustin I will give you +0.1
Senior at Damien High School,
Add me to the email chain (noahortizdebate@gmail.com, damiendebate47@gmail.com)
Don't be a bigot
I agree w/ this paradigm - (Tabroom.com)
Judge instruction on how to evaluate the round bring clarity to RFD's. This involves clearly denoting how the round should be evaluated with justification.
Pointing out concessions can clarify positions in the debate.
There is a case for in-round violence winning the ballot.
In regard to models of debate, theory, topicality, and frameworks are always a question. There are many forms of contesting standards on both sides, both influencing the question of whether or not fairness takes premise over education or vice versa, or what causes something to not be fair or educational.
For counterplans and alternatives, influenced by how I evaluate the round, and the implications of what the advocacies resolve. The question is which is the option that best fits the model of debate presented in round that I end up siding with, or one I agree mitigates the presented impacts which could imply what I should vote for. (This includes solvency indicts)
For disadvantages, these debates are influenced by how I evaluate the round, and the implications of the disadvantages impacts in the round. Warranting impacts usually is or is part of how I'll determine whether the status quo or another advocacy is a better option.
In regard to Kritiks and K-affs, examining models/resolutions and/or their implications is always a question. For the most part I'll look for what to endorse or not endorse and (why). Links should also be contextual.
Basic Overview:
Be clear, explain yourselves, don't discriminate, and I will vote for practically anything.
About me:
Freshman at Damien and only have done policy debate and have absolutely no clue about anything else.
My name is Giovanni Pacheco but you can call me whenever you want but most people just call me Gio.
My Thoughts:
I will vote on whatever kind of argument as long as it makes sense,however, I will not vote for the argument if it does not make logical sense. Aside from that, it's up to you, the debaters, to establish the game's rules and persuade me why they're the best. Any argument is acceptable to me as long as it is not racist, sexist, ableist, or discriminatory. I am satisfactory at flowing but only if I can hear you and am able to make out what arguments you are trying to get across.
Speaker points are given out by how you construct your arguments and present yourselves. Everyone has their own style of expressing themselves whether it be making small humorous quips or making analogies to explain your argument or something else, but being abusive during cross-ex or mean to your opponents are not one of those and will result in much lower speaks.
Specific arguments:
I am very out of the loop of critical literature, so if you go for it be ready to explain it clearly. This doesn't mean don't read it, merely just understand it yourself, have a clear thesis, and be able to explain your philosophy to both me and your opponents. As long as you do that, I can flow, understand, and vote on it. I quite enjoy both reading Ks and listening to them, but there is nothing worse than a bad K debate.
Well-thought out counterplans and PICs that actually interact with the aff are fun and interesting to listen to. Same with disadvantages, explain them, and interact with the affirmative in a way that makes me vote for you, and I will enjoy it.
1. What is your debate background?
I am Erik Patronite, I am a freshmen at Damien Highschool.
I debated in high school for 1 year.
I have done multiple debates and have a good understanding of it.
I do debate at a high level debate program.
I have flowed many debates.
2. How do you judge?
I am a flow judge and base it only on argumentation.
I deliberate on overall presentation of debaters - i.e., arguments + delivery
3. Other specifies on my judging style?
I like to go at fast but clear speed.
I am not the biggest fan of Kritiks.
I am fine with the use of counter plans.
Know how to say the order of your speech.
I expect respect with both of the teams.
Know what your reading, don't read something you dont know.
Be confident and have fun.
Hello All,
My name is Andrew Ramallo, I am a junior at Damien High school and I this is my third-year debating.
I don't have a preference whether it comes to different types of arguments used on the neg. I primarily read policy so i'm most fluent in that, but read what you want. I am fully comfortable judging and voting on a kritik. If you're reading buzzword after buzzword tho at your opponent and don't know what the argument is i'll nuke your speaks.
Debate is a game, read a plan. If the aff just abuses their affirmative and tries to make the neg look silly without making any logical arguments or they don't weigh the importance of their aff I will NOT vote for them. There must be a warrant for why the ballot matters/spills out.
As far as pet peeves and things I look for in giving speaks. I do appreciate giving road maps/orders before your speeches. I also look for clarity and I am fine with spreading and speaking quickly but if I feel I'm unable to comprehend and hear what you're saying I will say "clearer or speak up." I absolutely hate it when people clip. Card cutting is fine as long as you tell your opponents as well as the judge(s) and send a marked document after the speech has concluded. Don't be offensive, no name calling, no slurs, limit bad language. Be a good teammate and show good sportsmanship.
(If online)
Keep cameras on, mics can be left off to limit noise when you aren't speaking. Cameras should be on unless you have a valid technical issue, so no prep stealing.
My outline for speaker points goes as follows:
-26: You did something terrible I believe that you offended someone and will report it to tab.
26-27: Needs improvement, needs to practice a lot more and cross ex lacked a lot of quality.
27-28: Needs some improvement, didn't do anything bad or wrong just not enough to go far in the tournament.
28-28.5: Good qualities as well as improvement needed. Decent cross ex usually turns out for a fairly good debate.
28.5-29: Good qualities showed, and cross ex was very thorough. Team usually makes elims maybe even further.
29-29.5: Very good speaker. Cross ex was impressive. But most importantly understood the arguments they were making and was able to back them in cross ex as opposed to just standing there and wasting cross ex time. Team makes late elims, maybe wins tourney.
29.5+: Probably one of the best debates I've seen this year. Doesn't slip up and speaks quickly but clearly and knows arguments in and out. Should be winning tournament.
I agree with pretty much any of the following people's paradigms so if you are looking for something a little bit more substantive look at: Tim Lewis, Chris Paredes, Stephen Lewis, Yueshuya Li, and also a little bit of Teddy Wachtler's paradigm.
Most Importantly, make sure you have fun have a good time, be respectful to your opponents and judge(s). If you have any questions about this paradigm don't be afraid to ask before the round.
Emails for Email Chain:
Hi, I’m Gavin Romero. I am a freshman at Damien High School and have attended a few debate tournaments, as well as watched many experienced debaters go head to head. I have experience as both 2A and 1N and really enjoy debate. It feels great after a long debate and appreciating the hard work you, your partner, and your opponents have put in.
Email Chain: grromero25@damien-hs.edu
-I am tech over truth, but I don't weigh nonsense arguments
-I ask that you are respectful of your opponents and have fun. Being rude will affect your speaker points and may even result in a ballot for the other team for serious offenses.
Topicality:
I don’t have too much experience with T debate, however, I do not think a debate is bad if it depends on whether the debate is topical or not. I have the same view on reasonability and competing interpretations, so it is up to you to properly persuade me.
Case:
I appreciate it when a team knows all of their arguments inside and out, doing so will result in an increase in speaker points.
Overviews are good and necessary, but ensure that you cover your other arguments
Disadvantages:
-Any standard DA is perfectly fine by me, I like to keep these relatively simple.
Counterplans:
-I like generic counterplans, these are especially interesting to me.
Kritiks:
-I don't have the best experience with Kritiks mostly because I am still learning debate. I am not completely sure how to weigh this, and by adding them, it may result in an odd decision from me.
Other:
I do not particularly know much about critical literature, so if you read it, I expect you to know it well, and explain it thoroughly. If you do read it, you must have a clear thesis and be able to elaborate upon that to me and your opponents.
I try to time each speech, but I occasionally forget. You should always have a timer for yourself to see how much time you have left for your speech.
Be sure to enunciate your speeches, I especially don’t appreciate it when someone just mumbles their entire speech. I am fine with fast speeches, just make sure you speak slow enough to be understood.
Framing arguments makes my job a lot easier, and I deeply appreciate it when debaters do so.
Updated for NSDA Nationals 2024:
My name is Teja Vepa, please feel free to add me to the chain - Tejavepa {at} g mail
Current / Prior Roles and Affiliations:
Director of Speech and Debate - Collegiate School, NY (2022 to present)
Program Manager - Debate - Success Academy Charter Schools, NY (2019-2022)
Associate Director - Policy Debate - Polytechnic School, CA (2013-2019)
Debate Coach - Claremont HS, CA (2009-2013)
2023-24 Topic Specific:
I have not judged many rounds on this particular topic. I may need some common acronyms specified. If you make it clear early, that would be helpful.
Paradigm for NSDA:
As of this year, I have approximately 20 years of experience with policy debate. I think Nationals is a unique tournament and debaters are tasked with adapting to a varied audience. You do not have to debate specifically for me. I am capable of and enjoy evaluating rounds that range from stock issues, policymaking, plan v K, K v K, and K v Framework.
I will vote for planless affs. I have coached at programs that are significantly more K friendly (Polytechnic) and at programs that typically prefer Plan debates (Claremont). I think both of these models have value.
Specific Argument Types:
DA: The more specific, the better. I tend to disprefer generic DAs unless the link is highly specific. I tend to beleive that the uniqueness controls the direction of the offense.
CP: I do like counterplans and these are some of my favorite debates. Ideally your CP has an internal net benefit. Process counterplans are fine. Conditionality is probably good.
K: Go ahead, I am familiar with a series of K literature bases, and specifically more familiar/well-read with these literature bases: Cap/Neoliberalism, Settler-Colonialism, Lacan/Psychoanalysis, Foucault/Biopower, Threat Construction/ Heg, Agamben/Biopolitics, Zizek. Though I am less well-read on identity arguments than postmodern high theory Ks, I do have experience with the sections of the literature base that are used in policy debate.
K Aff: I think these are legitimate. Please have a stable advocacy and be sure to win your aff if you are using it to outwiegh T/Framework.
T: I am willing to vote on it--T is about technical execution. I tend to prefer limits over other standards, so please explain your impacts if they are based in ground etc.
Framework: I tend to value education over procedural fairness.
Questions:
Happy to answer them before the round, or feel free to email me.
Update for Loyola 2020
Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.
Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:
I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.
You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.
It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.
Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.
Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.
LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.
Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.
.
.
Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)
Update Pending
Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.
1. Experience
Debated in High School and very little competition experience
2. Judging
I judge on the entire presentation of the debate, the way they highlight their files, their organization, the argumentation, and how they deliver that argumentation
3. Judging Style
Speed: Debaters can read fast, however it has to be clear and they have to annunciate
Kritiks: I don't like judging kritiks, so it will be weighed in lightly if used.
CPs, DAs, and Topicality: I am fine and comfortable judging these offcases
Add me on the chain please — thwamster@gmail.com.
Please include the following in the subject: tournament name, round number, year, affirmative team code, negative team code.
Most fluent in policy debate. Call me whatever floats your boat.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⢿⣧⣤⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣧⣆⣘⡄⢹⣿⣷⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣾⣿⣿⣿⣷⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⢿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⣴⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⡀⣾⡿⠀⠉⠉⠛⠋⠛⠛⠚⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢠⣍⠹⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣷⣾⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣟⢻⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠻⠿⠟⠁⠑⢶⣤⣴⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣬⣿⣿⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⠛⢛⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠻⢿⡿⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
I think debate is a game with inevitable competitive and personal incentives that are net good for the activity. I will evaluate debates based on pure technical skill rather than the truth of content presented and I will vote on any types of arguments. While I will default to the role of a policymaker, how I vote or which arguments I prioritize is up to the debaters to identify and clarify. The final speeches should crystalize the arguments that I evaluate first, explain how I should evaluate them, and support with warrants why I should view the debate that way.
The vast majority of my other perspectives on debate come from Tim Lewis. His paradigm is significantly more detailed and educational, and I think a read is worth it.
Hello debaters, my name is John, and you can refer to me as John or judge, whatever you prefer. I am not that strict on what kind of style you want to debate as but do keep some things in mind while you are debating.
A little introduction about myself. I am currently a freshman at Damien High School. I am also a member of the Damien debate team, currently a novice. I have advanced through several prelims and my highest place was California Invitational JV Policy Debate Double-Octofinalist. This is my first year debating and first-year judging, so if I do make mistakes, please do tell me after the round.
Spreading is okay, but do not sacrifice your clarity, I will go by both flows and documents, thus I will weigh on both.
1. This is the most important thing that you should know when you are debating, please be respectful. Debate is supposed to be educational and also fun. If you don't respect your opponent, then I will automatically deduct speaker points from your team, not individual, because you are debating as a team. Also, using any sort of profanity/racist slurs/ethical wrongdoing will be strictly prohibited, and if doing so, will give the lowest speaker points and/or impact my final decisions.
2. During cx, you should not be insulting the other team. When you are asking a question, ask straightforward and the answering side should stick to the answers and not say something else that is not relevant to the question. Things can and will be heated sometimes during the cx, but make sure to keep it at a minimum, and do not laugh at the other team, because that is just disrespectful.
3. Always try to work as a team, teamwork is another thing that I will be looking at, because in my opinion, when you are working as a team, it will help you succeed more. Of course, individual writing the documents should happen, but when there are certain points or certain strategies that you two disagree it should be discussed within the team and work it out.
4. I am usually fine with all types of arguments, but as a personal preference, I don't like kritiks, all the other kinds of arguments, I am fine. I am not saying that you cannot do kritiks, just kritiks for me personally, is harder to follow and make decisions upon it. I will try not to deduct points from critics, so if you speak slower, that would help me understand the critics in the sense of the whole case.
5. I am looking for whether or not you answered all the arguments and your impacts. If you presented impact calc, then it would be a bonus when I do my judging. Also, try to not drop any arguments, especially like Topicality. Dropping certain arguments would result in changes in my decisions. I will be looking at how well you present your arguments and always have a source for your evidence.
6. If you also demonstrate that you fully understand the arguments that you are doing, and fully demonstrate that you know how to use certain types of arguments, that would also be a really good chance that you would win over the other team.
7. Do not give attitude, or be mad at the judge/opponents, when you lost the round. As I said above, we must know that debate is a fun and educational subject that we do by going to tournaments. We are demonstrating the skills that we learn. If you are disappointed, that is understandable, but if you are going on a rant about how you should have won, that is unacceptable. I will do my best to give you a detailed explanation of why I made this decision.
8. Finally, have fun, and most importantly, learn new things from each debate round, whether you lost or won. You could always learn how you can improve and what you should watch out for next time. I hope that you would be able to write notes down of what you should have done and what you should keep doing. If you have any further questions after the round that you are confused about, you can email me: at yzhao25@damien-hs.edu
Good luck to all debaters!