Debbie Johnson Texas Novice Championship
2022 — NSDA Campus, TX/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I'm Manal, a sophomore at MHS who does LD debate!
If you're here, you're a novice, here are my basic rules:
- please signpost so i can flow better, which in turn will benefit you
- please treat your opponent with respect. if you don't i'll take off speaks
- please make sure you understand the arguments you're reading
- if you make funny jokes during round i'll increase speaks!!!!
- most importantly: have fun! one novice round won't determine your future
I'm most familiar with larp so you're probably best off with that, anything else, i'll try to evaluate as best as possible. If you're not doing LD, I apologize in advance
here's my paradigm for like the one or two tournaments i'll judge this year for novice that people most likely won't see but i'm writing for fun.
i'm a burnout depressed college junior who's failing in college and at life. debate accordingly.
jk i'm nithya (mhs '23)
if you care enough--qualed to tfa state sophomore and junior year and cleared both years.
if i'm judging anything but ld, i'm very sorry for you and your opponents.
pls add me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
i don't really care what you read as long as you explain it well. make sure to signpost otherwise you're going to lose me very easily.
i'm fine with speed but if you're unclear i'm not gonna understand what you're saying. therefore, be clear while spreading pls. however, don't spew down on a novice or you're getting horrible speaks. if you're debating someone that doesn't spread, just match their speed in the later speeches. if you debate efficiently, you should still be able to win without spewing down.
if you're a trad debater, do whatever you want just don't concede too much and you should be fine.
for larp: the type of debate i'm most familiar with. nothing much to say here, just pls impact weigh it will make me happy and don't force me to do that work for you. explain how the cp either solves the aff and the impacts of the da, or just how the cp is just better than the aff and you'll be ahead. also this may be obvious but i've run into this in rounds--link and impact turns are offense on a disad. if you drop a link/impact turn when kicking a disad, you're functionally dropping offense on the disad, meaning the aff can still win off of it. pls don't concede them.
for phil: explain the syllogism of your fw. that's literally it. i'm not exactly the most adept at phil but i can somewhat follow a phil debate. though my phil knowledge is limited, if you can explain it well and explain why it should frame the round and why you're winning under that framework, you win. just err on the side of of overexplaining because otherwise you're gonna lose me. phil i'm most familiar with: butler, levinas, rawls, hobbes, kant, locke.
for kritiks: i'm familiar with some of the lit (some id pol, nietzche, baudrillard, psycho, deleuze, glissant, cap, etc.). pls pls pls utilize the rob if you're debating other fws. it'll make me very happy. also explain the world of the alt otherwise idk how i'm supposed to evaluate perms and at to perms. also, utilize the fw of the k--it can win or lose you rounds. k tricks are always appreciated. k 1ars are always one of the harder ones to give so i'll try to give some leeway. also please don't concede extinction ows--i've done this far too many times than i should and it's definitely not hard to answer.
for non t affs: go for it. i never ran one but i've debated enough to understand the strategic calue and implications of reading one. if you're debating a non t aff, t-fwk is fine as it's the most basic strat, though it's pretty boring to sit through one of those rounds.
for theory/tricks: not my most favorite style but do what you want to do. default no rvis, competing interps , dtd, fairness and ed are voters. theory imo gets extremely muddled so if you're planning on going for it, just try to explain the abuse story well and i'll give you some sort of credence.
for trix-- i'll evaluate them. idk what else i'm supposed to say about this but if you want, go for it i'm not entirely opposed to them. however, pls don't read 50 million paradoxes- i have trauma.
i'll prolly give you high speaks bc of my ptsd with speaker points but if you're just plain weird, i'm dropping your speaks.
if you have any questions before round, let me know and i can hopefully answer them. also let me know if you want me to do anything to make the round more inclusive for you. don't be a jerk or do anything offensive otherwise you're getting an automatic l25. excessive postrounding gets you a very frustrated person who will likely throw things at you.
"live, laugh, love, lose"
Hi! I am Aaditya Ganesan (he/him) TOC qualled my junior year but didn't go because I just got out of a hospital a month before
Westwood 2023 Put me on the chain: email@example.com. The following paradigm will be accommodated towards novices since that is who I will probably be judging. That being said if you have any questions not already answered in this paradigm, please ask me before the round!
Last Updated - Novice Inhouse 2021
Will vote on a "trick" if it has a clear warrant, an impact, and if its not randomly hidden within the doc
TLDR: have fun, be nice, and don't overinvest
Speed: should be fine with it but remember your speed doesn't matter if you are not clear. It is better to go 350 wpm clear than to go 450 wp barely comprehensible. Remember to try prioritize being efficient as well ( it doesn't matter how fast you go if you are saying the same thing in 100 different ways).
Have good ev, do good impact comparison weighing.
When extending case, you should not just extend your tags but your warrants as well.
Read whatever type of CPs you want. The more cheaty the cp the more likely I am to be persuaded by a 1ar theory arg.
1-2 condo advocacies is chill.
Don't make new args on the case in the 2NR or new answers to the da or cp in the 2AR pls pls pls.
Don't make morally repugnant impact turns pls(oppression good, racism good) That being said I like impact turn debates like Spark or DeDev or Heg.
Also it would be great if you collapsed in the 2nr.
If a card goes conceded, the warrants that you highlighted went conceded NOT the tag of the card. What I mean by this is that if you powertag evidence saying that Nuke war kills 2 million when your evidence says it kills one million, your opponent has conceded that nuke war kills one million(sorry if this is a bad example lol).
Phil: comfortable with util, kant, virtue ethics, rawls, Levinas, Butler, Hobbes
No RVIS > RVIs
fairness and edu are voters
It's very easy to persuade otherwise on any of these issues, so odds are you prob shouldn't worry about them.
Do standards weighing pls!!!
Don't read disclosure at a local or in the novice division, it's not cool.
If you read meta theory you have to weigh it/
1. Solid- cp theory, topicality, must spec(to a certain extent), AFC good/bad, condo good/bad, TJF good/bad, etc.
2. more frivolous stuff - sandwich theory, must disclose tabroom tournament name, must spec theory of the good etc.
3. Don't do it pls- physical appearance, physical location
Kritik: Line by Line>>>>>> Super long overviews
I am most likely going to need an over-explanation of the K in the 2NR regardless of if I am familiar with the lit base or not. Make sure your links are as specific to the aff as possible
I have decent understandings of the following: university, capitalism, security, afropessimism, black nihilism, settler colonialism.
Not really familiar with pomo
don't read an underhighlited 1nc and extrapolate new 2nr warrants that were not in the 1nc.
give overviews at 70-80% speed
If the Kritik is ontology-based, you need to clearly explain why the kritik derives some sort of ontology offense.
I don't like links of omission
If i am voting on the perm being severance, the 2NR has to implicate severance by actually giving warrants instead of just spending 2 seconds saying severance is a voter
Not the biggest fan of spikes/aprioris, but I will vote on them if conceded, it has a clear warrant, and I understand it.
If you choose to read them, please slow down in the 1ac or 1nc when doing so or chances are i ll prob miss it.
don't understand burdens
indexicals + condo logic are fine
Default comparative worlds and epistemic modesty but I can easily be persuaded by Truth Testing or confidence
i am parrent judge
I'm Karthik I'm a junior at McNeil I do LD
add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
debate is a game
signpost pls I'm bad at flowing
I'm lazy so make it easy for me to vote for you
If you read confusing buzzwords you better explain them or I probably won't understand it
tricks are dumb
don't be mean
good luck have fun
Hi! I'm Brian Jeon (he/him) and I debate for Westwood.
call me Brian instead of judge sometimes i feel like judge is kinda awkward
email chain if u can: email@example.com (I prefer this to the file share)
TLDR: gl hf read what you're comfortable with with the exception of repugnant stuff (racism good, sexism good, oppression good, death good, wipeout is okay tho). MOST IMPORTANTLY HAVE FUN DEBATE SHOULD BE A PLACE WHERE YOU CAN EXPRESS YOURSELF AND READ THINGS YOU HOLD DEAR.
RECORD YOUR SPEECHES NSDA CAMPUS CUTS OUT SO MUCH OMG
1+ - larp
2-3 - phil
1 - t/theory
2 - k
3 - tricks
i try to flow by ear but internet problems are gonna happen so pls disclose
sending documents/flashing doesn't count as prep (don't abuse this pls)
try to time yourselves (if its novice debate i'm more understanding)
stand or sit or do jumping jacks doesn't matter
weigh, weigh, weigh
judge kick should be something made in the 1NC
idk what you want for this lol just ask any other questions b4 round
This is probably where I'm the worst at evaluating so I'd err on the side of overexplaining to me
I actually think more abt the K now so identity Ks I will def understand
K affs - I'll probably be lost ngl, I've only gone for TFW so know that you will need a lot more explanation than you would normally need
Unlike the K, I actually do think about philosophy outside of debate so I have a bit more knowledge than other positions in debate (this doesn't mean I'll hack or you can skip out on explanation...)
Here's the stuff I'm familiar with - Kant, Levinas, Social Contracting (hobbes), Butler, Satre, Camus, bits of Nietzsche, and Rawls
I'd prefer you not read straight-up skep NCs but ill evaluate it ig
love, love, love these arguments
potential abuse is definitely a thing, but reasonability is underrated
every T debate should have a precision standard
here's my defaults, but if you make me decide on a default i will be mad
No RVIs > RVIs
CI > Reasonablity
DTD > DTA
i will NOT vote on any theory arguments that police what people wear, at best this is silly and at worst harmful (I'm looking at you shoes theory)
shells that can be solved by cx seem silly to me but ig ill evaluate it
I am willing to pull the trigger on these arguments if they are implicated and have warrants
don't be too blippy about these - slow, slow, slow
I actually think stuff like condo logic and indexicals are funny af
stuff that will make me happy :)
knowing your case
not conceding stuff in cross (defend your case!)
using cross very well
explaining why you should win
weigh, weigh, weigh
creative impact turns (warning: don't do anything problematic, check TLDR for more details)
good phil debate
stuff that will make me sad :(
going for 1,000 arguments in the 2nr/ar
being mean (i know its a competitive activity but cmon be reasonable. also there's a clear difference between being assertive and just being mean)
speaking faster than you can (this does NOT mean I can't handle speed, just remember that the better debaters tend to be more efficient rather than fast. "Smart and slow beats fast and silly"
not warranting your stuff
value debates like morality vs justice vs democracy or whatever
stuff that will boost your speaks
reading and executing spark well
email chain early
reading interesting frameworks and executing it well
side quests (do these for like a small speaks boost)
memes on top of the 1ac/1nc (must be funny) - if you're reading this for novice inhouse PLEASE do this + .1
give me a song rec and ill listen during prep and if its heat +.2
if u make me laugh out loud +.3
being drippy +.2
if im on the same panel as joon c, aaditya g, anoop r flame them +0.1
never judged PF but all the LD stuff applies (including side quests!)
idc much abt the "persuasion" but just be techy
PLEASE FOR GODS SAKE DISCLOSE!!!!! I WILL DOC -0.5 SPEAKS IF YOU DO NOT DISCLOSE
+1 (yes an entire speaker point) if you read cards instead of paraphrase evidence (yes, I understand its not a big norm, but it should be, evidence ethics violations are real)
firstname.lastname@example.org - yes email chain
1 - Policy
2 - T/Theory/Phil
3 - K
4 - Tricks
Hi guys my name is Yara Mustafa and I'm an LDer from McNeil!
I would prefer to be on the email chain email@example.com
Please extend the arguments you make, and also provide a warrant for your claims. I know debate is super competitive, but it's also important to be respectful and nice throughout the round. PLEASE PLEASE signpost, and tell me where exactly you are on the flow, I would hate to intervene in rounds and have to extend for you.
I have been debating a lot of phil this year, but I also like LARP debate. I am not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm still learning everyday. I'm cool with evaluating any type of argument as long as they are backed up by warrants and are extended throughout the speeches. Go at any speed you want but please be as clear as possible. If I can't understand what's being said, I'll "clear" two times before dropping speaks. I think voters and a ballot story are super important, and crystallizes the round.
Hi, I'm Adrita!
UT Austin '26
I did LD for 4 years, competing on the tfa circuit mostly and some on the nat circuit before online debate burnout lol. I qualified to TFA state my sophomore junior and senior years as well as NSDA nats as a junior.
I will vote off of anything that isn't morally repugnant (sexism/homophobia/racism/etc. good) as long as you are doing the work to tell me why you're winning. That being said, I was a policy debater for the most part so I understand the CP/DA debate the best but this did become boring at times so I occasionally ran T/theory, Ks (cap/set col), and low level phil (kant/rawls/hobbes type stuff).
please don't read tricks. or an underview with 76 blips where 1 becomes 3 min of the 2ar. also friv theory is a pretty hard ballot to win in front of me, my threshold for a response is very low. also eval after 1nc/1ar will make me upset
1 - larp
2 - T/theory, K(cap/set col), phil (basic kant/hobbes/rawls)
3 - dense pomo/id pol Ks, anything beyond basic phil, K affs
4 - friv thoery/tricks
random things -
time yourself, i'm good with flex prep, idc if u sit or stand during speeches
speaks go down if your mean
speaks go up if you make good strategic choices, or make me laugh
good luck, have fun, and make sure you're learning! ask me any questions you want
Hello my name is Anjaly and I'm a junior at McNeil.
You're probably a novice so read whatever you're allowed to read. Weigh and explain your link chain thoroughly. I'm better at judging larp compared to phil but you can still read phil just once again be really thorough. If you say something funny I will up your speaks. That being said, you cannot be cringe or else I will lower your speaks. So really think the jokes through. Actually no, i'll genuinely laugh at anything so just say something please I really don't want to be bored. Be nice to your opponent and don't be offensive or else you'll lose.
Let me know before round if your parents are expecting you to become toc champion one day because I know how you feel. My parents never put that pressure on me but i still know how you feel. Ill sympathize with you because we must stick together. I understand you, I empathize with you, and I stand with you. Together we will make the world a better place. Together we will rise.
live laugh love lose
email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
hey! my name's rohan and I do ld at mcneil. i'm pretty much tab when it comes to judging. misc important things for ld in no particular order:
- i'll evaluate anything with warrants unless it promotes death/discrimination.
- speaks: a clear guide because i always wanted one: i'll never nerf your speaks if you lose unless you say something horribly out of pocket. i start at 28, if you win you'll get a 29, 30 if you're exquisite. if it's an L you'll get a 28 if it was close ash, a 27, or a 25 in those special situations.
- no opp behavior in round. be kind, no beef (i'm hindu)
- remember to extend well, no blippy arguments
in order of comfort: policy* > theory > k > phil^ > tricks
*i learned this style of debate from my hs coach, a cx star in the dark ages. This is what I read the most by a long shot. a quick note that pertains to this is that value/criterion isn't a must-have as the bulk of my debate experience is in a circuit where ld is basically policy for lonely people.
^with the exception of a select few authors (Rawls, Kant, Butler, Deleuze). i'm not saying don't run phil if you're not reading these, you're just gonna have to go the extra mile to explain it to me really well.
live laugh love lose learn - merina joseph