Tabroom.com

Northshore Debate Series 2

2022 — Northbrook, IL/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Rose Bilicki Niles West High School

Last changed on Sat May 25, 2024 at 2:24 AM CST

Rose - she/her -

Uiowa'27

Niles West '23

rose@bilicki.com

Top level:

Debate should be a safe space for all people involved. If you feel unsafe in a round, please let me know and I will stop the round and go to tab. Please put you emotional well being over debate, even if you feel pressure to kept debating through sickness, panic attacks etc it is okay to take an L on tabroom to protect yourself. This also means that racism, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, and any other form of violence is prohibited. I will not hesitate to hold people accountable in round, high school policy has a huge accountability problem and I want to be part of the solution.

As a disabled debater I understand the struggle to exist within this space, if you need something from me to make it more inclusive (sit closer, need to record the RFD, time to stop and take meds, etc) please let me know and I will do my best.

If you want to know more about debating at Iowa or in college more generally please feel free to come talk to me after the round!

General thoughts:

Although I run k based arguments, while judging I put an extreme amount of emphasis on the flow. Doing line by line and keeping a clean flow are all key to how I view a debate. This does not mean big picture explanations cant win you the debate, you just need to explain why dropped arguments don't matter. I want to be least interventionist as possible, but if you don't clean up the debate for me I am going to have to make my own decisions hence my paradigm. I am going to vote on the 2ar/2nr, if your card in the 1nc is fire but you dont explain it at all I will not be voting on it.

Think about your subject position when running identity based arguments, any form of oppression you do not experience should not be casually thrown into the round as time skew or a gatcha moment, its harmful and needs to stop. I think aff teams can point this out as long as it done in a respectful manners (Asking "what is your relationship with indigenity/queerness etc?" is better than assuming someone identity)

My main k lit focus is disability studies, cap, and trans studies. In the past run security, fem ir, security studies and orientalism so those are the lit bases I am familiar with. I find k debaters misunderstanding their lit base, cards and arguments one of the most painful things to watch, so please at least be passable in your understanding. Please dont kill the flow, at least attempt to do an line by line instead of a 3 min long over view.

Policy affs - please do not be afraid to take the k up on its theory of power, those are the most fun debate for me to watch as a judge.

K affs/FW

Debate is probably a game, but what that game looks like can be debated. I tend to vote on impacts of the fw flow so impact comparison, internal link analysis and solvency questions will most likely be part of my decision. I do not think fairness is an impact with out an explanation, I think clash is the better impact in almost every case.

Neg teams: Please have something in the 1nc that is not just framework: cap, a push on presumption, a counter plan, etc make the debate way more interesting, nuanced and in-depth. If you do not have some method of resolving aff offense by the 2nr (TVA/SSD) you are shooting yourself in the foot. A pet peeve of mine is team grouping DA when they are completely unique offense, please at least try to not be a block bot.

Policy things

Judge kick if you tell me too. Please do line by line on theory especially condo, there is almost no clash in those debate. Case debating is one of my favorite things in debate. Cards and evidence matter, your terrible no card CP is not going to be the most persuasive 2nr in front of me.

Impact calculus need to be in your final rebuttal. I have often found myself deciding round where there two impacts that are both dropped by the final rebuttals but no one tells me why their impact outweighs, turn, or comes first

Online Debate:

I will have my camera on as much as I can as I am an expressive judge. Please start at a slower speed so I can get used to your voice through a microphone and make sure your zoom setting are not set to filter out back round noise (it often recognizes spreading as back round noise and you will cut out)

Random things/ speaks:

Ethos, puns, and creativity = better speaks

Remember to have fun :)

Eunji Carpenter Glenbrook North

Gershom Chan Niles West High School

Last changed on Tue July 16, 2024 at 10:16 AM CST

Background:

I debated for Niles West in high school and West Georgia in college.
BA in Philosophy.

Email:

For all UMich camp debates: cgershom@umich.edu
Personal email: gershom000@gmail.com

Top level things:

If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is.
If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
I’m extremely hesitant to vote on arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.
Absolutely no ties and the first team that asks for one will lose my ballot.
Soliciting any outside assistance during a round will lose my ballot.

Pet peeves:

Lack of clarity. Clarity > speed 100% of the time.
The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start.
Email-sending related failures.
Dead time.
Stealing prep.
Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team.
Asserting things are dropped when they aren't.
Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards.
Marking almost every card in the doc.
Disappearing after the round.
Quoting my paradigm in your speeches.
Sending PDFs instead of Word Docs.

Ethics:

If you are caught clipping you will receive a loss and the lowest possible points.
If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points.
If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.

Cross-x:

Yes, I’m fine with tag-team cx. But dominating your partner’s cx will result in lower points for both of you.
Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions, and I will run the timer accordingly.
If you fail to ask the status of the off, I will be less inclined to vote for condo.
If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate:

I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting.

Affirmatives:

I’m fine with plan or planless affirmatives. However, I believe all affirmatives should advocate for/defend something. What that something entails is up for debate, but I’m hesitant to vote for affirmatives that defend absolutely nothing.

Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
The most important thing for me in T debates is an in-depth explanation of the types of affs your interp would include/exclude and the impact that the inclusion/exclusion would have on debate.
5 second ASPEC shells/the like have become nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans:

For me counterplans are more about competition than theory. While I tend to lean more neg on questions of CP theory, I lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps.

Disads:

If you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn, it should go on its own sheet. Failure to do so is super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders.

Kritiks:

The more specific the link the better. Even if your cards aren’t that specific, applying your evidence to the specifics of the affirmative through nuanced analysis is always preferable to a generic link extension.
‘You link you lose’ strategies are not my favorite. I’m willing to vote on them if the other team fails to respond properly, but I’m very sympathetic to aff arguments about it being a bad model for debate.
I find many framework debates end up being two ships passing in the night. Line by line answers to the other team's framework standards goes a long way in helping win framework in front of me.

Theory:

Almost all theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, condo is usually the only exception.
Conditionality is often good. It can be not. I have found myself to be increasingly aff leaning on extreme conditionality (think many plank cps where all of the planks are conditional + 4-5 more conditional options).
Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Framework/T-USfg:

I find impacts about debatability, clash, and iterative testing to be very persuasive.
I am not really persuaded by fairness impacts, but will vote on it if mishandled.
I am not really persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.
I am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.
I don't think debate is role-playing.

If the aff drops SSD or the TVA and the 2NR extends it, I will most likely vote neg.

Winston Chu Glenbrook South High School

Abe Corrigan Glenbrook South High School

Last changed on Sat September 28, 2024 at 2:44 AM CST

Pronouns - him/he\they
Email(s) - abraham.corrigan@gmail.com , catspathat@gmail.com

Hello!

Thank you for considering me for your debate adjudication needs! Judging is one of my favorite things & I aspire to be the judge I wanted when I debated, namely one who was flexible and would judge the debate based on arguments made by debaters. To do that, I seek to be familiar with all debate arguments and literature bases such that my own ignorance will not be a barrier to judging the arguments you want to go for. This is an ongoing process and aspiration for me rather than an end point, but in general I would say you should probably pref me.

I'm fun!

Sometimes I even have snacks.

<*Judging Quirks*>

- I have absolutely zero poker face and will make a lot of non verbals. Please do not interpret these as concrete/100% definitive opinions of mine but rather as an expression of my initial attempts to place your argument within the particular context of the other arguments advanced in a debate.

- All arguments are evaluated within their particular context - Especially on the negative, as a debater in high school and college I went for and won a lot of debates on arguments which would be described, in a vacuum, as 'bad.' Sometimes, all you have to say is a turd and your rebuttal speeches will largely be what some of my judges described as 'turd-shinning.' This means (unless something extreme is happening which is unethical or triggering my mandatory reporter status as a public school employee) I generally prefer to let the arguments advanced in the debate dictate my view of what is and what isn't a 'good' argument.

- I am not a 'k' or 'policy' judge. I just like debate.

<*My Debate History*>

I am a 2a. This means, if left to my own devices and not instructed not to look for this, the thing that I will implicitly try to do is identify a way to leave stuff better than we found it.

High School

- I debated at H-F HS, in Illinois, for my first two years of debate where I was coached by creeps.

- My junior & senior year in HS I transfered to Glenbrook South where I was coached most by Tara Tate (now retired from debate), Calum Matheson (now at Pitt), & Ravi Shankar (former NU debater).

My partner and I largely went for agenda politics da & process cps or impact turns. We were a bit k curious, but mostly read what would be described as 'policy' arguments.

College

- I debated in college for 4 years at Gonzaga where I was coached by Glen Frappier (still DoF at GU), Steve Pointer (now [mostly] retired from debate), Jeff Buntin (current DoD at NU), Iz-ak Dunn (currently at ASU), & Charles Olney (now [mostly] retired from debate).

My partner and I largely went for what is now be described as 'soft left' arguments on the affirmative and impact turns and unusual counterplans when we were negative.

Coaching

- After graduating, I coached at Northwestern University for a year. My assignments were largely 2ac answers & stuff related to translating high theory arguments made by other teams into things our less k debaters could understand.

- I then moved to Lexington, Kentucky and coached at the University of Kentucky for two years. My assignments were largely aff & all things 2a & answering k stuff on the negative.

- I then coached/did comm graduate work at Wake Forest for two years.

- I then took a break from debate and worked as a paralegal at a law firm which was focused on civil lawsuits against police, prisons, whistleblower protections as well as doing FOIA requests for Buzzfeed.

- I then came back to debate, did some logistics for UK, then worked as an in building assistant coach at GBS.

- I am currently seeking my Masters Degree in teaching.

Marissa Fernandez Glenbrook North

Last changed on Thu August 29, 2024 at 7:32 PM CST

gbn '24

she/her

please put me on the chain: mnf.debate@gmail.com

niles 2024 update: i have minimal knowledge about the topic (i've done some basic research) so don't assume that i have the same understanding about certain issues or that i understand your acronyms and references

most important things!

- be nice to each other, your opponents and me

- flow!

- impact calc and judge instruction should always be a part of your speeches

- tech over truth (BUT i think that truth influences how thoroughly you need to answer something)

- open cross is fine with me, as long as its fine with your opponents. having said this please don't completely take over your partner's cross

- any of the thoughts i have below can be changed with good debating. you do you and i'll do my best to adjudicate the round fairly

aff stuff

- explain your case well. i should be able to explain what the aff does (and its internal link to whatever scenario is extended in the 2ar) at the end of the debate, if i can't then you haven't done this.

- tricky mechanisms are great as long as they can be explained (same goes for questionably topical affs)

- probably not the best judge for k affs. i like t-usfg debates and tend to find clash and fairness arguments pretty persuasive.

counterplans/theory

- willing to listen to anything (<3 process cps) but if the cp is really cheating you should be able to beat it with perms/theory

- you don't need to read the perm texts but they should be in your doc

- condo is probably good (i was a 2n) and it's probably one of the only theory violations that a team should be rejected for. i think most other theory violations are a reason to reject the argument but rarely the team

- if you decide to go for theory please don't just read your blocks straight down, actually answer your opponents argument. you should also be investing substantial time into it

disads

- impact calc and turns case are always part of the best explanations

- explain the story of the disad well, especially if it's more confusing/complex (<3 tricky politics das)

kritiks

- i'm familiar with some of the more common stuff (security, fem, cap, set col, etc.) but anything more complicated please explain well ( you should be doing this regardless)

topicality

- explain your standards and impacts well please! i think t debates can be interesting if executed well

at the end of the day these are just some of my thoughts and i'd rather see you debate well than over adapt and debate poorly. if you have any questions please feel free to ask me! good luck!! have fun!!

Tim Freehan New Trier High School

Last changed on Mon October 14, 2024 at 9:59 AM CST

Yes, email chain. debateoprf@gmail.com

ME:

Debater--The University of Michigan '91-'95

Head Coach--Oak Park and River Forest HS '15-'20

Assistant Coach--New Trier Township High School '20-

POLICY DEBATE:

Top Level

--Old School Policy.

--Like the K on the Neg. Harder sell on the Aff.

--Quality of Evidence Counts. Massive disparities warrant intervention on my part. You can insert rehighlightings. There should not be a time punishment for the tean NOT reading weak evidence.

--Not great with theory debates.

--I value Research and Strategic Thinking (both in round and prep) as paramount when evaluating procedural impacts.

--Utter disdain for trolly Theory args, Death Good, Wipeout and Spark. Respect the game, win classy.

Advantage vs Disadvantage

More often than not, I tend to gravitate towards the team that wins probability. The more coherent and plausible the internal link chain is, the better.

Zero risk is a thing.

I can and will vote against an argument if cards are poor exclusive of counter evidence being read.

Not a big fan of Pre-Fiat DA's: Spending, Must Pass Legislation, Riders, etc. I will err Aff on theory unless the Neg has some really good evidence as to why not.

I love nuanced defense and case turns. Conversely, I love link and impact turns. Please run lots of them.

Counterplans

Short answer to every question is "Having a solvency advocate solves all neg problems."

Conditionality—

I am largely okay with a fair amount of condo. i.e. 4-5 not a big deal for me. I will become sympathetic to Aff Theory ONLY if the Neg starts kicking straight turned arguments. On the other hand, if you go for Condo Bad and can't answer Strat Skew Inevitable, Idea Testing Good and Hard Debate is Good Debate then don't go for Condo Bad. I have voted Aff on Conditionality Theory, but rarely.

Competition—

1. I have grown weary of vague plan writing. To that end, I tend think that the Neg need only win that the CP is functionally competitive. The Plan is about advocacy and cannot be a moving target.

2. Perm do the CP? Intrinsic Perms? I am flexible to Neg if they have a solvency advocate or the Aff is new. Otherwise, I lean Aff.

(2025 ADDENDUM: I feel like this needs to be clearer because it has become an issue. I like Process CP’s when they are relevant to the topic. I give the Aff a fair amount of leeway re: limited intrinsic perms when they are run against a Process CP that has zero topic relevance. This is because I value topic research and will reward the team that accesses an impact that incentivizes hard work and discourages file recycling. You have been warned.)

Other Stuff—

PIC’s and Agent CP’s are part of our game. I err Neg on theory. Ditto 50 State Fiat.

No object Fiat, please. Or International Fiat on a Domestic Topic.

Otherwise, International Fiat is a gray area for me. The Neg needs a good Interp that excludes abusive versions. Its winnable.

Solvency advocates and New Affs make me lean Neg on theory.

If you don't have one, it is acceptable in cases where CP's just ban something detrimental to impact. That just shows good strategic thinking.

I will judge kick automatically unless given a decent reason why not in the 1AR.

K-Affs

If you lean on K Affs, just do yourself a favor and put me low or strike me. I am not unsympathetic to your argument per se, I just vote on Framework 60-70% of the time and it rarely has anything to do with your Aff.

That said, if you can effectively impact turn Framework, beat back a TVA and Switch Side Debate, you can get my ballot.

Topic relevance is important.

If your goal is to make blanket statements about why certain people are good or bad or should be excluded from valuable discussions then I am not your judge. We are all flawed.

I do not like “debate is bad” arguments. I don't think that being a "small school" is a reason why I should vote for you.

Kritiks vs Policy Affs

Truth be told, I vote Neg on Kritiks vs Policy Affs A LOT.

I am prone to voting Aff on Perms, so be advised College Debaters. I have no take on "philosophical competition" but it does seem like a thing.

I am not up on the Lit AT ALL, so the polysyllabic word stews you so love to concoct are going to make my ears bleed.

I like reading cards after the debate and find myself understanding nuance better when I can. If you don’t then you leave me with only the bad handwriting on my flow to decipher what you said an hour later and that’s not good for anybody.

When I usually vote Neg its because the Aff has not done a sufficient job in engaging with core elements of the K, such as Ontology, Root Cause Claims, etc.

I am not a great evaluator of Framework debates and will usually err for the team that accesses Education Impacts the best.

Topicality

Because it theoretically serves an external function that affects other rounds, I do give the Aff a fair amount of leeway when the arguments start to wander into a gray area. The requirement for Offense on the part of the Affirmative is something on which I place little value. Put another way, the Aff need only prove that they are within the predictable confines of research and present a plan that offers enough ground on which to run generic arguments. The Negative must prove that the Affirmative skews research burdens to a point in which the topic is unlimited to a point beyond 20-30 possible cases and/or renders the heart of the topic moot.

Plan Text in a Vacuum is a silly defense. In very few instances have I found it defensible. If you choose to defend it, you had better be ready to defend the solvency implications.

Limits and Fairness are not in and of themselves an impact. Take it to the next level.

Why I vote Aff a lot:

--Bad/Incoherent link mechanics on DA’s

--Perm do the CP

--CP Solvency Deficits

--Framework/Scholarship is defensible

--T can be won defensively

Why I vote Neg a lot:

--Condo Bad is silly

--Weakness of aff internal links/solvency

--Offense that turns the case

--Sufficiency Framing

--You actually had a strategy

PUBLIC FORUM SUPPLEMENT:

I judge about 1 PF Round for every 50 Policy Rounds so bear with me here.

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at things from a cost benefit perspective. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Impacts need to be tangible.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote on what is on the flow (yes, I flow) and keep my personal opinions of arguments in check as much as possible. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

While I am not a fan of formal “Kritik” arguments in PF, I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. Racism and Sexism will not be tolerated. You can attack your opponents scholarship.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. Again, I am not a fan of the Kritik, but if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Often the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance and not style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

Christopher Fry Glenbrook North

Last changed on Sat October 19, 2024 at 12:30 PM CST

In accordance with guidance from my employer, please upload docs to the file share on Tabroom instead of emailing them to me.

I debated at KU and Blue Valley Southwest, I am currently coaching at Glenbrook North

FW

I am heavily persuaded by arguments about why the affirmative should read a topical plan. One of the main reasons for this is that I am persuaded by a lot of framing arguments which nullify aff offense. The best way to deal with these things is to more directly impact turn common impacts like procedural fairness. Counter interpretations can be useful, but the goal of establishing a new model sometimes exacerbates core neg offense (limits).

I'm not great for the K. In most instances this is because I believe the alternative solves the links to the aff or can't solve it's own impacts. This can be resolved by narrowing the scope of the K or strengthening the link explanation (too often negative teams do not explain the links in the context of the permutation). The simpler solution to this is a robust framework press.

I really enjoy good T debates. Fairness is the best (and maybe the only) impact. Education is very easily turned by fairness. Evidence quality is important, but only in so far as it improves the predictability/reduces the arbitrariness of the interpretation.

CPs are fun. I generally think that the negative doing non-plan action with the USfg is justified. Everything else is up for debate, but well developed aff arguments are dangerous on other questions.

I generally think conditionality is good. I think the best example of my hesitation with conditionality is multi-plank counter plans which combine later in the debate to become something else entirely.

If in cross x you say the status quo is always an option I will kick the counter plan if no further argumentation is made (you can also obviously just say conditional and clarify that judge kick is an option). If you say conditional and then tell me to kick in the 2NR and there is a 2AR press on the question I will be very uncomfortable and try to resolve the debate some other way. To resolve this, the 2AC should make an argument about judge kick.

Naina Jobin Glenbrook North

Audrey Lam Glenbrook North

Chelsea Lu New Trier High School

Alyssa V Lucas-Bolin Glenbrook South High School

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 8:25 AM CST

Top shelf:

Pronouns are she/her

Just call me Alyssa or ALB - do not call me judge and dear debate Lord do not call me ma'am.

RE: Truf's flowing off the doc post - times I look at the doc:

-I typically will read the plan text and CP texts during the round in the sense that if I mis flow those we are all kinda cooked. I spot check for clipping on cards every once in a while. If there is an ornate perm text I will check that during the debate. If a specific piece of evidence is called into question during CX or during a speech I may check that piece of ev during CX or during prep. Besides that I will not under any circumstances flow off the doc. If you are unclear and I therefore do not understand your argument I could not expect your opponents to and therefore I will not vote for you.

Email chains: SonomaCardsCardsCards@gmail.com AND alyssa.lucas-bolin@sonomaacademy.org - I strongly prefer email chains over speech drop etc.

I deleted most of my paradigm

...Because I have run into way way way too many situations where people wildly misinterpret my paradigm and it leads to a rather miserable situation (mostly for myself.)

Debate well and we'll figure it out.

I'd prefer you talk about the topic and that your affirmative be in the direction of the topic. I could not possibly care less if that is via policy debate or K debate. False divide yada yada. Both policy teams and K teams are guilty of not actually talking about the topic and I am judging ALL of you.

Speed is fine but I need clear distinction between arguments and I need you to build up your speed for the first 10 seconds.

Tag team is fine but I'd prefer that the designated partner handle most of the cross ex - only intervene if it is absolutely necessary. I am an educator and would prefer to see each student develop their skill set.

Stop stealing prep.

Please make as many T Swift references as possible.

Have solvency advocates - plz plz plz don't read a cardless CP :(

Heavy stuff:

*No touching. Handshakes after the debate = fine but that is it.

*I am not the right judge for call outs of specific debate community members

*I am a mandatory reporter. Keep that in mind if you are reading any type of personal narrative etc in a debate. A mandatory reporter just means that if you tell me something about experiencing violence etc that I have to tell the authorities.

*I care about you and your debate but I am not your debate mommy. I am going to give you direct feedback after the debate. I won't be cruel but I'm also not a sugar coater. It takes some people off guard because they may be expecting me to coddle them. It's just not my personality - I deeply care about your debate career and want you to do your best. I also am just very passionate about arguments. If you're feeling like I'm being a little intense just Shake It Off (Lauren Ivey.)

*Clipping = zero points and a hot L. Clarity to the point of non-comprehension that causes a clipping challenge constitutes clipping.

*I am more than fine with you post rounding as long as you keep it respectful. I would genuinely prefer you understand my decision than walk out frustrated because that doesn't help you win the next time. Bring it on (within reason). I'm back in the ring baby.

Let's have a throwdown!!! If you're reading this before a round I am excited to see what you have to offer.

Kalen Mehta Glenbrook South High School

Dustin Meyers-Levy Glenbrook North

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 9:24 AM CST

Misc procedural things:

1. He/him/his; "DML">"Dustin">>>"judge">>>>>>>>>>"Mr. Meyers-Levy"

2. Debated at Edina HS in Minnesota from 2008-2012, at the University of Michigan from 2012-2017, and currently coach at Michigan and Glenbrook North

3. Evidence sharing procedures:

High school: Speechdrop or the tabroom fileshare are preferred due to the requirements of my employer.
College: Email preferred; please add dustml[at]umich[dot]edu and debatedocs[at]umich[dot]edu (note that this is not the same as the community debatedocs listerv).

4. Nothing here set in stone debate is up to the debaters go for what you want to blah blah blah an argument is a claim and a warrant don't clip cards

5. Speaks usually range from 28.5-29.5. Below 28.5 and there are some notable deficiencies, above 29.5 you're one of the best debaters I've seen all year. I don't really try to compare different debaters across different rounds to give points; I assign them based on a round-by-round basis. I wish I could give ties more often and will do so if the tournament allows. If you ask me for a 30 you'll probably get a 27.

6. If you're breaking something new, you'll send it out before your speech, not after the speech ends or as it's read or whatever. If you don't want to comply with that, your points are capped at 27. If you're so worried that giving the neg team 8/9 extra minutes to look at your new aff will tip the odds against you, it's probably not good enough to win anyway.

7. You will time your own speeches and prep time. I will be so grumpy if I have to keep track of time for you.

8. Each person gives one constructive and one rebuttal. The first person who speaks is the only person I flow (I can make an exception for performances in 1ACs/1NCs). I don’t flow prompting until and unless the assigned speaker says the words that their partner is prompting. Absolutely no audience participation. No touching your opponents or their property without consent. If you need some part of this clarified, I’m probably not the judge for you.

9. I am a mandatory reporter and an employee of both a public university and a public high school. I am not interested in judging debates that may make either of those facts relevant.

10. If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.

11. Online debates: If my camera's off, I'm not listening. Get active confirmation before you start speaking, don't ask "is anyone not ready" or say "stop me if you're not ready," especially if you aren't actually listening to/looking at the other participants before you check. If you start speaking and I'm not ready or there, expect abysmal speaker points.

Glenbrooks 2024:

I am going to be pretty militant about timing, partially because 10 minutes of prep cuts into my decision time already, and partially because I'm getting very tired of people being lax about timing. I expect a degree of promptness and put-togetherness from you, and if you can't maintain that, it will likely cut into your speaker points. Conversely, if you are timing yourself and are respectful of my time, I will bump your points. Here are a few things that I am going to try to enforce more diligently than I have in the past:

1. Prep ends when the speech doc has been uploaded to speechdrop/the fileshare.

2. A "marked document" only involves cards that were marked, not cards that were skipped. If you aren't sure whether or not the other team read a card, or an entire off-case argument, you can use your cross-x or prep time to ask about that. Unless you intend to ask cross-x questions about cards that were marked, you may not ask for a marked document before cross-x starts, and you may not delay the start of prep until the document is sent. I am willing to make exceptions for this when a speech is egregious in a way that seems like it might be trying to confuse the other team (e.g. dozens of marked cards, many more cards in the document than were read, etc), but you should ask me if that's okay.

3. I would prefer no bathroom breaks before your speech unless it's an emergency.

4. There is no reason that you should be typing or whispering to your partner while prep is not running or a speech is not happening. If you do, I'll ask one time if you need prep; if you do it again, I'll start docking prep time for you.

Top-level:

When making my decisions, I seek to answer four questions:

1. At what scale should I evaluate impacts, or how do I determine which impact outweighs the others?

2. What is necessary to address those impacts?

3. At what point have those impacts been sufficiently addressed?

4. How certain am I about either side’s answers to the previous three questions?

I don’t expect debaters to answer these questions explicitly or in order, but I do find myself voting for debaters who use that phrasing and these concepts (necessity, sufficiency, certainty, etc) as part of their judge instruction a disproportionate amount. I try to start every RFD with a sentence-ish-long summary of my decision (e.g. "I voted affirmative because I am certain that their impacts are likely without the plan and unlikely with it, which outweighs an uncertain risk of the impacts to the DA even if I am certain about the link"); you may benefit from setting up a sentence or two along those lines for me.

Intervention on my part is inevitable, but I’d like to minimize it if possible and equalize it if not. The way I try to do so is by making an effort to quote or paraphrase the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR in my RFD as much as possible. This means I find myself often voting for teams who a) minimize the amount of debate jargon they use, b) explicitly instruct me what I need in order to be certain that an argument is true, and c) don’t repeat themselves or reread parts of earlier speeches. (The notable exception to c) is quoting your evidence—I appreciate teams who tell me what to look for in their cards, as I’d rather not read evidence if I don’t have to.) I would rather default to new 2AR contextualization of arguments than reject new 2AR explanation and figure out how to evaluate/compare arguments on my own, especially if the 2AR contextualization lines up with how I understand the debate otherwise.

I flow on my computer and I flow straight down. I appreciate debaters who debate in a way that makes that easy to do (clean line-by-line, numbering/subpointing, etc). I’ll make as much room as you want me to for an overview, but I won’t flow it on a separate sheet unless you say pretty please. If it’s not obvious to me at that point why it’s on a separate sheet, you’ll probably lose points.

Consider going a little bit slower. I prefer voting on arguments that I am certain about, and it is much easier to be certain about an argument when I know that I have written down everything that you’ve said.

Presumption always initially goes negative because the affirmative always has the burden of proof. If the affirmative has met their burden of proof against the status quo, and the negative has not met their burden of rejoinder, I vote affirmative.

I am "truth over tech," in the sense that I must always vote for who did the better debating, and I tend to think that a team who drops "grass is green, voting issue" can still have done the better debating despite that concession (and, indeed, may have done the better debating because they did not waste time answering that). I will not vote for something if I cannot explain why it is a reason that one side or the other has done the better debating, even if it is technically conceded by the other team. Obviously, this is not to say that technical concessions do not matter--they're probably the most important part of my decisionmaking process! However, not all technical concessions matter, and the reasons that some technical concessions matter might not be apparent to me. A dropped argument is true, but non-dropped arguments can also be true, and I need you to contextualize how to evaluate and compare those truths.

I appreciate well-thought-out perms with a brief summary of its function/net beneficiality in the 2AC. I get frustrated by teams who shotgun the same four perms on every page, especially when those perms are essentially the same argument (e.g. “perm do both” and “perm do the plan and non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt”) or when the perm is obviously nonsensical (e.g. “perm do the counterplan” against an advantage counterplan that doesn’t try to fiat the aff or against a uniqueness counterplan that bans the plan).

I appreciate when teams read rehighlightings and not insert them, unless you’re rehighlighting a couple words. You will lose speaker points for inserting a bunch of rehighlightings, and I’ll happily ignore them if instructed to by the other team.

I prefer to judge engagement over avoidance. I would rather you beat your opponent at their best than trick them into dropping something. If your plan for victory involves hiding ASPEC in a T shell, or deleting your conditionality block from the 2AC in hopes that they miss it, or using a bunch of buzzwords that you think the other team won't understand but I will, I will be hard-pressed to conclude that you did the “better debating.”

I generally assume good faith on the part of debaters and I'm very reticent to ignore the rest of the debate/arguments being made (especially when not explicitly and extensively instructed to) in order to punish a team for what's often an honest mistake. I am much more willing to vote on these arguments as links/examples of links. Obviously, there are exceptions to this for egregious and/or intentionally problematic behavior, but if your strategy revolves around asking me to vote against a team based on unhighlighted/un-underlined parts of cards, or "gotcha" moments in cross-x, you may want to change your strategy for me.

K affs:

1. Debate is indisputably a game to some degree or another, and it can be other things besides that. It indisputably influences debaters' thought processes and subjectivities to some extent; it is also indisputably not the only influence on those things. I like when teams split the difference and account for debate’s inevitably competitive features rather than asserting it is only one thing or another.

2. I think I am better for K affs than I have been in the past. I am not worse for framework, but I am worse for the amount of work that people seem to do when preparing to go for framework. I am getting really bored by neg teams who recycle blocks without updating them in the context of the round and don’t make an effort to talk about the aff. I think the neg needs to say more than just “the aff’s method is better with a well-prepared opponent” or “non-competitive venues solve the aff’s offense” to meaningfully mitigate the aff's offense. If you are going for framework in front of me, you may want to replace those kinds of quotes in your blocks with specific explanations that reference what the aff says in speeches and cards.

3. I prefer clash impacts to fairness impacts. I vote negative often when aff teams lack explanation for why someone should say "no" to the aff. I find that fairness strategies suffer when the aff pushes on the ballot’s ability to “solve” them; I would rather use my ballot to encourage the aff to argue differently rather than to punish them retroactively. I think fairness-centric framework strategies are vulnerable to aff teams impact turning the neg’s interpretation (conversely, I think counter-interpretation strategies are weak against fairness impacts).

4. I don't think I've ever voted on "if the 1AC couldn't be tested you should presume everything they've said is false"/"don't weigh the aff because we couldn't answer it," and I don't think I ever will.

5. I think non-framework strategies live and die at the level of competition and solvency. When aff teams invest time in unpacking permutations and solvency deficits, and the neg doesn’t advance a theory of competition beyond “no perms in a method debate” (whatever that means), I usually vote aff. When the aff undercovers the perm and/or the alt, I have a high threshold for new explanation and usually think that the 2NR should be the non-framework strategy.

6. I do not care whether or not fiat has a resolutional basis.

Ks on the neg/being aff vs the K:

I am getting really bored by "stat check" affs that respond to every K by brute-forcing a heg or econ impact and reading the same "extinction outweighs, util, consequentialism, nuke war hurts marginalized people too" blocks/cards every debate. That's not to say that these affs are non-viable in front of me, but it is to say that I've often seen teams reading these big-stick affs in ways that seem designed to avoid engaging the substance of the K. If this is your strategy, you should talk about the alternative more, and have a defense of fiat that is not just theoretical.

I care most about link uniqueness and alt solvency. When I vote aff, it's because a) the aff gets access to their impacts, b) those impacts outweigh/turn the K, c) the K links are largely non-unique, and/or d) the neg doesn't have a well-developed alt push. Neg teams that push back on these issues--by a) having well-developed and unique links and impacts with substantive impact calculus in the block and 2NR, including unique turns case args (not just that the plan doesn't solve, but that it actually makes the aff's own impacts more likely), b) having a vision for what the world of the alt looks like that's defensible and ostensibly solves their impacts even if the aff wins a risk of theirs (case defense that's congruent with the K helps), and/or c) has a heavy push on framework that tells me what the alt does/doesn't need to solve--have a higher chance of getting my ballot. Some more specific notes:

1. Upfront, I'm not a huge fan of "post-/non-/more-than/humanism"-style Ks. I find myself more persuaded by most defenses/critical rehabilitations of humanism than I do by critiques of humanism that attempt to reject the category altogether. You can try your best to change my mind, but it may be an uphill battle; this applies far more to high theory/postmodern Ks of humanism (which, full disclosure, I would really rather not hear) than it does to structuralist/identity-based Ks of humanism, though I find myself more persuaded by "new humanist" style arguments a la Fanon, Wynter, etc than full-on rejections of humanism.

2. I think that others should not suffer, that biological death is bad, and that meaning-making and contingent agreement on contextual truths are possible, inevitable, and desirable. If your K disagrees with any of these fundamental premises, I am a bad judge for it.

3. I don't get Ks of linear time. I get Ks of whitewashing, progress narratives, etc. I get the argument that historical events influence the present, and that events in the present can reshape our understanding of the past. I get that some causes have complex effects that aren't immediately recognizable to us and may not be recognizable on any human scale. I just don't get how any of those things are mutually exclusive with, and indeed how they don't also rely on, some understanding of linear time/causality. I think this is because I have a very particular understanding of what "linear time" means/refers to, which is to say that it's hard for me to disassociate that phrase with the basic concept of cause/effect and the progression of time in a measurable, linear fashion. This isn't as firm of a belief as #2; I can certainly imagine one of these args clicking with me eventually. This is just to say that the burden of explanation is much higher and you would likely be better served going for more plan-specific link arguments or maybe just using different terminology/including a brief explanation as to why you're not disagreeing with the basic premise that causes have effects, even if those effects aren't immediately apparent. If you are disagreeing with that premise, you should probably strike me, as it will require far longer than two hours for me to comprehend your argument, let alone agree with it.

4. "Philosophical competition" is not a winning interpretation in front of me. I don't know what it means and no one has ever explained it to me in a coherent and non-arbitrary way.

5. There's a difference between utilitarianism and consequentialism. I'm open to critiques of the former; I have an extremely high burden for critiques of the latter. I'm not sure I can think of a K of consequentialism that I've judged that didn't seem to link to itself to some degree or another.

6. I am a bad judge for Kant. I just don't get it. I have voted for it, but I have also voted against it more than once because I simply did not understand many of the arguments being made.

Policy debates:

1. 95% of my work in college is K-focused, and the other 5% is mostly spot updates. I have done very little policy-focused research so far this season.

For high school, I led a lab this summer, but didn't retain a ton of topic info and have done largely K-focused work since the camp ended. I probably know less than you do about economics.

2. “Link controls uniqueness”/“uniqueness controls the link” arguments will get you far with me. I often find myself wishing that one side or the other had made that argument, because my RFDs often include some variant of it regardless.

3. Apparently T against policy affs is no longer in style. Fortunately, I have a terrible sense of style. In general, I think I'm better for the neg for T than (I guess) a lot of judges; reading through some judge philosophies I find a lot of people who say they don't like judging T or don't think T debates are good, and I strongly disagree with that claim. I'm a 2N at heart, so when it comes down to brass tacks I really don't care about many T impacts/standards except for neg ground (though I can obviously be persuaded otherwise). I care far more about the debates that an interpretation facilitates than I do about the interpretation's source in the abstract--do explanation as to why source quality/predictability influences the quality of debates under the relevant interpretation.

4. I think judge kick makes intuitive sense, but I won't do it unless I'm told to. That said, I also think I have a lower threshold for what constitutes the neg "telling me to" than most. There are some phrases that signify to me that I can default to the status quo by my own choosing; these include, but aren't necessarily limited to, "the status quo is always a logical policy option" and/or "counter-interp: the neg gets X conditional options and the status quo."

5. I enjoy counterplans that compete on resolutional terms quite a bit; I'd rather judge those than counterplans that compete on "should," "substantial," etc.

6. If you think that the affirmative should specify which branch of the United States federal government the plan goes through, you should make that argument as its own separate offcase position. Hiding ASPEC as part of a different T violation is -.1, hiding it on a non-T offcase or case flow is -.3.

7.I would rather judge substance over theory in basically every situation. That said, here are some aff theory arguments that I could be persuaded on pretty easily given a substantive time investment:

--Counterplans should have a solvency advocate ideally matching the specificity of the aff's, but at least with a normative claim about what should happen.

--Multi-actor fiat bad--you can fiat different parts of the USFG do things, and international fiat is defensible, but fiating the federal government and the states, or the US and other countries, is a no-no. (Fiating all fifty states is debatably acceptable, but fiating some permutation of states seems iffy to me.)

--No negative fiat, but not the meme--counterplans should take a positive action, and shouldn't fiat a negative action. It's the distinction between "the USFG should not start a war against Russia" and "the USFG should ban initiation of war against Russia."

--Test case fiat? Having osmosed a rudimentary bit of constitutional law via friends and family in law school, it seems like debate's conception of how the Supreme Court works is... suspect. Not really sure what the implications of that are for the aff or the neg, but I'm pretty sure that most court CPs/mechanisms would get actual lawyers disbarred.

--I think extreme conditionality is nearly indefensible, but I am also finding that I kind of hate judging conditionality debates, especially when I think that the aff has a substantive path to victory.

Eric Oddo Niles West High School

Last changed on Sat August 3, 2024 at 7:37 AM CST

RETIRED FROM DEBATE COACHING/JUDGING AS OF FALL 2024. WAHOOOO!!!!

~~Please put me on the email chain:eriodd@d219.org.~~

~~Experience:~~

I'm currently an assistant debate coach for Niles North High School. I was the Head Debate Coach at Niles West High School for twelve years and an assistant debate coach at West for one year. I also work at the University of Michigan summer debate camps. I competed in policy debate at the high school level for six years at New Trier Township High School.

Education:

Master of Education in English-Language Learning & Special Education National Louis University
Master of Arts in School Leadership Concordia University-Chicago
Master of Arts in Education Wake Forest University
Juris Doctor Illinois Institute of Technology-Chicago Kent College of Law
Bachelor of Arts University of California, Santa Barbara

Debate arguments:

I will vote on any type of debate argument so long as the team extends it throughout the entire round and explains why it is a voter. Thus, I will pull the trigger on theory, agent specification, and other arguments many judges are unwilling to vote on. Even though I am considered a “politics/counter plan” debater, I will vote on kritiks, but I am told I evaluate kritik debates in a “politics/counter plan” manner (I guess this is not exactly true anymore...and I tend to judge clash debates). I try not to intervene in rounds, and all I ask is that debaters respect each other throughout the competition.

Identity v. Identity:
I enjoy judging these debates. It is important to remember that, often times, you are asking the judge to decide on subject matter he/she/they personally have not experienced (like sexism and racism for me as a white male). A successful ballot often times represents the team who has used these identity points (whether their own or others) in relationship to the resolution and the debate space. I also think if you run an exclusion DA, then you probably should not leave the room / Zoom before the other team finishes questions / feedback has concluded as that probably undermines this DA significantly (especially if you debate that team again in the future).

FW v. Identity:
I also enjoy judging these debates. I will vote for a planless Aff as well as a properly executed FW argument. Usually, the team that accesses the internal link to the impacts (discrimination, education, fairness, ground, limits, etc.) I am told to evaluate at the end of the round through an interpretation / role of the ballot / role of the judge, wins my ballot.

FW v. High Theory:
I don't mind judging these debates. The team reading high theory should do a good job at explaining the theories / thesis behind the scholars you are utilizing and applying it to a specific stasis point / resolutional praxis. In terms of how I weigh the round, the same applies from above, internal links to the terminal impacts I'm told are important in the round.

Policy v. Policy:
I debated in the late 90s / early 2000s. I think highly technical policy v. policy debate rounds with good sign posting, discussions on CP competition (when relevant), strategic turns, etc. are great. Tech > truth for me here. I like lots of evidence but please read full tags and a decent amount of the cards. Not a big fan of "yes X" as a tag. Permutations should probably have texts besides Do Both and Do CP perms. I like theory debates but quality over quantity and please think about how all of your theory / debate as a game arguments apply across all flows. Exploit the other team's errors. "We get what we get" and "we get what we did" are two separate things on the condo debate in my opinion.

Random comments:

The tournament and those judging you are not at your leisure. Please do your best to start the round promptly at the posted time on the pairing and when I'm ready to go (sometimes I do run a few minutes late to a round, not going to lie). Please do your best to: use prep ethically, attach speech documents quickly, ask to use bathroom at appropriate times (e.g. ideally not right before your or your partner's speech), and contribute to moving the debate along and help keep time. I will give grace to younger debaters on this issue, but varsity debaters should know how to do this effectively. This is an element of how I award speaker points. I'm a huge fan of efficient policy debate rounds. Thanks!

In my opinion, you cannot waive CX and bank it for prep time. Otherwise, the whole concept of cross examination in policy debate is undermined. I will not allow this unless the tournament rules explicitly tell me to do so.

If you use a poem, song, etc. in the 1AC, you should definitely talk about it after the 1AC. Especially against framework. Otherwise, what is the point? Your performative method should make sense as a praxis throughout the debate.

Final thoughts:

Do not post round me. I will lower your speaker points if you or one of your coaches acts disrespectful towards me or the opponents after the round. I have no problem answering any questions about the debate but it will be done in a respectful manner to all stakeholders in the room. If you have any issues with this, please don't pref me. I have seen, heard and experienced way too much disrespectful behavior by a few individuals in the debate community recently where, unfortunately, I feel compelled to include this in my paradigm.

Stephen Pipkin Glenbrook North

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 6:23 AM EST

Glenbrook North- he/him

I don't know what has happened to wiki disclosure but current practices are unacceptable. Rather than hard and fast rules, I've decided to just incorporate wiki disclosure into speaker points. The baseline is round reports for all your rounds, including what was in the 1NC, the block, and the 2NR, with full text of your 1ACs and cites for all your off-case. Going beyond that will boost your points. Not meeting that baseline will hurt your points.

Use the tournament's doc share if it's set-up, speechdrop if it's not.

I won't vote for death good.

If you're taking prep before the other teams speech, it needs to be before they send out the doc. For example, if the aff team wants prep between the 2NC and 1NR, it needs to happen before the 1NR doc gets sent out, so I'd recommend saying you're going to do it before cross-x.

1. Flow and explicitly respond to what the other team says in order. I care a lot about debate being a speaking activity and I would rather not judge you if you disagree. I won't open the speech doc during the debate. I won't look at all the cards after the round, only ones that are needed to resolve something being debated out that are explicitly extended throughout the debate. If I don't have your argument written down on my flow, then you don't get credit for it. As an example, if you read a block of perms, I need to be able to distinguish between the perms in the 2AC to give you credit for them. If you are extending a perm in the 2AR I didn't have written down in the 2AC, I won't vote on it, even if the neg doesn't say this was a new argument. The burden is on you to make sure I am able to flow and understand everything you are saying throughout the debate. If you don't flow (and there are a lot of you out there) you should strike me.

2. Things you can do to improve the likelihood of me understanding you:

a. slow down

b. structure your args using numbers and subpoints

c. explicitly signpost what you are answering and extending

d. alternate analytics and cards

e. use microtags for analytics

f. give me time to flip between flows

g. use emphasis and inflection

3. I think the aff has to be topical.

4. I'm not great at judging the kritik. I'm better at judging kritiks that have links about the outcome of the plan but have an alternative that's a fiated alternative that's incompatible with the world of the plan.

5. You can insert one perm text into the debate. You can insert sections of cards that have been read for reference. You can't insert re-highlightings. I'm not reading parts of cards that were not read in the debate.

6. I flow cross-x but won't guarantee I'll pay attention to questions after cross-x time is up. I also don't think the other team has to indefinitely answer substantive questions once cx time is over.

7.Plans: If you say the plan fiats something in CX, you don't get to say PTIV means something else on T. So for example, if you say "remove judicial exceptions" means the courts, you don't get to say you're not the courts on T. If you say normal means is probably the courts but you're not fiating that, you get to say PTIV but you also risk the neg winning you are Congress for a DA or CP.

8. If your highlighting is incoherent, I'm not going to read unhighlighted parts of the card to figure out what it means.

Claire Satkiewicz Glenbrook North

Avi Shah New Trier High School

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 5:07 PM CST

Avi Shah — New Trier '24 — Michigan '28 — He/Him — 2A

Add me to the chain:

avishahdebate@gmail.com

ipostround@googlegroups.com

ntpolicydebate@gmail.com

Please title the email chain something relevant — "Tournament Name, Round #, Aff Team versus Neg Team"

I like judging immensely. I want to make the round enjoyable and comfortable for everyone, so let me know if there’s anything I can do (within reason) to make that happen.

Evaluating Debates

Don't do or say anything problematic in the abstract, and especially not to the other team. I will not insert myself in these debates and automatically end them because I believe something to be harmful, at risk of under or over-imposing what I think is problematic onto people who put a lot of work into preparing for substantive debates at the tournament. However, if any team asks me to stop the round I will immediately do so and ask tabroom how to render a decision.

Tech is more important than truth in all instances.

Claims don't need warrants primarily because it is arbitrary to say that claims need one warrant but that warrant does not need a warrant. Claims without warrants are significantly easier to respond to, so you would likely benefit by including reasoning for the claims you make in your speeches. Claims without warrants are also implicitly responded to often, so even if they're "dropped", ensuing rebuttals often have ways to recover.

I will not, as much as I would like to, carve out arbitrary exceptions for suicide good, death good, or callouts when evaluating arguments, for example. Facially wrong arguments are likely not supported well by the literature and, therefore, easier to beat. If they are supported by literature, perhaps they are not as ridiculous as you think. If certain arguments make you uncomfortable, feel free to let me know, and we can work out a solution.

I will religiously protect the neg from new 1AR and 2AR arguments. Far too often, I see 1ARs get away with blatantly new arguments that are simply not present in the 2AC, and the 2AR characterizes a 1AR argument in a completely new fashion that the 2NR could not have predicted. Unfortunately, since the negative does not get to respond to 2AR extrapolations, I will have to insert myself and do my best to limit 2AR extrapolation to 1AR argument choice. The same does not go for the 1AR. If the 1AR makes an argument I believe to be new and the 2NR doesn't point it out, it's fair game. The 1AR likely gets to revive 1AC claims that were not extended explicitly in the 2AC, as long as they were not explicitly kicked or there was not dropped defense, but the 2NR likely gets new answers to these 1AR recontextualizations of 1AC evidence and I'm open to throwing it out if the 2NR outdebates the 2AR on this issue.

I will rarely read evidence unless the content of the cards is brought up by the final rebuttals. I feel like it's interventionist to reduce the relative risk of arguments based on the quality of the evidence backing them despite the other team not calling it into question. This is not to say that having good evidence backing your arguments is unnecessary, just that if you don't point out that your evidence is better and explain why that matters, that I won't evaluate it.

Absent other instruction, I will judgekick advocacies extended in the 2NR. It seems illogical for me to vote for the plan even if it causes extinction just because the neg read a counterplan that also does.

I have no predisposition for or against inserting rehighlighted pieces of evidence. That being said, inserting rehighlights and not explaining it means I will literally not have an argument on my flow as to what the implication of the rehighlighting is, so any explanation in further speeches is necessarily new.

I flow your speeches straight down — I've given up on trying to line up arguments since it's hard to press return that many times in the middle of speeches and the 1AR/2NR/2AR abandon the order set by the 2AC and block anyways.

I flow cross-ex. Arguments are made and important clarifications are explained — so I feel like I have to flow it to accurately understand everything that happens in debates. Arguments that are evaluated exclusively happen in speeches, so simply referencing the argument in 2NC cross-ex and then the 2AR isn’t enough.

Planless Affirmatives

I have no presumption for or against planless affirmatives. They certainly have a place in debate, but debates would likely be less fruitful in a world where there is no constraint on what the affirmative could discuss.

Oftentimes, teams assert (correctly or incorrectly) that they're winning certain impact-framing arguments but don't explain the implication of winning that argument to me. Even if it's logical to think that winning the "fairness paradox" means that I should evaluate fairness before any other argument, I'll only do that if instructed to do that, for example.

I often think that "subject formation" matters very little.

I tend to care a lot if the debate is about this debate or about a model of debate. Both teams would be well-served by either making arguments about which one my ballot should hinge on or contextualizing their offense to both.

Fairness and clash are useful against different types of planless affirmatives. To me, clash makes little sense in a debate about this debate, whereas fairness often loses its strategic value when you're going for models.

Kritiks on the neg are underutilized. Call the 1ARs bluff when they spend 40 seconds on it.

(2-2) 50% for the AFF in debates where planless affirmatives were read.

Topicality

I tend to personally think T debates are good and predictability matters more than debatability. I know very little about topicality on the IP topic, so you would be well-served explaining your definitions and not simply assuming I am familiar with how topicality has evolved over the course of the season so far.

Teams should establish what constitutes a predictable definition before the final rebuttals. These debates often come down to internal links to predictability that I think are pretty silly like "qualifications" and "your card says in this context/paper". To me, predictability is about how likely a team was to know that your interpretation was the "correct" interpretation of the topic before the season started. What constitutes that is totally up for debate. Intent to define and exclude are likely important, but not the end all be all of what makes a definition predictable.

Reasonability should likely be leveraged as an offensive education impact against topicality. "Substance crowd out" is fine — but it's likely important to have a reason why the education we receive in T debates is actively bad/worse.

Theory/Competition

I have no presumption in debates about debate, usually theory, competition, topicality, or framework debates. Oftentimes, I see teams try to go for "middle-ground" interpretations on all of these arguments (we get 2 condo/aff gets to weigh impacts of the case against impacts to the link). I believe it is more strategic for teams to defend the most "abusive" interpretations (we get infinite condo, you link you lose), but this belief will not impact my evaluation of middle ground or extreme interpretations of theory arguments.

Against process counterplans, even when competition is the area where the final rebuttals focus the most, I often think that substance matters a lot more than people think. For example, if the neg asserts that the "other issues permutation" links to the net benefit because it would look like perm do both, and the aff doesn't have a solvency deficit to the counterplan, competition is likely wholly irrelevant if debated properly because the neg will win that the counterplan alone is a more desirable policy option than the permutation. In other words, it will never hurt the aff to have a sliver of a solvency deficit + internal net benefit defense alive in the 1AR/2AR to avoid situations where you win the difficult part (counterplans should compete textually and functionally) but lose the "easy" part (that there's a chance the counterplan doesn't solve the case).

I am equally good for "counterplans should compete textually and functionally" and "counterplans should solely compete functionally". Positional competition seems reasonable to me (if a team explicitly commits to being Congress in cross-ex, it seems very weird to then go for permutation do the counterplan against the courts counterplan). That being said, the DAs to a model of positional competition seem quite large. Maybe there's a creative non-arbitrary interpretation that delineates between explicit commitments to a mandate of the plan versus aff clarification of normal means. I would likely be amenable to such an interpretation of competition. Textual competition alone would likely be awful.

I tend to think that neg pushes that aff theory interpretations are arbitrary and self-serving are persuasive. "What constitutes a PIC/Agent CP/Process CP" should be questions the aff is prepared to answer if going for these theory arguments. "You know it when you see it" is likely not a good enough answer. I like well-crafted theory interpretations like "fiating multiple levels of government" or "covert fiat".

Kritiks

I have no ideological dispositions against kritiks. The ones that seem most strategic to me try to moot the plan using an alternative framework to evaluate the 1AC. If you don't try to do that, I will likely be good for aff permutations.

Aff teams would be well served going for theory against alternatives that clearly fiat a lot more than the plan does. "Utopian" fiat seems a little arbitrary to me, but more nuanced and specific interpretations like international actor/private actor fiat will likely be persuasive.

I am familiar with/have gone a lot of kritiks (cap, security, antiblackness, settler colonialism, etc), but anything based on postmodernist literature will likely require more explanation if the nuance of the literature base is relevant to the decision.

Kritiks of utilitarianism/consequentialism are very confusing to me. Not to say you shouldn't go for them in front of me, but rather that overexplaining instead of assuming I know the nuanced of your specific kritik of utilitarianism is probably the right move.

Speaker Points

Speaker points will reflect the division I'm judging in, my perception of how nationally competitive the tournament is, and, above all, the performance of the debaters in the room. Speaker points are growing to be entirely more arbitrary — so I'll try to define some parameters that, at least in front of me, will earn you high speaker points (or at the very least, will prevent you from losing speaker points).

Be nice to your partner. This is the fastest way to lose speaker points in front of me, absent a problematic statement outlined toward the top of the paradigm.

Answer arguments in the order they were presented. This doesn't preclude you from reading long overviews or generalizing the debate in broad, sweeping themes, but rather just means I would prefer to judge debates in which those overviews were contextualized to the other teams arguments (in the order they were presented). For example, kritik overviews should change based on whether the aff is built to go for framework and extinction outweighs versus the permutation and link turn.

Identify win conditions and relevant portions of the debate. Often, final rebuttals completely misdiagnose what the important questions of the debate are. Correctly identifying these portions and explaining their implications to me will substantially increase your chances of winning and your speaker points.

There are certainly other factors that influence how I give speaker points. Clarity, speed, technical execution, effective cross-examinations, persuasive speaking, quality of research, and, unfortunately, the performance of the team before this tournament and whether I know them personally or not, are among the factors that I probably consider in my mind whether I like to or not. I will try to be as objective as possible in assigning speaker points — including minimizing the prior knowledge and bias I have to or against any particular partnership.

Please number your arguments. It makes my flow 10 times less messy and makes it very obvious to me when one conscious thought has concluded and where the next has begun. Strict adherence to line-by-line and numbering will earn you extremely high points.

Based on how I have historically assigned speaker points, it seems as if speaker points > 29 means I think you are going to break, and speaker points > 29.3 means I think you are going to win at least one elimination round.

-0.1 for every 2 minutes late the round starts. I like having decision time and there’s a start time for a reason.

Miscellaneous

"Try or die" is triggered when extinction is guaranteed if I vote for one side — which will almost certainly guarantee a ballot for the other team. This presumption towards try or die can be flipped by debating as to why timeframe or probability should come before magnitude, but this way of evaluating impacts seems so intuitive to me in debates where both teams agree that extinction is the most important impact to avoid that it'll be hard to do so. If try or die is not a claim made by either team, but the conditions for try or die have been triggered (e.g. 2NR only extends solvency takeouts to warming and 2AR extends warming), I am pretty sure that I would consider it to be try or die to avert warming. This is because, to me, try or die isn't an "impact framing" or "impact calculus" argument but rather just an argument that is logically triggered when a certain set of arguments are present in the debate. I am pretty sure this is not interventionist, but am open to changing this view.

Teams should explain why their metric of impact calculus should be preferred. Affs built to go for "warming outweighs all else" should explain why magnitude should be the preferred metric as early as possible. In contrast, DAs based on short-term conflict would be well-served explaining why timeframe comes before magnitude in the block. To me, "timeframe first" doesn't make a lot of sense when there is a drastic difference in impact magnitude. That being said, if "timeframe first" is dropped I guess I'll check out on it? Depends on the relative risk of the DAs.

If you disagree with my decision, I encourage you to "post-round" me. I obviously can't and will never change my decision, but talking about the debate after the fact will both give me a better understanding of how I evaluate debates and give you a better insight into my decision-making process. Both of us will likely feel worse if you think I made the wrong decision and I am unaware that you think I made the wrong decision — so clarifying that in the post-round is probably the best option.

I tend to be relatively expressive during speeches and cross-ex, even though I try not to be. I often will make confused faces if I think you're misexplaining something in cross-ex or slightly shake my head if I think you've made a large strategic error. It would likely serve you well to reexplain your argument if this happens.

I will not clear you. I will do my best to flow your speeches, but if I can't understand you, then I will almost certainly get less down.

Hina Shehzad Niles West High School

Last changed on Wed November 13, 2024 at 2:56 AM CST

Free Palestine

Niles West '23

Michigan State '27

Coaching at Berkeley Prep

Email Chain:hinashehzaddebate@gmail.com

Specific Args

Kritik:

Framework determines whether links need to be unique. Dropping AFF impacts on case put you in a hard position if you are not winning that they shouldn't be able to weigh case. Teams should not allow the neg to act like/say they fiat 'movements' or 'mindsets' otherwise the debate becomes an uphill battle for the aff. I think the neg should have impact defense against aff impacts, if your overly offensive with no defense it makes evaluating the debate hard. Negative kicking the alt and going for links as DAs can be strategic but understanding uniqueness and framework in these debate is key. KvK rounds for the most goes which ever side has more perm + no link work, specific links are super important in these rounds. Can we do line by line? I don't get heavy theory of power debates absent specific link explanations to the aff and line by line. This is my hot take— I think perms should have some sort of net benefit to it. I don’t think it’s needed everytime if there is a lack of link debating, but often times a net ben to the perm helps me better evaluate the perm vs the alternative.

Framework:

I find myself in the back of clash debates 85% of the time. For me Impact articulation matters---when teams blend impacts and become repetitive/generic it often will make you lose these rounds. These debates should make it clear whether its about models of debate, just fairness in this round or both etc. I believe that "debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad. Competitive incentives may overdetermine actions but you need to win it and explain what it means to the round, inserting it 40 times isn't going to get you anything. I find TVA's to be wayyyy more persuasive than SSD but no matter what at least one of them should be extended because you definitely need to be able to access at least some of their offense. Aff you should just go ham on the impact turn, but it gets hard to evaluate debates where the 2AR is extending every DA and not unpacking/comparing impacts---explain the intrinsicness between your aff and the topic. I think the best way to beat neg standards is by turning predictable limits. I do think debate can create subject formation, but you still obviously need to win it.

Topicality:

I am not very familiar with topicality on the highschool topic, thus things like TVA, list of good AFFs under your interpretation, list of bad AFFs under their interpretation, definition comparison, explanation of neg ground under your interpretation AND the other teams are helpful.

Disadvantage:

DA and Case debates are where its at. Comparison and organization is super important in these rounds. High Schoolers read literally horrible DAs that they will never go for, don't be afraid to straight turn them.

Counterplans:

I just don't think I am that good for competition debates, process counterplans confuse me. Rehighlighting 1AC evidence is a good way to show the CP overcomes solvency deficits. If you think the CP does not solve all of the aff, you should probably have some impact d/turns or whatever on what you don't solve. If you go for the perm over explain for me. Big fan of advantage cp's. Yes judge kick if unless I am advised not to.

Miscellaneous

I have read both k and policy oriented args throughout highschool and college. I would say more k in highschool and have been more flex in college.

I am willing to vote on theory, but I dont want to vote on aspec.

Condo is good!

Tech > Truth

Clipping is a weird issue to resolve, its weird to record someone without their permission? But if I catch you clipping I wont record but you will probably lose.

I give high speaks, getting away from blocks, your knowledge about the topic, organization are all the big things that go into how I give speaks. If you aren't clear and I miss an argument, its your fault, so give more pen time between flows.

For other forms (pf, ld) I will evaluate rounds like I would a policy one. I am not familiar at all with either topic and am not great for weird theory things, trix etc.

I don't think I would be the person I was without the people around me who supported me and helped me through these years of debate. That being said it would be selfish to not want to give back. Debate is expensive, time consuming, has biases so if you ever need help, support etc. Don't hesitate to reach out.

Feel free to post round if you don't agree with my decision. I am happy to discuss it!

I will give you higher speaks if you make a funny joke about Zaria Jarman

Pin by Julie Reed on Sassy Frog | Frog quotes, Frog pictures, Cute frogs

Kylie Sutton Glenbrook South High School

Jon Voss Niles West High School

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 3:44 AM CST

Jon Voss

Johns Creek

I've been around for a long time. Debate is not my full-time job anymore – I mostly sell vintage Pokemon cards – so with the unique exception of literature related to the Tiffany decision and the intricacies of running a small business on eBay/Mercari/Whatnot, my topic knowledge is limited to what I know about IPR from coursework completed earning my MBA and the years I spent in debate. I don't cut a ton of cards, I'm not really up on what teams are reading, I don't know what topicality norms were established over the summer, and I certainly don't know who is supposed to be good. I can still flow just as well as I used to, which is to say "barely."

Yes email chain: consult.australia at gmail. Please CC your coach if you are contacting me for feedback about a debate or something. Please also consider contacting someone with a better grasp on contemporary debate trends; my takes were last hot during the Obama years if they were ever hot at all.

Trufanov flowing thing: -- I don't read along during the speeches, ever. On my laptop, in an excel template. It was is and forever shall be titled"Sheboygan North Debate Flowing Template_Working_110907.xlt." I might poke around during prep time to read counterplan/permutation texts or verify something that was said in CX. Beyond that, I won't open the doc until the debate ends unless I think you're clipping. This is important for how you debate -- using the speech doc instead of your flow as a guide is to your detriment.

> 95% of high school debates are not so close that my argument preferences would matter a whole lot. Your ability to identify the argument made by your opponent in the order they made the argument and respond to it in the next speech in the order the argument was presented ("tech") is the only thing that matters except at the margins and maybe not even then. The better team will win most rounds regardless of the judge, the arguments selected, etc. There are a handful of things that may matter to you though, especially if you are reading this anticipating that the debate I'm about to hear is going to be relatively evenly matched or otherwise fly off the rails.

--IPR topic: entering December, I've seen a lot of debates on the topic and have actively worked on the argument side of the topic a fair amount. I don't have the test cases to say it with certainty, but the topic feels impossibly large and I think I'd be very good for the NEG going for T against a 2ar that has to go for a less limiting counter-interpretation. Still very good for creative "we meet" arguments from AFFs who have made strategic choices to defend a broad plan text in hopes of trading T concerns for linking to more DAs, however.

--I won't vote on arguments that call students' character into question based on behaviors outside of the specific debate I am judging. That includes introducing evidence that undermines a person's character as an argument during the debate itself. Adults who coach students to leverage screenshots and personal attacks to win debates should leave the activity. Judges who feel differently should grow tf up. Things said or done inside of a debate I'm judging are different: you can certainly make an argument that, for example, a team should lose the debate because they used gendered language. I'll stop the debate myself and let my esteemed colleagues in the tabroom handle it if it's egregious...I've had to do it twice, ever, against ~1500 rounds judged, but I'm not afraid.

-- Limited decision times and time wasting norms from the COVID years makes it more important than ever that the 2XR prioritize the easiest path to victory. I don't want to have to resolve any more issues than I absolutely have to. You want the same thing - left to my own devices, my reading comprehension and argument resolution skills will shock and dismay some of you.

-- If I can understand > 90% of the words you say (including the text of your evidence), the floor for speaker points is 29. If I cannot understand > 50% of the words you say (including the text of your evidence), the ceiling for speaker points is a 27 and you're almost certain to lose because I missed at least half of your arguments. If you debate close to conversationally and win the debate while demonstrating exemplary command of the relevant issues, I might even start throwing some 30s around. Just speak more slowly and clearly. You will debate better. I will understand your argument better. Judges who understand your argument with more clarity than your opponent's argument are likely to side with you.

-- a note on plan texts: say what you mean, mean what you say, and have an advocate that supports it. If the AFF's plan is resolutional word salad, will be unapologetically rooting for NEG exploitation in the way of cplan competition, DA links, and/or presumption-style takeouts. I guess the flip side of this is that I have never heard a persuasive explanation of a way to evaluate topicality arguments outside of the words in the plan text, so as long as the AFF goes for some sort of "we meet" argument, I'm basically unwilling to vote NEG on T assuming reasonable 2AR execution. "The plan text says most or all of the resolution (and another word or three) but their solvency evidence describes something very different," is an extremely persuasive line of argument, but I think it's a solvency argument.

-- Rehighlighting - you've gotta read it and explain what you believe to be the implication of whatever portion of their evidence you read. I'm somewhat sympathetic to allowing insertion as a check against (aggressively) declining evidence quality in debate, but debate is first and foremost a communicative activity.

-- In favor of fewer, better-developed 1NC arguments. I don't have a specific number that I think is best: I've seen 1NC's that include three totally unwinnable offcase arguments and 1NC's that include six or seven viable ones. But generally I think the law of diminishing marginal returns applies. Burden of proof is a precondition of the requirement that the affirmative answer the argument, and less ev/fewer highlighted words in the name of more offcase positions seems to make it less likely that the neg will fulfill the aforementioned burden of proof.

-- Highlighting, or lack thereof, has completely jumped the shark. Read more words.

-- I am generally bad for broad-strokes “framing” arguments that ask the judge to presume that the risk of <> is especially low. Indicts of mini-max risk assessment make sense in the abstract, but it is the affirmative’s responsibility to apply these broad theories to whatever objections the negative has advanced. “The aff said each link exponentially reduces the probability of the DA, and the DA has links, so you lose” is a weak ballot and one that I am unexcited to write.

-- I am often way less interested in "impact defense" than "link defense." This is equally true of my thoughts toward negative disadvantages and affirmative advantages. For example, if the aff wins with certainty that they stop a US-China war, I'm highly unlikely to vote neg and place my faith in our ability to the big red telephone at the White House to dampen the conflict. Similarly, if the neg wins that your plan absolutely crashes the economy by disrupting the market or causing some agenda item to fail, I will mostly be unconcerned that there are some other historical explanations for great power wars than "resource scarcity." The higher up the link "chain" you can indict your opponent's argument, the better.

-- Don't clip cards. If you're accusing a team of it, you need to be able to present me with a quality recording to review. Burden of proof lies with the accusing team, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is my standard for conviction. If you advance any sort of ethics challenge, the debate ends and is decided on the grounds of that ethics challenge alone.

-- Yes judge kick unless one team explicitly makes an argument that convinces me to conceive differently of presumption. Speaking of, presumption is "least amount of change" no matter what. This could mean that presumption *still* lies with the neg even if the aff wins the status quo is no longer something the judge can endorse (but only if the CP is less change than the plan).

-- Fairly liberal with the appropriate scope of negative fiat as it relates to counterplans. Fairly aff-leaning regarding counterplan competition, at least in theory -- but evidence matters more than general pleas to protect affirmative competitive equity. I could be convinced otherwise, but my default has always been that the neg advocate must be as good as whatever the aff is working with. This could mean that an “advocate-less” counterplan that presses an internal link is fair game if the aff is unable to prove that they…uh…have an internal link.

-- T-USFG: Debate is no longer my full-time job, so I think I have a little less skin in the game on this issue. But I'm probably at best a risky bet for affirmatives hoping to beat a solid 2NR on T-USFG. If you do have me in this type of debate:

**Affirmative teams should probably just impact turn everything the neg says and hope the 2N hasn't had their coffee yet. I am likely to be persuaded by the stock negative responses to those impact turns, but at least then it's just an impact comparison debate. And while that road to victory is still treacherous with me, "where there is a link there is a way."

**Affirmatives would be well served to prioritize the link between defending a particular state action and broader observations about the flaws of the state.

**Procedural fairness is most important. The ballot can rectify fairness violations much more effectively than it can change anything else, and I am interested in endorsing a vision of debate that is procedurally fair. This is both the single strongest internal link to every other thing debate can do for a student and a standalone impact. I am worse for the “portable skills” impacts about information processing, decision-making, etc.

**It is helpful, but not imperative, that the negative prove that the affirmative's literature could have been introduced in support of a topical advocacy and/or when debating as the negative team.

This is moved to the bottom because it was written during the 23-24 topic, but it's still instructive about how you might approach a deep impact/impact-turn debate if I'm judging:

-- Broadly, unless you can't avoid it, don't. This isn't an argument preference or literature thing; I just very authentically (and, I think, correctly) believe I am much worse at judging these debates than those that involve more external interactions between arguments. I'll give it my best shot no matter what...but you've been warned.

-- Almost every debate I've seen so far this year has collapsed into a very-hard-to-resolve "growth good"/"degrowth good" debate. These have been late-breaking and I spent the bulk of my decision time wading through ev that didn't get me any closer to an answer I found satisfactory. In each instance, I was unhappy with amount of intervention and lack of depth involved in my decision. In that regard:

*if there's a winning final rebuttal that does not require you to wade into these waters, give that speech instead. I am willing (and maybe even eager) to grab onto something external and use that as a cudgel to decide that the growth debate was difficult to resolve and vote on . I think I would be receptive, too, to arguments about how I should react in a debate that you think might be difficult to resolve, but this is just a hunch.

*you would almost certainly be better-served debating evidence that's already been read instead of reading more cards. This is especially true if the 1ac/1nc/both included a bunch of evidence on this issue...your fourth, "yes mindset shift" card is unlikely to win you the debate (or even the specific argument in question) but debating the issue in greater detail than the other team might.

*debated equally, I'm meaningfully better for the standard defenses of growth, especially as it relates to successfully achieving the changes that would be necessary to create a sustainable model of degrowth.

Paul Wallace Glenbrook North

Login to Tabroom

Northshore Debate Series 2

2022 — Northbrook, IL/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

Judges