Tabroom.com

Damus Hollywood Invitational

2022 — Sherman Oaks, CA/US

Varsity LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Jorge Aguilar Hire 6 rounds

Nikki Aqui Immaculate Heart High School 6 rounds

America Ayala Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 11:59 AM PDT

Hi, Im America Ayala (She/Her/Ella)!

america.ayala4647@gmail.com: please add me to the email chain and feel free to reach out to me to ask me any questions.

About me: I recently graduated from Elizabeth Learning Center after debating for the school's policy team for 4 and a half years as a varsity. I started very policy-oriented but later moved on to find my favorite style of debate which was performance. I am now debating a sophomore at CSUN, with my high school debate partner.

OV:

Read anything as long as you can explain it/justify it.
I was a K debater (set col, fem, gender, rage, psychoanalysis, trans, and queer, I read a lot of other lit as well.) Don't assume that I will understand the literature you read and explain it to me as you would to any other judge.
Tag teaming is cool just don't speak over your partner!
I debated my entire high school career as varsity (except for two tourneys as JV) and was captain of our team at ELC.
I do not tolerate verbal abuse, belittlement, or anything homophobic, sexist, racist, or that would make someone feel unsafe in the debate space, especially against your own partner! I will lower your speaker points.
A dropped argument is a dropped argument, prove to me why it matters tho.

Affirmatives: Read any type of aff you want in front of me but do keep in mind these few things:

1.) Impact out your stuff: Make sure that by the end of the debate, I know what the impact is and how and if it gets solved.

2.) Non-topical affs: I am 100% your judge for this but I do hold the FW debate to a higher standard if there is no plain text.

3.) Clash: Make sure there is equal engagement from both the neg and the aff on the case debate because I feel like a lot of teams just lose it. If you don't have evidence to answer arguments just do line by line, that is far more acceptable than 0 engagement. If there is going to be 0 engagement then make sure it is justified by the end of the debate.

4.) Presumption: Don't just say presumption, tell me why this is a voter.

Negatives:

DA:These are cool just make sure you have a uniqueness claim, a link, and an impact or else it is not a DA to me and shouldn't be judged as one. If it is gonna serve as a net benefit make sure to tell me how the CP solves it.

CP:I love counterplans that are explained and contextualized to the affirmative but if its not that's okay so as long as you solve for some net benefits. If you are aff make sure to tell me why the CP doesn't solve the case that will definitely sway my ballot your way.

Procedural/ Voters/Theory :I love when these are actually debated properly make sure you have standards when reading these don't just make a claim to it if you plan to center the rebuttals on it.

1.) Condo: I am pretty neutral, just make sure to justify to me why it is a voter.

2.) Vagueness args: Please, make them only if something is actually vague, and you can prove it to be vague. Have a bright line if you want this to actually be a voter or else I'll just default to my own interp of vagueness.

3. ) Ethic voters:if you make these please make sure that you make it clear to me where specifically it is that there is an ethics violation. If you can quote, or refer back to a specific comment or remark made please make it clear. I think debate should be a safe space but it is also an educational one. People can make mistakes, but remember to be mindful and apologetic if someone has educated you on something that is morally or ethically incorrect.

T:I am not that good of a judge for T debates only because a lot of people default to using jargon as extensions and explanations. Make sure that you are impacting out this stuff and explaining to me why every one of your standards is fair game or is important. Debate to me is not just a game so keep that in mind, but if you do good at debating then I'll vote for it. I love a damm good TVA, win this, and ill fs vote for your T.

K:I love a good K.

I am knowledgeable in set col, fem, pessimism, gender, rage, psychoanalysis, trans, and queer theory. I've also read a lot of other lit as well. Don't assume that I will understand the literature you read.
Make sure there are contextual links and that there is at least one link being explained to me in the block that is explicitly related to the aff.
If you are going to be doing a lot of FW debates, make sure to let me know when you are giving me a roadmap. Don't assume I am just gonna default to FW.
Alternatives can be dropped but if you want to win the debate explain to me why there is still a link and why the K itself still matters. If you are going for the alternative then make sure that I am aware of what the alt does and what that looks like/ how to engage.

LD section:
1. Im sorry, I have judged LD but I am familiar with the topic and have watched and judged a few rounds. Everything in the policy section should mostly apply, ill update this section more as I get more comfortable creating preferences for this category.

2. Please do not try to spread if you know it will cost you your clarity, focus on extending your arguments instead of trying to make a multitude of them.

Aida Bathily The Harker School 6 rounds

Ben Bidwell Harvard-Westlake School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 14, 2022 at 3:18 PM EDT

I debated at Harvard Westlake in Lincoln Douglas and Policy.

I'd like to be on the email chain - benebidwell@gmail.com

He/him

General stuff

Speed is fine, just be clear. Slow down on advocacies and t/theory interpretations -- don't blaze through an enormous counterplan text.

I appreciate numbering your arguments and clarity about where I should be flowing. I especially like when you reference the numbering of the previous speech (if it exists).

Good with any debate - T, K, anything. Love impact turns.

Specific arguments

DAs: should be complete in the 1NC. Impact calc and turns case arguments (especially link turns case) are important.

Counterplans: I'm open to whatever competition arguments you can defend -- consult, process, weird perms -- all good.

Ks: Links and alts should be clearly explained. Impacts shouldn't just be buzzwords. I'm most familiar with structuralist critiques (psychoanalysis, settler colonialism, afropessimism, etc.) but have experience with most critiques and am open to anything. I will have a low threshold for the 1AR (policy) or 2AR (LD) if you read 1-card Ks and blow them up in the next speech.

Topicality: should be developed somewhat in the 1NC. I don't like 1NCs that spam 15 second topicality arguments.

K affs: Have an advocacy (and a model of debate to compare to framework) -- or a justification for why you don't need to. I have a high threshold for "independent voting issues" -- they must have a clear explanation of an in-round impact.

Neg vs. k affs: I prefer K v K when done well, but I'm happy to judge framework if that's what you're more comfortable with.

Theoretical biases

I will vote for or against any theoretical argument based on the technical debate (with the exception of arguments that tell me not to evaluate later speeches, e.g., aff/neg framework choice, theory ends in 1ar/2nr, etc. I have an incredibly high threshold for those).

That said, I do have biases. These aren't determinative, go for whatever argument you want.

Condo and PICs are good.

New affs are good.

A-spec theory is bad, just read competition evidence.

Drop the team > drop the arg. If you lose to "drop the arg," the theoretical argument probably wasn't very compelling in the first place.

Mike Bietz Harvard-Westlake School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:43 AM PDT

Head Coach: Harvard-Westlake School, Los Angeles CA | mbietz AT hw.com

I am diagnosed (and am on medication) with severe ADD. This means my ability to listen carefully and pick up everything you say will wane during the round. I would strongly suggest you have vocal variety and slow down, especially for what you want to make sure I get.

Jonah Feldman, friend and former coach at UC Berkeley, summed up a lot of what I have to say about how I evaluate arguments

I do not believe that a dropped argument is necessarily a true argument.

I am primarily interested in voting on high-quality arguments that are well explained, persuasively advanced, and supported with qualified evidence and insightful examples. I am not interested in voting on low-quality arguments that are insufficiently explained, poorly evidenced, and don't make sense. Whether or not the argument was dropped is a secondary concern...

How should this affect the way I debate?

1) Choose more, especially in rebuttals. Instead of extending many different answers to an advantage or off-case argument, pick your spots and lock in.

2) If the other team has dropped an argument, don't take it for granted that it's a done deal. Make sure it's a complete argument and that you've fully explained the important components and implications of winning that argument.

His full paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6366

More stuff:

I never thought I'd have to say this, but you have to read aloud what you want me to consider in the round. Paraphrasing doesn't count as "evidence."

The affirmative probably should be topical.

I think that I'm one of the few circuit LD judges who votes affirmative more than I vote negative. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must engage. Being independently right isn't enough.

I consider myself a policy-maker with an extremely left bent. Answering oppression with extinction usually doesn't add up for me. I'll take immediate, known harms over the long-term, speculative, multi-link impacts 90 out of 100 times. This isn't paradigmatic, so it is NEGS failing to engage the Affirmative Case.

Given my propensity to vote affirmative and give the affirmative a lot of leeway in defining the scope of the problem/solution, and requiring the negative to engage, I'd suggest you take out the 3 minutes of theory pre-empts and add more substance.

Topicality is probably not an RVI, ever. Same with Ks. Today I saw someone contend that if he puts defense on a Kritik to make debate a safe space, the judge should vote for him because he'll feel attacked.

Cut your presumption spikes. It's bad for debate to instruct judges not to look for winning arguments. It also encourages debaters to make rounds unclear or irreconcilable if they need to catch up on actual issues.

Where an argument can be made "substantively" or without theory, just make it without theory. For example, your opponent not having solvency isn't a theory violation. it just means their risk of solvency is very low. Running theory flips the coin again. So it's both annoying and bad strategy. Other examples might include: Plan flaws, no solvency advocate, and so on. Theory IS the great equalizer in that it gives someone who is otherwise losing an argument a chance to win.

Cross-x cannot be transferred to prep time.

Some annoyances:

- Not letting your opponents answer a question. More specifically, male debaters who have been socialized to think it is ok to interrupt females who have been socialized not to put up a fight. If you ask the question, give them a chance to answer.

- Ignoring or belittling the oppression or marginalization of people in favor of smug libertarian arguments will likely not end up well for you.

- People who don't disclose or they password protect or require their opponents to delete speech documents. I'm not sure why what you read is private or a secret if you've read it out loud. The whole system of "connected" kids and coaches who know each other using backchannel methods to obtain intelligence is one of the most exclusionary aspects of debate. This *is* what happens when people don't disclose. I'll assume if you don't disclose you prefer the exclusionary system.

Some considerations for you:

- if you’re reading such old white male cards that you have to edit for gendered language, maybe consider finding someone who doesn’t use gendered language... and if you notice that ONLY white men are defending it, maybe consider changing your argument.

- if you find yourself having to pre-empt race or gender arguments in your case, maybe you shouldn't run the arguments.

Scott Brown Troy High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 4:05 AM PDT

chris, travis, and i are also coaching vaibhav dara

clarity = speed of delivery. pleaseslow down on tags, texts, interpretations, advocacies, analytical arguments, authors, or any argument you want me to get in detail verbatim on my flow. please keep in mind that your speed will always be faster than my keyboarding skills/flowcabulary. i do not flow off the document and will not backflow arguments from the document

i am a great judge for technical, mechanical line-by-line debate

judge instruction is axiomatic. most judging philosophies say "judge instructions please" because debaters rarely do enough of it and judges are left to decide debates on their own devices which leads to inevitable intervention and at least one unhappy debater. please - judge instructions! yes, go for your arguments, say how they outweigh, sure, magnitude timeframe sure, but tell me what to do with them/everything else at the end of the debate

what you debate is up to you - i do not have a preference for how you stylistically debate or which arguments you choose to read. this is my 20th year in debate and i have been around long enough that i have probably heard, debated, coached, and/or judged almost any/every argument you could say or do within reason. all arguments are fair game within reason - do not be violent, racist, et cetera. i consider myself an incredibly flexible coach that believes debaters get the most out of the activity through a student-centered model of debate where the debater is in the argumentative captain's seat and my job as a debate coach is to coach debaters at what they want to do to the best of my ability

i obviously have preferences - every debate judge does - but i try to keep those out of the decision calculus for deciding who wins the debate. given that, the following might help you out while either filling out your pref sheet or in the pre-round prep:

i am an awesome to great to okay judge for almost all arguments that come from policy debate - disads, counterplans, plans, not plans, performance, kritiks, k affs, theory, topicality, the politics da, conditionality bad, et cetera

i am an okay-ish judge for kant/phil - did a lot of academic research in uni on kant, but often struggle with how ld does kant. if you are going to read a bunch of dense cards about the categorical imperative, you are a-okay. if you are spamming a bunch of paradoxes, i would probably take another judge

i'm getting increasingly better for "tricks". a couple years ago this would have said no tricks, but i find myself increasingly voting on arguments like "role of the ballot spec", random ivis, and such when explained/impacted properly. i will only evaluate the debate after the 2ar

my voting record is historically bad for the neg on "t-usfg/framework/must larp/instrumentally defend the topic" and would advise engaging the affirmative

the aff is 29-0 in front of me over the past 5 years when the nr goes for "t-nebel/whole resolution/cannot specify/no plans"

some judge intricacies:

i will not judge kick unless you explicitly make judge kick an option in your speech

team no risk - there is zero risk that i will win the gold medal in the 100m dash at the 2024 paris olympic games

debaters must speaketh the rehighlighting - you can only re-insert text that has already been read

speaker point floor typically 29.0

i do not have a "poker face" and am unabashedly human

Albert Cardenas Marlborough School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 10:33 PM PDT

If you have any more questions for me that I may have not answered on this page, please ask me before the round starts.

For email link chains: albert@lamdl.org

Current: Regional Coordinator for Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League (LAMDL)

Debated 4 years in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate league

Coach and Assistant Program Manager for Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League for 2 years

Currently attending CSULB (not actively debating)

General

- I don't appreciate being post rounded. If you don't agree with my RFD after multiple attempts of providing a sensible explanation, that's on you. I will tell you to be a better debater, gg. If you'd like, I'm open to exchanging emails so as to not stall future rounds.

- If you run a critical affirmative with multiple methods and theories that don't blend well together or create a performative contradiction, then expect some less than celebratory speaks.

- If neither the aff or neg have any clashing impacts in the round, then you're forcing me to vote aff because aff is a 'good idea'.

- If you're aff and you read multiple perms against a K and say "extend the perm/s" in the 2AC without further context, I'm going to be lost.

- I'm open to any argument so much as you can defend it and make a persuasive case to me. But really, just do what you do best. If you want to run a policy affirmative with heg good and nuclear war advantages, great! If you wanna run a critical affirmative that argues the topic is anti-black, heteronormative, colonialist, anthropoecentirc, capitalist, etc., that's cool too! Just have a fun debate!

- I'm pretty generous with speaker points, but that doesn't mean you don't have to earn them.

- If I feel I have to evaluate a piece of evidence, I'll call for it when the round ends.

- I don't count sending speech docs as prep time.

- I'm not typically persuaded by critical language critiques. Unless the neg has a very good impact analysis and comparison of what using certain phrases or words looks like compared to the aff's impacts, then it's not going to contribute to my decision calculus. However, I'll listen to your argument and flow it like I would any other.

For LD: I have a policy background, but these days I judge more LD rounds than I do policy. I'll pretty much treat your round as I would a policy round. The only thing I'll say is

1. Be clear - really slow your spreading down, especially your analytics

2. I don't like cheap tricks, but they do often win rounds if it is not contested by the opponent. However, just because I don't like it, this doesn't mean I won't vote for it.

Aff/Case Stuff
I believe the case is important. That being said, if you don't have an impact, then why should i care about voting affirmative? Also, if you have nuclear scenarios in your affirmative, please don't just say "nuclear war is going to occur" and expect me to consider it as an argument. If you say exactly that, then you have a claim without a warrant. You have evidence, and you need to be able to explain those internal links. As for critical affirmatives, i believe the case should be able to respond to any or at least most off cases the negative presents which is to say it should have built-in answers. For example, if you have an affirmative that discusses anti-blackness, then your case should potentially be able to respond to many offs like FW, T, Cap, Anthro, Settlerism, or any other incantation of high theory, etc. Just make you use your case to its fullest is all i'm saying.

DAs
They're cool; the more specific of a link you have the better the round will go for you. Although, I might consider a DA that's obviously generic if the Aff doesn't respond properly. As for politics DA's, you better explain those internal links.

CPs
These are cool too; I've voted for CPs before and i'll probably vote on them again. I usually don't however, because they're used as a time skew and/or lack any substantive explanation.

T
Alright, so these arguments I'm not so thrilled about generally because when I see T being ran it's ran with generic blocks that don't really say anything, but just makes the neg sound like they're whining. So what if the aff is untopical? Why should I care if they explode the limits of the resolution? Why is this key to education? Why does that negatively impact the round? These are things that I hold a high threshold for and these are things that need to be explained in a way that will make me vote for you. But, I'm open to hearing it and considering it if you can run it persuasively. PLEASE slow down on your analytics a tiny bit.

Presumption

Yeah, I'll consider it.

FW
I'm down for a FW round. I like seeing a lot of clash between the typical standards offered by the neg vs those of critical affirmatives. So, do some comparison and impact analysis like what fairness means for the neg and what the terminal impact is for them and what fairness means for the affirmative and what the terminal impact might be for them. Compare impacts, weigh them against each other and convince me who has the better interpretation of debate. Also, if you're running FW don't just rely on overwhelming the affirmative with evidence. Remember, quality outweighs quantity and at the end of the round and that's what gets my ballot. Take the time to explain your evidence.

K
I love these arguments; I suppose my preference of style might favor you if you enjoy deploying Ks. My understanding of the philosophies and theories of authors read in debate travel beyond the bounds of this activity, but just make sure you are explaining your criticism coherently because I won't do the work for you, nor will I reward butchered arguments. So, to reiterate, if you read Baudrillard and you're talking about the seduction of the object or some other, explain it in a coherent manner. I don't care if you're running Bataille and you're trying to be unintelligible. Just remember, I have to understand what you're communicating to me (unless not knowing is a reason to vote you up lol) in order to evaluate your arguments. A good K debater will find killer links against the case and will use the case against itself to win the round.

*I personally shift back and forth on args focused on author indictments. For instance, I will agree on criticisms of high theory authors such as Heidegger, DnG, or Nietzsche. However, when I see these arguments deployed, it often sounds like the team that runs them is whining. SO, I will side with these ivory tower authors if you can convince me that even if Nietzsche is white and has never been oppressed, self-overcoming or whatever is probably a good idea and that not doing the aff is life affirming or whatever.

Performance
I love the creativity of these arguments, so if you run these go for it. However, don't just perform for the sake of performing or because 'it's cool'. Always use your performance as a way of turning your opponent's offensive arguments. Tell me how to evaluate the performance in contrast to the neg.

Let's have a good round.

Quentin Clark The Harker School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 2:27 AM PDT

Please put me on the chain - qtcc@bu.edu

Harker 20' | BU 24'

I did LD at Harker (Go Eagles!), went for a lot of policy arguments with a little bit of K stuff. Now I study computers and philosophy at Boston University.

Biggest thing: I very rarely evaluate theory. See more thoughts below.

Rules that are set in stone

- Arguments that are blatantly sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. and clearly made in bad faith means an instant loss, 0 speaks, and an uncomfortable conversation with your coach. If it's clear the debate is being made violent the debate ends. If you have a question about an argument, ask before the round.

- if you feel uncomfortable participating in the debate (your opp. triggered you, accidentally misgendered you, etc) feel free to discretely email or talk to me if you're uncomfortable making it an issue in the debate and we'll all work to make the debate a more productive space

- If your opponent is speaking too quickly or unclearly for you to flow, you have a right to call clear.

- I won't flow arguments made after the timer ends.

-I'll evaluate evidence ethics and other cheating challenges per tournament rules.

General

I don't think judging from a tabla rasa perspective is either possible nor desirable. The way I make determinations about what is true and false, in the real world and in debate, comes from a Bayesian perspective where I have shifting confidence in the truth of things given my knowledge and exposure to them. Generally, overcoming these priors requires presenting evidence to the contrary proportional to how far away from my current position, and my confidence in that position is. I find that this makes me a bit of an evidence hack in the sense that I frequently look at evidence presented even when not asked to to assess how strongly my priors should be shifted vis a vis a given argument.

Examples:

I have a high certainty that the Pyramids of Giza are in Egypt. To win that they are actually in China would require outrageously strong argumentation or evidence because it is a position very far outside my belief.

I have low confidence that act utilitarianism is true. To win that Kantian ethics or Hobbesian ethics are correct would only require a minimum viable argument to the contrary.

I have a moderate amount of confidence that there is alien life somewhere in the universe. Winning that they are in our galaxy/sort of nearby would require some evidence, but would not be challenging because it is close to my existing beliefs. Winning the government is concealing terrestrial-alien contact would require a great deal of very strong evidence. Winning there are Alien shape-shifters walking on Earth among us would be virtually impossible.

The rest of my paradigm is an attempt to outline the prior beliefs I have most relevant to debate and what I find compelling (and not) to overcoming them. Broadly, I find my beliefs are pretty aligned with common sense, but I intentionally shoot for epistemic humility (I have low confidence about things I am not an expert in) so it is very unlikely I will totally zap an argument you have evidence for because I vaguely thought it might be incorrect.

About argumentation/debate things: Arguments that are dropped are given a "full weight" of access to change my priors, but not all arguments pass the threshold needed to do that. Saying "The Pyramids of Giza are in Colombia because I think I read it in a book once" is an argument, but does not swing my prior much so if the other side drops it that does not automatically mean I think the Pyramids are in Colombia. My beliefs are changed more aggressively by a] arguments that are explained in-depth and b] by arguments that cite highly qualified authors working closely in the field in which you are arguing.

About the Kritik: I have a moderate amount of confidence that the world is too complex to be totally explained by one social or political philosophy. I have a small amount of confidence in the idea that debate should soley be about the desirability of the plan. I have high confidence that the plan and Aff should be counted at least somewhat in my determination of the resolutional question. I think psychoanalysis is pretty silly. I am highly confident that reading framework/topicality is not violent. Generally, I find it to be the onus of Affirmatives reading explicitly non-topical affirmatives to explain in great detail why I should vote Aff beyond the Aff just being true.

Topicality

I have a moderate amount of confidence that evaluating the plan text in a vacuum is the best way to determine if the plan is topical, and arguments that attempt to argue a thing the plan's solvency claims they do is not in the resolution are better made as solvency arguments. I require a relatively high degree of certainty that the Negative is correct before I will vote on topicality. I usually need definitions that define the words in the resolution, and clearly and strongly exclude the Affirmative, to feel comfortable voting Neg on T. I have a moderate amount of confidence that predictability is more important than "pragmatic" concerns like limits, ground, etc.

Theory

- I have very strong opinions about theory that you cannot change my mind about (you can think of these as "unchangable priors") I have and will give decisions that where I throw out a theory argument most people are fine with. Generally, if you find yourself wanting to go for theory against a counterplan (process cps bad, delay cps bad, etc.) you are better off winning they do not compete somehow.

- T starts as drop the debater, but never an RVI, theory is always drop the argument, and never an RVI. Exception is disclosure theory, which is drop the debater.

- Arguments I will evaluate: non-resolutional actor fiat (like I-Fiat or States), disclosure unless there has clearly been no good faith attempt to get it. Unlikely I vote on stuff like "must have complete round reports" or whatever, but if their disclosure practices are truly terrible and you can explain why this is probably ok. Misdisclosure/intentional trickery in particular is easy to win if you can prove it. Topicality arguments that define words in the resolution, judge kick.

- Arguments I will never evaluate: Any non-resolutional theory argument not listed above. This includes: "object fiat", solvency advocates, PICS bad, conditionality, no neg fiat, new affs bad, any form of spec argument without a card supporting it. I literally do not flow these, and will say as such as part of my RFD. Do not bother making them.

Miscellaneous

- Regarding re-highlighting - to point out flaws in evidence inserting is fine, to make an offensive argument read it.

Lesly De Anda Marlborough School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 3:59 AM PDT

Hello, my name is Lesly De Anda She/Her - Add me to the email chain: leslydeanda8@gmail.com

Some things about me: I Graduated from Steam Legacy High School class of 2019’ debated for 4 years for Los Angeles Urban Debate League (LAMDL for short) as a Policy Debater! I attended Fullerton College where I debated for 2 years in JV-Open Policy Debate transferring to UC Riverside. I no longer debate competitively, but I am active in judging and coaching if you ever need any help please go ahead and email me any questions after round I would love to help! I am a Policy Coach - @ STEAM LEGACY HS and affiliated with LAMDL. I judge Policy Debate, LD Debate, and Public Forum. So I am becoming more versatile, I am still a little new to the lingo so please be patient with me.

Receiving High Speaks: I love strong speakers and debaters who asks great CX questions, I love to feel the clash in the room. I tend not to pay attention to CX but when it leads to clash I will take it into consideration. Please address me by my name and talk to me before round, I hate going into round feeling like I don't know anyone lol. Debate is a show, do your BEST and be CHARISMATIC this is your show and we are all just watching.

Receiving Low Speaks: if u create a hostile environment for the other debaters in the room or people in the room i will end the round and vote up the other team immediately.

If say something racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, any ism's etc. I WILL DROP YOUR SPEAKER POINTS. i get it, debate is a competitive sport that can get very heated, but to me, this is an educational space and should also make you feel safe. be a good person to the people you share this space with and contribute to the great things that this activity contributes in the best way you can do such.
If you have spectators in your round, please be respectful I will LOWER your speaks and and VOTE YOU DOWN if you are TEXTING and even INTERACTING with them IRKS me and is super DISRESPECTFUL.

Spreading - Is okay with me as long as everyone in the room can fully understand you - remember you can read 8 off but if I didn’t understand you who does it benefit in round ? If you ask me if I can understand spreading then I will tell you no ._. Read my paradigm.

CX - I will NOT vote on anything during CX UNLESS brought up in the constructive or debater asks me too, if you are going to create a strategy ask me to flow, if not I will not pay attention to CX.

Prep - take the time you need before a round, the internet sometimes sucks and computers act up it happens, do not steal prep time while flashing or emailing files. I am very understanding so please do not take advantage or else I will be force to stop the round. If you need to cut a card while you are reading pls send a revise version before the next speech, I find it unjust and unfair.

Flowing - I do flow everything ( not CX unless stated to), but I will not flow if your spreading is illegible, if you know your spreading is not as good as it needs to be do not make me work harder to understand.

Policy/K’ Affs - I ran both myself, but have no biasness towards either both are awesome to run! Just make sure you know how to defend yourself against Topicality. Love the uniqueness of K aff's show me what you created !!!!

Topicality - T is work and you have to put in the work in order to win my vote on T, if you are going for topicality or any theory argument in the 2ar/2nr you need to extend interpretations, violations, and standards. Standards must have impacts fairness and education is not super persuasive and will probably lean to reasonability. Good interps of what a "topical" plan should be --- that being said i will default to the better interp/definition and vote accordingly.

K’s - I LOVE A GOOD K debate and usually do vote on the K if the links/impacts are made clear. Link contextualization is key no matter the kritik. Alternative contextualization is key too if at the end of the round I do not understand what your alternative then I will drop the K and vote on the AFF on this one. PLEASE do your research, and explain what the alternative does, and how the aff links into such.

(Policy debates)Tag team CX- Once you are in Varsity , I don't believe you should be tag teaming.

Danielle Dosch Immaculate Heart High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 7:55 AM PDT

(recently updated)

Email: danidosch@gmail.com

I am an assistant coach for Immaculate Heart High School. I debated for Immaculate Heart for four years. I am now a 4th year philosophy student at UC Berkeley.

Most important stuff:

I try my best to not let my argument preferences influence my decision in a debate; I have no problem voting for arguments that I disagree with. That said, I will only vote on arguments — that is, claims with warrants — and I have no problem not voting for an "argument" because it is not properly warranted.

I will not vote on arguments that I don't understand or didn't have flowed. I do not flow from the doc; I think the increasing tendency of judges to do this is abetting the issue of students being literally incomprehensible. I will occasionally say clear, but I think the onus is on you to be comprehensible.

You must send to your opponent whatever evidence you plan to read before you begin your speech; you do not need to send analytics. If you mark cards during a speech — that is, if you begin reading a card but do not finish reading that card — then you must indicate where in the card you stopped, and you should send a marked doc immediately after your speech. You do not need to send a document excluding cards that were not at all read.

If you want to ask your opponent what was read/not read, or what arguments were made on a certain page, you of course may, but you must do it in CX or prep. There is no flow clarification time slot in a debate!

The upshot of the last few comments is that I think flowing is a very important skill, and we should endorse practices that cultivate that skill.

You will auto-lose the debate if you clip cards. Prep ends once the speech doc has been sent. If you want to advance an evidence ethics violation, you must stake the debate on it.

Be respectful to your opponent. This is a community.

Other stuff:

Above all, I like clash-heavy debates between well-researched positions.

My favorite negative strategies include impact turns, counterplans, and NCs. My favorite affirmative strategies are plans with “big-stick” or “soft-left” advantages.

I don't really like "tricks" of any genre because I think overwhelmingly they simply lack warrants.

I don't like strategies that depend entirely on framework or framing arguments to exclude your opponent's offense. You should always answer the case even if you are reading a framework/impact framing argument that explains why I should prioritize your offense over your opponent's.

As I said, I will never not vote on an argument simply because I disagree with it. I will, however, ignore arguments that are not warranted, and I think certain claims are very difficult, if not impossible, to provide a warrant for.

Here are some examples of claims that I think are very difficult to provide a warrant for:

It would be better if debates lacked a point of stasis.
The outcome of a given debate is capable of changing people's minds/preferences.
It would be better if the negative could not read advocacies conditionally.
I should win the debate solely because I, in fact, did not do anything that was unfair or uneducational.
There is a time skew between the aff and neg in a debate.
A 100% risk of extinction does not matter under my non-utilitarian/non-consequentialist framework.
My 1ar theory argument should come procedurally prior to the negative's topicality argument.
There is something paradoxical about our understanding of space/time, so you should vote for me.

Here are some claims that I will never vote on, whether you try to warrant them or not:

That which is morally repugnant
This debate should be about the moral character of my opponent
X is a voting issue simply because I labeled it as such.

David Dosch Immaculate Heart High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 8:48 AM PDT

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School. I am a conflict for any competitors on this list.

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to perm do both shields the link. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

Gil Gandionco Harvard-Westlake School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 11:02 AM PDT

Debated 2 years at Downtown Magnets High school and 1 Year in College. I am familiar with both LD and Policy Debates.

Email: sebastiangandionco@gmail.com

I'm not the most experience debater, but I have a grasp of most concepts in debate. Explain at the end why your winning the debate.

· Add me in the email chain before the round starts

· I will not keep track of time and flashing evidence is not considered prep time, but don’t be slow

· I am experience enough, but find the middle ground in speed for important arguments later in the round.

· Flush out arguments and explain high theory well including the importance of the debate

· I’m more techy

· I like performance and K’s and T

· Framework needs to be clear and concise.

Kritik’s/K-Affs:

I like performances and kritikal affirmatives, that’s basically summarizes my preference on K-affs. I am not well versed in most hard theory kritiks. I ran Cap K mostly, but I’m fine with any other kritik’s if you explain them. Don’t be intimidated to run any hard theory kritik’s, but take the time to explain the arguments.

Policy Affs:

I like all policy aff’s except the most generic ones. The more unique the affirmative is the more likely I will like the aff and probably vote on it.

DA’s CP’s:

Disadvantage links is what I focus a lot on. The structure for the DA should stay the same and answering them should stay the same not tangled in a mess. I will consider who has a more a updated Uniqueness card. Uniqueness is the foundation of the DA, so the card must be relevant. I like all Cp’s even consult, Cp w/ planks, and 2nc cps are okay. Give me a good reason why to outweigh the Cp against the aff and answer the perm. A good net benefit could be the very reason you win on the CP.

Theory/Topicality:

Any theory is fine. Topicality is one of my favorite arguments so make sure to extend interpretation and counter-interps. I want to see both negative and affirmative topicality to be contested. If you run T as a time skew that is also fine. Debate is all about strategy and using the tools you have.

I dislike trick debate

Speaks/other:

My RFD's can sometimes be unclear so ask questions

Don’t be toxic. (less speaks). I always give high speaks so don’t worry about speaks to much

Shania Hunt The Harker School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 6:45 AM PDT

Updated March 2023(note this is partially from Greg Achten's paradigm - an update for Kandi King RR 2023)

Email: huntshania@gmail.com-please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview

I debated for Northland and graduated in 2014. Mostly competed in LD, but also did a bunch of other events and worlds schools debate for Team USA. Coached Northland for a bit, then Harvard-Westlake for 4 years, then I was the director of the MS speech and debate program at Harker for 3 years. Now, I'm in law school and an assistant coach for Harker.

I enjoy engaging debates where debaters actively respond to their opponent's arguments, use cross-examination effectively, and strategically adapt throughout the debate. I typically will reward well-explained, intellectually stimulating arguments, ones that are rooted in well-grounded reasoning, and result in creativity and strategic arguments. The best debates for me to judge will either do a stand up job explaining their arguments or read something policy-based. I love a new argument, but I just caution all debaters in general from reading arguments your judge may not have a background in that requires some level of understanding how it functions (that often debaters assume judges know, then are shocked when they get the L because the judge didn't know that thing).

I haven't judged consistently in awhile, and what that practically means it'd be wise to:

(1) ask questions about anything you may be concerned about

(2) avoid topic-specific acronyms that are not household acronyms (e.g., ASEAN, NATO, WHO, etc.)

(3) explain each argument with a claim/warrant/impact - if you explain the function of your evidence, I'll know what you want me to do with that evidence. Without that explanation, I may overlook something important (e.g., offense, defense, perm, or "X card controls the link to..", etc)

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: Overall, not what I read often in debates, but you'll likely do fine if you err on the side of extra explanation, extending and explaining your arguments, directly responding to your opponents arguments, etc. I try my best to flow, understand more nuanced arguments, etc. But, I don't have a background in critical studies so that will need extra explanation (especially links, framing arguments, alternatives).

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Often the arguments are quickly skimmed over, the impact of these arguments is lost, and are generally underdeveloped. I need clear arguments on how to evaluate theory - how do I evaluate the standards? What impacts matter? What do I do if you win theory? How does your opponent engage?

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery, quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.

Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

Arnav Jain The Harker School 5 rounds

Graham Johnstone Aragon High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 3:22 AM CDT

hi, i'm graham. i competed at vestavia hills for two years, acquiring two bids and qualifying to the toc my senior year.

BERK EDIT:i haven’t really thought about or heard debate in a while. slow down (especially on analytics) and maybe even over explain.

add me on the chain- ingegrahamjohnstone@gmail.com

tldr: read anything. the pref chain is just indicative of what i read as a debater/how comfortable i am with each style. argumentative dogmatism is bad! i also heavily align ideologically to my former coach sira ahuja, whom i will quote multiple times in this paradigm.

pref chain:

k - 1

policy - 1/2

theory - 2/3

tricks - 3

normative phil - 4/5

disclaimer

i do have very slight hearing issues so i will sometimes corroborate my flow with the doc. however, that also means that you should slow down and clear off the doc (which you should have been doing anyways). if i don't catch something, i'll be upfront about it if applicable.

miscellaneous thoughts

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

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

- (in the context of policy) big fan of new 2nr evidence - but will limit it to 4-5 cards at max.

- with regards to t-framework, i actually really love framework debates. despite reading mainly k affs in high school, i have been on both sides of the debate many times and am as neutral as can be. that being said, k 1ars against framework with little-to-no clarity regarding the affirmatives model of debate/the role of the negative will lose in front of me.

- in terms of k literature, most familiar with ir k's (namely grove), baudrillard, set col, psychoanalysis, cap (mainly beller), and queerpess. i never encountered afropess as a debater, but i did read some of warren, wilderson, and gillespies' works.

- i love creative arguments regardless of which style of debate they're categorized as. things like clash royale theory, the 21 savage kritik, the rider disadvantage, and alien wipeout ( thanks anshul) are things i enjoy very much. creativity/interesting strategy will be rewarded with better speaks if executed well!!! (this does not mean spamming random 1ar shells and throwing every other flow.)

things i don't like / will refuse to evaluate:

- do not commit one of the isms

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

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

if you do any of these things (except maybe disclosure), expect a 25

speaker points:

i'll disclose them if you ask. it feels like debaters are getting less and less clear every year so if you speak well you will be greatly rewarded.

Gordon Krauss Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 7:09 AM PDT

gordondkrauss@gmail.com

Head LD Coach, Peninsula High School.

I try to evaluate debates based on the arguments made. I will attempt to avoid intervening, but I tend to care very little about short, underdeveloped theory arguments.

I evaluate substantive debates probabilistically and do not believe in absolute defense or zero risk.

Theory: It is unlikely that I will consider theory arguments that aren't about a counterplan, reverse voting issues, or theory arguments that aren't conditionality as reasons to drop the debater. I'm okay for the aff if its international fiat, delay, consult, conditions. Otherwise, pretty neg-leaning. Regarding conditionality, I'm better for the neg. The aff wins by explaining why straight turning counterplans is key to aff strategy/clash.

K: Framework arguments that exclude the consequences of the plan or critiques of the affs representations are unpersuasive. Impact turning the K is fine. I'm also pretty good for permutations against alternatives that claim to "fiat" the existence of large, sweeping movements. Alternatives are most persuasive when they provide a different way to approach the problem that the plan attempts to solve. If the link argument is good, I should conclude that it disproves the desirability of the plan.

Planless: I'm better for the neg. I think that the best impact is fairness but could be persuaded by others.

Topicality: I think most alternatives to plan in a vacuum are bad, arbitrariness/predictability is important when deciding which interpretation is best for aff or neg ground, and I'm generally unpersuaded by competing interpretations.

DAs: Link turns case matters more than reasons one impact turns another. Generally, the link matters more than the uniqueness.

Philosophy: Arguments that rely on truth-testing to win are non-starters. If you have an evidenced defense of a non-consequentialist framework, I might be fine.

Death is not good.

Start cross-ex before asking questions. A marked doc does not mean take out the cards that weren't read.

Insert rehighlightings, read recuttings.

I'll resolve ethics challenges identically to Navya Simha.

Jonas Le Barillec The Quarry Lane School 4 rounds

Joel Mahmoud Lemuel Hire 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 19, 2024 at 5:01 AM PDT

Director of Forensics, Cal State Northridge

Email speech documents to lemuelj@gmail.com

Any other inquires should go to joel.lemuel@csun.edu

He/him pronouns

***********

A. Judging/Coaching History

- Over 19 years of experience judging/coaching competitive debate events; less experience with speech and individual events (5 years)

- Worked with students of all ages: elementary (MSPDP), middle school (MSPDP), high school (policy, LD, public forum), and college (NDT/CEDA, NFA-LD, NPDA, IPDA, CPFL)

B. General Philosophy

1. Do you thing! This activity should center the stylistic proclivities of students, not judges. Full stop. My academic background has taught me reasonable arguments come in a variety of forms, styles, and mediums. I've coached and judged a wide range of styles from very traditional (e.g. topicality, disads, cps, and case), critical (e.g. post-structural/modern/colonial theory), to very non-traditional (e.g. performative/identity/method debate). There are things I like and dislike about every style I've encountered. Do what you do and I'll do my best to keep up.

2. "Inside Baseball" Sucks. These days I mostly judge college policy and high school LD. That means I am unlikely to know most of the acronyms, anecdotes, inside references about other levels of debate and you should probably explain them in MUCH more detail than you would for the average judge.

C. Pedagogical/Competitive Points of Emphasis

1. Importance of Formal Evidence (i.e. "cards"). I once heard a judge tell another competitor, “a card no matter how bad will always beat an analytic no matter how good.” For the sake of civility I will refrain from using this person’s name, but I could not disagree more with this statement. Arguments are claims backed by reasons with support. The nature of appropriate support will depend on the nature of the reason and on the nature of the claim. To the extent that cards are valuable as forms of support in debate it’s because they lend the authority and credibility of an expert to an argument. But there are some arguments where technical expertise is irrelevant. One example might be the field of morality and ethics. If a debater makes a claim about the morality of assisted suicide backed by sound reasoning there is no a priori reason to prefer a card from an ethicist who argues the contrary. People reason in many different ways and arguments that might seem formally or technically valid might be perfectly reasonable in other settings. I generally prefer debates with a good amount of cards because they tend to correlate with research and that is something I think is valuable in and of itself. But all too often teams uses cards as a crutch to supplement the lack of sound reasoning. The takeaway is … If you need to choose between fully explaining yourself and reading a card always choose the former.

2. Burden of Persuasion vs. Burden of Rejoinder One of things that makes policy and LD debate (and perhaps public forum) a fairly unique activity from a policy/legal perspective is our emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. If one competitor says something then the opponent needs to answer it, otherwise the judge treats the argument as gospel. Debaters might think their judges aren't as attentive to the flow as they would like, but ask any litigator if trial judges care in the least whether the other attorney answered their arguments effectively. Emphasizing the burden of rejoinder is a way of respecting the voice and arguments of the students who spend their valuable time competing in this activity. But like everything else in debate there are affordances as well as constraints in emphasizing the burden of rejoinder. Personally, I think our activity has placed so much emphasis on the burden of rejoinder that we have lost almost all emphasis on the burden of persuasion. I can’t count the number of rounds I have participated in (as a debater and as a judge) where the vast majority of the claims made in the debate were absolutely implausible. The average politics disad is so contrived that it's laughable. Teams string together dozens of improbable internal link chains and treat them as if they were a cohesive whole. Truth be told, the probability of the average “big stick” advantage/disad is less than 1% and that’s just real talk. This practice is so ubiquitous because we place such a heavy emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. Fast teams read a disad that was never very probable to begin with and because the 2AC is not fast enough to poke holes in every layer of the disad the judge treats those internal links as conceded (and thus 100% probable). Somehow, through no work of their own the neg’s disad went from being a steaming pile of non-sense to a more or less perfectly reasonable description of reality. I don't think this norm serves our students very well. But it is so ingrained in the training of most debates and coaches (more so the coaches than the debaters actually) that it’s sustained by inertia. The takeaway is… that when i judge, I try (imperfectly to be sure) to balance my expectations that students meet both the burden of rejoinder and the burden of persuasion. Does this require judge intervention? Perhaps, to some degree, but isn't that what it means to “allow ones self to be persuaded?” To be clear, I do not think it is my job to be the sole arbiter of whether a claim was true or false, probable or unlikely, significant or insignificant. I do think about these things constantly though and i think it is both impossible and undesirable for me to ignore those thoughts in the moment of decision. It would behoove anyone I judge to take this into account and actively argue in favor of a particular balance between the burdens or rejoinder and persuasion in a particular round.

3. The Role of the Ballot/Purpose of the Activity/Non-Traditional Debate. The first thing I want to say isn’t actually a part of my philosophy on judging debates as much as it is an observation about debates I have watched and judged. I can’t count the number of rounds I have watched where a debater says something akin to, “Debate is fundamentally X,” or “the role of the ballot is X.” This is not a criticism. These debaters are astute and clearly understand that defining the nature and purpose of the activity is an extremely useful (often essential)tool for winning debates. That said, in truth, debate is both everything and nothing and the role of the ballot is multiple. Asserting the "purpose of debate" or "the role of the ballot" is essentially a meaningless utterance in my opinion. Arguing in favor "a particular purpose of debate” or “a particular role of the ballot” in a given round requires reasons and support. Policy debate could be conceived as a training ground for concerned citizens to learn how to feel and think about particular policies that could be enacted by their government. Policy debate could also be conceived as a space students to voice their dissatisfaction with the actions or inactions of the governments that claim to represent them through various forms of performance. Excellent debaters understand policy debate is a cultural resource filled with potential and possibility. Rather than stubbornly clinging to dogmatic axioms, these debaters take a measured approach that recognizes the affordances and constraints contained within competing visions of "the purpose of debate" or the "role of the ballot” and debate the issue like they would any other. The problem is assessing the affordances and constraints of different visions requires a sober assessment of what it is we do here. Most debaters are content to assert, “the most educational model of debate is X,” or the “most competitive model of debate is Y.” Both of these approaches miss the boat because they willfully ignore other aspects of the activity. Debates should probably be educational. What we learn and why is (like everything else) up for debate, but it’s hard to argue we shouldn’t be learning something from the activity. Fairness in a vacuum is a coin-flip and that’s hardly worth our time. On the other hand, probably isn’t a purely educational enterprise. Debate isn’t school. If it were students wouldn’t be so excited about doing debate work that they ignore their school work. The competitive aspects of the activity are important and can’t be ignored or disregarded lightly. How fair things have to be and which arguments teams are entitled to make are up for debate, but I think we need to respect some constraints lest we confuse all discourse for argument. The phrase “debate is a game/the content is irrelevant” probably won’t get you very far, but that’s because games are silly and unimportant by definition. But there are lots of contests that are very important were fairness is paramount (e.g. elections, academic publishing, trials). Rather than assert the same banal lines from recycled framework blocks, excellent debaters will try to draw analogies between policy debate and other activities that matter and where fairness is non-negotiable. So the takeaway is … I generally think the topic exists for a reason and the aff has to tie their advocacy to the topic, although I am open to arguments to the contrary. I tend to think of things in terms of options and alternatives. So even if topicality is a necessarily flawed system that privileges some voices over others, I tend to ask myself what the alternative to reading topicality would be. Comparison of impacts, alternatives, options, is always preferable to blanket statements like “T = genocidal” or “non-traditional aff’s are impossible to research.”

4. Theory Debates (i.e. Debates about Debate Itself) I have a relatively high threshold for theory arguments, but I am not one of those judges that thinks the neg teams gets to do whatever they want. You can win theory debates with me in the back, but it probably isn’t your best shot. As a general rule (though not universal) I think that if you didn’t have to do research for an argument, you don’t learn anything by running it. I have VERY high threshold for negative theory arguments that are not called topicality. It doesn’t mean I wont vote on these arguments if the aff teams makes huge errors, but a person going for one of these argument would look so silly that it would be hard to give them anything about a 28.

Sarah Li Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 20, 2024 at 3:12 PM CDT

sarah (she/her) - homestead '22 (cx for 3 years, ld senior year), usc '26 (not actively debating in college)

read whatever you would like - good debating supersedes any arg preferences. i am probably not the best if you read phil/trix. you'll have to do more explaining for what you're talking about.

yes email chain: hhspolicy@gmail.com, speechdrop is also great

please do something different. i've been judging the same debates in a cycle.

-----

I coach on the DebateDrills Club Team - please click here to access incident reporting forms, roster, and info regarding MJP’s and conflicts.

-----

things that make me happy:

comparison: of evidence, of voting issues, of warrants, of literally everything - the more the merrier
clash
warrant extension (please)
pointing out mistagged cards + explaining what it actually says > "this card is mistagged" with no further explanation > letting them get away with murder
ballot painting
clarity

things that make me sad:

doc blotted 2nrs that don't interact with the aff at all
blind extension of arguments without interacting with opponent's args (no clash)
spreading through theory shells/answers like your life depends on it
stealing prep

-----

misc. thoughts below

policy/larp

the cheatier the cp, the lower the threshold i have on aff theory (ie delay cps, should/ought pics). smart cheaty cps are cool. i default to judge kick if neither debater contest it.

impact turns and case turns are fun and underutilized.

specific aff implementation/enforcement > "it just happens"

do impact calc pls.

vs ks: i really enjoy these debates when done well. don’t be afraid of the k mumbo jumbo and defend your reps, extinction ows, etc. use cx to clarify the things you don’t understand. losing the fw debate makes winning the debate really difficult. link defense is good. pls answer ontology.

spark/cap good/heg good: yes.

v. familiar (read it as a debater) - security, cap, set col, harney and moten, beller

familiar (have read some lit, debated against it) - fem, afropess, agamben, baudrillard, bataille

mehhh? - any other pess, ableism, lacan, deleuze, IR

??? - debaters inventing ks by mish mashing authors who don’t agree w/ each other together

specific > generic links. if you go for a generic link, contextualize it in the 2nr.
good explanation > buzzwords that don’t mean anything, don't presume i know what your jargon means - err on the side of a clear explanation.

k affs

k affs are cool. i prefer if i understand what it is they're doing at the end of the round.

kvk debate: very cool.

phil

i’m somewhat familiar with the generic kant fw, but everything else i’m much less familiar with. well-developed phil syllogism > blippy independent reasons to prefer.

theory

if you're not clear, i will not have it on my flow = we are all sad. please don't full send spread through your shells.

3+ new shells in the 1ar and kicking the 1ac - D:

2NR should always overcompensate on theory, a 30sec pre-written block will usually lose to 2AR extrapolation of the 1AR shell.

topicality: cool.

defaults: DTD, C/I, no RVIs, T comes before 1ar theory

tricks

>:(

other

if you’re debating someone significantly less knowledgeable than you, pls be nice. don’t spread against novices.

good cx =/= overly aggressive cx

if it’s an online debate, pls record your speeches when you give them (especially the rebuttals) in case of tech glitches.

------

speaks:

speaks usually hover around 28.5, increases and decreases based on how well you debate

unclear spreading = lower speaks

in a competitive round, if you close your laptop and give your 2nr/2ar off the flow, i'll give you a 29.5+ (do not do this if it's an online tournament for obvious reasons)

Stephanie Marquez Marlborough School 6 rounds

Jonathan Meza Harvard-Westlake School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 8:52 AM PDT

Add me to the chain: speechdrop[at]gmail.com

tldr: My name is Jonathan Meza and I believe that at the end of the day the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want this paradigm is just for you to get an insight on how I view debate. One thing is I won't allow any defense of offensive -isms, if you have to ask yourself "is this okay to run in front of them ?" the answer is probably no. I reserve the right to end the debate where I see fit, also don't call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Meza or Jonathan.

debate style tier list:

S Tier - Policy v k, Policy v Policy, Debates about Debate
A tier - K aff v Policy, K aff v Framework, Performance debate (either side)
B tier - K v K, Theory,
C tier - Phil
D tier - Trix
F tier - Meme/troll

about me: Assistant debate coach for Harvard Westlake (2022-). Debated policy since 2018 that is my main background even tho I almost only judge/coach LD now. Always reppin LAMDL. I don't like calling myself a "K debater" but I stopped reading plan affs since 2019 I still coach them tho and low key (policy v k > K v K). went 7 off with Qi bin my senior year of high school but not gonna lie 1-5 quality off case positions better than 7+ random shells.

inspirations: DSRB, LaToya,Travis, CSUF debate, Jared, Vontrez, Curtis, Diego, lamdl homies, Scott Philips.

theory: Theory page is the highest layer unless explained otherwise. Aff probably gets 1ar theory. Rvis are "real" arguments I guess. Warrant out reasonability. I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. explain impacts, don't just be like "they didn't do XYZ voter for fairness because not doing XYZ is unfair." Why is it unfair, why does fairness matter I view theory a lot like framework, each theory shell is a model of debate you are defending why is not orientating towards your model a bad thing. Oh and if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance extend warrants and the story of abuse.

Topicality: The vibes are the same as above in the theory section. I think T is a good strategy, especially if the aff is blatantly not topical. If the aff seems topical, I will probably err aff on reasonability. Both sides should explain and compare interpretations and standards. Standards should be impacted out, basically explain why it's important that they aren't topical. The Aff needs a counter interpretation, without one I vote neg on T (unless it's kicked).

Larp: I appreciate creative internal link chains but prefer solid ones. Default util, I usually don't buy zero risk. For plan affirmative some of you are not reading a different affs against K teams and I think you should, it puts you in a good place to beat the K. as per disads specific disads are better than generics ones but poltics disads are lowkey broken if you can provide a good analysis of the scenario within the context of the affirmative. Uniqueness controls the link but I also believe that uniqueness can overwhelm the link. straight turning disads are a vibe especially when they read multiple offs.

K affirmatives: I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic but feel free to do what you want with your 1ac speech, This does mean that their should be defense and/or offense on why you chose to engage in debate the way that you did. I think that at a minimum affirmatives must do something, "move from the status quo" (unless warranted for otherwise). Affirmatives must be written with purpose if you have music, pictures, poem, etc. in your 1ac use them as offense, what do they get you ? why are they there ? if not you are just opening yourself to a bunch of random piks. If you do have an audio performance I would appreciate captions/subtitles/transcript but it is at your discretion (won't frame my ballot unless warranted for otherwise). In Kvk debates I need clear judge instruction and link explanation perm debate I lean aff.

Framework: I lean framework in K aff v framework debates. These debate become about debate and models defend your models accordingly. I think that the aff in these debates always needs to have a role of the negative, because a lot of you K affs out their solve all of these things and its written really well but you say something most times that is non-controversal and that gets you in trouble which means its tough for you to win a fw debate when there is no role for the negative. In terms of like counter interp vs impact turn style of 2AC vs fw I dont really have a preference but i think you at some point need to have a decent counter interp to solve your impact turns to fw. If you go for the like w/m kind of business i think you can def win this but i think fw teams are prepared for this debate more than the impact turn debate. I think fairness is not an impact but you can go for it as one. Fairness is an internal link to bigger impacts to debate.

Kritiks: I am a big fan of one off K especially in a format such as LD that does not give you much time to explain things already reading other off case positions with the kritik is a disservice to yourself. I like seeing reps kritiks but you need to go hard on framing and explain why reps come first or else the match up becomes borderline unwinnable when policy teams can go for extinction outweighs reps in the late game speeches. ~~Generic links are fin~~e ~~but~~ you need to contextualize in the NR/block. Lowkey in LD it is a waste of time to go for State links, the ontology debate is already making state bad claims and the affirmative is already ahead on a reason why their specific use of the state is good. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.

speaker points: some judges have really weird standards of giving them out. if I you are clear enough for me to understand and show that you care you will get high speaks from me. I do reward strategic spins tho. I will do my best to be equitable with my speak distribution. at the end of the day im a speaker point fairy.

quotes from GOATs:
- " you miss 100% of the links you dont make" --- Wayne Gretzky -- Michael Scott - Barlos
- "debate is a game" - Vontrez
- "ew Debate" - Isaak
- "voted for heg good" - Jared

Ayan Nath The Harker School 5 rounds

Vanessa Nguyen Marlborough School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 4:10 AM CDT

If my camera is off, don't start your speech. If you want to email me questions about your round, please do so with haste because I have an awful memory.

Email: okvanessan@gmail.com

Kapaun Mt. Carmel/Mount Carmel Independent '19. I did policy debate for four years.

University of Southern California '23. I did not compete but was still involved with the policy debate team.

General:

Please be kind. I promise I'm not angry or upset, my face is just like that.

Again, I haven't competed since high school and I'm not as involved as I once was: this means I've forgotten lots of jargon and you will need to slow down a bit. The technical nuances of debate aren't as intuitive to me anymore so please explain the implications of your arguments more.

I don't really have any strong opinions on debate other than:

(1) be kind to your partner and opponents, and

(2) debate is a valuable activity and all argumentative styles that allow chances for contestation/clash are essential for that.

If you take time out of your own prep to delete analytics from constructives, you're only hurting yourself.

Feel free to email me with any further questions.

Content:

Do whatever as long as it's not repugnant. If you're unsure whether your argument falls under this category, then probably don't read it.

For what it's worth, I read mainly policy arguments in high school and am not super familiar with critical arguments. If you read the latter, you're going to have to explain your arguments more. Such debates are easier for me to follow if your strategy engages the impact level. Non-USFG affs should have a debate and ballot key warrant. I always went for framework, a topic disad if it linked, or an impact turn against such affs.

I think fairness is the best impact.

I think affs should get to weigh their plan and it will be an uphill battle to persuade me otherwise.

I know very little about the topic. Please keep this in mind if going for T.

I like impact turns. That does not mean death good. That does not mean wipeout. Please.

*LD note: I dislike RVIs.

Good luck! Have fun! Learn lots! Fight on!

Asenat Pantoja Stockdale High School 4 rounds

Scott Phillips Harvard-Westlake School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 7:42 AM PDT

Scott Phillips- for email chains please use iblamebricker@gmail in policy, and ldemailchain@gmail.com for LD
Coach@ Harvard Westlake/Dartmouth

My general philosophy is tech/line by line focused- I try to intervene as little as possible in terms of rejecting arguments/interpreting evidence. As long as an argument has a claim/warrant I can explain to your opponent in the RFD I will vote for it. If only one side tries to resolve an issue I will defer to that argument even if it seems illogical/wrong to me- i.e. if you drop "warming outweighs-timeframe" and have no competing impact calc its GG even though that arg is terrible. 90% of the time I'm being postrounded it is because a debater wanted me to intervene in some way on their behalf either because that's the trend/what some people do or because they personally thought an argument was bad.

I am a good judge for you if/A bad judge for you if not

You cut good cards and highlight them to make complete arguments in at least B- 7th grade English, which is approximately my level. Read uniqueness. If your disad is non unique, not putting a uniqueness card in the 1NC is not cute, its a waste of time. If your best answers to an IR K are Ravenhall 09 and Reiter 15 you are not meeting this criteria, ditto answering pessimism with "implicit bias is malleable".
You debate evidence quality/qualifications and read evidence from academic sources rather than twitter/forum posts. If you are responding to a zany argument not discussed in academia, blog/forum away. If that is not the case I implore you to ask why these sources are the only ones you can find.
You listen to what the other team is saying and give a speech that demonstrates that you did by answering all of their arguments correctly and in the order in which they were presented . Do not read a collection of non responsive blocks in random order. And then in follow up speeches you compare/resolve those arguments rather than repeating yourself.
You make smart analytics against arguments with obvious weaknesses. Most 1NC disads and 1AC advantages in current debate are incoherent/missing several pieces. You do not have to respond to an incomplete argument, point out it is incomplete and move on. Once completed you get new answers to any part of it.
You rely on knowing what you are talking about more than posturing/grandstanding.
You understand your arguments/can explain things. In CX and speeches you should be able to explain words/concepts from your evidence correctly, and be able to apply them. If your link card says "the aff is not disarm" thats not a link, thats an observation
You can cover/don't drop things. Grouping things is fine. Making a philosophical argument for why line by line debate is bad, and instead making your argument in the form of big picture conceptual analysis is fine. Randomly saying things in the wrong place, dropping 1/2 of what the other team said and then expecting me to figure out how to apply what you said there is not. I will not make "reject argument not team" for you.

I operate on a "3 strikes" rule: each side gets up to 3 nonsense arguments- a CP that is just a text, a bad disad or advantage, an unexplained perm etc. After that your points and credibility plummet precipitously. If I'm reading your card doc I will stop reading your evidence after 3 cards highlighted into nothing. If you include 3 "rehighlightings" of the other teams evidence that are obviously wrong I will ignore all your evidence/default to the other sides.

If debated by two teams of equal skill/preparation, the following arguments are IMO unwinnable but I vote for them more often than not because the above suggestions are ignored.

-please let us weigh our case or we said the word extinction so Ks don't matter

-the framework is: object of research, you link you lose, debate shapes subjectivity, ethics first without explaining what ethics are/mean

-War good, pollution good, renewables bad- it doesn't matter if these are in right wing heritage impact turn form or academic K form

-the neg needs more than 1cp and 1K for debate to be fair. Arguments like "hard debate is good debate... so make it hard for them" are so bad you should be able to figure it out/not say them

-PICS that do/result in the whole plan are legitimate. The negative can actually win without these, especially on a topic where there are 3 affs.

-counterplans that ban the plan as their only form of competition are legitimate, especially on a topic with only...

Anish Ramireddy Peninsula High School 6 rounds

isaac ramnani Marlborough School 6 rounds

Yardley Rosas Marlborough School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 7:07 AM PDT

Please add me to the chain, my email is rosasyardley.a@gmail.com

Policy from 2014-2021 for Downtown Magnets High School/LAMDL and Cal State Fullerton.

thoughts

general: I will listen to anything you have to say. I need you to control how I think about what is going on in the round. Framing weighing and comparing impacts is important. Extending and debating warrants as thoroughly as the debate allows is so important to me especially in the rebuttals . Also because I feel like tech and truth determine each other. You should be able to do a lot more with less. I flow on paper so I will miss quick, short, and intricate arguments. Tell me what it is I need to be voting on and why I should vote on that thing. I am very receptive to an rfd that is straight up given to me. My rfds are broad and I don't ever really get into specifics unless asked and rarely vote on a single argument.

specifics: I like k v k and k v policy debates the most. I have the most experience with arguments about the state, racial capitalism, and the intersection of race/gender/queerness/class. I need to feel like you are politically and/or socially motivated by the world to run the k you are running for me to really be persuaded by it. I need Ks to have a strong explanation of either the world or debate. Ks on the aff need a clear method and solvency. I don't mind if this isn't as strong on the neg unless the aff makes it a thing. In k v fw rounds I need both sides to have models of debate and comparison work being done on the offense. I lean towards skills, clash, tva for the neg. Generally I need links to be as specific as possible for any kind of offense or argument. I will consider any theory argument. But if you are going for them, be as contextual to the round as possible. Frankly, 4+ off is irritating to me no shade but I live for drama so go ahead but that raises the bar for you and lowers it for the aff.

other: sorry if I get sleepy, it's probably not because of the round

Harun Vemulapalli Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Scott Wheeler Peninsula High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 3:03 PM EDT

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

Hannah Wilson The Harker School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 1:31 AM PDT

Yes to the email chain: hannah.wilson@harker.org

It's important to me that judges act like educators (and by that I mean that I understand it's about the debaters and not me + professional boundaries are important). Debate is hard and we're all learning. My goal is to help make the experience as educationally valuable and fun as possible.

My debate experience: I did one year of PF in high school, one year of policy in high school, and three years of policy in college (2 at Weber and 1 at Concordia). I was an assistant coach at Copper Hills High School for 2 years, and a speech/congress coach at The Harker School for 4 years. I am now the head of the middle school program at The Harker School, coaching all the speech and debate events.

Policy & LD:

-I'm a competent person, but don't assume I have deep topic knowledge (especially with LD topics changing so often!). Don't assume I know what an acronym means. Don't assume I already know the link chain for the generic topic args. Don't assume I know about your aff. Even if I already do know about all of the things already, I think good debate requires painting the picture every time instead of just jumping to the end.

-Speed: Slow down and be clear on your analytics!!!!!! It seems like judges are just flowing off of docs, which is incentivizing people to spread theory/t/framework to get through more, but I am not that judge. I haven't judged a debate yet where I felt someone went too fast in the cards for me to keep up and follow. It's the keeping that same speed throughout all your analytics + lack of clarity and emphasis on the things you think are important that becomes the problem.

-I think signposting is so important! I'd much prefer a speech that says things like "on the circumvention debate" "on the link debate" "they say x we say y" than speeches that read as one big essay/overview. I'll still flow it, but the chances I miss a little thing that you decide to blow up later go up when your signposting is poor.

-While I've coached and judged LD, I never did it so some of the quirks are still foreign. I've heard the word tricks, but don't know what that is. The brief explanations I've received have me skeptical, but I'll listen to any arg with warrants and an impact.

-Theory: I have a high threshold for theory. I'm fine with debates about debate, but I don't know if I've ever seen a theory speech that goes in depth enough to do that well. If your theory shell was a full and cohesive argument in the constructive (i.e. the violation was specific and clear + the impact was specific and clear) and it's conceded entirely I'll vote for it. If it's like a one sentence just incase thing in the constructive, I probably don't think it was a full argument so even if they conceded it I might not buy it. Condo will be hard to win. If they are really reading *that* many off case, those arguments are probably very underdeveloped and some could even be answered by a few reasonable analytics. Do not read disclosure theory in front of me if it's the first debate on a new topic. The theory I'm most likely to be persuaded by is perf con.

-Framework: I'll happily vote for framework. Be specific about what ground you've lost and why it matters. Education > Fairness impacts. Affs need to prove their reps are desirable before weighing extinction against Ks.

-Ks: Make sure your link is specific to the aff. Be specific about how and what your alt solves. If it's an epistemology alt that's fine, but I need you to do thorough explanation of why that's the preferable way to debate and a sufficient enough reason to get my ballot. Don't assume I have a background in your specific K.

-Disads: Got a soft spot for a good politics disad. I'd prefer to watch a debate with core topic disads and a strong link than a new disad that might have a weaker link. Will still vote on it if they don't have answers, but I prefer watching a debate with clash. Don't assume I have background on your disads. Explain the story clearly.

Public Forum:

-Y'all should just start sending all of your evidence. It's a waste of my time and yours to wait for evidence to be called to slowly send over things card by card. It will also hold everyone to higher evidence standards if the community starts evidence sharing and debates will get better.

-I know there is some division on this, but I do think the first rebuttal speech should still talk about their case. It's good to start filtering the debate through your impacts right away.

Congress:

Honestly, y'all don't need paradigms. This is a speech event and if you're thinking of it as a debate event you should reorient your strategy. That said, I know people want to read paradigms anyways so... I really value rebuttals. Constructives can do well in front of me, but if you give more than one speech in a round and both are constructives I'll feel like that's because you don't know how to be off script. Remember you are in a room with a bunch of other students... it's hard for your judges to remember all of you. Be an active participant in questioning and the house to help yourself stand out. Cheesy, but I think of the round in terms of who I would want to be my representative. Not necessarily because they agree with all the things I already think, but because they are actively engaged in questioning, are good at responding to opposing arguments, and have a nice balance between pathos and logos. Greatest speeches might not get my 1 if they are disengaged from every other part of the round.

Login to Tabroom

Damus Hollywood Invitational

2022 — Sherman Oaks, CA/US

Varsity LD Paradigm List

Judges