JBDI Camp Tournament
2022 — Oakland, CA/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hi! I’m Nathaniel Ashley (he/him)
Please put me on the email chain :) firstname.lastname@example.org
I have about 4 years of policy debate experience with the Bay Area Urban Debate League, and about 3 years now of judging experience
Run what you’re most comfortable with - I’m open to vote on anything as long as it’s proven in round why I should be voting on it (which of course comes with a bit of bias which is outlined down there)
However, this does mean that you need to stay organized while debating, disorganization will make it a lot harder for me to judge your round
ALSO disclaimer: I have a full-on hearing loss in my left ear and I’m slightly deaf in my good ear - my hearing is fine and I’m fine with spreading, but disorganization/unclear speaking will make it a lot harder for me to get everything you say down on the flow
Here’s some things I usually look for in rounds:
Outline your voters - tell me everything I need to know to vote for you in a round - why you get the vote, why the other team doesn’t, etc. Write the ballot for me in the round as much as you possibly can :)
This means develop your arguments - explicitly explain why all your arguments are better than the other side’s proposal
Don’t make me connect all the dots post round
Fully formed arguments are a big one - With vague alts/advocacies/plans, if I don’t know what I’m voting for, it’s a lot harder to vote on it (be specific!!!)
Jargon - It’s great but know how to explain what you actually mean, don't make debate words the full explanation of your argument
Impact calc is GREAT, why do you outweigh and why is it necessary that I vote for you?
Also, this should be a given, but be kind to one another
Don’t be unnecessarily rude
NO homophobia, racism, sexism, ableism, or just generally being discriminatory, since that’s a pretty good way to get me to potentially write a ballot against you or at least lower your speaker points as much as I can possibly justify, especially if the other team calls you out (know I will definitely call you out in RFDs post round, regardless of whether or not your opponents do)
My specific feelings on arguments:
These are great, I love them, I understand a majority, but don’t assume I, or your opponents, will fully understand yours. Make sure it’s well explained and if your alt is incredibly vague, changes, or is not extended throughout the round, I’ll just be sad.
For K Affs, I don’t have a lot of experience so while I’ll definitely vote for you if it’s done well, make sure to explain well why I should be voting for you and why the discussion that your aff brings up is so important. I like to also hear about how your advocacy holds the potential to actually affect the real world - I care a LOT about education in these types of debates - how do you spill out? what does the ballot mean for you, and everyone in this room and activity?
- Ofc, not doing these things won't mean that I write a ballot against you; however, it might make it a bit harder for me to vote for you if your advocacy is egregiously vague or hard to understand
- TLDR - explain your whole process thoroughly!
T and Framework:
Good Fwk/T arguments are great. However, bad/unreasonable T and FWK usage/abuse is bad for debate - don’t do that. This means don't run like 5 T blocks for no reason - remember to value the education of the actual round as well outside of just the ballot. If you do this, I will just be judgemental from my little desk in the back of the room haha
Please put the whole T shell in the email chain if you can. Also, please give me impacts to your theory, fwk, and T blocks. Theory is cool and all but I won't vote on it if there's not a reason for me to. Impact out your procedural arguments in the round!!! Don't make me connect the pieces for you.
CPs are fun, tell me why the inevitable perm doesn’t work, and why your CP solves better than the Aff and is competitive. I’m open to Condo but more than like 8 off is pushing it
Condo note: Be sure to make it absolutely clear what you’re going for, what you're kicking, and signpost as clearly as possible since disorganized condo rounds can become messes and frankly just be extremely difficult to evaluate as a result
Specific links. Line by line which highlights those specific links. Explanation of why they lead to your impact. Extension of all this through the round. Impact calc.
Lastly, have a good time debating :) Thanks to my coaches for HEAVILY inspiring this paradigm (lmao, there was definitely
no plagiarism here), and good luck in all your rounds!!! Don't forget to breathe while spreading!
Hey yall - You found my paradigm, congrats!
Nuriel Cahigas (they/them)
Add me to your email chain: email@example.com
Oakland Tech '22 || who knows what college... manifest for me '26
Background: I'm an senior high school debater at BAUDL. Love debate! Debate = life babey! I've done multiple flavours (LD, policy, PF) of debate throughout my *4 year - short* career but primarily am based in policy. If you are from a UDL, special kudos to you. I love my UDL folks the most :)
1. Be nice. If you dont want to be kind to others (opponents, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don't prefer me. Anything remotely racism, homophobic, abelist, etc etc will mean I will give you the lowest speaker points possible. Don't try me.
2. Be Clear. I will call "clear" if I can't understand you, but debate is primarily a communication activity. Connect on meaningful arguments. I am fine with spreading but if you arent clear I will stop listening and flowing.
3. Don't clip. Don't steal prep. Emailing isn't prep UNLESS it's unreasonable/I see you prepping (you disappoint me).
4. Have fun! I want to see yall be creative -- I'm down for any argumentation style.
If you are being unclear, I will ask you to repeat the unclear section. Your partner should also message you if you are kicked out of the room.
All debaters should try to have their cameras on during their speech. I'd like to know that yall are human, but totally understand if you can't due to wifi.
-Really tell me your story. I want a fully formed argument goddamit! Don't just run 30 arguments and call it a day. IT'S ABOUT CONTENT YALL NOT AMOUNT. Please fully develop your arguments for both sides. That being said, it still is important for you to tell me as the judge where is the most impact this round. Tell me what is the most important thing to think about during this debate.
-Weave an argument that makes sense. Be logical in the ways that you go through this debate and argue your argument. Make sure your arguments don't contradict each other! IF I DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR IT. BE EXPLICIT.
- Presentation is v important to me! Speaks will get bumped up if done strategically. Also please be as clean as possible extending all your arguments (will be v nice for me as your judge). :)
- Throwing around random debate terms w/o actually understanding what they mean will not make me vote for you. Understand what you are saying. Simply saying "YES BECAUSE IMPACT A, B, AND C.... INSERT RANDOM EVIDENCE BLAH BLAH BLAH". Buzzwords are cool but explaining what you are saying is cooler.
- Write the ballot for me. I don't want to have to do TOO much work framing or doing impact calc, that's on you. Its all part of building and telling your story. If you fail to do that, I will be less inclined to vote for you.
More Specific To Argumentation
T - T and FWK abuse is BAD FOR DEBATE. Pls don't do it. Good T debates need voters/impacts, which most people seem to have forgotten about. I'd prefer you to put the whole t shell in the doc ty <3
On Neg: I understand that it could be complex BUT I think we can all recognize when the strat is to make it too confusing for the opponent to follow. I need to be able to understand your alt and what you are trying to accomplish. I say this again, PAINT YOUR WORLD AND PAINT YOUR WORLD WELL. You need to understand what you are advocating for. I prefer to weigh the K impacts against the aff plan. Also, I don't think links on K's always needs to be hyper specific but I swear links of omissions are not it.
On aff (planless affs): WOWOW LOVE K DEBATE, LOVE WATCHING IT, LOVED RUNNING THEM. Legit do whatever you want, be creative! I am not the best at judging k affs though, so just make it make sense (esp if you are doing some high lvl pommo stuff... i am but a newbie to some of that and will need you to make it palatable for both my and your opponent's sake). Please keep your aff alive and central in t/framing debates, extend your performance, explain why your FORM matters and why that warrants a ballot, etc. Please explain the world of the perm if you want me to vote for it. As for neg - i may be a more k leaning judge, but that also means i’m just as happy to reward well explained and framed arguments against them. Innovative strategies + warranted responses usually results in a win or at the very least much higher speaks! If they are unpredictable then you have a lil flexibility to be unpredictable too.
** just bc you run a k aff doesn't mean i will automatically vote for you and just bc i am more of a k leaning debater doesn't mean that i don't vote policy
CPs - Justify your perm, don’t just say it. I tend to be fine with Condo unless there’s clear abuse, but I do think spreading 8 off CPs is that (which damn ouch). I am open to fiat theory arguments more so than condo.
DA - DA with specific link evidence is great. DA with mostly just spin are cool. DA with evidence AND spin are *chefs kiss* amazing. Turns case and solves the case are really important on DAs, ESPECIALLY if they are dropped (straight up if you don't take advantage of this you are disappointing me and your coach - love myself a good turn). Impact comparison W I N S debates. Like what I said before, don't just say "magnitude - extinction, timeframe - now, probability likely"... explain PLEASE.
Last Updated - 03/06/2022
if you made it all the way to the end, wow congrats. heavily inspired by my coaches and other judges that i would have loved when i was debating.
Just saying ahead of time - proud of y'all and continue debating.
- Nuriel <3
My name in Matheno. I have been a participant of this activity for about over 17 years. I started to debate in High School out of the DKC Urban Debate League. I emerged onto the national circuit my novice year in 2004. I have attended debate camps at University of Iowa, University of Missouri Kansas City as well as the University of Louisville. "Performance" debate is mostly how I approached debate as a framework. Do not call it Performance debate. Debate itself is a performance. I do understand what many call "traditional debate." It's how I got introduce to this activity. I just felt better equipped as a debater dozing into what felt more authentic for me. I judge my debates on what is on the flow sheets. If its not on the flow then I cannot evaluate it. Speed does not mean to forfeit persuasion. I will listen to mostly everything. I like new and different arguments. I was a big fan of K arguments and of course ran many Kritiks. I am now a staff member at the Bay Area Urban Debate League as a Program Manager. I have been a judge every single year since I left debate as a competitor. I love this activity! I have assisted BUDL, DKC and also Atlanta Urban Debate League. Write the ballot for me. If I have to do a lot of framing and impact calculus myself then I don't think you did much coverage of handling the flow. Write the RFD for the judge. Who knows what may happen if you leave it in my hands. I have a very queer mind.
Email thread: firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated high school debate in Virginia / Washington DC for Potomac Falls '03 to '07 and college for USF '07 to '11. I am currently the debate coach for Oakland Technical High School.
add me to email chain please: email@example.com
I am generally pretty open to vote on anything if you tell me to, I do my best to minimize judge intervention and base my decisions heavily on the flow. I err tech over truth. Do your best to stay organized. Your disorganization means I have to fight to stay organized rather than focusing entirely on your argumentation. I’m open to nontraditional arguments and K affs.
However, everyone has biases so here are mine.
General - Removing analytics is coward behavior. I'm fine with tag team / open cross-x unless you're going to use it to completely dominate your partners CX time. I'll dock speaker points if you don't let your partner talk / interrupt them a bunch. Respect each other. I'm good with spreading but you need to enunciate words. If you mumble spread or stop speaking a human language I'll lower your speaks. Slow down a little on theory / T shells or at least signpost your standards. I will evaluate your evidence quality if it is challenged or competing evidence effects the decision. Don’t cheat, don’t do clipping, don’t be rude. Obviously don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, in life in general but also definitely not in front of me. This is a competitive and adversarial activity but it should also be fun. Don’t try to make others miserable on purpose.
Topicality/Theory - Don't spread like 8 violations. Hiding stuff in the T shell is bad and I'll probably disregard it if Aff tells me to. Good T and theory debates need voters/impacts, which a lot of people seem to have forgotten about. I think for theory to be compelling in round abuse is supreme. If you're complaining you had no time to prep and then have 15 hyper specific link cards....come on. Disclosure theory is basically never viable independent offense but I think it can be a strong argument to disregard theory arguments run against you since they refused disclosure norms.
Framework - I'll follow the framework I'm given but I prefer a framework that ensures equitable clash. Clash is the heart and soul of this activity.
Kritiks - You need to understand what you are advocating for. If you just keep repeating the words of your tags without contextualizing or explaining anything, you don't understand your Kritik. I prefer to weigh the K impacts against the aff plan but I can be convinced otherwise. My threshold is high and it’s easier to access if you can prove in round abuse / actually tailored links. Also, I don't think links on K's always need to be hyper specific but I do not want links of omission. I like fiat debates. I think a lot of kritiks are very vulnerable to vagueness procedurals.
K-Affs - Good K-Affs are amazing, but I almost never see them. I tend to err neg unless you have a specific advocacy for me to endorse. Vagueness seems to be most egregious with k affs. Don’t be vague about what you’re trying to do or what my vote does and you’ll have a much better chance with me. I like debate, which is why I am here, so if your whole argument is debate bad you'll have an uphill battle unless you have a specific positive change I can get behind. Just because I like debate doesn’t mean it can’t also be better. I can recognize its problematic elements too. Reject the topic ain't it. I need to know what my ballot will functionally do under your framework. If you can't articulate what your advocacy does I can't vote for it. I think fairness can be a terminal impact. Negs should try to engage the 1AC, not even trying is lazy. Really listen to what the K aff is saying because often you can catch them contradicting themselves in their own 1AC, or even providing offense for perf cons.
CPs - I'll judge kick unless Aff tells me not to and why. Justify your perm, don’t just say it. I like perms, but you need to explain it not just yell the word perm at me 5 times in a row. I tend to be fine with Condo unless there’s clear abuse, but I do think spreading 8 off CPs is that. I think I start being open to condo bad around 3 or 4? But if you want me to vote on condo you better GO for it. 15 seconds is not enough. I like fiat theory arguments. You fiat all 50 state governments as separate entities?? Come on. Consult, condition or delay CP's without a really good and case specific warrant are lame and I lean aff on theory there. Advantage CPs rule.
DAs - I evaluate based on risk and impact calc. More than 3 cards in the block saying the same thing is too many. Quality over quantity.
For LD - I try to be as tab as I can but in order to do that you need to give me some kind of weighing mechanism to determine whose voting issues I prefer. If you both just list some voting issues with absolutely no clash it forces me to make arbitrary decisions and I hate that. Give me the mechanism / reason to prefer and you'll probably win if your opponent does not. So like, do I prefer for evidence quality or relevance? Probability? Give me something. I'm probably more open to prog arguments because I come from policy debate but if someone runs a Kritik and you do a decent job on kritiks bad in LD theory against it I'll vote on that.
Hi, if you bring me food/drink and you might get an extra speaker point. I’ve been to nationals and I’m currently still debating. I AM NOT A LAY JUDGE!!! I flow the whole round and I wanna focus to give you good feedback. I will give you most of the feedback in round but I’ll still write some stuff on the rfd if I miss something. Put me on the chain!! I wanna see your evidence. Do not say PROBLEMATIC Stuff I will vote you down. Example: black people aren’t oppressed or anything racist. Don’t bore me to sleep I am really excited about debate and if you bore me that’s a problem. Be creative I wanna see your arguments come to life. I really like k debate, it’s fun to judge, I also think T is a voter if you run it correctly.