Isidore Newman School Invitational
2022 — New Orleans, LA/US
World Schools Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].
I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).
My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!
All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!
First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.
Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:
1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.
2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.
Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.
The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!
Ask any other clarification questions before the round!
- I have taught communication and/or coached competitive debate and forensics since 2011.
- I judge on state and national circuits.
- I serve on the NSDA committee for Arkansas.
- I like clash, clear argumentation, and make sure to warrant and impact your claims.
- Respect each other.
- I do not tolerate bigotry or racism in a debate.
- Spreading outside of policy or progressive LD
- One sided debate in congressional
- I take a tabula rasa (clean slate) approach.
- When it comes to the material of the case, I look at who can best present the argument and why their case outweighs their opponents.
- I use a combination of evidence, argumentation, clash, speaking skills, etc... to determine the winner.
- I do not disclose the win/loss at the end of a round unless directed by Tab.
- Delivery should be extemporaneous in nature. A smooth cadence with interaction with the chamber is great.
- Be sure to maximize your allotted time.
- Evidence should be used for substantiation.
- Decorum should simulate that of a congressional chamber, that being said it is good to remember to have fun as well.
- I use a combination of delivery, evidence, analysis, decorum, and speaks to determine both speech value and rankings.
Isidore Newman '15; LSU '19 (BS Biochem, BA Sociology), LSUHSC '24 - CARE BSN
(please copy me when sharing docs)
I debated JV and V starting in eighth grade at Newman, and continued throughout my senior year. I competed on the local, regional, and national circuits from my first year to my last in LD, extemp, and impromptu.
At LSU I graduated with a BS in Biochemistry and a BA in Sociology. I graduated from the Roger Ogden Hadfield Honors College with College Honors, and from the Distinguished Communicator and Distinguished Researcher programs. While I did not compete in college, I did judge.
Things to consider:
- Expect me to flow the round. I haven't judged on the national circuit or debated on the national circuit in a while, so I can understand you while spreading, but I do still appreciate the performance element to debate. I can appreciate speed, so use your best judgement on how fast you should go (Hint: start slow, and then maybe pick it up; there is a way to eloquently demonstrate strong speaking ability and speed, which can be rewarded). I would appreciate it if you slow down for tags or anything else blippy you're really trying to stress, though.
- Tell me which part of the debate comes first and why you're winning it. I am not very particular about the types of arguments you run, but tell me why they are important and why you're winning them. Maybe this is old-fashioned of me, but I also like voters at the end. I should know by the time you get to them where you're winning, but clarify.
- Just because an argument is dropped doesn't mean I'll give you 100% weight on it if the warrants aren't there. Also, please don't extend dropped points in your last speech. If they are that valuable, this should have been brought up earlier.
- Lastly, be kind. If you are rude or don't stay professional, I reserve the right to dock you a few speaker points, as a result.
Feel free to email me, ask me questions before the round, etc. I am more than happy to answer them. For the most part I’m pretty go with the flow (pun intended), so just enjoy the round and remember debate is meant to be something we do for fun.
I did WSDC and whatnot in high school, so I'm familiar with the norms of worlds judging and round expectations. A couple of specific things: (1) Make sure your arguments are properly mechanized. The term fiat is thrown around in world worlds too often without proper explanation or justification. I like interesting models, just explain them well and make sure they're reasonable. (2) Please impact things. This is straight-forward, but if you have an argument, tell me why it matters relative to the debate, regardless of how woke the tag of the argument is. (3) Weigh! Be incredibly explicit about why one argument is more important than another in the back-half. You don't have to win all/ the majority of arguments in world schools, just the most important ones!!
Updated February 2023
Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.
The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).
The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.
Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.
“Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.
Share me to the speech doc (firstname.lastname@example.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.
Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.
Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.
The longer version (for all forms of debate)
The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).
File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.
Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with four vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.
Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.
Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.
Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:
Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.
Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.
Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.
Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.
Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.
1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.
2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.
3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.
Public Forum Specific Observations
1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.
2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.
3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”
4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.
5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.
I like flushed out frameworks but don't be abusive with fiat. If you run any interesting models then warrant why they are reasonable.
Warranting is important, especially in rebuttal speeches
Weigh as much as possible
don't make the debate boring, I know its harder with certain topics but please try to be entertaining and have fun
follow wsd norms, if you're confused please ask
I consider myself a judge who will listen to anything as long as it is warranted. I have voted on just about any argument you can imagine. I am open to both traditional and progressive arguments. Do whatever works for you. Please give me voters. I love seeing clear ways you think I should evaluate the round. Voters are incredibly important in the rebuttals. Don't make me do the mental work for you.
I competed for 3 years in policy in high school, 4 years of NPDA, and 2 years of LD in college, and I was a graduate assistant for the WTAMU speech team. I have been coaching in some capacity for the last 8 years, so there's not much you can run that I have not seen.
I enjoy a good T debate. Stock issues are still very important in traditional policy debates, and I want debaters to do it well. Run T if there is a clear violation. Please emphasize voters.
Please read specific links if you have them. Tell me exactly how the aff plan fits into your scenario. I'm fine with terminal impacts as long as they are warranted.
I like CPs when they are run well. Please have a unique net benefit on the CP. You can read CP theory for the aff or neg. It's a neglected argument, but I actually like hearing theories on different types of counterplans and their validity.
Just like disadvantages, I think Ks should have specific links. Theory is great, and I enjoy it when it is run well. Make sure you have more than just a reject alt. What does the alt call me to do besides vote for you? Do not run multiple Ks in the same round/speech. A good K is a big enough theoretical and ethical issue that it should be your main advocacy.
It's very hard to speak too quickly for me. It is possible to mumble or speak too quietly, especially in a virtual debate. Debate is only good if both sides know what is happening. Please make sure you enunciate clearly. Please don't gasp for air while you read. It's one of the few things I truly hate. If you're doing that, slow down. Make your signposts and taglines very clear, so I know where to flow.
I coached in a very traditional area, which means I see a lot of traditional debate. That said, I am open to more "progressive" styles as long as the arguments are solid. Each side should offer a value and a criterion for their case. However, you choose to structure arguments after that is up to you.
I have less experience with PF than I do with CX and LD, but I enjoy judging it. Unlike traditional policy debate, public forum does not require a plan text. The time constraints make policy-style cases difficult. I'm open to hearing that format, but it's not required to win my ballot. I want to see well-reasoned cases and good clash in rounds.
At the end of the day, it is not my job to tell you what you should run. Run arguments that you like and think you will do well running.
I debated Public Forum for four years in HS and attempted to compete in Prose for a semester during my Senior year.
Truth > Tech: All of us can pretty much agree, most of the arguments we read in PF are hypotheticals so I generally evaluate the round based on what's presented regardless of the truthfullness of the argument. Saying that, if you're gonna try to convince me that aliens exist or the Illuminati have my mind in a vat, you'd better have some pretty convincing evidence. Remember, the more realistic your argument, the more likely I am to value it more highly in the round.
Frameworks: I default to a cost/benefit analysis framework. If a team provides a framework for me to evaluate the round under it should be introduced as early as possible and extended throughout all speeches. If there are two frameworks please do the comparative for me and explain why I should pick one over the other.
Comparative Analysis: Please do the comparative for me with different arguments. If both teams are running similar arguments do the comparative and tell my why yours is better. If teams are running different arguments (ie one is an economic impact and one is a democracy impact) I need to know why I'm preferring your argument. Absent comparative analysis, I will have to interpret things on my own and you don't want that.
Extension: Extending only the authors and taglines of cards doesn't suffice for me. You need to extend the substance of the card as well and how they relate to your impact. If you want me evaluate something in FF is should be included in the summary speech. I usually allow first speaking teams to extend defense straight to final focus but in reality you should be mentioning important defense extensions in summary.
Crossfire: I will NOT flow cross. Cross is a way for debaters to clarify arguments with each other, so arguments or ideas presented in cross must be extended throughout the rest of the debate. Don't use cross as an extra speech, use it for setup for later speeches.
- When time stops, flowing stops. Speaking over the time limit will not add anything to the flow or factor into my RFD
- Quality over Quantity; avoid spreading if possible
- If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. It is your job as a debater to present yourself in a clear manner to me, so if you speak to quickly, to a point where I cannot understand you, you will lose speaks and my flow won't contain all the arguments you mention.
- Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.
- Please collapse on a few arguments in summary. I prefer quality over quantity and clear extensions.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh (as early as possible in the round)
- Implicate turns and defense
- Please don't miscut (I will drop you)
- Cross fire should be an exchange b/w the two debaters. I don't want long speeches in it.
- Star Wars references are greatly appreciated and will gain some clout with me.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask before we start the round/email me at email@example.com
Good luck and make the most of every round!
Director of Debate – Greenhill School
Coach USA Debate Team
Owner Global Debate Symposium - https://www.gdsdebate.com/
Updated – April 2022
Please put me on the email chain – firstname.lastname@example.org
Contact me with questions.
Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge). I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. If I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round, I will intervene. I WILL do my best to be an objective evaluator of your arguments but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is just not true (nor do it is true for anyone).
I have coached National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events). I still actively coach and am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these format’s week in and week out.
General thoughts on how I decide debates:
1 – Debate is a communication activity – I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.” Speech > speech doc.
2 – Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency” – aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.
3 – Evidence is important - In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.
4 – Online Debating – We have had two years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire to it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.
5 – Disclosure is good (on balance) – I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.
6 – Zero risk is a possibility – There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.
7 – My role as a judge - I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence post the debate that was not done by the students.
8 – Debate the case – It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.
9 – Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier – While I am happy to make my judgments and comparison between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.
10 – Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.
I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.
A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:
Topicality vs Conventional Affs:
Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters that can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support that why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.
Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:
First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).
Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested. The deference for going for topicality/FW versus “k affs’ can be strategic and the best option. Many times, the reality is that many teams not researching to contest the foundational premises of the other side.
Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move.
Counterplans and Disads:
Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise to respond to these arguments.
Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.
I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.
Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off case arguments
Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.
I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.
I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.
I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.
Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).
It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.
Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.
Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.
Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)
Yes. Countless times.
What does chairing a round involve? (required)
How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?
World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POI’s) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.
What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)
I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.
When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.
These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.
The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)
Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.
World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?
World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?
Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.
How do you resolve model quibbles?
Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.
How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?
I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.