TOC Digital Speech and Debate Series 2
2023 — NSDA Campus, US
Lincoln-Douglas (MS-Nov) Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideTopshelf
- I'm fine w speed but slow down on interps and analytics
- Default to comparative worlds over truth testing.
- If I feel a piece of evidence is miscut or does not say what the debater claims it says, I will evaluate that evidence according to what it actually says.
LARP
This is what I'm most familiar with. I have read counterplans, disads, PICs, etc. and am comfortable voting for any of them. In these debates, clear weighing between impacts and strong evidence comparison are what are most likely to win my ballot.
Ks:
A good Kritik has three things in my opinion: a framing argument/ROB that frames why I should prioritize the impacts of the Kritik, link specific to the plan, and an alternative that I can easily understand and that actually does something. I primarily went for the cap K, and soft left affirmatives from time to time, but am comfortable evaluating most Ks, unless they involve high theory. However, I will have a high brightline for the explanation of the K.
T/Theory:
Prob won't vote on dumb theory arguments but comfortable evaluating most t or theory debates. I think 2 condo is fine but ill vote on the theory argument. above 3 condo, I'll prob err aff. I default drop the debater, competing interps, no RVI’s. If shell is frivolous, I'll lean other way.
Phil:
I went for phil sometimes in highschool, and I think phil debates are actually fun. However, I prefer phil arguments with a few well explained and carded warrants rather than a bunch of blippy warrants.
Tricks:
I have a very high threshold for voting on these.
General: Debate is a game that is played for the purpose of winning, but it may also be a game with very personal elements. So, in the round, remember to be respectful and inclusive. Tell me the weighing mechanism to employ when deciding who should win, dispute which weighing mechanism is superior, and explain why you win using that weighing mechanism. It's also always better to have more structure and signposting. Unless otherwise instructed, I evaluate the round using the technical components of the flow.
Theory: I can handle anything. I prefer it when it's utilized to really check for abuse in the round rather than just as a time waste, but I'll vote on it regardless. I'm not a fan of the debate around standards vs. voters.
Speed / Speaker Points: I don't mind if you speak quickly, but be clear and use great word economy. Don't use your speed to exclude other teams from the debate; it will cost you speaker points, and I am open to theoretical and critical arguments against it. Otherwise, go at your own pace. Instead of persuasiveness, speaker points are granted based on the quality and competitiveness of the arguments presented.
I am a former high school LD, PuFo, and Parli debater, I also did Parli in college and am a member of Pi Kappa Delta. I have a BA Degree in Sociology with minors in History, Political Science, and Economics. I am the NFA-LD(1 vs 1 Policy) debate coach at Simpson College and the Assistant Director of Speech and Debate at Kent Denver School. I also have 2 Masters Degrees.
If you want to read a nicer version of my paradigm please look up my good friend David Sylva's page it is basically mine written much nicer =)
I have been involved in speech and debate for 10+ years on and off, and I am a mix of Tabula Rasa and Game judging. I am a flow-heavy judge, so refer back to the flow. Make my job as easy as possible tell me what's happening.
Please put me on the email chain: gillsteven94@gmail.com.. or: Just create a speechdrop (https://speechdrop.net/)
Spreading- Don't care, however if your opponent or another judge does not want spreading then DO NOT spread. But, read as fast or as slow as you want. I can hear and understand around 350-450 wpm, it honestly depends on my mood and attention that day, PLEASE ASK BEFORE ROUND STARTS!!
Signposting- VERY VERY IMPORTANT. Make my job as easy as possible tell me where you're at on the flow and where you're going, you have 15-30 sec for an off-time roadmap USE IT!!!
K's- Make sure you run them correctly, and appropriately, and make sure they apply(Links Matter). You can K a K. Honestly it's your round just run it. I am familiar with a lot of K literature but I need and want you to explain it to me.
Topicality's- I am unsure about topicality still. I will vote on proven abuse... But I will vote on potential abuse sometimes.. Honestly just convince me you are correct.
Theory- Love it, I coached a theory hack at Simpson and I find theory very very fun =). Again just convince me you are correct.
Framework Debate- Love it, as a former LDer.
Definitions Debate- Love it, once again as a former LDer
Voting issues- Very important, TELL ME WHY YOU WIN!!!!!!!!!
Like I said I am TOTALLY open to anything, 100% Tabula Rasa and Game, whatever I have on my flow is what I use to decide who wins. Sometimes I make weird facial expressions just ignore them, I might be thinking about how and why I'm writing the way I am or thinking about my pen's smooth writing, or anything weird so just ignore my face lol.
Side note: the most important part of this activity is the educational value YOU'RE getting out of this. NO MEME cases, and nothing stupid, I am on Discord and Reddit DAILY so I do know what's going on in the community. Stock issues are VERY important you should know them and refer back to them whenever possible. IF you can prove your opponents are de-valuing the education of the debate that's a big plus(On that note it is important to PROVE that they are de-valuing the education of the debate. DO NOT just tell me they are you MUST PROVE IT). I can't stress this enough DON'T make me do work for you, yes I know all about Kant and Marx and Butler and all the big-wig philosophers and I know how they link to everything but YOU must tell me explicitly your links AND your impacts, they are literally the most important thing in round don't forget to do some Impact Calc/weighing in round. Have fun though everyone, this is an amazing and rewarding activity and do your best. =)
Hi! I'm Amy.
I last debated LD about 25 years ago in high school. This means I am not familiar with any progressive arguments, and I will deduct speaker points if I do not understand your argument.
Please no spreading. I would greatly prefer you annunciate clearly instead of speed.
LD:
I do not expect spreading, please use more traditional arguments (I am not familiar with K's, CP's, theory, etc.)
Please please please talk at a normal conversational speed. Any faster and I will not be able to understand your arguments at all. This is extremely important!!!!!
Voters! I expect voters clearly explaining why you have won the debate. Voters are essential to my understanding and help me make my decision. Voters are a must.
TLDR; I am a parent judge so please no progressive arguments, no spreading, stay respectful towards your opponent, and always do voters!
Thank you and good luck in your round!
I am a parent judge and this will be my first experience judging a debate. I am a lay judge; I would ask that you speak slowly and clearly.
Yes email chain. No SpeechDrop. greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com
Label email chains. Preferred naming convention -- "Newark Invitational R5 F2: Newark Science TO [AFF] v RU-N TO [NEG]"
-----
I always have a headache. I am always tired. My back always hurts. Please don't make my suffering worse.
My job is to listen, flow, and adjudicate. Your job is to win, take notes, and leave. Both of our jobs should be done as efficiently as possible.
-----
Notes based on various articles to set community norms:
- Many of you don't even deserve the speaks you ask for lol. I will not grant speaker points based on asks/in-round arguments.
- I will not disclose speaker points.
- I flow by ear, not by doc (ever unless I'm excruciatingly tired and I will warn everyone). I was trained to flow as a HS freshman by listening to college policy so I think I'm uhhhh pretty good.
Actual content:
- Do what you prepared to do. I want to see the best version of you. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask whenever; I love a good "I'm going to see you again, how do you feel about X?". My "hard no" is tricks and I know you know what that means.
- "It's not tech over truth. It's tech and truth." - some wise old Black man. Win the flow and don't have bad vibes.
- I think strategic/critical thinking is good, we're in an academic activity. I want to leave the room thinking "woah, everyone should debate like that kid."
Temitope as a person things:
- Be good people. I hate being in awkward situations and it seems that "you" being weird/a bully/generally unlikeable lmao would in fact create, an awkward situation.
- Do not try to appeal to me as a person. I'm but a soulless being forced by the entourage rule to adjudicate (I'm serious). Don't treat this as an invitation to also be soulless though. If you act like you don't want to be there my ears are going to close as a function of evolutionary defenses built up against being bored to death and your speaker points will suffer.
Debaters should have clarity of thought and should be able to articulate their views clearly. The main points while judging would be the logical and analytical thinking of the participant and the temperament to handle rebuttals during the debate.
I am a parent judge and so I am not professionally trained. However, I have been judging since last few years (mainly judging LD these days).
I care about technical aspects of debate and expect you to follow those (such as, if there are specific tournament policies/expectations then you must be aware of and follow those). Beyond that I am very open minded and look for your passion when you present your case and do rebuttal.
I like debater who understands that there is line between "being assertive" and "being aggressive". Show sportsmanship.
Your speed - I would prefer if you present your case with normal speed as that will help me understand it better but I am fine if you prefer to go fast. That would not go against you. I normally read your case.
I assess overall proceedings but rebuttal is very critical to me - try to respond to all the objections/questions of your opponents but more important is how and what you respond with - in terms of data points, justification, impact and, through that, how you strengthen your case/argument. During CX, I like to see how to find loopholes in opponents case/argument and how you build trap.
To me - it's not that big point if you come across dominating (through your speaking style/tone/body language or speed etc). That's an advantage but not everything. I give more weightage to things such as, how structured and logical you are in handling conflicts, building traps, etc and strengthening your case.
Please email me your case and the documents at raj_may6@yahoo.com