Damien Winter Middle School and Novice Invitational
2022 — La Verne, CA/US
Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
"The game of chess is like a sword fight. You must think first before you move. Toad style is immensely strong and immune to nearly any weapon. When properly used it's almost invincible." - Wu-Tang Clan 93'
| William Agustin | Damien High School '24 | Varsity Policy Debater |
- Don't be mean to others; I get it's a debate and things might get heated, but don't resort to being hateful or rude. Be passionate and professional. I love to see debates where people seem to actually be enjoying what they do
- I'm generally a nice guy when it comes to speaker points. If you are decent, you'll be getting anywhere from a 28.0 - 29.0.
- I like jokes only if they are funny. I'll put a list of things I like and +0.2 speaks if you make a reference to any of those.
- Tech > Truth
- Feel free to ask me questions. I've spent all this time debating and I'd love to help anyone on their own debate journey. Don't feel a question is too dumb or stupid because trust me I've been there.
- Stephen Lewis owes me $5; Omar Darwish reminds me of the BFG except hostile.
- Do whatever you like, I've been through it all in terms of debate and can understand most things.
Update for the 2022-23 Season
- This topic makes me hate debate
- SPREAD CLEARLY! I am not a robot. If you miss parts of your theory or all of it and you decide to go for it, I will not hesitate to vote it down. This should be rare, however, as I am very used to spreading at this stage of my experience in debate.
- Explain the Violation and Interpretation. For conditionality, please don't just say "Condo is bad. *Lists XYZ Impacts*" but actually give me an interpretation of how many off cases are allowed and why your opponent's amount is abusive. Makes the debate so much easier for both of us. I haven't been exposed to much theory violations besides the top level, so make sure you say your interpretation and violation clearly.
- Clipping, Racial/ Derogatory Slurs, and extremely offensive or hateful language won't be tolerated and will result in either losing the round or severely low speaker points. I won't be a complete police officer and punish you if you skip maybe a line or two, paragraphs and more are an issue. In terms of clipping, I won't punish you unless the other team calls you out.
- Love this argument by the way ONLY if debated right.
- Creative and smart internal links (ie Clash, Limits and Ground, Portable Skills, etc.) are very persuading to me BUT make sure the internal link makes sense and that your interpretation actually accesses that internal link. Always extend the terminal impact: Fairness or Education. An explanation of how fairness and education makes debate better is really great and persuasive.
- Make sure to include all parts (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact)
- Impact Calculus is a must especially if you are going for it alone or as a Net Benefit
- Genuinely think generic disads are underutilized so don't hesitate to use them if you enjoy those args!
- In terms of theory on counterplans, generally I'm going to lean neg.
- Perms: If you want to have a perm as a legitimate strat in your 2AR/1AR, I like well explained perms, not just a blip then later extrapolated. Actually tell me what the world of the perm looks like and why it is net better than the counterplan other than "They aren't mutually exclusive". If you want to make a PDCP arg since you think it's just plan plus, make sure to actually explain that to me.
- ATTENTION NOVICES! Add a Net Benefit please :D A net benefit is a disadvantage that applies to the affirmative but not your counterplan. It's the only way it's actually competitive!
- I enjoy and understand the Kritik. I had the pleasure of debating with the reincarnation of Jacques Lacan, Prevail De Rox, which gave me a new appreciation and understanding of the K. I am very familiar with common Kritiks (ie Capitalism K, Security K, Set Col K, etc) and other more advanced Kritiks but regardless of my knowledge I want the explanation all the same: clear.
- Link Analysis: In a round I went for Baudrillard, a wise judge told me the steps to good link analysis: 1) Explanation - Explain the link and don't just extend the warrants of the card, actually apply those warrants onto their case. It makes me very happy when you pull specific instances of their plan or solvency and compare it to your link. 2) Quoting Sources - Use specific lines from your link card, especially if it matches up well with your opponent's case. 3) Impacting - On top of extending your impact card's warrants, explain why the link leads to the impact. 4) Turns Case - Show how the links or your impact completely turn or at least outweigh case.
- Extend case in the 2NR if you are going for the K unless it totally turns case.
- Say judge kick, don't expect me to just do it.
- Perms on the Counterplan portion pretty much apply here: explain your perms basically.
Things About Me
- If you make a joke about a person named Roan Murphy I will give you +0.2
Policy debater for Damien, class of 25
Please don't be rude to your opponents before, during, or after the debate. Being rude will affect your speaker points and may even result in a ballot for the other team for serious offenses.
As a general note, read what you want, I don't have a strong opinion on any policy arguments.
I try to be tech over truth, but I won't vote on nonsense arguments unless completely dropped by the other team.
Time your speeches yourself, I often forget to set a timer.
I am not that good at flowing, but I will not flow off the speech doc. I am okay with speed, but I won't be able to flow is the speech is too unclear for me. Slowing down on the tags will help with my flow, but you shouldn't go light speed on the warrants in the card.
Competing interps > Reasonability
Rehighlights should be read instead of inserted.
Most CPs are probably good
Condo is probably good
I like it when debaters describe in round abuse, along with their usual standards for T.
I also like generic off-case arguments being made into a case specific off-case with a good link card or solvency card, it would be just as good as a case-specific off-case argument.
Even though it is very possible to win on just the perm, a net benefit to the perm would go a long way. This could be a solvency deficit to the CP in which only the perm would solve.
0% risk of a DA is possible to achieve, but it will probably be very hard to achieve it, so make sure there is some sort of offense such as aff outweighs or a turn on the DA flow.
The argument I have the least experience with is the K, so make there is a good explanation of it for me to be comfortable voting for it, especially if it has a high complexity to it instead of a simpler one like the security K.
I like impact comparison and turns on FW for the K, besides the ones on the K itself.
I don't think I have the experience to judge a K-aff, so you shouldn’t read one in front of me.
For LD and PF, I don't know much about those events, so I will probably evaluate the arguments in those categories as I do with policy arguments. The only difference for LD is condo, which I will lean more towards the aff with shorter speeches in a round compared to a policy round.
Feel free to ask me anything about my paradigm before the round starts.
Here is my email: Rghibaudo23@damien-hs.edu
Debated Policy in Highschool for 3ish years
comfortable with anything -- don't be mean to the other team....
my role model is Stephen Lewis
this is a joke^ (nah hes a good debater and judge tho)
okay but actually:
Damien High School - class of 24
Currently a Junior
ngl js run what u want
im qualled to the TOC if u care about that
i currently run a K-aff but im p new to it
About Me/Debate Background:
My name is Sean Kassounian, I am currently a Freshman at Damien High School and I am taking an Honors Debate Course. Next year, I have enrolled in AP Debate for my Sophomore year which is taught by Mr. Lewis, the Damien Debate Coach. I have a good experience revolving around the basics of debate and how a team should perform, and I have flowed multiple high school debates.
How do you judge?
I do base a lot of my decisions on argumentation and the severity of dropping arguments and if they were poorly executed, but I also have a strong belief in how debaters present themselves. You should definitely have a good understanding of what arguments you give to the debate; don't have a DA or CP that you have no idea of what it's about.
More about my judging style:
I don't have an issue with people reading fast, but only if they are skilled enough. If you want to read fast, make sure you are able to be heard clearly and to not make many speaking mistakes. However, I do prefer if you read at a medium pace, but I won't hold anyone against how fast or slow they speak. I'm not a big fan of kritiks due to many debaters not having enough knowledge about them, so I don't prefer teams debating on it.
Make sure you get to solvency (I don't mind where you put solvency in your 1AC, as long as it is read)
Know the speech order of a generic 2AC (ex: where case should be and what the offcase order is)
Do NOT drop any offcase arguments in the Constructive speeches (any offcases dropped in the 2AC will affect my decision)
Have more than 1 offcase (I prefer 3-5 if possible)
Use CPs and DAs that are understandable for YOUR team, I won’t take off points based on how prestige your CP or DA is.
Don’t overload on many offcase arguments when making your 1NC, it could put you at a disadvantage. However, if you are able to handle over 6 offcase arguments, I don’t have a problem with it.
I expect both teams to be respectful of each other, any form of trash talk or rudeness will weigh into your team's overall points.
HAVE FUN! This should be a good experience for everyone and I want debaters to have some fun and not be extremely serious.
Be lively with your speeches and CXs. Have some confidence in your arguments and enunciate your speeches; this will make me feel that you are compassionate about the topic and you care.
Make sure you know the majority of your arguments top to bottom, having clear and well-researched answers and evidence when debating. This will be beneficial for your team when I am making a decision.
add me to the chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
debated at damien for 4 years
have been both a 2A and 2N -- 2N for longer which means I probably lean a lot more neg on some questions like theory
if you cannot figure out how to send an email in less than 5 minutes, then do not expect me how to figure out how to give you decent points
whether new arguments are allowed in the last rebuttals is for the debaters to point out and decide. unless its the 2AR. then you get no new arguments.
read rehighlightings - i won't evaluate inserts. if its a panel and im overruled, then so be it.
tag team cx is fine for answer but not for asking -- more geared towards novices, if you're varsity do what you want
tech > truth
I feel comfortable evaluating every kind of debate. If you want to go for cap against an aff that says the world is structured by a clever set of 1's and 0's, go for it. If you want to go for a textually intrinsic perm against a counterplan that results in the AFF, go for it. In my opinion, the purpose and real benefit of debate is being exposed to less commonplace political ideas and thinking about the efficacy and potentialities of those ideas. I care much less about what your political idea is, and more about your ability to articulate that idea in a way that both makes sense and is persuasive.
Things I like
-Specific pic's (the smaller the thing you pic out of, the better)
-Impact turn debates - stuff like dedev, wipeout, [x] war good, death good, whatever. people get oddly ideological about some of these but i am of the camp that thinks if an argument is so bad/morally apprehensible, it should be relatively easy to defeat.
-Well thought out K affs that take a compelling theoretical/philosophical stance that impact/link turns most negative positions while also condemning the debate community for something we have done/failed to do
-Offense on framework contextual to what the aff's model of debate promotes that give you in-roads into aff offense e.g. a reason why their subject formation is bad -- im probably better for procedural impacts just cus im inclined to think that education/skills impacts surrender too much offense to aff impact turns
-Alts that fiat global revolutions (there is a limit to this)
-Deleuze - love this guy and if you can pull it off in front of me i will be happy -- if you read it just cus its in this paradigm and have no idea what you're saying your max points are 27
-Specific neg strats that make 2As implode (i hate 2A's btw)
-Redefining words in the res and link turning the neg's standard < impact turning the neg's model and have a counter-interp that provides uniqueness for your impact turns and solves your offense
-Policy affs with less impacts and better quality internal links/ev > shotgunning 10,000 impacts and hoping one of them sticks
-Well developed theory debates (only theory that is reject the team if dropped is condo, the rest is all debatable but prob not the best judge for "they dropped theory on a counterplan that wasn't extended in the block, vote for me ;O")
-Specific DA's and CP's
-CP's with interesting competition questions (not certainty and immediacy, because those are not interesting they are boring and i hate them)
Things I don't like
-Process counterplans - should be a last resort generally
-Framework speeches that don't mention the aff
-"No perms in a method debate" - what is a method debate??? and why does that mean you don't need a competitive alternative
-Cap vs. K affs where the link is "you didn't talk about cap and that's mean so we need to build anti-capitalist buildings and stuff"
-Evidence written by debate coaches/former debaters outside of their academic profession
- All the fake lefties in debate lol
- Teams that are late
- Perf con - being flex is good. you shouldn't be theoretically penalized for not playing into the strictly k/policy binary
don't be annoying. that includes being overly aggressive/rude (there's a pretty clear bright line between being assertive/confident and being annoying), racist, sexist, or what have you. in the event that something of this nature occurs, i will nuke your speaks or intervene with tab if i feel it's necessary.
above all else, have fun. making me laugh will help your speaks.
+0.5 points if you make fun of omar darwish in an actually funny way
+1.0 points if you give me $13,000 before the round so I can pay off my illegal fishing fines
poems are a distraction tactic from breaking away from the capitalist system - ∞
Affiliations and History:
Please email (email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org) me all of the speeches before you begin.
I am the Director of Debate at Damien High School in La Verne, CA.
I was the Director of Debate for Hebron High School in Carrollton, TX from 2020-2021.
I was an Assistant Coach at Damien from 2017-2020.
I debated on the national circuit for Damien from 2009-2013.
I graduated from Occidental College in Los Angeles with a BA in Critical Theory and Social Justice.
I completed my Master's degree in Social Justice in Higher Education Administration at The University of La Verne.
My academic work involves critical university studies, Georges Bataille, poetics, and post-colonialism.
Author of Suburba(in)e Surrealism (2021).
Yearly Round Numbers:
I try to judge a fair bit each year.
NATO Topic Round Count: 37
I have judged over 50 rounds on the Water Topic.
I judged around 40 rounds on the CJR topic.
I judged 29 rounds on the Arms topic (2019-2020) (not including practice rounds without a decision rendered).
I judged a bit of LD (32 debates) on the Jan-Feb Topic (nuke disarm) in '19/'20.
I judged around 25 debates on the Immigration topic (2018-2019) on the national circuit.
I judged around 50 rounds on the Education topic (2017-2018) on the national circuit.
LD Protocol:I have a 100% record voting against teams that only read Phil args/Phil v. Policy debates. Adapt or lose.
NDT Protocol: I will rarely have any familiarity with the current college topic and will usually only judge 12-15 rounds pre-NDT.
Please make your T and CP acronyms understandable.
Front Matter Elements:
If you need an accommodation of any kind, please email me before the round starts.
I want everyone to feel safe and able to debate- this is my number one priority as a judge.
I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.
I flow 1AC impact framing, inherency, and solvency straight down on the same page nowadays.
Speed is not an issue for me, but I will ask you to slow down (CLEAR) if you are needlessly sacrificing clarity for quantity--especially if you are reading T or theory arguments.
I will not evaluate evidence identifiable as being produced by software, bots, algorithms etc. Human involvement in the card’s production must be evident unique to the team, individual, and card. This means that evidence you directly take from open source must be re-highlighted at a minimum. You should change the tags and underlining anyways to better fit with your argument’s coherency.
I privilege technical debating and the flow. I try to get as much down as I possibly can and the little that I miss usually is a result of a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker or because the actual causal chain of the idea does not make consistent sense for me (I usually express this on my face). Your technical skill should make me believe/be able to determine that your argument is the truth. That means warrants. Explain them, impact them, and don't make me fish for them in the un-underlined portion of the six paragraph card that your coach cut for you at a camp you weren't attending. I find myself more and more dissatisfied with debating that operates only on the link claim level. I tend to take a formal, academic approach to the evaluation of ideas, so discussions of source, author intentions and 'true' meaning, and citation are both important to me and something that I hope to see in more debates.
The best debates for me to judge are ones where the last few rebuttals focus on giving me instructions on what the core controversies of the round are, how to evaluate them, and what mode of thinking I should apply to the flow as a history of the round. This means that I'm not going to do things unless you tell me to do them on the flow (judge kick, theory 'traps' etc.). When instructions are not provided or articulated, I will tend to use (what I consider to be) basic, causal logic (i.e. judicial notice) to find connections, contradictions, and gaps/absences. Sometimes this happens on my face--you should be paying attention to the physical impact of the content of your speech act.
I believe in the importance of topicality and theory. No affs are topical until proven otherwise.
Non-impacted theory arguments don't go a long way for me; establish a warranted theory argument that when dropped will make me auto-vote for you. This is not an invitation for arbitrary and non-educational theory arguments being read in front of me, but if you are going to read no neg fiat (for example), then you better understand (and be able to explain to me) the history of the argument and why it is important for the debate and the community.
Reading evidence only happens if you do not make the debate legible and winnable at the level of argument (which is the only reason I would have to defer to evidentiary details).
I find framework to be a boring/unhelpful/poorly debated style of argument on both sides. I want to hear about the ballot-- what is it, what is its role, and what are your warrants for it (especially why your warrants matter!). I want to know what kind of individual you think the judge is (academic, analyst, intellectual etc.). I want to hear about the debate community and the round's relationship within it. These are the most salient questions in a framework debate for me. If you are conducting a performance in the round and/or debate space, you need to have specific, solvable, and demonstrable actions, results, and evidences of success. These are the questions we have to be thinking about in substantial and concrete terms if we are really thinking about them with any authenticity/honesty/care (sorge). I do not think the act of reading FW is necessarily constitutive of a violent act. You can try to convince me of this, but I do start from the position that FW is an argument about what the affirmative should do in the 1AC.
If you are going to go for Fairness, then you need a metric. Not just a caselist, not just a hypothetical ground dispensation, but a functional method to measure the idea of fairness in the round/outside the round i.e. why are the internal components (ground, caselist, etc.) a good representation of a team's burden and what do these components do for individuals/why does that matter. I am not sure what that metric/method is, but my job is not to create it for you. A framework debate that talks about competing theories for how fairness/education should be structured and analyzed will make me very happy i.e. engaging the warrants that constitute ideas of procedural/structural fairness and critical education. Subject formation has really come into vogue as a key element for teams and honestly rare is the debate where people engage the questions meaningfully--keep that in mind if you go for subject formation args in front of me.
In-round Performance and Speaker Points:
An easy way to get better speaker points in front of me is by showing me that you actually understand how the debate is going, the arguments involved, and the path to victory. Every debater has their own style of doing this (humor, time allocation, etc.), but I will not compromise detailed, content-based analysis for the ballot.
I believe that there is a case for in-round violence/damage winning the ballot. Folks need to be considerate of their behavior and language. You should be doing this all of the time anyways.
While I believe that high school students should not be held to a standard of intellectual purity with critical literature, I do expect you to know the body of scholarship that your K revolves around: For example, if you are reading a capitalism K, you should know who Marx, Engels, and Gramsci are; if you are reading a feminism k, you should know what school of feminism (second wave, psychoanalytic, WOC, etc.) your author belongs to. If you try and make things up about the historical aspects/philosophical links of your K, I will reflect my unhappiness in your speaker points and probably not give you much leeway on your link/alt analysis. I will often have a more in-depth discussion with you about the K after the round, so please understand that my post-round comments are designed to be educational and informative, instead of determining your quality/capability as a debater.
I am 100% DONE with teams not showing up on time to disclose. A handful of minutes or so late is different than showing up 3-5 min before the round begins. Punish these folks with disclosure theory and my ears will be open.
CX ends when the timer rings. I will put my fingers in my ears if you do not understand this. I deeply dislike the trend of debaters asking questions about 'did you read X card etc.' in cross-x and I believe this contributes to the decline of flowing skills in debate. While I have not established a metric for how many speaker points an individual will lose each time they say that phrase, know that it is something on my mind. I will not allow questions outside of cross-x outside of core procedural things ('can you give the order again?,' 'everyone ready?' etc.). Asking 'did you read X card' or 'theoretical reasons to reject the team' outside of CX are NOT 'core procedural things.'
Do not read these types of arguments in front of me:
Arguments that directly call an individual's humanity into account
Arguments based in directly insulting your opponents
Arguments that you do not understand
Please include both on the email chain: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
All emails should have “Tournament name+ Round# + aff team code+ neg team code” in their title and please send a word document.
2022 -23 Update : I feel like at this point T, DA and CP debates have a general norm in terms of evaluation (I.E. as long as you don't make mistakes I will vote on it) and my preference won't be much different. Go for whatever you want.
In terms of K/fw, idea testing is key to education and a key part of the debate activity. Procedural fairness is different from structural fairness.
Alt dont have to be material or fiated (unless ofc aff make the argument it have to be)
You don't have to read a plan but if you want to cheat you better know to to justify it.
Hello! My name is Yueshuya but you can call me Josh.
TOC'23, 2A/1N, Pronoun he/him.
My judging methodology is very much influenced by my coaches so if you have time you can check out their paradigm here, and here.
Speed is fine by me just make sure you do not sacrifice clarity. If I did not get an argument on the flow, I will not evaluate it.
Everything is up for debate. There are some technical defaults I fall back to, only if you do not specify in round. Proper argument developemtn and judge framing will get my vote on any arguments.
I favor debates that go beyond simple card reading. Evidence comparison and clash are key aspects of formulating rebuttal speeches.
It's much easier to punish the worse mistake in the round with my ballot than it is to evaluate every strategic move.
DO NOT insert cards, either send card doc post-round and extend analytic inround, or re-highlight and read it
Tech > truth
perm is just a test of competition
dropped arg are tru
utill good / risk of impact = (probability * Magnitude)/timeframe
Faienss is a impact
Method v Method get perms
I give speaker points from 25 to 30 with an average point of 27.5, i.e. a 27.5 means you perform a proper debate.
I am aware I probably give low speaking points compared to other judges, it should not mean you underperformed , I simply give speaker points on a lower scale.
25-26 = need improvement
27 -28 = an proper round of debate
28 -29 = varsity level debate performance,
29 + = your ethos, performance and argument formation are perfect
29.5+ = you have out performed all expectations and surprised me
DO NOT DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
Steal preps, Insult your opponent,
Be late to disclosure(PLS PLS PLS PRACTICE GOOD DISCLOSURE, I understand maybe sometimes you do not controll your wiki's but at least disclose via email when you got your pairings.),
be mean when you know you are winning.
I will reflect your in round behavior in your speaker points.
Note For Online:
Please make sure your computer and wifi is working prior to the round. if you find yourself in a technical difficulty and cannot hear, or missed a speech, Please email me and let me know. I do not want anyone misperform due to tech issues.
please open your camera if possible
Speak as clear as you can before going as fast as possible. Slow down on analyticals so I do not miss some of the flow.
Each team gets 1 technical error/bathroom/emergency call out. during which both teams stop prep.
If I catch you clipping you will get a 20 and probably lose my ballot.
I’ve bolded what you need to skim preround. Table of contents below for phrases you can ctrl+f to get to a specific portion of the paradigm. There’s also a ctrl+f section for opinions on specific arguments. My argumentative opinions are pretty much the same across all events. Feel free to email me if you have any questions.
Here's a table of contents - you can ctrl+f any of these phrases to get to a certain portion of the paradigm - i understand that this whole paradigm is unreasonably long to read pre-round --
-"actual paradigm/explanation of my thoughts and feelings about debate"
-"some general notes"
-"miscellaneous odds n ends"
-"opinions on specific positions (ctrl+f section)"
within the specific positions section, here are the labels for each position, so you can ctrl+f for those if you want: "case", "planless affs", "t/framework vs planless affs", "theory", "topicality (not framework)", "tricks", "kritiks (neg)", "disads", "counterplans", and "traditional debate".
-"arguments i will never vote for"
Hi! I'm Nethmin! I use she/her pronouns!
The Hill School ’20, Pitzer College ’24 (double majoring in cs-math and economics).
I coach policy at Damien High School and I coach a few LDers independently. I've coached both sides of almost every style of argument.
My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't care what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I would consider myself to be competent at evaluating whatever debate you want to have. My debate history should not dictate what you read in your round. I think people should stop treating debate as their immortality project and let the students in the activity do what they want.
ideological flexibility is what i value most in debate. judges who hack against k teams and judges who hack against policy teams are equally objectionable to me, all else equal. i do not believe that the arguments a team reads are a reflection of how good/bad of a person they are (except, of course, cases where people do/say things that are egregious). i try to be someone who will vote on any argument as long as it's not delivered in a way that's morally abhorrent (bullying your opponent = bad) and it meets the minimum standards to be considered a complete argument (claim, warrant, impact).
General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!
tldr do what you do best; claims, warrants, and impacts are necessary; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; i care about argument engagement not argument style; stay hydrated & be a good person.
email@example.com for LD rounds (you can also use this email to contact me if you need anything)
firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com for CX rounds (please add both!)
Please have the email chain set up by the time the round is supposed to start - don't wait for me to be in the room. I'm always coaching at tournaments, so I likely won't be in the room for the round I'm judging until the time when the round is starting. Set up the chain beforehand, feel free to wait until I'm there to send it out.
actual paradigm/explanations of my thoughts and feelings about debate:
All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:
1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).
2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (claim, warrant, impact).
3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).
4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.
I'll vote for whichever team wins the line-by-line. It would be nearly impossible to change my mind on this absent something egregious and very out-of-the-norm occurring in-round.
I don't care what style of argument you read. My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it! I have far fewer set-in-stone debate opinions than most coaches/judges.
I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.
Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else.These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.
Some general notes
Policy stuff: I tend to be a good judge for policy teams that read high-quality evidence, are able to explain/contextualize their args against a variety of different positions, and have a good understanding of the topic. I tend to be a worse judge for policy teams that don't do the above, and/or rely on judges to do a substantial amount of work for them. I'm fairly familiar with the topic; the amount of explanation you need to do on acronyms/topic-specific intricacies is inversely proportional to how mainstream/close to the core of the topic the argument/concept is.
K stuff: I tend to be a good judge for K teams that are technical, good at argument engagement/comparative analysis, and understand how their criticism interacts with the core of the topic. I tend to be a worse judge for K teams aren't able to adjust their level of explanation to cater to judges who don't exclusively research/coach their criticism of choice - this isn't because I want to vote against them, I just need to understand what they want me to vote for.
Framing and judge instruction are important. Your speeches should tell me how the arguments in the round interact with each other. Most rounds where a team is unhappy with my decision are rounds where that team failed to weigh, compare args, and give judge instruction. Write my ballot for me in the 2nr/2ar!
Trad team vs circuit team -- I don’t think it’s anyone’s burden to shift their style of debate to accommodate anyone else. I do think it is the burden of both teams to respect all styles of debate and not be rude or condescending. You should each debate how you debate best and I will evaluate the round you give me. Both teams should engage each others' arguments.
Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time - it takes time for me to find the place on the flow where you want me to flow a certain arg. It's generally more efficient to handle arguments in the order they were on the flow, or at least try to jump around as little as possible. Also, I think that debaters being able to slow/clear the other team is key to accessibility, please be accommodating. I trust that all participants in the round will request and respond to accessibility-related accommodations in good faith; I have no interest in policing who "needs" accommodations, I just want everyone to be able to engage in the round.
Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.
Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round. Things like not being able to answer the majority of the questions during your cx will negatively impact your points, as will going for messy, confusing, and uphill 2nrs/2ars when there were easier and cleaner routes to the ballot.
Speaker points are scaled to the tournament. A 30 at an abysmal finals bid with 10 entries and a cow as a potential bid round opponent is different from a 30 at Glenbrooks or MBA. I'll be a bit more generous with points at tournaments where there's a 4-2 screw (or another similar consideration). I try to only give 30s to debaters that I think meet a decent standard of being technically proficient and argumentatively adept - even if I think you'll win the Online Nonsense Classic, I'll probably not give you a 30 unless I think you could hold your own at a tournament that is at least semi-competitive.
I try to give points as follows:
30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive
29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots
29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined
28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix
28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round
27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors
27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors
26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament
25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.
This scale is based purely on argumentation/in-round strategy. I definitely give extra points if you do things that are listed below in the section for how to improve your speaker points.
I think that I give fairly average points when compared to other judges in the policy community. I try not to contribute to point inflation. I scale points to the tournament to attempt to find a balance between rewarding good/flexible/consistent teams and not punishing teams for the nature of the tournament. The "bonus points" for things that make debate better will likely mitigate my giving "bad points," if that's something you think I do.
Things that you can do to improve your speaker points:
-debate well, be clear, and win decisively (this will always be the primary factor i consider when awarding points)
-be kind! make the round more enjoyable and be kind to your opponents, partner, and judges! i hate being in debate rounds that feel like divorce court!
-be accessible and accommodating. be nice about tech issues, be nice to newer teams, be considerate of accessibility requests, check tab postings/the wiki for pronouns, etc.
-adapt to things that happen in-round. adjust to judges saying "clear," watch for nonverbal reactions/visible confusion, and engage with args.
-disclose! go to the room after pairings to disclose the aff/past 2nrs. if you think you've disclosed particularly well (contact info, open source with highlighting, cite boxes w/ position names as the citation names, disclosing on your team wiki), let me know, and if i agree that you've disclosed well, i'll boost your speaks a bit!
Things that will actively get you bad speaks:
-discrimination of any sort (racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, etc), bullying, egregious misgendering (issues of discrimination also get you a fun talking-to and an email to your coach).
-misdisclosure/lying about disclosure. if you won't disclose, just say that! don't lie/purposefully be sketchy. there's obviously a difference between forgetting something minor (oops, sorry, forgot we have a few new solvency cards) and intentional/malicious lying (fully telling someone the wrong aff).
-unnecessarily rude/disruptive behavior during the other team's speeches. occasionally looking confused during speeches is just a normal reaction - i don't think anyone understands 100% of the arguments that exist in debate. however, constantly shaking your head, laughing during speeches, being really loud when talking to your partner during speeches, etc. are just not necessary!
-ad-homs & asking me to evaluate things that happened outside of the debate & making the debate about someone's personal life.
the notable exception to this is disclosure - this is pretty much the only out-of-round event that i'm fine evaluating debates about.
i don't want to evaluate callouts/judgments about your opponents' coach(es)/interpersonal incidents that occurred. if there is an issue you'd like me to address, tell me before the round and i'll do my best to handle it in a way that makes you comfortable + informs the relevant entities (coaches, tabroom, etc). this isn't to say that i believe problematic/unsafe members of the community don't deserve punishment, but rather, i don't think the way to go about it is to let 4 minors debate it out for 2 hours and then submit a ballot.
-attempts to avoid argument engagement/clash. examples include "you can't answer the k because you're not x identity," "neg must concede aff framing mechanism," "no neg fiat," and other similar strategies.
Miscellaneous odds n ends that didn't really fit in other sections of the paradigm:
1 -- I'm increasingly unconvinced by cards cut from articles written by debate coaches. This is not directed at any one specific person or style of argument. I'm not saying you can't make certain arguments, but I am saying that you should probably find actual academic literature that makes the argument. If there is only one person you can find who says the thing you want them to say, and that person is a debate coach, you should think about why the only person saying what you need them to say is a person who has a vested competitive interest in the thing they're saying being perceived as true. Do with this info what you will.
2 -- I would really strongly prefer that trigger warnings/content warnings/accessibility requests are decided pre-round as opposed to mid-round/by reading a procedural. I'm happy to help facilitate anything that's needed in order to ensure that both teams can engage equitably in the round. I'll still evaluate these debates if they come down to a theory debate, I'll just be not super happy.
3 -- The debate people that I spend a fair amount of time with are Tim Lewis, Chris Paredes, Zoe Rosenberg, Jared Burke, Aly Sawyer, Sam McLoughlin, and Eva Lamberson. This is quite a salad of people, and I don't even know if this info is helpful, but I figured I'd include it in case you're curious. This also doesn't mean that I agree with all of their opinions, but I do talk about debate with them a fair amount, so they've likely shaped how I think about debate as well as how I deliver RFDs. It's worth noting that I coach with the first four people on this list (Tim, Chris, Zoe, and Jared).
Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):
I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.
Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.
I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.
I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be much better for planless aff teams when they're straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.
T/framework vs planless affs:
I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material- "colonization didn't happen" is probably not the best strategy.
I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.
I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy - 2nrs that answer impact turns, make framing arguments, win the internal link to the aff's impacts, and generally are in control of the debate are much more enjoyable to evaluate than 2nrs that give me a generic extension of the framework offense that they're winning and then leave it up to me to weigh between their offense and their opponents' offense.
I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is. If your counterinterp can plausibly solve the core of the negative's offense, going for the ci will make more sense than if the aff doesn't say a word about the topic. The "no-topic-words-in-aff" teams will likely be more successful going for impact turns purely because the counterinterp will likely link to the neg's disads to the aff's model. This isn't to say that I'm opposed to mostly-topical affs going for impact turns or fully-non-t affs going for a counterinterp; just make sure you're able to adequately warrant what you're going for.
The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it. I am infinitely better for condo debates than I am for "must spec what state you're from," or whatever's cool these days. This isn't to say I have any super strong opinions about condo, but rather, I have rarely been able to find a warranted & convincing ballot story in rounds where theory arguments are unbearably frivolous.
I've noticed a trend in the policy community where a lot of theory debates tend to be resolved based on a judge's pre-existing biases/opinions regarding what is/isn't theoretically legitimate. I don't think I have any theory opinions that are so strong that I'd intervene/hack for a certain argument because of my opinions. If you can win that there's a violation, a reason your interp is good (and better than your opponent's interp), and a clear internal link to an impact, I'll vote for you.
Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.
Theory defaults: competing interps, drop the debater.
My defaults on RVIs: absent a "no RVIs" arg being made & won, I'll assume that RVIs are theoretically legitimate/I'll evaluate an RVI if it's made. This doesn't mean I'll insert an RVI if it's not made. I don't have a particularly strong opinion in either direction on the yes/no RVIs debate.
Topicality (not framework):
Same defaults as theory.
I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Negative teams that can clearly explain what their model includes/excludes and provide tangible examples of their abuse story are great! Negative teams whose arguments devolve into some flavor of "well i guess the aff doesn't feeeeeel topical" with no clear explanation of what is/isn't T are often better served going for different arguments. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.
Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. This isn't to say that you shouldn't go for these args in front of me (I actually find myself voting for them a non-zero amount) but rather, that you should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments more than anything.
Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):
I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:
1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)
2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented
3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument (claim, warrant, impact)
I value the explanation that you do in the round and the actual parts of the evidence you read, and I will not give you credit for the other musings/opinions/theories that I’m sure your author has.
I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be! I love judging good K teams; I less-than-love judging K teams that want to run from clash/argument engagement.
Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.
I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.
Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.
I tend to think that counterplans need to have a text that is written out in a speech doc and emailed to all participants in the round PRIOR to the speech in which it's read. There's something that feels sketchy about letting teams type out a text to send out after the 1nc (or even worse, after 1nc cx).
Arguments I will NEVER vote for:
-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).
-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).
-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")
if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.
I love clarity, emphasis, all that. Be confident when you're speaking.
Just have fun with this.
Freshie at Damien HS and did policy for a year.
My name is Justin Loza, and just call me Justin, or Loza, I don't really care.
How I Judge:
If you get through half an argument in your opening speeches, I probably won't count it, but if you want try to persuade me otherwise. I'm always up for that. If you want to know what argument preference I have, you're in luck, I don't have one. Just explain yourself to the fullest extent and don't give half baked arguments (watch out for this in your rebuttals).
I like debate's that don't just go back and forth about cards, I like debates where the people talking actually understand what their saying and could explain it good in their own words.
-Don't clip (skip around)
-No name calling, slurs, just Negative stuff like that, but if you're here you probably know better, I hope...
-Please give roadmaps/orders, and also make sure everyone is ready to go, before you go
-Be a good teammate, and overall good person in your round, if you do this you probably have bigger goals on your mind, make it easier and make a good name for yourself
I score my speaks based off of, again, how confident they are speaking, as well during Cx you gotta be on top of it to get good speaks.
My average will be a solid 27.5-28
+.5 if you just are awesome at all aspects (you'll know)
+.5 if you're funny, we need more laughter in a debate
- Email chain -- firstname.lastname@example.org
- Affiliation: Damien (Debater) - 2020 - Present
- I am a proud Indingoeus Person/Latino to countries all around the Americas.
- Call me: Mark/Markos
- I've debated the Criminal Justice Reform topic; the Water topic; and the Emerging Tech/NATO topic
- I've taken took part in/coached/judged in about 20 (give or take, I don't want to do the math) this year - I have a good understanding of the topic
- I was a 2n for about 2 years, and I was a 2a for the TOC on the water topic, so I am sympathetic to the 2AC, 1AR, and the 2NR - just don't drop the bag and you should be good.
- I am fine voting on anything - except if it's an impact turn to structural violence (i.e. racism good; colonization good; etc) -- I will not flow it and not evaluate it
- I enjoy K v K debate (or K debate writ large)
- I'm a performance debater - so claims about specific identities are always good.
- If you run set col with me and don't know what the lit is saying just for my ballot we are going to have a problem
- HOWEVER - I read both Policy and Kritikal Affs and Positions, so I am comfortable with most of the arguments.
- Yes Spreading - Just be clear - I flow what I hear - if you are unclear and I don't get it on my flow - you don't get it in the round.
- Yes! I love the K - my philosophies range from Some PoMo to Settler Colonialism (so Set Col, Psycho, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Cybernetics, Queer Pessimism, Orientalism, Feminism, Afro-Optimism/Pessimism, etc), but I am good with a majority of philosophies, as long as you can explain the links to the aff and they are developed well within the block, you should be fine.
- I like K debate where there is nuance, if you are reading blocks that your coach wrote prerd and dont know what you are saying, dont read the K.
- Link Debate: IF by the 2nr you have not given me a clear explanation of the link to the aff... you're not going to like how I vote.
- Alts: you can kick it - but you better have a really good link story as to why your links outweigh/negates any risk of the affirmative solvency mechanism and a great FW debate.
- Identity PTX - Go ahead - but make sure that you aren't being racist/appropriating a culture that you don't have an ontological relationship with. (If you don't know what that means you should not be reading Ks)
- I tend not to like voting on T - however, I will vote on T if you go for it.
- To get my ballot on T you need to:
1. Have a good story as to why X is cheating
2. Cite in round abuse (Losing links/ CP ground, strat skew, etc)
3. tell me why I should care specifically about cheating in that rd - if your T arg is way too vague, ill will not vote for it.
- I will not vote for nonsense theory - like disclosure, etc. these are bad arguments and I don't care.
- I dont think that CPs need a Solvency Advocacte, especially if its something that just came to you prerd. DO NOT take advantage of this and start reading 20 CPs with no Solvency Advocactes (I think the limit for me is 3 CPs)
- Read them as you want - explain what the mechanism of the CP is and why I should prefer it to the aff. Explain how the CP avoids the net benefit and we shouldn't have a problem.
- CP theory is bad - don't drop it and I won't vote on it.
- I'm going to quote one of my judges when I started debating "I don't know why people don't just go for the squo"
- If you think that the DA is sufficient to win a turns case argument - just go for the DA and case defense. If I don't have a clear explanation of the link story by the 2nr - you have made a mistake and will probably lose this debate (give me warrants as to why the aff doesn't solve but links to the DA.)
Notes/Random Stuff ab me:
- If you feel like you still have Qs about my paradigm feel free to ask me b4 the round/email me - I have nothing better to do in that 30 minutes of prep lol.
- If you give me you're best Grito ill give you +.2 speaks
- If you tell me something funny ill give you +.3 speaks
put me on the chain - email@example.com
tech over truth - i will flow all arguments and vote on what you extend into your final speeches. everything below this is a preference, not a rule.
read mostly policy arguments but feel pretty comfortable/have experience with all styles
default judge kick
good for competition debates
send perm texts before the 2ac
explain deficits in terms of aff impact/internal link scenarios
i evaluate args based on general risk with impact calc as a tie-breaker
good evidence is good
zero risk not a thing
offense/defense --- no preference for any particular standard just win your offense and do comparative impact calc
i evaluate reasonability like - does the substance crowd-out caused by reading topicality plus the offense via the counter interp outweigh the negs offense
k aff vs framework
try my best to be agnostic in these debates with no preference for any particular style --- framework is a strategy and if you are good at debating your side of the issue i will probably vote for you
explain your impacts! --- neg teams tend to assert that things like clash or fairness are intrinsic impacts without an explanation for such a claim. aff teams tend to assert structural problems about debate or repeat lines from the 1AC without explaining the warrants or how they solve it.
not persuaded by arguments about individual debaters
policy vs k / k v k
wasn't a huge k debater but i have read a lot of the common literature and often find these debates enjoyable
framework seems to always decide these debates. i find middle-ground frameworks much less persuasive than framework interps that exclude the case or the k altogether.
persuaded by the perm double bind vs fiated alternatives
not familiar with most k v k stuff but i will try and resolve the round based on the link explanation and impact calc
very little experience with non-util v kant phil but willing to evaluate any of it
i find arguments relating to the topic excluding plan affs persuasive given the way recent resolutions have been worded
defaults - competing interps, drop the debater, no rvis, t > theory > everything else
slow down when moving between warrants
TLDR - I am a junior at Damien high school, and I have been debating since freshmen year
Add me to the chain please -- email -- firstname.lastname@example.org
What I like:
-I am cool with tag-team/open cross
-tech over truth
-frame the ballot for me in the rebuttles
What I don't like:
-Non-disclosure (unless breaking new aff)
-People being late (There are some exceptions)
Overall have fun
If you have any questions about the debate please contact me I am happy to help, we are all learning here, and don't be afraid to ask questions
aff- read whatever, policy or k, if you read policy I prefer plan texts that are really specific and aren't just restating the resolution
theory- to win theory you need to prove in round abuse, if you don't you won't win on this
t- I don't especially like to watch t debates, this years, I find education impacts the most convincing but that doesn't mean that I won't vote for other impacts against it,
da- generic links arent great, the more specific the link the better the da,
cp- I enjoy adv cps or unique ways to solve the aff, I also enjoy creative pics
k- I'm an ok judge for the k, I'm good with basic stuff like cap and security, if you go for higher literature its probably safer to have a more in-depth explanation about it throughout the debate
+0.1 speaker points for making a NFL reference
+ another 0.1 points for complimenting the patriots
- Add me to the email chain (email@example.com)
- Sophomore Varsity Debater at Damien High School
- I have participated in about 12 Debate competitions in the Novice/JV CX 2021-2022 Water Topic
- I have participated in 4 Debate competitions in the JV/Varsity CX 2022-2023 NATO Topic
- I make sure to maintain the ability to effectively judge the outcome of a debate round.
- I don't mind speed/spreading - make sure it isn't absurdly sacrificing clarity for speed - make sure to indicate when you move on to a different argument.
- Tech debates are good. Warrant, indict authors, and compare evidence
- I judge off flows.
- I am fine with any arg type as long as you know what to do with it.
- for T I like reasonability/competing interps and interp debating
- Kritiks are cool and they're fun when you pull tricky stuff
- CP's are fine cheating ones are fun but just be careful because I do think some theory is winning on aff side
- Theory is great when it's not absurd
- DA's are fun - be creative, turn stuff, and for the aff, claim you solve/mitigate it
- Be formal during CX
- - Tell me how I should weigh/frame the debate and why the (aff/neg) should lose.
- Impact Calculus
- Framework in every arg which the K is extended in
- Absolutely no form of discrimination during the debate round (Racism, Sexism, etc.)
- Do not make fun of your opponent/degrade them
- Don't read arguments that you cannot understand (This is for both your and my sake)
- Do not steal prep
- My average speaks are 28 points
- 28.5+ means you did a good job
- 29+ means you did really great
Damien High School '26
If this sort of thing matters to you, in the 2022-2023 season my twin brother and I won: David Damus Invitational (Nov), Cal Berkeley Invitational (JV), and Woodward Invitational (1st Year).
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com
I am Tech>Truth in nine out of ten instances.
1. I encourage spreading, but will clear you if I can't understand.
2. I think condo Is good in most instances, and going for condo as aff is an uphill battle. I am willing to vote on it anyway if their is a clear explanation of how it caused significant in-round education or fairness loss.
3. Signposting well will get you very high speaks in novice division.
4. Feel free to ask me questions before and after the round; I’m here to help.
5. Be nice to opponents, or else I will, and I'll lower your speaks.
6. I understand if you're nervous. That's how it is at the beginning of your debate journey. The key is gaining experience and practice!
7. Any arg is fine as long as it has all its necessary parts. If you aren’t sure then ask me before round.
8. Critical thinking is important; I am inclined to vote up teams who don’t read only blocks and show understanding in their arguments.
9. Won't vote on racism good, death good, etc.
10. Whether or not new args should be counted in rebuttals or something is tech truth MUST BE EXPLAINED or else I will not consider it.
11. My ranking of arguments in how I see them as a viable strategy (most strategic--least strategic):
- Counterplans (especially ones unique to the aff with a specific link or ADV cp). A good CP with a winnable NB is one of my favorite debates to judge.
- DAs---A good DA + Case debate is a great debate to judge. Impact calc must be included in rebuttal speeches.
- T---This should be ranked higher if you are a great T debater. I find myself voting on technical concessions made by the aff if the neg explains the offense well enough. (I won't vote down obviously topical affs on T violations such as T-A5 on Cyber Article 5.)
- K---A good k debate is impressive in novice division, but most often times I find teams reading from blocks and not engaging in the clash of the flow. Just like condo, most K's are an uphill battle for the neg unless their is a very specific link to the aff).
Call me Luke, Junior at Damien High School
Tech over Truth-I'll vote for anything
I strongly prefer substance in rebuttals
I have topic knowledge and can evaluate jargon-(i.e. competition, deficits, T)
I understand the time debaters put into the activity-I'll judge accordingly
Won't auto-vote for dropped one-line ASPEC or CP/K theory on a kicked off-(repetitive, but necessary)
That shouldn't preclude going for theory-especially with the meta on this topic.
Especially sympathetic when other team doesn't flow :)
Flow off what I hear-slow down on tags (I'll look at evidence though)
I'm cool with K affs-I read one and understand (limited) portions of high theory through research
Internal links (limits, subject formation, switch side) should be contextualized to opponents offense in a direct manner (clashing vs block spreading), both sides should pick 1-2 key pieces of offense and explain why their vision would resolve central pieces of offense/defense
Fairness is a impact, teams should have a C/I of debate
Using 1AC cards as links for impact turns (cap good, NATO good) is good and rewarded with speaks.
Same as everyone else
Tell me to judge kick
Every counterplan is legitimate if debated correctly-I slightly lean aff on process theory, international fiat (less with this topic), and intrinsic planks. I lean heavily aff on conditions and consult theory.
Solvency advocates are key to my ballot-I will weigh deficits heavily if the block uses fiat or brute forces conditional advocacies. This entails a card directly endorsing/describing the process of the plan.
Intrinsic perms are justified by intrinsic counterplans
Impact framing is key-turns case, even when uncarded, is key
I'll reward a strategic case dis-ad 2NR with high speaks
Go for T, it's bad on this topic but affs are worse.
I'll artificially lower my threshold for voting for condo for 1st year debaters. Condo is good in most instances.
The best 2AR on condo for me will focus on in-round abuse and tie it to the negs model
Forgo overviews and do line-by-line
Please engage with the affirmative through a link other than "NATO is militarist", I want to understand how the aff is an expression of your said methodically through quoting evidence and authorship.
Framework needs an interp and role of the ballot
Fairness is an internal link or an impact, subject formation can occur in debate
Describing links in the context of the aff will grant a ballot and extremely high speaks. For example, rather than reading an extra carded link on an indict of Russia, I'd prefer analytical descriptions on how Russiophobia described in the 1AC was the root cause of brinksmanship, with lines of 1AC cards.
But that's difficult-a link is a link
I recommend going for an FW+links or just an alt to prevent a messy and underdeveloped flow
2NC needs to signal if the alt is a floating PIK
29.5+ — the top speaker at the tournament.
29.3-29.4 — one of the five or ten best speakers at the tournament.
29.1-29.2 — one of the twenty best speakers at the tournament.
28.9-29 — a 75th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would barely clear on points.
28.7-28.8 — a 50th percentile speaker at the tournament; with a winning record, would not clear on points.
28.3-28.6 — a 25th percentile speaker at the tournament.
28-28.2 — a 10th percentile speaker at the tournament.
No judge intervention.
Read as many off as you prefer.
Lean Neg on Condo.
I will not be emotionally moved by any identity exploitation argument.
Novice/Middle School Paradigm
Do not read cards that are not included in the novice packet. I will know.
I am not impressed by your coaches' analytics.
Ultimately, if you can prove to me that you are better at strategic thinking, data and impact analysis, and professionality, you're in great shape.
My name is Andrew Ramallo, I am a sophomore at Damien High school and I this is my second-year debating.
I don't have a preference whether it comes to different types of arguments used. For example, I won't be biased if a team uses a K or not or if a team goes for more policy focused arguments. (CP, DA). However, I do have an issue with pure procedural debates. I find these kinds of debates the most boring. These debates tend to have the least clash as well, with just competing interps. Also, for K debates if I feel you are just reading a k to read a k and don't understand the actual ontology and the aff brings theory into debate I will favor the aff heavily.
Debate is a game, read a plan. If the aff just abuses their affirmative and tries to make the neg look silly without making any logical arguments or they don't weigh the importance of their aff I will NOT vote for them. There must be a warrant for why the ballot matters/spills out
As far as pet peeves and things I look for in giving speaks. I do appreciate giving road maps/orders before your speeches. I also look for clarity and I am fine with spreading and speaking quickly but if I feel I'm unable to comprehend and hear what you're saying I will say "clearer or speak up." I absolutely hate it when people clip. Card cutting is fine as long as you tell your opponents as well as the judge(s) and send a marked document after the speech has concluded. Don't be offensive, no name calling, no slurs, limit bad language. Be a good teammate and show good sportsmanship.
Keep cameras on, mics can be left off to limit noise when you aren't speaking. Cameras should be on unless you have a valid technical issue, so no prep stealing.
My outline for speaker points goes as follows:
-26: You did something terrible I believe that you offended someone and will report it to tab.
26-27: Needs improvement, needs to practice a lot more and cross ex lacked a lot of quality.
27-28: Needs some improvement, didn't do anything bad or wrong just not enough to go far in the tournament.
28-28.5: Good qualities as well as improvement needed. Decent cross ex usually turns out for a fairly good debate.
28.5-29: Good qualities showed, and cross ex was very thorough. Team usually makes elims maybe even further.
29-29.5: Very good speaker. Cross ex was impressive. But most importantly understood the arguments they were making and was able to back them in cross ex as opposed to just standing there and wasting cross ex time. Team makes late elims, maybe wins tourney.
29.5+: Probably one of the best debates I've seen this year. Doesn't slip up and speaks quickly but clearly and knows arguments in and out. Should be winning tournament.
I agree with pretty much any of the following people's paradigms so if you are looking for something a little bit more substantive look at: Tim Lewis, Chris Paredes, Stephen Lewis, Yueshuya Li, and also a little bit of Teddy Wachlter's paradigm.
Most Importantly, make sure you have fun have a good time, be respectful to your opponents and judge(s). If you have any questions about this paradigm don't be afraid to ask before the round.
Email for Email Chain:
Add me on the chain please - firstname.lastname@example.org.
Please label the subject along the lines of: "[Tournament] R[#] - Aff [School AB] vs. Neg [School CD]" (without the brackets, please.)
Be clear, explain yourselves, and I will vote for anything, tech/truth. Debate is a game, it should be fun for everyone involved. Enjoy your time, be nice to your opponents, signpost well and distinguish your warrants, and you'll be just fine.
Sophomore at Damien, he/him, only have done policy debate and have absolutely no clue about any other forms.
Call me whatever floats your boat, I don't really care as long as it is consistent and fits your ethos.
I'm a hardcore 2N/1A but that doesn't mean I don't very much respect 2As and 1Ns.
There are a couple unchanging rules about policy debate that I follow: two sides, two versus two unless indicated otherwise, allocated speech times, one winner per round, and each debater gives only one constructive and one rebuttal. Tournament rules come before that, and they should be complied with first.
I will vote on whatever kind of argument as long as it doesn't violate those rules, but I will not vote on it if it does not make logical sense to me by the end of the 2AR. I fully believe in tech/truth, and will accept any kind of argument. It's up to you as debaters to define what the rules of the game are and convince me why those are best.
Evidence that is directly written by a current or previous debater or on an obviously satire website will be flowed as an analytic. Reading urban dictionary or cards by the onion and trying to pass them off as "trustworthy evidence" isn't funny and will result in lower speaks and me brushing them off my flow.
Speak as fast as you want, as long as you are intelligible. I'm fine flowing speed, but only when I can hear it and clearly distinguish one argument from another.
Signpost. If you want your arguments to be actually taken into consideration, you better actually make it clear it's an important argument when you say it the first time. 2N/ARs say "they didn't actually clash with the specifics of my argument," of course they didn't, your specific warrants were completely unintelligible. If I cannot hear and clearly distinguish between each warrant in your card, then those warrants don't exist and I will reject every extension of them as new arguments.
Speaker points are given out by how you construct your arguments and present yourselves. Everyone has their own style of expressing themselves whether it be making small humorous quips or making analogies to explain your argument or something else, but being abusive during cross-ex or rude to your opponents during your speech are not included in those and will result in much lower speaks. The scale of speaks drastically varies depending on the tournament and the division, so the amount of points isn't as accurate as how you relate to your opponents and the rest of the tournament.
For online tournaments, keep your cameras on all the time unless prep is running. As soon as you start prep you can disappear into the void, but as soon as you stop, your must return from it. Sending out the email does not count as prep time and therefore your camera needs to be on. Have a problem with your camera? No worries, just tell me before the round so I don't think you're just stealing prep.
Time is time, I will not flow or take into account anything that is said after the timer rings, unless it is between 1-3 words. Cross-ex has a bit more leeway though, feel free to finish the answer to a question as long as it doesn't go past 15 seconds or so.
Be nice to your opponents. If they have no clue what you are talking about in cross-ex or about one of your arguments, don't just point and laugh while your camera is off. While fun might not be a traditional impact, debate is a game and games are supposed to be enjoyable, especially in novice divisions. If someone clearly doesn't understand your argument then take a moment to explain it clearly, so that we all can learn and enjoy ourselves. Cross-ex is not a CS-GO lobby, I have zero qualms about pausing the timer and interrupting people to stop their verbal wrestling match. Be nice and be chill.
I am very out of the loop of critical literature, so if you go for it be ready to explain it clearly. This doesn't mean don't read it, merely just understand it yourself, have a clear thesis, and be able to explain your philosophy to both me and your opponents. As long as you do that, I can flow, understand, and vote on it. There are very few things more enjoyable than hearing a really interesting K debate, but there is nothing worse than a bad K debate. An easy way to think about this is: If you don't know the literature well enough to explain it to non-debaters, then don't read it. Also, you're a lot more likely to win if in addition to debating and clashing you also slow down and take some time in the 2NR to just explain what your K is, and the logical story of it. Remember, debate is a persuasive game, so your speech shouldn't just be 8 or 5 minutes of fancy jargon that nobody in the real world understands. This doesn't mean to not include the jargon, it's helpful for shortening your speech, but sprinkle it through in a way that makes sense. I am personally familiar with (and have gone for) Capitalism, Psychoanalysis, and Edelman critiques, if that's helpful for you.
Well-thought out counterplans and PICs that actually interact with the aff are fun and interesting to listen to. Same with disadvantages, explain them, and interact with the affirmative in a way that makes me vote for you, and I will enjoy it. The majority of counterplan theory is fascinating and makes for a good debate, so please read it. Unless very well characterized, conditionality is not a voter if you have <2 counterplans, but may be a reason to reject the argument. You as debaters have to convince me one way or the other.
Theory is an excellent argument but just because they dropped it doesn't mean its a voter unless you tell me why it is. One-sentence theories hidden in the depths of the 1NC T shell or the 2AC ctrl+c/v'ed block are not a voter unless you actually take solid time to elaborate on your shell later. The shorter your block, the more leeway I'll give your opponents to answer them. Clearly laid out shells will get you a lot farther and could possibly make it a very good 2NR option, compared to a 5 minute extension of a 4 second violation.
On another note, don't intentionally try to hide specific analytics by taking them off the document, and especially not theory. It's one thing to make an analytic speech to challenge your opponents, and it's another to cut out one line on the large block you send, deceitfully upholding the pretense that your entire speech will just be blocked. That's a shoddy attempt to try to weasel a ballot out of a dropped arguments that took 5 seconds to read and was barely flowable, and I will not hesitate to drop your speaks and give new answers to your opponents if you go for arguments like these. Just because your judge flows by sound and your opponents should to, your opponents probably aren't paying that much attention to your spreading through what appear to be completely blocked out arguments. "We made this sneaky hidden argument off the doc and they didn't answer it therefore they lose" is a stupid argument and I won't vote on it. If you are going to make arguments off your flow where they aren't expected, if you slow down a bit and make it clear that this argument is off your flow, then I will hold your opponents accountable to answer it and it'll be good. Remember, everyone should be flowing by sound but you shouldn't be that shifty person who tries to trick their way into a ballot.
No aff is topical until proven otherwise, but good topicality debating can easily swing that one way or another. T 2NRs are enjoyable to listen to as long as they have a clear link chain from the violation to the impact. Generally, debating what the interpretation means for debate > debating the quality of the interpretation card, but if you do a damn good job characterizing it I'll vote for it. Tell me why and contextualize what it means to vote neg in this specific scenario, and the same for the aff.
I think about debate very similar to this person, this person, this person, this person, this person, and this person. They introduced me to debate and coach me, so I draw great inspiration from them. Most of my debate career is an attempt to mirror them.
Any questions about my paradigm, debate in general, or want amazing folk, metal, punk, or rockabilly music recommendations? Please email email@example.com.