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
- New to this form of debate - but I know enough to give a competent decision
- Don't drop arguments and make sure to extend your own
- Big picture explanation and answering the points will be rewarded
- Policy is just parliamentary but faster and with more jargon so I'll probably get it
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 will result in a ballot for the other team for serious offenses.
Clipping violations need to be proven with a recording unless it was very obvious that the opposing team was clipping in their speech.
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.
Usually Competing interps over Reasonability - especially on affs that don't seem that topical
Rehighlights should be read instead of inserted.
Most CPs are probably good
Condo is Ok
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 cap K. However, don't make your overview too long so that you never really answer the line-by-line.
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....
do wtvr u want
senior at damien hs - ask me questions before the round
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.
damien '23, msu '27
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.
absent instruction in the debate to judge kick the counterplan earlier than the 2NR, i will not kick it and be incredibly sympathetic in letting the 2AR stick you to it.
tag team cx is fine for answering but not for asking -- more geared towards novices, if you're varsity do what you want (if you are constantly talking over your partner/opponent and being rude your speaks will suffer dramatically.)
tech > truth
generally feel comfortable evaluating and keeping up with any style of debate whether it be a KvK debate or a very detailed and probably monotonous counterplan competition debate. obviously i have argumentative preferences, but i would never insert those into a debate i was judging and would consider myself incredibly flow centric which means if you think there is an argument that you think will win you the debate, you should ensure i have it on my flow by balancing clarity with speed. not super involved in the fiscal redistribution topic, so please take the time to explain topic acronyms, things related to solvency deficits, etc. (you should probably already be doing this...) another note related to this, i am incredibly deficient in the depth of economics and such so explaining things to me in ways that are as simple as possible can only benefit you.
i don't really feel the need to give some long explanation about how I feel about every little thing in debate, simply because I feel debates should purely be judged and decided by what was communicated to me. chances are i understand what's going on, and if you have sufficiently explained why you should win in the context of most debate arguments, you will win. so, if you're trying to pref me and decide not to because I didn't give you a paragraph explanation about whether or not i think fairness is an impact, sorry I guess.
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.
+0.1 points if you make fun of omar darwish in an actually funny way
feel free to post round
Affiliations and History:
Please email (firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com) 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.
Fiscal Redistribution Round Count: 25 rounds
I judged 75 rounds or more on the NATO Topic.
I 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
Hello! My name is Yueshuya but you can call me Josh.
Please include both on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
All emails should have “Tournament name+ Round# + aff team code+ neg team code” in their title and please send a word document.
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 developement 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 is usually easier to punish the worse mistake in round than to evaluate every single detail of strategic moves .
I will try to be least interventionist, but if a card is bad it will effect the rfd.
DO NOT insert cards or graphs
You don't have to read a plan but you better know how to to justify it.
Tech > truth
perm is just a test of competition
dropped arg are tru
Faienss is a impact
Method v Method get perms
Zero risk exist, but often never happen in a round
Burden of Proof determines Presumption
Positional Competition is not real
Phil. competition is not real
Offense, Offense, Offense, OFFENSE!!!!
Minor Pet Peeves that wont effect RFD
ask for marked doc
"they drop it" with no explaination
"they drop it" when they did not
"if you dont like it go do LD/PF "
long ov that could have just been line by lined
marking cards multiple time
theory prolif in the 2AC
send out 7+ OFF and cant finish them so you skip
kicking by "not going for it"
26-28 = need improvement
28-28.5 = an proper round of debate
28.5 - 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:
Insult your opponent,
Be late to disclosure(PLS PLS PLS PRACTICE GOOD DISCLOSURE, I understand maybe sometimes you do not controll your wiki 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.
tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.
policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present
ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present
My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to 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 value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.
I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.
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!
if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email firstname.lastname@example.org (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!
flowing: it is good and teams should do it
stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)
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 (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).
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.
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 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.
Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).
note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)
Some general notes
Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.
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.
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.
I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.
Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.
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.
Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.
Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.
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 better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are 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.
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.
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, in my opinion.
The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.
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.
default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one
Topicality (not framework):
I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. 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. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.
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
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!
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.
currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.
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 -- email@example.com
- 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 also rank them in that order)
- 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, I will not evaluate it, I will doc ur points, and I will alert tab and ur coaches about 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
- For more ideas of what I enjoy in settler colonialism debates see the following people's paradigms: Maddie Pieropan and Joshua Michael.
- 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.
coach for DebateDrills - the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy, code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form: https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy
tech over truth - i will flow all arguments and vote on what you extend into your final speeches
i do not feel confident in my ability to evaluate the following debates
-phil ac vs phil nc
-k aff vs non cap kritik
-phil ac vs kritik (some experience with kant v setcol)
TLDR - I am a senior 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, you can go for predictability or debatability, just impact either one of them out
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
- If you make a joke about a person named William Agustin I will give you +0.1
Add me to the email chain (email@example.com)
I will listen to your arguments with thoughtful discern, much from this activity I hope you will learn;
Don't drop arguments - it's bad for your look, of preparation time - do not be a crook;
Talking fast is good, like you're in a race, but words should not fly at neck-breaking pace;
But most important of all, have fun and relax, engage in vibrant discussion about transfer and tax...
- Me 2023
--- THE IMPORTANT STUFF---
Damien High School '26 - he/him
"Thanks for playing, gamers!" - Timothy Lewis
Tech > Anything
 Condo is good (unless its dropped or severely mishandled lol).
 Signposting well will get you very high speaks.
 Be nice to opponents, or else I will, and I'll lower your speaks.
 Go for any argument you feel like. I'm willing to vote on almost anything; don't let my preference interfere with your debate style.
 Whether or not new args should be counted in rebuttals or something is technical truth MUST BE EXPLAINED or else I will not consider it.
 USE A WORD DOC (not Google Docs pls but if you have to that's ok)
Im fine with all args but like some more than others: [CP, T, K, P, CT, DA]
+0.3 Speaks for a Juice Wrld reference.
+0.2 Speaks if you tell me where Luke Rudy is.
I give 30s slightly more than I should... Prove to me why you deserve one and I'll reward your speaks.
The major arguments:
NEG: If you love process CPs, I am your judge. I think highly technical debating with these is extremely impressive and will reward your speaks.
Advantage CPs are good too -- often how certain planks are described is not explained well enough in the block by the negative, but I enjoy creative planks for solving the AFF's internal links/impacts.
All other CPs in general are a go-ahead for me.
AFF: Solvency deficits and perms are probably most convincing for me. They must be flushed out and explained well by the 2AR. Its hard to find, but highly technical theory debating on CPs is also convincing for me if you go for a perm with it.
NEG: Im a big fan of politics disads and creative trade-off disads. Impact comparison/calculus is important for both sides to win if this is the 2NR. Econ-related disads are great too.
AFF: Straight turns are more convincing than you may think. Often the neg mishandles them, which you should capitalize on. Still, impact calculus is key to beating big-stick disads.
NEG: Im fine with voting on T as long as there is a clear abuse story and you flush out your limits/ground offense. Often what I find most challenging in T debates is evaluating reasonability. Having a clear/coherent answer to this will boost your favors on this. Ridiculous T definitions are increasingly hard to win in front of me.
AFF: Unless your aff is wildly untopicaI, offense-defense with reasonability will increase your chances of my ballot. Contextualization and comparison of models is key in the 1AR/2AR.
NEG: I'm familiar with generic Cap K, Set Col, Security types of k's. I will still evaluate high theory k's the same way, but don't be mad at me if I miss your K "tricks" or a certain TOP.
AFF: Perm + Link Turn, Perm + Link Turn, Perm + Link Turn. I also think flushing out clash on FW and contextualizing how their model is net worse for it will give you success.
DAMUS - Don't pref me. I was a mistake add-in for judging by my coach.
Email for the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Have fun! I'll judge anything. I default to util and vote off an offense/defense paradigm based on spin of evidence. When this framing becomes unclear (too little impact calc, mutual technical drops, improper extension of arguments) my decision will be far less reliable, centering around implications of solvency/internal link arguments. In all circumstances, I'll thoughtfully adjudicate off the flow.
I doubt you'll read most of this. If you do, yell the bolded sentence in my paradigm when your final speech is over. I'll give your team +0.1 speaker points if your opponent doesn't do so as well. Seeing how the judge thinks through arguments is key component of debate.
The debates I'm judging won't require too much instruction. If you are a novice or inexperienced at debate, it's my goal to provide relevant feedback and encourage you to keep debating.
Types of arguments I run
AFFs - Hard right (probably untopical) affs, soft left, K affs - Beller, Set Col, Heideigger
K's - Cap, Security, Set Col, psycho, deleuze, baudrillard
CPs - Process, Advantage, generics
DAs - Oil, politics, Bizcon
Impact Turns - Warming Good, NATO Bad
Email me with any questions afterwords.
For framework, I'd rather hear criticizism of debate's form rather than content. For example, why we prioritize the Brooking's institute over indigenous/black perspectives? How might plan focus obscure alternative methods of viewing solvency or argumentation? This is reciprocal for affirmative teams - I'd rather you indict the ground lost and how that may effect debate's education over "our aff is good", which a link logically impact turns.
Frameworks sets the threshold my evaluation of links. A link to the aff "GND would mine rare earth elements on indigenous lands destroying connections" is far different than a link to a representation the aff defends "Green tech and minerals is generally bad for natives.
If there's no framework, then there must be a root cause claim with a large impact or a PIK that solves case. I'll evaluate link UQ and alt solvency at a much higher burden. This strategy rewards specificity and knowledge of a literature base.
I lean aff on most theory, and I believe severing reps in the 1NC justifies reps severance in the 2AC/1AR. In general, I default aff on the K with framework standards. The K is a tool, and if debated coherently, it can easily override my predispositions.
I love and hate neg terror. As a 2N, I would like infinite condo, no solvency advocate counterplans, and general mischief. As a 1A, not so much. I'm good for theory on the affirmative; I'll vote for the "middle of the road" interp that creates good counterplan and feasible answers - for both sides.
Otherwise, sufficiency framing, judge kick are all presets. Nothing much to say.
No major notes. A fifteen second, logical, turns case arguments goes a long way. It can be uncarded.
No tricks - at all.
Being aff is kinda hard - I'll lean aff on theory
Literally zero difference from my policy paradigm. Except framing, which Imightprioritize more in my decision.
Better paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=8348
Hi, I'm Maddox. Sophomore at Damien High School. He/Him.
The most important thing to take away about my judging style is that I'm here for y'all, not for myself. This means:
- Go for whatever you like. I'll try not to let any personal biases toward specific arguments influence my evaluation of what you go for.
- I won't unnecessarily insert myself. I'll try not to make facial expressions or other tell-signs that could be distracting or influence how you debate.
- I'll be attentive. When you indicate to me that you're making an argument via good signposting, I will flow it. I'll listen during cross-ex and be aware of how the 2nr and 2ar frame the debate.
- Spreading is good. Just don't read at the same pace on tags.
- Tech over truth. A dropped argument will typically be true.
- Decisions will only reflect what is said and extended. I won't distort rebuttal speeches to get to the coolest/cleverest ballot. The RFD will focus purely on what words are said in your speeches. Don't feel pressure to spend
My name is Andrew Ramallo, I am a junior at Damien High school and I this is my third-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 Wachtler'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 — thwachtler25[at]damien[hyphen]hs[dot]edu, as well as damiendebate47[at]gmail[dot]com.
Please label the subject along the lines of: "[Tournament] R[#] - Aff [School AB] vs. Neg [School CD]"
Junior at Damien HS, he/him, most fluent in policy debate. Call me whatever floats your boat, anything is ok as long as it is consistent and fits your ethos.
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.