Tabroom.com

Alpharetta Treasure Hunt

2023 — Alpharetta, GA/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Rajeswari Anand Alpharetta HS None

Cynthia Qi Bai Alpharetta HS

Ria Dubey Northview High School

Last changed on Fri November 11, 2022 at 7:20 AM EDT

Ria Dubey

Nothrview '23

Email to add: riadubey111@gmail.com

**Keep debates simple, if I can't understand an argument, I won't vote on it.

**A lot of this is copied from Juliette :)

Top Level

You do you.

Please don't call me judge. It makes me feel REALLY old - just call me Ria or your highness (comma) either works.

Sometimes I make my decisions pretty fast, sometimes that's not the case, so don't take offense at that.

DO NOT SPREAD.

Policy

Shamelessly copy pasted from Ian Yang:

TL;DR: YOU DO YcOU. I will do my best to evaluate each argument fairly and tend to vote strictly off the flow.

Tech >>> Truth (99% of the time)

I believe my job as a judge is to fairly evaluate the arguments made despite my ideological dispositions (if there are any). That means that I will vote on arguments that I don't personally agree with or that other judges may find morally reprehensible. However (comma) if I do not understand an argument, the burden for me pulling the trigger on it is much higher. Why is plan-focus bad? Why is the plan circumvented? These are questions that are your job as a debater to explain to me.

All debate is just impact calculus. Do it, do it well, and most likely you will win.

Theory

I dislike generic theory debates. I do not think anything but condo is a reason to reject the team but I can be persuaded otherwise if there is extreme in-round abuse or the other team straight-up drops it.

Speaker Points

I find myself giving speaks on the higher end. Ways to improve your speaks include:

Being funny, making smart arguments, having fun, being clear, not saying your opponent conceded/dropped something when they didn't, talking about penguins, make fun of anyone I know.

Dont yell at me... please.

Cross-ex can be a great way to improve speaks, however, there's a thin line between being competetive and just being rude and I have no shame in docking speaks if you choose to be a jerk.

It irks me when debaters claim their opponents "dropped" something when I have it on my flow. I understand that sometimes mistakes happen and you don't flow an argument or something similar. However (comma) if it becomes a recurring problem in a speech I will dock speaks each time it happens.

Archita Gaur Alpharetta HS

Emma Huey Alpharetta HS

Renee Jia Johns Creek High School

Risha Kohli Alpharetta HS

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 9:49 AM EDT

Alpharetta '25

Email

---rishakohli@gmail.com

---email title should provide useful information. Ex. Tournament---Round #---Team A v. Team B.

TLDR

---adopted from Eshan Momin (and anyone he gives credit to)

---debating and judge instruction matter way more than personal preferences.

---generally good: more cards, predictability, judge kick.

Top Level

---tech > truth

---I will flow and vote on things said in the debate. Ideological considerations are irrelevant and I will value judge instruction more than anything

---stop hiding ASPEC or other dumb stuff. You'll lose speaker points.

---flowing is great---if I can tell you are not at least sufficiently, it will not go so well.

---theory debates are good

---don't say buzzwords and I am not as comfortable with these arguments---does not mean I will not hear these arguments but will need more explanation

---specific > backfile.

---have links to the plan > links about reps

---do case debating

---good framework debating and links don't usually need an alternative

---competing interpretations > reasonability.

vagueness in any form is almost always not a voting issue but can implicate AFF solvency.

---better interpretations and more cards are always good

---impact comparison will heavily shape my decision

---DA/CP---love them, most comfortable with these debates (pls have a NB)

---default is judge kick.

---solvency deficits need impacts tied to the ADVs

---intrinsic perms are fine, but they need a justification like textual legitimacy

---framing pages are mostly silly. Ks of things the NEG has said > “but the DA has internal links.”

---im down for politics DAs in most variations---please explain what is going on for UQ

---yay impact turns

---good impact calc (and turns case) will be rewarded and is always good

Others

---clash is good + have fun!

---not voting for death good

---stealing prep, clipping cards = auto L

---"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is entirely up to me." – Truf.

I'll pretty much vote on anything just try your best, and you're always welcome to ask any questions or "post-round" bc ik debaters work hard :)

AND please add a pun related to this topic somewhere in your speech for +0.1 speaks!

Neha Mahesh Alpharetta HS

Last changed on Fri March 22, 2024 at 2:06 PM EDT

her/shey

ahs 25'

⋆ ˚｡⋆౨ৎ˚

Short:

neha not judge please i swear~~i also would not like to be a judge so~~

Judging you: tech>>>>>>truth
Prefs: I don't like cross examination at all and I think resolutional debating is better as a PF judge I think sticky defense applies and I don't award points over 26 because its 0-30 so no one is worthy of anything higher in any instance and I will vote on who spoke better. you can still pref me i guess...

rookie/novice: if you're flowing and your flows are good, +.1 speaks. time your speeches.

yes i want to be on the chain: nehamahesh.2007@gmail.com

⋆ ˚ ꩜ ｡ ⋆୨୧˚

Long:

Dropped arguments are 100% true. Anything that follows are my opinions which are ripoffs of other opinions of more qualified people and have no bearing on my decision unless these things are said in the round:

DA--- My TLDR for this comes from an old nerdy debate scenario. If the negative reads a nonunique politics disad from 10 years ago, and the affirmative says nothing on the uniqueness level and drops it, I'm voting on the 10-year-old DA. Therefore, making smart analytics can easily reverse that. If debaters make smart uniqueness controls the link or vice versa, they will be rewarded for it. The 2AR should be impact calc heavy even if they have answered the DA, and the negative should make arguments that a 1% risk means I should prefer the disad. Overivews and judge instruction are king.

CP--- Can be convinced that process CPs or agent CPs might be bad, but I would encourage teams to read them along with 1000 plank advantage counterplans because they are fun. Smart advantage counterplans combined with aff-specific strategies should be rewarded because they are hard to make but very impressive. I lean neg on theory in opinion because 2A's should just answer arguments but I'm not opposed or going to punish the affirmative for making them and going for them in the 2AR. See thoughts on condo.

K--- If you're reading Baudrillard and I hear welcome to the carnival I will become very happy. I will also not understand anything you're saying in your long overviews. High theory K's are not for me, but if you explain them well enough I will try to evaluate them in the same way that I would evaluate any argument made. Also, yes links should at least be specific to the aff. I think the more specific the better. If the link is to fiscal redistribution, I think that makes for a weaker K.

T--- I really like T. It makes me very happy when the affirmative is clearly untopical and they lose on T. Please put a violation in the 1NC.

K Affs---On this year's topic I think that K Affs are not as strong as in years past but that's just me. If equally debated I could see myself voting either way. The trajectory of affirmative teams reading K affs with impact turns in their framework is good and smart and I will vote on them if done well. I'm a topicality enjoyer, and I only go for T versus K affs so keep that in mind. If you are reading a performance aff about sensitive topics that could be triggering to people in rounds and you refuse to accommodate them or alter some parts of your performance, please strike me because you will lose.

Condo--- I think the negative should get unlimited condo because I like abusive 1NCs. If the neg drops condo that's their fault and I will vote aff on condo. That being said, if 10 condo happens and you contradict yourself 20 times you should get punished for it.

In Round--- Won't vote on serious accusations that happened outside of the debate, I will stop the round. If you bring up an ethics challenge and say new sheet, I won't continue the debate because I don't want to adjudicate those debates and will involve an adult who can resolve the conflict. After consulting my coaches or any equivalent adult, I'll decide whether or not the round continues. Will also not vote for you if you're a meanie so don't be a horrible person.

⋆ ˚｡⋆୨୧˚

Even Longer:

read any one of the following people's paradigms because I will TRY to be as similar as possible no guarantees

tim ellis

rafael pierry

eshan momin

anish t

anish nayak

sameer j

gabe jankovsky

forslund

Hasini Namineni Alpharetta HS None

Aishwarya Nikkumbh Alpharetta HS

Last changed on Sun March 17, 2024 at 8:15 PM EDT

Alpharetta '25

Alpharetta NM --- 2N/1A

Email

---aishnikkumbh@gmail.com

---email title should provide useful information. Ex. Tournament---Round #---Team A v. Team B.

TLDR

---I will not intervene unless my role of judge has been changed, or the round needs to be stopped due to (violence, threats, "cheating" or mass psychological violence being committed to the point the round can't end).

---debating and judging instruction matter far more than my personal preferences.---Every preference except the section under ethics can be changed by good debating.

---adopted from Eshan Momin, Anthony Trufanov, but NOT Lauren Ivey or Adam Smiley---[This just means my judging ideology/process is different from theirs]

---I am not ready when my camera is off.

---generally good: more cards, predictability, conditionality, judge kick.

Online Debate

---I prefer if everyone had their webcams on [though I understand if you cannot].

---debates already move slow, let's pick up the pace with technology.

---If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking. If you start your speech while I am away from my computer you do not get to restart. That is on you.

---Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:

1. Inflect more when you are talking.

2. Put your face in the frame. Ideally, make it so you can see the judge.

3. Get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, and make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth.

4. Talk one at a time.

Top Level

---tech > truth

---Unless my role as a judge is changed, I will attempt to make the least interventionary decision. This means:

1. I will identify the most important issues in the debate, decide on them first based on the debate, then work outward.

2. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. Unless something is explicitly said, conceded, and extended, or is an obvious and necessary corollary of something that is said, conceded, and extended, I will attempt to resolve it, rather than assuming it.

3. I will intervene only if there is no non-interventionary decision.

4. I will attempt to minimize the scope of my intervention by simplifying the decision-making process. I would prefer to decide on fewer issues. If an issue seems hard to resolve without intervening, I will prioritize evaluating ballots that don't require resolving that issue. Example: a DA is heavily and messily contested, and may be straight turned, but the case would outweigh the DA even if the DA was 100% NEG. I will likely not attempt to resolve the straight turn as the ballot would go aff regardless. In complex debates, it would help you to instruct me on how I should do this, or instruct me not to do this if you would prefer that I resolve the debate a different way. You can also stop this from happening by debating in ways that don't require intervention to evaluate.

I am aware that this procedure can influence my assessment of substance. Given infinite decision time, I would not do this. However, decision times are shrinking. Post-round time is limited; minutes spent resolving complex or under-debated issues that are not outcome-determinative trade-off with the quality of my assessment of issues that are. I believe this process net reduces error costs.

---asking for what cards were read is CX

---flowing is great---if I can tell you are not at least sufficiently, it will not go so well.

---condo is good

---don't say buzzwords you can't explain logically---does not mean I will not hear these arguments but will need more explanation

---Long scripted overviews in the 2NC, 2NR then proceeding to do line by line by saying "That was in the overview" is horrendous. The standard for line-by-line doesn't decrease just because you are reading a K

---specific > backfile.

---have links to the plan/material consequences of the plan > links about reps

---do case debating

---good framework debating and links don't usually need an alternative

---competing interpretations > reasonability.

---predictability > debateability

---vagueness in any form is almost always not a voting issue but can implicate AFF solvency.

---better interpretations and more cards are always good

---impact comparison and evidence will heavily shape my decision.

---DA/CP---love them, most comfortable with these debates [even the cheaty process cps]

---solvency deficits need impacts tied to the ADVs

---pretty NEG on most theory

---im down for politics DAs in most variations---please explain what is going on for UQ

---impact turns are fun BUT plz make them coherent

---good impact calc will be rewarded and is always good

Ethics

---clipping cards = auto L

Keva Nimgaonkar Alpharetta HS

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 4:27 AM EDT

My email is iheartbooks137@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

I am not currently debating, but I have done policy debate for the past 2 years and I have decent topic knowledge for this year. I also have experience judging rookie & novice policy, as well as novice, JV, & varsity public forum.

Top Level: I am open to most arguments, impact calc is key, truth over tech, do line by line, be nice

What to do:

The most important thing in debating for me is DON’T DROP ARGUMENTS because it’s hard to flow.
If you want to go for a specific argument, make sure to extend it all the way into the last speech so that I can clearly outline arguments on the flow. If you don’t, that is considered dropping. And if the other team points it out, I may vote on that, so be careful.
Always provide a roadmap so that I can line up the flows in order.
In general, introduce new arguments in the 1AC and 1NC, then respond to answers in the 2AC and 2NC, extend and explain in the 1NR and 1AR, and then finally do impact calc, framework, summarizing, etc. in the 2NR and 2AR. Again, I’d like to emphasize extending and explaining.
If you’re going to run any Theory argument, it must be well explained throughout the entirety of the debate that you are extending it for. If you are neg, you should spend about 5 minutes of the 2NC or even the entire 1NR on theory arguments (such as condo, framework, etc).
Send speech docs as quickly as possible. I understand if you're taking prep time, but if there are some unexpected tech issues, try to get that resolved immediately.
Speak as clearly as possible for you.
Be nice to everybody. It doesn't matter if the other team is your sworn enemy or if your partner did something wrong. You should treat every person in the room with respect. If you fail to do so, expect low speaker points.

Argument specifics:

DA: Make sure that the uniqueness still applies for Politics DAs and that your DA actually links to the aff (the more specific, the better).
CP: HAVE A NET BENEFIT! I can’t stress this enough, you MUST have either an external net benefit like a DA or an internal one (it may be embedded within the counterplan text or in a separate card). If you’re unsure whether there’s an INB, it's better to read a DA that fits and kick it later rather than having to defend a CP with no NB. Also, decide on the status of the CP with your partner (condo, dispo or unconditional).
K: I am most definitely not a K debater. I dislike running them, going against them, or deciding on them. That being said, if you extend the K well and answer EVERYTHING, especially on framework, then I don’t necessarily mind voting on it. I will also allow essentially any K that you want to run, as long as your coach is okay with it. K affs are a whole other topic and I don’t like those either. However, if you’re going to run one, remember the rules for answering both the K stuff (like framework, alt fails, condo, etc.) and regular case defense/offense.
T: Make sure you have both a clear violation (I strongly suggest that you have carded evidence for this, but it can technically just be an analytic) and standards for your topicality arg. Also, try not to run more than 3 Ts because at that point, you’re just trying to create a time skew for the aff. I may decide not to vote on topicality just because of that.
Affs: Don’t drop solvency, and answer/extend the aff using a line-by-line (LBL) strategy. Try to have 2 or 3 advantages with a couple of impacts for each. Generally, try to have less impacts (maybe three max) and more internal links (really double down on these). For the 2AC specifically, short extensions of the 1AC cards are all that are necessary.
Case negs: These MUST be aff-specific. That means actually reading through the cards and checking whether they respond to the aff, and creating analytics for arguments that don’t have carded responses.

Things to know:

If you want to introduce a claim about recent events that negates something the other side has said, with or without evidence, that is fine. However, it must be either generally common knowledge or at least able to be easily Googled.
I like voting on CPs, DAs and impact-based arguments.
I LOVE a good impact calc debate, and I enjoy seeing clash.
Truth over tech (for the most part), clarity over speed, quality over quantity of arguments
I WILL NOT tolerate any type of discrimination whatsoever. In addition, there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to, including but not limited to: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t.
If my RFD doesn’t make sense or something isn’t explained clearly, I will do my best to clarify.
You can call me Judge or Keva. My pronouns are she/her.
Please don’t hold any hard feelings about the results. The point of debating in tournaments is to improve your speaking and debating skills, and it’s impossible to do that if you win all the time. In my experience, the rounds I’ve lost are the ones where I’ve learned the most.

Speaker point scale (for rookie/novice)

Below 27.0: Being blatantly rude, aggressive, or showing any "ism" (being sexist, racist, etc.) on purpose and outside the scope of debate arguments
27.0 to 28.4: Good foundation but additional prep is probably needed
28.5 to 29.0: Solid but you still have room for improvement (average range)
29.1 to 29.4: Great debating, keep up the good work
29.5 to 29.9: Really smart debating, amazing job
30: Literally perfect, nothing could be better (I have never given a 30 and don't plan on doing so)

If you get me a caramel frappuccino before the round, I'll bump speaks by 0.4.

If you tell me a good joke (it actually has to be funny), I'll increase speaks by 0.2.

Good luck!

Dyumna Pandey Alpharetta HS None

Ravi Parikh Westminster

Last changed on Fri March 22, 2024 at 6:32 PM EDT

Ravi

Westminster 2025

He/Him

ravivparikh@gmail.com

T/L

Debate is a place where people can experience public speaking, rhetoric, and knowledge, while engaging in evidence. Please do not make it anything other than that. This is an activity where people can grow and have a lot of fun. If you do this, and do it well, you will receive good speaker points.

Debate needs to be a safe space where people feel comfortable, so if I hear anything remotely racist, homophobic, sexist, death good, etc. I reserve the right to give you an L, and the lowest speaks.

References

I tend to agree with nearly every Westminster debater about debate

People who were teachers/models in my debate education: Jordana Sternberg, Munday, BK, Emory GK, Holland Bald, Benjamin Sayers, Margaret Hecht.

I will probably give a lot of feedback after the debate.

Specifics

DA --- I think DA's are great. I think especially on this topic that the economy DA's are quite good and can be executed both greatly and very badly. I think links are very important.

CP's --- Favorite argument in debate. These make up a majority of my 1NR arguments, and I am proficient with all flavors of counterplans. This topic is very good for this type of debate, and cheaty process counterplans that are recycled from other topics are probably not the move in front of me. I often find teams not pressing hard enough on the internal net benefit, and I advise you to do it more. For PDCP and competition against process counterplans, I think the best route is to prove why your definition/standard outweighs and turns. I am obviously not going to set a standard on what the competition of a counterplan should be, but am sympathetic to the Affirmative if the counterplan is a word scramble. Lastly, all theory but conditionality is a reason to reject the argument and not the team.

K's --- I am not the judge for high level K debates. That being said, I have read and debated everything from basic capitalism to high theory pessimism and baudrillard. I find the negative team, often puts too much stock in the link debate without debating its implications on the framework page. Three minute overviews at the top is also not my type of debate.

T --- Affirmatives must be topical. Very good for T on this topic. Prefer limits and grounds based arguments.

K AFF's --- Almost a non-starter in front of me.

Charles Sanderson Alpharetta HS

Last changed on Thu April 11, 2024 at 5:02 PM EDT

Add me to the chain: ctsanderson10@gmail.com

PF blurb

I currently coach PF at Ivy Bridge Academy, where a lot of my work revolves around evidence production. Therefore, I'm fairly familiar in both the topic and the general conventions of public forum debate. That being said, my background in policy debate means that sometimes understand these debates very differently than many lay judges might. Thus:

Tech>Truth
Speed is good, so long as you are clear
Document sharing is good so long as both teams agree to it
Evidence ethics violations are a voter.

1. I flow on multiple sheets of paper, one for each of your contentions. Therefore, I find off-time roadmaps to be incredibly important but often, unfortunately, lacking. Please structure your off-time road map by contention to help me be the best judge that I can.

2. Please make sure that you time your speeches, even if I'm also already timing them. Double-timing is a great competitive norm and helps make debates more fair!

3. I prioritize argumentative nuance over your speaking ability. I believe that debates are ultimately decided by debaters who are able to 'write my ballot' through solid impact calculus (weighing) and in-depth case analysis (explaining your contentions and why I should vote on them).

4. Extend your evidence! Extend their warrants! Compare evidence and don't be afraid of argumentative clash. Debaters are only as good as their evidence and the way that they use it!

T/L -- Policy

Experience --

4 years of policy debate at Chattahoochee high school. Qualled to the TOC on the NATO topic. I genuinely love this activity and (most of) the people in it. I'm currently a 2A/2N, but have debated as every position for a prolonged amount of time.

About Me --

Hey-O! I'm Charles and I love debate.

----Influences: Kevin Bancroft, Astrid Clough, Jordan Keller, Eshkar Kaidar-Heafetz (I sing his praise), and Sarah Lundeen. (UWG debate supremacy)

First and foremost, I want this to be a space for you. I genuinely believe that my job as a judge is twofold. The first is to deliver fair, well-thought, educational decisions and feedback. The second is to ensure that this is a debate that you can participate in. If you, at any time, feel unsafe in a round that I am present in, I will fight tooth and nail for you. In a community that is increasingly divided by and has traditionally been defined by oppression, my tolerance for violence is nonexistent. Don't be an abuser. Don't reproduce the violence that has become intrinsic to so many aspects of this activity and community. Don't be the problem. Don't be the reason the queer kid quits. I ask that you, as a debater, actively work to make this space one that can be genuinely valuable for everyone, not just your Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V, straight, white, MBA policy bro. To the queer kids, the trans kids, the people of color, the disabled kids, the kid who carries unspeakable violence with them every day, I will protect you.

Strike me if you were involved (were the aggressor) in a Title IX violation at camp. Do not ever speak to me.

I am a disabled debater. I have ADHD, PTSD, PNES (seizure disorder), a slew of mental health problems, and some other stuff that I'd rather not get into. I may ask for certain accommodations, this does not mean that I cannot judge your round, just that I need you to help me so that I can help you.

I'll be the first to say it, I'm a hack for the K. There is very little that I spend more of my time thinking about. If you're a novice and want to try out kritikal arguments, I'm your judge. However, if the K isn't your thing, don't sweat it. I'll still vote on your disad about how the plan trades off with the ability of the USFG to sell Ukraine papayas, which could cause Bosnian instability that spills over into intergalactic rubber-duckie warfare. Or your PIC. Or your 5-minute T 2NR (although I'll never forgive you for it if its bad). Tech>Truth. First and foremost, I am a blank slate when casting my ballot. Most of the time...

I will not vote on arguments that I find morally repugnant. That means --

White debaters reading Afro-Pess

Malthus

Genocide good

Racism good

Eugenics good

Obviously racist/sexist/queerphobic arguments

Trigger Warnings Bad

8 OFF or higher

Roko's

Spark/Death Good is the exception here, as I feel that they have genuine value as things to be debated.

Novice O/V --

If its packet debate, dw about it. Read your args. Have fun. Try to learn. Losing doesn't mean you're stupid and winning doesn't mean you're debate-jesus.

If it isn't packet debate, dw about it. Explore the wider world of argumentation. Read whatever you want. Have fun. Try to learn. Reading my paradigm is probably a bit more important here. Losing doesn't mean you're stupid and winning doesn't mean you're debate-jesus.

General Thoughts --

I think that...

Debate is good as an activity, but is not intrinsically valuable. Debate is as good or bad as those who participate in the activity make it. Make of that what you will.
Tech>Truth is the best "default" position for a judge to take.
Clarity>Speed, any time. I don't care how fast you are. Your ability to do spreading drills for 5 hours every day does not affect your actual ability to debate outside of being able to say more. One good, clear argument is worth an infinite amount of speedy bad ones. I'm fine with speed, but only go as fast as you are clear. If your strat is solely reliant upon out-speeding the other team while being atrociously unclear, then you are bad at debate. Its a skill issue.
Judge instruction is incredibly valuable for teams that want to really win rounds, not to just beat the other team. There's a difference.
Case debate is a lost art.
Fairness is an internal link.
Condo/broader theory debates are really only valuable insofar as both teams get off their blocks. If one of your impacts/reasons you think that I should prefer your model in a theory debate is education, then reading noncontextual blocks straight down is not only silly, but is also a performative doubleturn. My thoughts on whether condo is good or bad don't matter here. Tell me how to think about it in your round.
"Reject the arg, not the team" is not an escape rope that I will give you. Tell me why.
You should tell me what your favorite song is. I'll surprise you with good speaks for reading my paradigm.
Big schools saying "_____ hurts small schools!!!" is absurd and is almost never an argument that will be won in front of me. Lookin' at you, MBA.
Well-thought-out author indicts that are supported by good warranting and actually have a tangible impact will not only make me very happy, but will drastically boost your speaker points. I will not object to them becoming a voter.
Clipping is a L+25. I have a threshold for how this is decided. I will not disclose it unless it becomes an issue.
"Lying 2A" strats will suffer in front of me. If you have to resort to this, it's a skill issue.
Shouting at your partner is ridiculous and, if severe enough, will earn you the worst speaks that I can give you.
CX and rebuttles will set the basis for your speaks.
Reading paradigms is probably a good idea.
Cowardice is bad.

Judging Philosophy --

I'm a blank slate unless told otherwise. My role is whatever you can win it is. The clearer the ROTJ is, the more likely that you are to win it. If not given a specific role of the judge, I will default to serving as an abstract, 4th dimensional entity, observing and weighing all aspects of every argument that makes it into the final 2 speeches to construct my decision.

To quote Jordan Keller, "...I want to see debaters who play with the bounds of the activity, so do what makes you the most satisfied: play your music, I'll dance with you... as long as you can pull it off. I am a depressed, tired, and impatient [high school] student - make me laugh."

Argument Specific --

Aff (Policy)

I'll hear it. High-quality evidence is something policy teams have struggled with SO MUCH recently. Same thing with powertagging. You should consider the fact that your solvency advocate and solvency evidence are literally the lifeblood of your affirmative. If you can convince me that you can solve for the harms that you present, you will be in a very strong position in these debates. Judge instruction is a powerful, often underutilized tool in these debates. Policy hacks, take a page out of your K debater friends' playbooks and start telling me how to think. God knows, I've barely figured it out on my own in the first place.

Aff (Kritikal)

I LOVE YOUR (good.) IDENTITY KAFF. These are the debates that I am the most familiar with. Don't get it twisted though, my standard for kritikal affirmatives is high. I am familiar with a wide range of lit bases and there's a good chance that I've read yours. If I haven't, I've probably read the literature that your authors based their works on. If I'm not familiar with it at all, GREAT!! I LOVE learning about new forms of critical literature. I feel that there is real, genuine ground for these affirmatives in debate and I think that they can provide real, genuine change for those both in and outside of the activity.

However...

Reading a Kaff, identity-based or not, is not an auto-aff ballot. Framework is a metric that you are required to beat. A good kaff is a kaff that pushes this activity and the people in it to change for the better. If you can't convince me that your kaff can do that, good luck.

T (Policy)

Objectively speaking, T is a spectacular argument with more utility than most other off-case positions in debate. However, T is often horrifically underutilized by negative teams when debating against policy affirmatives to the extent that I often find myself questioning why its even in the 1NC. This has led me to have an icky taste in my mouth when it comes to topicality. Affs, believe it or not, are bad. Affs, believe it or not, are very frequently not topical. When debating as the negative, understand that my opinions about this argument are situated on the very furthest ends of the spectrum from each other. Either you will debate T beautifully and meaningfully and I will reward you, or you will text-to-speech bot straight down the same recycled topicality blocks from 3 years ago, then kick it in the block, and I will be very sad. Do not put T in the 1NC unless you are prepared for 5 minutes of T in the 2NR. I am tired of wasting flow paper on T arguments that get conceded in the 1NR. If this is your current strategy, its a skill issue. Be better.

T - USFG

FW walks a fine line between two extremes. T - USFG has its roots in exclusion. It is important to recognize this for both the kritikal teams that are responding to it and the negative teams who are reading it. However, by no means do I think that T - USFG is evil. I think that it can be used in evil, exclusionary ways, and when it is, then affirmatives should utterly crush it in front of me. I also think that T - USFG is one of the best arguments which exists within debate for testing things like the ability of the aff to shape subjectivities, to alter the state of the academy, and to ensure that relevant, transformative kaffs are able to succeed in shaping the debate space. In contrast, ridiculous, abusive, or otherwise non-transformative kaffs will be filtered out by consistently losing to FW. How this argument is used in your round will decide how I view it. Better yet, don't make me decide at all, just tell me! Judge instruction, people!

DA -

I have literally no opinion on these and literally have only seen 2 good ones all year. mfw no disad ground outside of IPol.

CP -

Oh god. Ok, well lets start with this one. The CP and I have a love-hate relationship. As in, I love to debate the PIC but hate how massively abusive they often are. But who knows, maybe that's why I love it in the first place? Anyways, my unhealthy love-life aside, I feel like aff teams let the neg get away with way too much here. Vice versa, I think that neg teams lack so much ground on this topic, that there's maybe some room here for abuse as a form of counterbalancing. I lean aff on theory and neg on content. Thus, I feel that I'm fairly neutral here due to that fact. Reading 4 conditional counterplans is probably a bad idea in front of me.

K -

(Much of this can be C/A'ed to the KAFF section)

At this point, this is my life. For better or for worse, practically every thought or action that I engage in anymore draws some connection back to K debate. (Yes, believe me, it's just as depressing as it sounds.) I WILL know what you're talking about. I WILL read all of the cards read on this flow. If "judge adaption" is something that your coaches tell you that you need to get better at, you will read a kritik in front of me, and it will make me smile when you do. Because this is the kind of debate that I enjoy the most, (KvK, Policy v K), I plan to invest a bit more time getting into the meat and substance of what a good K debate should look like.

Links

Benefit from being specific to the aff, not just the res (we have kaffs for that, silly)
Are disads unless proven otherwise
Should occupy a large section of the block if you plan to go for the K in the 2NR
Should have good warrants
Should tell me a story about what you think the world looks like
Should probably not be cut from the anarchist library
Are offense against FW

Impacts

Should be resolvable by the alternative
Don't have to be existential to outweigh the impacts of the plan, you just have to be good with the K
Should not have a mile-long K tag

Alternatives

SHOULD NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE KICKED IN FRONT OF ME OR SO HELP YOU GOD
Probably shouldn't be fiated

Outside of subpoint 1., my opinions here are much more elaborate.

What does your alt advocate for? If you can't tell me in clear terms, good luck.

If you advocate for some form of anarchism, you will need to overcome a very high threshold for victory. Do this by giving me a clear line of material praxis for overcoming the state, a coherent theory of power, as well as specific indicts to the state itself. Anarchist theories of power are extremely weak, immature, and genuinely just silly 99% of the time. Ultimately, if your K relies on reverting to anarchism to solve for your impacts, then it's definitely utopian and also most certainly could not solve for your impacts in the real world.

Speaker Points --

Guide Scale

0-27.4 -- You messed up big-time. Never do whatever I told you not to do again.

27.5-27.8 -- You had a rough round. If this is you, I would seriously think about the feedback that I gave. Ask questions. It doesn't mean you should quit the activity, but it does mean that you need to go back and do some work with your coaches.

27.9 -- You had a just-below-bare-minimum round. You're getting there though. Numbers like these are ones that will come up with practice. Believe me, mine did.

28.0-28.2 -- You did decently, perhaps not to my standard, but its not something to cry in the back seat of the car about. You showed up, read blocks straight down, had a probably sub-par cross, and probably just had an average debate.

28.3-28.4 -- You had a debate. This is true neutral for me. 60% of debaters that I see will fall in this range. You probably aren't going to get a speaker award at this tournament, but you've got potential, and I definitely think you should stick to it. I look forward to seeing you progress.

28.5-28.7 -- You did pretty good. I see a world where you could possibly get a middle-range speaker ranking at this tournament. I think you could probably move on to break-rounds. All in all, good job. Ask questions. The answers that you'll get will determine between a 28.7 or a 29 in your next round. Save my email, hit me up, keep in contact with me after the tournament. Go eat some chocolate or something. I assume that all debaters who read my paradigm will be in this section or above.

28.8 -- You had a solid round. I'm impressed. I think you'll probably be in the top 12 speakers at this tournament. You should definitely be proud of yourself. Shoot for that 29 next round though, there's probably one or two mistakes that you made that locked you out of that upper tier.

28.9-29 -- You did GREAT. If you got a 28.9, its probably because your partner got the 29 and the tournament didn't let me give you both the same speaks. Very very solid job here. I think that you probably know your stuff. I think that you've probably got really solid skills as a young debater. I think that if you were to quit, the community would genuinely lose someone who could advance or shape it. I think you'll probably be in the top 7-10 speakers at this tournament. Good stuff!

29.1-29.3 -- You knocked my socks off. You have changed my standards for novice debate forever and I will never forget your round. Spectacular. I think that you'll probably be in the top 6 speakers at this tournament.

29.4 or higher -- You have probably done something amazing. I've never seen it in action. If you do it, I'll update my paradigm and just, like, write a description of you and your round or something. If you get a 29.4 or higher from me, I genuinely think that you should be winning both top speaker as well as the tournament.

Boosters

+0.1 for any of the following

Beating me to the round room
Bringing me caffeine
Kindness to your fellow debaters
Good post/pre-round banter
Asking for each other's pronouns

Ridah Shanavas Alpharetta HS

Last changed on Wed March 20, 2024 at 5:14 PM EDT

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE EXPLAIN ALL LINKS CLEARLY I WILL NOT DO THE DEBATING FOR YOU

add me to the email chain: ridahvs@gmail.com

THE SHORT:

I enjoy seeing clash in all debates. Please don’t read more off just so you can ‘skimp’ on answering the aff. If the aff isn’t answered well, then there’s no point in having more off. I WILL vote on the aff just bc it wasn’t answered well. That goes for the aff too. The off cases need to be answered well. Or I’m going to have to vote on presumption.

DO NOT DROP ARGUMENTS!!! On top of that GIVE A ROADMAP!! If you don’t, I’m going to flow it on wtv flow I think is best and it might not turn out so well for you. What I weigh is up to you. Tell me EXACTLY how to frame the debate. Although I have experience with debate, I WILL NOT FILL IN GAPS IN YOUR ARGUMENTS! If your args have enough holes in them to sink a ship, then they aren’t winning you anything.

I am fine with heated cross-ex as long as things don’t get out of hand. Remember to be professional and do EXACTLY what you’re supposed to.

AFF

do what u do. read the 1ac clearly, spreading is fine. answer all arguments. And explain why condo or any fiat is unfair and why that means I should vote for u. You can use analytics and reasoning to no link any off case.

OFF CASE:

K: I love seeing k’s, esp when they’re debated well. When they’re not… I’m very reluctant to vote on them. Make sure to explain the links and how the impact and the alt work/happen. You don’t need to win the alternative, if you win a link and FW and explain why this means I should vote on the k, that's sufficient, but the alternative provides another reason why voting k is a good idea. The winner of the ‘framework’ debate will be weighed first. I will ALWAYS weigh the aff first if the neg DOESN’T win framework.

CP: I LOVE a well debated CP and I’m all for voting on sufficiency framing if you tell me why. Planks cps must be debated very well + theory should be answered. DO NOT introduce multiple planks CPs. Two at most, any more than that is playing with fire.

T: Bc T is a theory arg, I will RARELY vote on T UNLESS it’s debated very well. And I mean VERY well. Do not just say the violation and move on, if you’re a T team then you need to spend a whole 5 min on T in the block.

DA: I’m fine with any DA but the DA needs to be proven to have an impx. Keeping a DA around just for the net benefit is not smthing I like.

I absolutely despise bad sportsmanship, take the L with pride. And take the W with dignity. No ragging, fighting, and/or barbed insults during or after the round. All debates should be CLEAN and educational. If there are any insults your speaks will be NONEXISTENT.

Dont call me judge, I WILL BARF. Anything but judge, it makes me sound like some 80 year old man. Also, make sure that you remember that we are all part of a debate community that strives to accomplish the same goal, and that losing just brings you one step closer to winning.

Orelia Thottam Northview High School None

Login to Tabroom

Alpharetta Treasure Hunt

2023 — Alpharetta, GA/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

Judges