Tabroom.com

Arizona State HDSHC Invitational

2024 — Tempe, AZ/US

Varsity Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Aman Agarwal Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 3:48 PM MST

Hello,

Please add me to email chains: my email is amanagarwal@uchicago.edu

Background: I am a fourth-year UChicago college student and a former Brophy College Prep debater. I debated for four years on the Arizona Local Circuit (three years in policy, one year in LD and congress).

I am most comfortable with LARP/Policy arguments as that is how I debated, but I'm very willing to vote on any well-warranted and clearly explained argument. I am unfamiliar with most K and phil literature, so do not assume I will understand your arguments beforehand. I love to learn and hear new perspectives, but please explain the literature within the round in a way I can understand. I will try to be as charitable as possible, but if I have trouble understanding your argument, I will likely not vote for you.

I'm mostly comfortable with spreading because of my background, but make sure you are very articulate and understandable. I'll say “clear” if I can't understand you.

Specifics:

Theory: By default, I evaluate theory voters first. I can buy any argument, but some arguments have higher thresholds to clear than others. All theory must be extensively impacted out in rebuttal speeches to get my vote (i.e., a 30 second extension of what was said in the constructive is not sufficient). For disclosure theory in particular, I need screenshots of multiple contact attempts, not just more than "their case isn't on the wiki" as evidence of a violation. By default, I accept PICs, multiplank counterplans, conditionality (especially if there's only 1 counterplan) to be valid, and it is the burden of the affirmative to demonstrate otherwise. I'm willing to evaluate RVIs, but they must be explicated on and impacted out for me to vote on them.

Topicality/Framework: By default, I use reasonability to evaluate topicality, and it the burden of the negation to offer an alternative approach. I come from a policy background, so I have a bias toward the affirmative with regard to specified plans. In cases where overspec T and substantial T can both be applied, I'm more likely to buy substantial T. I'm much more likely to vote on T if the negation demonstrates in round how they're losing ground (i.e., the negation should affirmative no-link responses to DAs/contentions in the T debate). Also topicality must be impacted out, and I do not evaluate fairness as a terminal impact. Fairness is only an internal link to the terminal impact of education.

Framing: If framing is unclear or not read, I'll default to my inherent values, which are highly subjective and arbitrary. So, please read framing.

K/Phil: Honestly, I'm probably familiar with whatever authors you're reading, especially if they talk about capitalism, neoliberalism, or some flavor of biopower, but I do not know how you will be using your evidence, so please clearly explain the story and warrants of your kritik (and alt/method, if applicable). I'm less familiar with phil, so clear explanations are even more important

CPs, DAs: I'm fine with embedded DAs/net benefits being extended independent of the counterplan. By default, I'll evaluate PICs and whatever alt-as-CP you want to read.

Evidence: I will read evidence if it is contested during the debate. By default, I will evaluate only the parts of the card that were read (i.e., what was highlighted). However, by default I will also evaluate explanations and warrants of unread parts of the card provided in rebuttal evidence extensions (especially if they're used as direct responses in line-by-line). Despite this, please don't underhighlight your cards.

Presumption: I've never had to vote on presumption, but if I had to, I'd probably vote for the negation.

Tech vs. Truth: Generally, I'm tech over truth, but try not to say anything egregiously wrong. (If you do, I'll still evaluate what you say if your opponent doesn't call you out, but I'll probably flame you a bit after the round.)

Disclosure: Whenever possible, I will disclose a detailed RFD immediately after the round.

Feel free to email me if you have any questions or need clarification.

Avi Agarwal Hire 6 rounds

Tim Alderete The Meadows School 3 rounds

Joey Antonelli Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Jason Barton Albuquerque Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 20, 2024 at 9:14 PM EDT

- For any round-related correspondence, please utilize the following email address: jasondbarton15@gmail.com.

Background:

- I am an assistant debate coach at Albuquerque Academy in ABQ, New Mexico (mostly coaching CX and LD).

- I recently finished my Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of New Mexico. I specialize in German Idealism, hermeneutic phenomenology, and Lacanian psychoanalysis.

- I debated CX, LD, and PF (though mostly PF) in Dallas, TX and the surrounding areas throughout high school (2011-2014), and I debated on the NPDA/NPTE circuit with Rice University more recently (2015-2019). My partner and I finished second at nationals (NPTE) our senior years. I consider myself to be comfortable with traditional and progressive styles of debate.

- My pronouns are he/him/his.

Crucial Points:

- Please attempt to be as courteous to one another as possible.

- In terms of argumentation, I do not necessarily have a preference for which kinds of arguments you present (e.g., policy affirmatives, DAs, CPs, Ks, Theory, etc.), but I would like them to be thoroughly explained, well-warranted, and impacted out (including weighing/impact calculus) throughout the debate.

- I gravitate towards evaluating framework very highly in the round (e.g., sequencing claims pertaining to competing methodologies). It is very likely that, if you are winning the framework debate, you are ahead in the debate (according to my assessment).

Theory/Topicality:

- I approach theory and topicality by analyzing the interpretation/violation layer first and the standards/voters layer second. If the opposing team wins a "we meet," they have effectively no linked the argument in my judgment (and thus need not even address the standards/voters).

- In assessing the standards/voters layer of the theory/topicality debate, I am looking for (a) extensive comparison between the respective standards of the interpretation and the counter-interpretation with respect to the voters (i.e., internal link analysis) and (b) priority claims in regard to voters (How do the voters interact with one another? Does one ground the possibility of another?).

CPs/Ks:

- On CPs and Ks themselves, I would prefer clearly marked solvency for both positions (I think CP/K solvency is pretty important - especially the question of "how do you solve the aff?" if this is an aspect of your position).

- I would like K links to be specific to the affirmative as opposed to more generic K links ("you use the state/capitalism/etc.") - if that's not the case, I am receptive to "no link" arguments from the affirmative.

- I think framework debates on Ks can be really educational, and I value framework pretty highly when considering which impacts matter in the round. Root cause claims can function as tiebreakers between competing frameworks.

DAs:

- I like DAs with precise/lucid uniqueness stories and specific links to the affirmative.

- I enjoy arguments from the affirmative about how the DA links to the CP. I think some valuable offense can be garnered from these.

Perms:

- I believe perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy, but I'm willing to evaluate the contrary.

- Also, if the perm text doesn't make sense (e.g., "do both" when alt text says "reject aff"), I will consider this argument in relation to the viability of the permutation.

Mike Bausch Kent Denver School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 1:31 AM MDT

Mike Bausch

Director of Speech and Debate, Kent Denver

Please include me in email chains; my email is mikebausch@gmail.com.

Thanks for letting me judge your debate. Do what you do best, and I will do my best to adapt to you all. Here are some tips for debating in a way that I find most persuasive:

1. Flow the debate and make complete arguments. I care about line-by-line debating and organization. An argument must have a claim, evidence, and an impact on the debate for me to vote on it. I must understand your reasoning enough to explain to the other team why I voted on it.

2. Be timely and efficient in the round. Nothing impresses me more than students who are prepared and organized. Please conduct the debate efficiently with little dead time. Don’t steal prep.

3. Focus on argument resolution after the first speeches. Impact calculus, developing specific warrants, identifying what to do with drops, answering “so what” questions, making “even if” statements, and comparing arguments (links, solvency, etc) are all great ways to win arguments, rather than just repeat them.

4. Feature judge instruction in the final rebuttals. The best tip I can give you is to go for less distinct issues as the debate develops and to focus on explaining and comparing your best points to your opponent’s arguments more. Begin your final rebuttal by writing my ballot and explicitly saying what you’re winning and why that should win you the debate.

5. Remember that this is a communication activity. Speak clearly, I do not follow along with the speech document and will say “clear” if I can’t understand you. Use your cross-examination time to persuade the judge and prepare for it like a speech.

6. Talk about your evidence more. I think a lot of teams get away with reading poor evidence. Please make evidence comparison (data, warrants, source, or recency) a significant part of the debate. Evidence that is highlighted in complete and coherent sentences is much more persuasive than evidence that is not.

7. Identify specific evidence that you want me read after the debate. I am more likely to read evidence that is discussed and explained during the debate and will use the debater's explanation to guide my reading. I am unlikely to read evidence that I didn't understand when it was initially presented, or to give much credit to warrants that only become clear to me after examining the evidence.

8. Develop persuasive specific links to your desired argument strategy. I think the affirmative should present an advocacy they can defend as topical, and the negative should clash with ideas that the affirmative has committed to defending. I think that the policy consequences and ethical implications of the resolution are both important to consider when debating about the topic. For all strategies, it starts for me with the credibility of the link.

9. Develop and compare your impacts early and often. Impact analysis and comparison is crucial to persuading me to vote for you. In depth explanation is great and even better if that includes clear comparisons to your opponent’s most significant impacts.

10. I prefer clash heavy instead of clash avoidant debates. I am most impressed by teams that demonstrate command of their arguments, who read arguments with strong specific links to the topic, and who come prepared to debate their opponent’s case. I am less impressed with teams that avoid clash by using multiple conditional advocacies, plan vagueness, generic positions without topic nuance, and reading incomplete arguments that lack clear links or solvency advocates.

*Note: Because evidence comparison is a valuable skill, I think all formats of debate benefit from evidence exchange between students in the debate and would prefer if students practiced this norm.

Blaine Cantwell Northridge High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 12, 2024 at 7:22 AM MDT

Email: blainesdebatestuff@gmail.com (add me on all email chain's.)

Preferences:

If you have any specific questions about my paradigm, a ballot, or a decision please feel free to reach out to me at blainesdebatestuff@gmail.com and I will be happy to help you out.

Please prioritize debating how you are comfortable rather than conforming to every little thing that I say in my paradigm. My paradigm is more of a suggestion than a requirement to win the round. Debate is for the debater, not for the judge; and I want to see rounds where teams want to be there. I am comfortable with all styles of debate and don't think there is an objective best way to do it. If you debate how you know how, you will do great!

I judge mostly on tech, but I do like big picture arguments in the ladder half of the debate. However, please please please EXTEND YOUR WARRANTS first before going big picture on me. Common sense is your greatest tool, warranting will almost always trumps cards.

Please weigh weigh weigh. I need you to tell me why you win. I don't want to be the one to decide what arguments are most important. You as the debater should be telling me this. With that being said, effective weighing is reliant upon good link debate. Good warrants are a pre-requisite to weighing, and good evidence is necessary to have good warrants.

T: I am comfortable voting on T. Competing interps are best. However, I should have a reason to vote for T, like if your opponent violates but there is no real impact to T, I'm just gonna drop it. If you want there to be RVI's you need to tell me; I will assume there are no RVI's otherwise.

Case K: You can read them, but they should have direct links to the case or topic. If you have specific questions, just send me an email or ask me in round. K's in PF feel like you are shooting yourself in the foot because of the time constraint, LD and policy are preferred.

I have noticed a new trend with K debate where teams are kicking the alt and running the K as a DA/Turn to case. I am not a super big fan. This is fine in some circumstances, but people are doing it way too often. If you are going to do this, you better have super solid framework.

Performance or Debate about debate: Threshold for winning on these arguments is higher than a case K, but you can run them. Just make sure your framing is good, and I need solid warrants on why I should vote on performance.

Warranting is everything. Evidence is great, but the evidence has to have a warrant to weigh it. This is also true if you are trying to do evidence comparison. (Ie. If you tell me to post date, there needs to be a warrant as to why the post dating matters.)

I am comfortable with both trad and progressive LD and am happy to judge on both and don't think one is better than the other.

Judge Instruction is your friend. Paint a picture of the round and why you win and you will have a better chance of me voting for you.

Most importantly, just be comfortable and have fun!

Yibo Chen Twolves Independent 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 1, 2024 at 9:09 AM MST

Paradigms are stupid, please don't be as well,
Many debaters rely on it, without it they sell,
And don't start off with "My case, their case",
because everyone thinks it's a waste.

Progressive is rubbish and dumb,
My ears have heard it all, they're numb.
The worst speak fast,
And yet their arguments are ~~ass~~ bad,

Now when deciding whether sit near,
you should have no fear
If your speech I cannot hear,
I will then yell "Clear!"

If still after three times,
Your speech is still mumbled,
Then because of this rhyme,
Your contentions will be fumbled.

Everyone around asks me,
"Do you flow cross?"
My answer is simple as can be,
Mention it in speech, else it's your loss!

Everyone sets up a doc,
And still no one can seem to block.
Countless cards are cut,
But in the end nothing is rebut.

But lets talk about the arguments,
Because I've heard them all,
Even though LD isn't my department,
Bring up non-topicality and you will fall.

Power tagging is distasteful, that's a fact,
Lying is wasteful, don't try this act,
Countless lies and debater-math,
Don't try anything funny, or face my wrath.

Your words alone can't be trusted,
Please cut cards properly, don't get busted.
Be nice to your opponents, don't abuse,
Honesty or not, what shall you use?

Some egos are too big,
I'm tired of hearing countless digs,
It's Speech and Debate,
Not impeach and hate.

For all intents and purposes,
This paradigm is mostly a joke.
Please don't report these verses,
or complain to your coach.

The real paradigm lies within,
Talent, abilities, and skill to win,
Trophies will line your shelf, in time,
Remember to have fun and unwind.

Policy

No progressive. Speed is fine, but you better be prepared to be clear and vocal, especially with your evidence. If you drop your syllables I will drop you. In all seriousness, if I have to say clear three times, I will stop flowing for that speech. Topicality is a must, refer to my LD paradigm.

I am absolutely and wholly unqualified to be judging policy debate, and yet it seems I get assigned this tournament after tournament. Please take this into account when coming into the round, there is no "bad judge, good judge", but rather any other judges, and me. I will have preconceptions and implicit bias, as we all do, take note. At the end of the day, I value debate skills and strategy over content, if that helps. I wish you the best of luck, you will need it.

Public Forum

The event's called Public Forum,
That's why you maintain decorum.
Follow the rules during debate,
If not then you won't break.

Don't lie to me, should be simple enough as a PF debater right? No inflated impacts, misattributed statistics, exaggerated tagging, etc. Easy!

Congress

I did Congressional debate for all four years of my time in the NSDA. Congress is unique in that competitors are able to discuss and advocate for change regarding issues that directly affect all of us in a debate format that's open and accessible. Whether new to the event or experienced, I look forward to seeing all your speeches out there on the circuit!

Baseline Expectations

Due to the fast paced nature of Congress, the speakers' evidence is often given the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, every competitor's integrity is central to maintaining the trustworthiness of the overall event. This integrity is lost when evidence is fabricated, so it is expected that you've put in a reasonable amount of effort to ensure the credibility of the sources you cite in your speech. No, combining "NYT" with '22 does not make what you say more believable, contrary to popular belief.

How I Judge

I value strategy.

Too often enough in Congress, speeches with previously elaborated arguments are given again by another speaker. Congress is not just an event where one can expect to prepare speeches ahead of time and do well by giving them canned; you and your speeches must be adaptable. If you respond to or build upon others' speeches given before you and introduce new but relevant arguments, then you'll do well. If you completely shut down the other side's case for passing/failing the legislation, I will have no other choice than to rank you high!

You can be the most articulate, clear, well-spoken competitor out there, but if you do not strategically give your speech at the right time and address the right points of contention/speakers, your impact on debate will be minimal. This is why I believe that in Congress, all ought to be judged on how they strategize.

Do Not Under ANY Circumstance Do the Following (I've seen it all)

Not Paying Attention - Going up and saying in your speech saying "here's something NO other representative has brought up"... only to rehash something previously brought up. Shows you aren't paying attention.

Political Stupidity - Say something so politically inept like "Representative, why would China spy on its own citizens?" I wonder, why would an authoritarian government spy on its own citizens? Other things I've heard include: "Why would Putin lie about killing civilians?", "Isn't it the obligation of the US to provide aid to the world?", etc.

Putting Down Others to Be Different- Going up and saying "Rep. X falls flat when they say ____" or rebutting your own speech side for the sake of making yourself seem smarter is simply a waste of time, better spent focusing on yourself.

Refuse to Speak Until a Certain Cycle - Despite popular belief, speaking later in the round does not mean higher ranks. Judges only really care if you're rebutting and referring to the most important arguments in your cycle and if you clash properly. I've seen people go "I can give an X speech" when gauging the chamber's splits, only to refuse to speak and forcing the chamber to break cycle, which hinders everyone's experience. I will point this out to the judges, and they will rank you accordingly.

PO'ing

Our circuit is plagued by a chronic shortage of POs, to the point where you'll see a chamber full of competitors awkwardly staring at each other hoping that someone steps up and takes the gavel. You'll hear things such as "Oh I can PO but I haven't done it in a long time..." or "If someone POs now I can PO later...". Despite the long-held rumor that becoming the PO will ruin your ranking, this is far from the case, especially when I'm judging.

Remember, the Congressional debate national champion has been a PO for more than a few years in a row, how do you think they got there? Pure skill? Wrong. They PO'd.

If you PO and do it impartially, fairly, and efficiently, a high ranking will reflect your high performance.

Maanik Chotalla Brophy College Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 10:08 AM MST

I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

Connor Clark Tempe Preparatory Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 6:37 AM MST

Doc Sharing: Disclosure and evidence sharing is good, even at locals. If there's an email chain, I want to be on it: connorpclark9@gmail.com

Background: I debated LD for Tempe Preparatory Academy from 2019-2023. I placed top 14 at NSDA Nats both times I went and won the 2023 ASU tournament. Currently at Michigan's Ross School of Business---Go Blue!

TLDR: I highly prefer traditional LD debate, but am open to and will vote on anything I can flow as long as it's not blatantly harmful to the debate space or the people in it. Debate is a community first and foremost, so be nice to each other and promote good norms. If you have questions about anything, feel free to ask before the round.

FOR ASU: my paradigm might've been a bit unclear in prelims, but I love K debate and think that it's an important part of the debate space, so 100% feel free to run Ks in front of me (I spent a significant portion of my 4 years running Ks)

Prefs:
1 - Traditional/Lay
2 - Kritiks
3 - High Theory/Non-Traditional Philosophy/Policy
Strike - Tricks, Friv theory

Defaults:
- Read any argument you want. I like all forms of argumentation as long as it is well-warranted and impacted.
- The round belongs to you, so do what you want with it.
- I'm fine with speed (around 300wpm), but err on the side of slowing down for critical arguments because I can't vote on what I don't hear. Mumble-spreading is a terrible norm. Also spreading isn't an excuse to doc-bot and not know your own arguments.
- Tech > truth, but all arguments need at least a claim, warrant, and impact (i.e. truth still matters).
- Assume I know nothing about the resolution and explain K-lit/high phil as if I haven't heard it before.
- If you don't weigh offense, I'll have to do it for you and you won't like the result.
- Don’t tell lies (bad debate math counts as lies). I’m happy to evaluate all arguments, but lies are not arguments. There isn’t room in this activity for intellectual dishonesty, and I'm comfortable not voting on an argument if the evidence is sketchy.

Policy:
- Plans don't need FW, but that doesn't exempt you from a neg-initiated FW debate. Absent FW, I default to util (probability and strength of link > magnitude, so don't assume extinction outweighs).
- TJFs are no fun. If you can't defend your framework as a philosophical theory, I have no reason to view it as one.
- I prefer fewer, more developed offs over spamming low-quality positions to overwhelm your opponent (I really dislike underdeveloped and non-competitive CPs).
- Make sure your CP doesn't link into your DA. Really. I will be very sad if it does.

Kritiks:
- Labeling each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) makes it so much easier to evaluate and vote on. That being said, if you aren't running a typically organized K, just explain how I should evaluate it.
- If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate.
- I am not a fan of "debate bad" Ks, or super abusive non-T K-affs, but have and will vote on them if they're winning. Ks don't exist as simply another strategic option to get the ballot, so if it's clear that you are insincere or using someone else's suffering to win the ballot, there's a good chance I'll drop you.
- Links of omission are NOT strong links. If you want to read a K, tailor it to the specific argument you're responding to.

Traditional:
- This is my favorite type of debate. It's what I did most when I did LD, and I will bless your speaks if you do it well.
- Framework debate is fantastic, but make sure to explain not only that you win the framework, but also what that means in terms of how I should evaluate the round. I view framework as the lens through which I evaluate offense, so simply winning framework doesn't mean you win the round (and it's definitely NOT a voting issue).
- I love engaging characters/personalities when debating. Rhetoric is EXTREMELY PERSUASIVE, and if you use it well you will get high speaks (and probably the ballot).
- I love unique, well-crafted cases instead of stock util/extinction debates. Having a strategic case that's different from 90% of cases on the topic is the best way to show me that you've thought about the topic. These are my favorite debates to judge.
- I'm totally down to evaluate definition/burden debates and smart analytics about what specific conditions need to be met to affirm/negate. When used properly, observations are the strongest types of arguments in traditional LD.

Miscellaneous:
- If you start any of your speeches out with a haiku, I will give you +1 speaker points.
- I like voting for debaters who are having fun debating, so enjoy the round. Don't stress out too much. Debate isn't everything in life. Everyone in this activity is a human first and debater second.

Maya Ahava Conroy Hire

Blake Enwiller Arizona College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 3:29 AM MST

Hello, I'm Blake Enwiller, and I debated Public Forum for three years and competed in Congress and Impromptu for two years.

Hugh Downs VLD - scroll down for LD-specific paradigm, but mostly everything in the below paragraphs (PF paradigm included) summarizes what I value while judging. Since the tournament is flighted, please pre-flow before the round (with the exception ofout-rounds).

Ultimately, I believe that Speech and Debate is an activity to foster effective and convincing rhetoric in addition to strong argumentation. Please do not engage in anything that hinders fair debate, especially in Public Forum since it was designed for lay judges.

Please make this round educational for all participants. In addition to the general knowledge I have, I believe that each side has the burden to teach me the topic and provide clear links between their arguments to that topic. I'm always open to questions after the round (or before the round if you want to clarify anything in my paradigm).

Email for additional feedback: blake.enwiller@vanderbilt.edu

Public Forum Preferences

General Philosophy: Please stick to PF's central purpose in the round, which is to promote an accessible debate format to the most general of audiences. Though I am a flow judge, I still value strong links and tangible impacts that are reasonable and comprehensible. Also, the best debate rounds are always ones where debaters understand their cases. Being able to succinctly and persuasively explain your argument causes better extensions, better analytical interaction, and easier decisions for the judge.

1. I do not handle spreading. Moderate speed is fine (220 wpm, 880 word case is close to max I can handle), but spreading prevents your opponents and myself from understanding the arguments and having an effective debate.

2. Argument-wise, I'll vote on anything warranted with clear links. However, I prefer when teams' arguments are the ones you would use in general conversation about the topic rather than squirrelly links with obscure evidence. I value links, probability, and warrants over impacts with high magnitude (nuclear war, extinction). I'm highly receptive to arguments that question your opponents' warrants and evidence, especially the impact.

a. I do not like “overviews” in first rebuttal that function as hidden contentions.

b. No progressive arguments. This event is called Public Forum for a reason; your arguments should be accessible and reasonable. There is no real-world application to deviating from an important topic by providing non-resolutional and extraneous arguments, unless you're intending to be a politician.

3. Second rebuttal must respond to turns, but I don't require extensive frontlining. I ask that the first summary extends defense, even if it was unaddressed in the 2nd rebuttal just for continuity of flow.

4. Please extend your arguments. Cards/links, warrants, and specific numbers within the impact being extended throughout the round are important. The entirety of the logical progression with each of these elements must be mentioned each time you extend your arguments. This is the best way to get the argument on the flow and make it easiest for me to vote.

5. Regarding weighing, it's important. However, I'll only evaluate weighing on arguments that each team won. Having large numbers isn't as important as actually winning the arguments.

6. Given evidence issues in PF, I will allow reading cards without using prep time, but when there are a lot of cards being requested but not mentioned or indicted in speeches, that becomes suspicious and prep will be required. Any misconstrued evidence will not be voted on.

a. Please feel free to ask me in speeches to read cards that you find suspicious. Explain why the card is bad in your speech so I know what to look for. I don't like intervening in rounds, but I also don't like voting for arguments that I know are either fallacious, poorly-linked, or incredibly far-fetched. Please call this out; I don't enjoy imposing my opinion on evidence quality unless you tell me to. I will choose to view your evidence at my discretion after the round.

b. I will drop cards I find to be misconstrued. If it's an impact, I won't vote on that argument.

c. I frequently ask for cards after the debate for my own clarity.

7. I will time speeches and crossfires. Please do not make any new arguments over the time limit. I will not flow them. I'll let you finish whatever argument you were on, but I won't flow anything else.

8. Brief speech orders are fine. I like them, unless it’s 1st rebuttal.

9. Etiquette:

a. Prefer standing over sitting.

b. Respect is important. Unnecessarily aggressive crossfires are uncomfortable and exclusionary. No talking during opponents’ speeches. Try to avoid overly emotive facial expressions.

c. Don't care where you sit; feel free to orient yourself near the outlets should you need a charge.

d. I’ll watch and pay attention to cross apart from a brief score check during baseball and football season. Bring up concessions in speeches, but make sure they're actually concessions. There are better ways to explain the round besides yelling the word "concession" for every argument on the flow.

Lincoln Douglas Preferences

I have a similar philosophy for LD as I do for PF, but with some modifications owing to event differences. I do not want to read off a document, and I don't handle spreading. Debate is an oral event. If you want to use e-mails for evidence exchange, I am fine with that, but I will not be reading off a document during any speech.

1. Please include Value and Value Criterion. If you run progressive argumentation, please be aware that my confidence in my ability to properly judge those arguments is alarmingly low. Your choice and your risk. DAs, CPs, and Plans make sense to me. Theory and Kritiks are where my evaluation capability might be questionable. When I evaluate LD rounds, I look first at the arguments that each side is winning, and then I see whether those arguments apply to the prevailing framework. During your extensions, please connect back to your V/VC so I know how to weigh. Again, as a former PF debater, I’m not familiar with evaluating FW debate — if both you and opponent are running different frameworks, it might be advantageous for you to weigh under both frameworks.

2. I understand that the style of cutting cards in LD with random, sporadic chunks of words is the norm. However, if there is any evidence misinterpretation or deliberate omission of parts of a card that alters the meaning, please feel free to make that argument. I don't want to intervene, so please call it out.

3. I need warrants to buy your arguments.

4. Etiquette is the same that I wrote in my PF paradigm. I'll abide by traditional LD event norms and require prep time to read cards.

Congress Preferences

1. Congress, at its roots, should be an event with mostly extemporaneous speaking off of a legal pad. Speeches that are clearly pre-written with no regard to opposing arguments will not be ranked high, as these speeches typically rehash arguments.

2. Each speech besides the authorship should refute. I appreciate when later speeches introduce new arguments and weigh impacts.

3. I do not appreciate when there are 3+ speeches on the same side in a row. This isn't debating, and most of the time, these are rehashed arguments anyway. When debaters refrain from moving to question so they can get an earlier session end time, it's not fair, especially when the speeches on that bill become rehashed and debate is one-sided.

4. I appreciate when debaters are the presiding officer. I am more than happy to rank a PO high that either (a.) volunteers when veteran debaters who are well-versed in procedure do not PO or (b.) exhibits excellent command of procedure.

5. I do enjoy arguments about the constitutionality of a piece of legislation.

Shradha Garg BASIS Peoria 3 rounds

Kyle Hietala Palo Alto High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 27, 2024 at 2:12 PM PDT

Kyle Hietala (he/him)
kylehietala@gmail.com

CURRENT:
Program Director & Head Coach, Palo Alto High School
President, National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)
Vice President, Coast Forensic League (CFL)

FORMER:
Coach: St. Luke's, Spence, Sidwell Friends
Competitor: LD, APDA

In the last 5 years, I've judged 249 rounds. I've voted AFF 115 (46%) vs NEG 134 (54%). I've been on 111 panels and squirreled 11 times (9%).

____

SUMMARY
Experienced, ‘truthful tech’ flow judge from a traditional debate background. I’m receptive to many arguments, styles, etc., but I prefer strategic case debate or substantive critical debate. Any clash-heavy strategy focused on well-warranted, comparative, topical argumentation should work well for you. I'm not a great judge for contemporary progressive debate (e.g. AFF Ks, performance, tricks, frivolous theory). I'm fine with moderate speed if you slow down on taglines, enunciate, inflect, etc., but I won't flow off the speech doc. Above all, please be kind and respectful to others. And have fun!

____

VOTING
I usually vote wherever the most thorough warranting and responsive weighing was done. If there's no meta-weighing by either team, I tend to prioritize probability/timeframe over scope/magnitude. I tend to value analysis (quality, depth) over assertion (quantity, breadth) on the flow. I'm unlikely to vote for something blippy and under-developed, even if it was conceded. I tend to vote against strategies I consider clash-evasive (e.g. frivolous theory, tricks, conditional CPs, unlinked Ks). Keep in mind that my own rhetorical responsibility is to cogently justify to the losing team why they lost, so being clear is to your advantage.

____

CASE/POLICY
I think debaters chronically misallocate time to stating the obvious about impacts (e.g. "extinction irreversible"), instead of comparing not-obvious details about warrants/evidence. Impact terminalization is fine, but I'm reluctant to vote for extreme impacts with brittle links – I'd prefer to hear probability analysis rather than nuclear war/extinction reductionism. AFF needs to show how their advocacy/plan creates solvency. I like framework-heavy case strategies that challenge net benefits/utilitarian policymaking, especially strategies focused on actor analysis and ethical obligations.

KRITIK
I like K debate, but I also find a lot of it to be obtuse. The link is the most important part of the kritik, because it tells me what you're critiquing/what your opponent did wrong. Links of omission are not links, and reject the AFF/resolution is not an alternative. I'm not comfortable with Ks that ask me to make judgments about a student's immutable identity.My favorite K debates are topically-relevant examinations of academic assumptions, especially in discourse/rhetoric.

THEORY/TOPICALITY
I'm receptive to theory/topicality when it's needed to check in-round abuse, but unreceptive to it for its own sake. An abundance of technical skill shouldn't excuse someone from playing fairly. I'm willing to intervene against debaters who think that baffling their opponent with frivolous theory entitles them to my ballot, and I'm also happy to intervene in favor of a debater who doesn't know the minutiae of theory shells, but is contesting something which is excluding them from the round.

Benny Hu Francis Parker School 2 rounds

Brit Johnston The Meadows School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 5:06 AM PDT

Do a speech drop, I beg of you.

However, if you have no idea what speech drop is, I still want to be on the email chain.
johnsb43@unlv.nevada.edu

I do debate, I do speech, I do it all. Don't lie please, I'll know.

My quals:

Six and a half years of competitive debate experience lol, 3x Nat Qualifier, 2x NIETOC Qualifier, and currently doing LD collegiate debate at UNLV.

I've competed at both the local and nat circuit so I'm familiar with a wide variety of debates.

Basic stuff,

1. If you're hateful or discriminatory in any way, I'm not scared to report it.

2. Keep the round fair and safe, if I notice anything out of the ordinary it won't look good on you.

3. I understand phones are a part of our livelihoods but only use them for time, nothing else. I will also be keeping time but I won't call you out if you go over, you should know and my speaker points will reflect that if you continuously go over.

Now specific thingies:

First, I'm okay with and can follow spreading as long as I'm in a speech WORD doc. I'm not going to try to flow your speeches if I have no feasible way to read your cards.

Second, I don't typically vote on theory but especially not disclosure theory. While your case should be on your Wiki, an entire debate that's not even about the topic at hand is not going to be beneficial for any party.

Congress-

Talk frequently, ask good questions, be courteous, and let me know that you're there. If I don't remember your name by the end of the round, you will not be anywhere near the top 9. Clash is a big thing and if you're able to use it effectively and appropriately, it will be huge bonus points for you. Decorum is a vital part of this event so please maintain it.

Policy-

like disads and I LOVE counterplans. If you present me a really good counterplan, I'm more inclined to vote for you. That being said if you're the aff you have the burden of truth, please prove to me why your plan is the only solution. I'm fine with T but theory and K's are not my favorite. At the end of the day though, weigh your impacts please. I'm a big fan of impact calc and I am often swayed to the competitors with the better weight. Cross gets heated in policy and I don't flow it but don't start yelling and insulting your competitor. I'm also fine with speed but a tip for novices, if you don't actually know how to spread, don't risk it. Give me a voter, by the end of the round if I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, I won't be voting for you.

Public Forum-

Please make sure you impact weigh, I need to know your weighing mechanism by the end of the round. I know when args and cards have been dropped. Explain to me what the round comes down to, the summary and final focus are the most important speeches and it's where my vote usually lies. I go by what my flow says and I will vote for the more compelling arguments if both sides flow well. I like line-by-line since it's more organized and makes everyone's lives easier. Signpost please, makes everyone's lives easier. Cross is for clarification, use it to forward your case more effectively. I don't love speed in public forum but I can follow it. Ultimately, I leave the round very much in the competitors' hands, have fun, and convince me to give you my ballot.

LD-

I hate flex prep. Don’t do it in front of me please. Prep is not another cross x lol. While I’m not necessarily against traditional debate, I have a strong preference towards prog. Now on prog debate,I don't like tricks, anything that will make a round abusive is automatically a no from me. On the aff side, I need your link chains to function. Your advantages need to be cohesive enough that I can follow your line of reasoning and it doesn't seem like a stretch. You must also stick to your stock issues for the flow to favor you, your plan needs to solve for all of them and if it doesn't, you don't have a likely chance of winning. On the neg, I love turns, CPs and DAs are cool and if compelling, they're good offs for the neg. While I don’t think I’m a T hack, I have definitely been known to vote on T but if you go for it, you have to go all the way. Like I said previously I don't typically vote on theory unless it's a MAJOR rule violation so do with that what you will, and I don’t like K’s (this includes aff K’s), I would recommend avoiding Theory and K’s with me as your judge. Overall though, if you're able to prove that the aff doesn't solve for the stock issues, the round will likely flow in your favor.

SPEAKER POINTS (this is where cross is important ;)):

24- You violated one of my basic rules!!! (Going over time won't get you a 24 but using your phone illegally will D;)

25- You still violated one of my basic rules but it wasn't too bad

26- Your speeches were really over or under time and you weren't a strong debater in the round; attitude may also be a factor in a 26

27- Your speeches were poorly structured, your arguments weren't the most understandable, and your speaking style could be improved

28- You were a great debater and you showed strength in all areas but there's room for improvement

29- You were close to a perfect performance but you had a couple of errors that dropped you down

30- Perfect.

Alright y'all, that's really all that I have, remember that most importantly debate is supposed to be fun, so let's have a good round!

Anil Kelwalker BASIS Peoria 3 rounds

Chongwoo Kim BASIS Scottsdale High School 2 rounds

Christopher Klugman BASIS Scottsdale High School 4 rounds

Gordon Krauss Peninsula High School 4 rounds

Rajesh Kulandaivadivelu BASIS Peoria

Daniel Kyle Hire 3 rounds

James Lewis University School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 2:22 AM EDT

James Lewis
Affiliation: University School

About Me: I did four years of Lincoln-Douglas debate way back when. (I'm old) Never accomplished anything of note. Competed in parli in college (accomplished very little of note), did grad work in American history. Now I teach history and I'm the head coach at University School (OH). Helped start Classic Debate Camp a traditional camp where I was the head LD instructor for a bit, left to get a life away from debate, then came back to teach top lab in 2020 and online in 2021. Stayed home and played with my cats in 2022 instead of teaching at CDC in person.

LD Judging Philosophy (Edited for Durham 2023):

Edit for Durham 2024: I thought this was explicit in my paradigm, but it was not. DO NOT SPREAD. IF YOU PLAN TO SPREAD, STRIKE ME. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING WHEN YOU SPREAD, I DO NOT INTEND TO FOLLOW YOU ON THE CASE DOC TO TRY TO DECIPHER WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. FOR EVERYONE'S SAKE, IF YOU PLAN TO SPREAD, STRIKE ME!!!!!!

Edit #2- While I'm giving the oral critique/RFD please do me the courtesy of giving me your full attention. Specifically, do not spend the critique furiously typing while I talking to you. Signal to me that you are engaged. If you're not particularly interested in my input, that's cool, just say so and I'll save my breath. (Seriously I won't be offended. It keeps things moving along quickly)

I think it's really important that you actually research, write cases about and debate the actual resolution. Please leave your tricks at home. I have no interest in hearing arguments about debate theory. I guess I'll flow them, but have a very low threshold for dropping the arguments. I'm not the judge to run a kritik on. I don't coach them, hardly understand them and have a very low threshold for being convinced to drop them. (Hint: Just say, "Judge, that is all well and good but can we please debate the resolution at hand?")

The one way I have changed is that I have become more favorable to LARPing in the debate. I used to be one of those "The rules of LD doesn't allow plans and counterplans!" But given that the resolutions given to us by the NSDA are so often rooted in concrete policy questions, it doesn't seem fair to ask debaters to resist the urge to craft plans or to preclude the NEG from the strategic advantages of a counterplan.

My threshold for buying extinction impacts is VERY VERY high. For me to believe that extinction is going to happen or is probable, you have to have a very strong link chain. Like very strong. Otherwise, I'm just going to drop that impact.

I like not having to make a decision on my own about who won the round. Both debaters should prioritize a) giving me a standard (call it a criterion/standard/argument meter, I don't care) which I can use to decide who won the round and b) applying that standard to the arguments they have made in the round.

I believe that ultimately the purpose of competitive debate is to communicate and persuade. I tend to favor debaters who more effectively communicate their ideas and do a better job of presenting a coherent rationale as to why I should uphold their positions. In the end, my vision of a good debater is one who can take their opponents’ strongest arguments, treat them fairly and still show why their position is the more valid position. I tell my debaters to strive for "clarity" and "synthesis"

Obviously the use of evidence is important in that it substantiates analysis, arguments and conclusions. But I place a very high premium on analysis and argumentation. I don’t consider whether your opponent attacks every single “card” (Honestly, I don't flow every card you mention in your case.) Use evidence as a tool AND don’t let it obscure your reasoning.

PF Notes- My background is largely in LD but I've judged enough PF to know what I'm doing.

Edit for NSDA Opener: My threshold for buying extinction impacts is VERY VERY high. For me to believe that extinction is going to happen or is probable, you have to have a very strong link chain. Like very strong. Otherwise, I'm just going to drop that impact.

Edit for TOC 2023: Look, the calling for cards is getting excessive. At the point where you ask your opponent for "all the evidence that you read on X argument" I suspect that you're fishing for cards/not listening/now flowing your opponents arguments because you plan to just call for all the evidence later. Don't give me that impression.

I'll evaluate everything I hear in the round.

Emphasis on "hear" I HATE spreading. I HATE that debaters think that quantity is a substitute for quality and that a lot of "high level" rounds mostly consist of debaters spewing unwarranted statements + card taglines (and the cards in PF are usually miscut/misrepresented) + jargon. I don't even know what half the jargon y'all are throwing out there means. So if that's your game plan, please strike me for everyone's good.

I'll also try to intervene as little as possible in the round. I've been on way too many panels where oral RFDs consist of judges citing flaws with in round arguments that WEREN'T ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP IN THE ROUND. I despise this. My debate days are over. (And as mentioned above, I wasn't that good at it) I'll leave it up to y'all to do the debating. I'll probably express my displeasure with bad or messy argumentation in a round, but I won't factor it into my decision.

While I try not to intervene and to evaluate everything on the flow, I should note that there are certain kinds of arguments that I just don't find too convincing. So the threshold for responses to those arguments are going to be REALLY REALLY low. I think debaters should actually debate about the resolution. I don't have much patience for theory debate. If you want to debate about debate, go write an article in the ROSTRUM or get a PhD in rhetoric. So I'll flow your kritiks and your theory, but if you opponent gets up and says "Judge, this is kind of silly, can we please talk about the resolution at hand?" then I'll probably drop that argument. I have little patience for the idea that debate rounds are a mechanism for social change. I have even less patience for debaters who are trying to commodify social issues and the suffering of others for a win in a debate round when it is not particularly relevant to the round itself.

And for the love of all that is good and decent, would someone please take 30 seconds to establish a framework for the round? And actually warrant it? Even better than weighing is weighing that a debater can do in the context of their framework.

Paul Li Desert Vista High School 6 rounds

Melissa Lin Brophy College Prep 5 rounds

Dylan Liu Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2024 at 3:56 AM PDT

Include me on the chain: dylanyliu3@gmail.com

I competed for Brentwood in LD on the circuit from 2017 to 2021, competing for Emory in policy, 25'. He/Him.

I value the work and effort that goes into preparing and attending a debate tournament. I am excited to judge your round and value both my and your time!

For nats, lay, pf:

Ignore everything below. Debate is a game of persuasion: a] i'm influenced by winning arguments, b] i'm influenced by influential speakers. Lay/pf debate is an exercise in accessibility, strategic choices, efficiency, and judge adaptation. Think of me as a debater roleplaying as a parent judge and you'll have a good time.

For circuit LD/policy:

tl;dr / prefs: Debate is a very really highly educational game evaluated through whether or not I'm persuaded to vote for you. Debate how you want to debate, I think good argumentation is extremely persuasive. I think my primary obligation as a judge is to evaluate the round, but value the educational aspect of debate which has a strong likelihood of persuading my ballot.

I am likely bad for pomo and tricks and will vote for it only if there is a very compelling explanation in the rebuttals that tell me what it is I'm voting for exactly and why that means you win. I don't feel particularly comfortable voting for positions that I couldn't explain back to you.

At my core, I think debate is good. I think clash is the focal point of what makes the activity good.

debate thoughts

cp's

are logical, good, and neg gets them. I think they should have solvency advocates or very obviously solve the aff. I think condo operates structurally differently in LD and policy, and I have both run and am comfortable voting for condo bad.

da's

are yay -- if consequences matter and the consequence would be on balance negative then I would probably negate.

k's

are intriguing. My favorite debates have been critical -- I think throwing buzz words at me without warrants doesn't make for a compelling position and warrants are good. Please don't not read them, but if you do read them I think that there's a moderate-to-high threshold on me being able to explain it back to the debaters for you to win on them.

aff stuff

I love a good 1ac -- I think if you are referencing your 1ac in your 1ar frequently then your 1ac was probably well thought out.

I don't think saying "extend the advantage" is enough -- an explanation of the story is the floor and the way the advantage implicates the round is the gold standard.

I like impact scenarios

I dislike blips and would probably only vote on it if it's the only option

other stuff

i will bump up both debaters' speaker points if the 1ac begins at the round start time.

I think in round violence against people in the room can be a compelling ballot - I think there's a sliding scale of when I'm obligated to intervene and I will gladly end it shamelessly and seemingly arbitrarily, especially for children.

Clipping and other evidence violations ends the round with an L + lowest speaks; I will actively listen for clipping and am open to recordings or proof that someone else is clipping.

Please don't read win 30 in front of me

Gong Liu BASIS Chandler High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 12:58 AM MST

I am a traditional/lay judge - most of this paradigm can be derived from that statement. I will most likely not understand progressive debate, and dislike debate jargon. When forced to judge progressive debate, I will try my best.

Dos:

Have depth in understanding of the topic.
Use relevant evidence. Don’t just read a random card as a warrant that, in fact, does not support your tag. Also, please point out your opponent’s misuse of evidence when it occurs.
Maintain the ability to seek common ground even in a debate situation - your opponent is not necessarily your enemy. Be kind, no ad hominem. I will most likely not flow off the document, so please be coherent in your actual words.
Good presentation is still quite important to me. I will try to minimize this bias, but in the face of a close round, the better speaker will win.
Have good, logical warrants. Evidence itself is not a warrant - and evidence is not necessarily concrete. Clear link chains are a must. Explain links, warrants, and impacts very thoroughly.

Don’ts:

Make bold statements without adequate support. I will try to minimize judge intervention on arguments, but when weighing similar arguments I will go for the one that makes more logical sense. I still appreciate creativity, but they must pass the common sense test first.
Spread. I can only flow what I can hear. Check speed/clarity with me before you start speaking if necessary.
Link cause and effect without adequate intermediate transitions. I am not able to "jump", without your adequate help, to the conclusion that your opponent's position will lead to climate change, nuclear war, civil war, etc. I will be skeptical about these kinds of doomsday arguments in general, so if you must make them, you will have an uphill battle.

Misc:

Truth > Tech
Argument Quality > Quantity
Make it easy for me to decide the winner of the round - judge instruction is a must. Signpost and present the voters of the round as clearly as possible.

Nick Loew Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 24, 2024 at 7:41 PM EDT

Nick Loew - GMU'24 - 4x NDT qualifier, 1x NDT Doubles

nickloew14@gmail.com

I have primarily read 'policy' arguments; however, you should read whatever arguments you are most comfortable with and want to go for. None of my opinions about debate are so significant that they overdetermine deciding who won based on the individual debate in front of me.

Tech > Truth. Complete arguments require warrants.

I appreciate debaters who are simultaneously serious and kind. Being rude or condescending to your opponents will earn you lower speaks than you're probably hoping for.

T - I enjoy well-researched and substantive topicality debates. On the other hand I dislike contrived and unpredictable interpretations that are arbitrary in nature. (T LPR on the HS immigration topic > T substantial on the college alliances topic).

T vs K Affs - I almost always was on the neg going for T in these debates. The aff can win by either presenting a counterinterpretation that seeks to solve the negs offense alongside impact turns to the negs model or impact turns alone. For me I will say that the latter is more difficult as I struggle to vote aff when there is no counterinterp extended in the 2AR to solve some amount of limits/ground.

CPs - I'm alright for most process garbage. Although, I really enjoy specific process CPs that include topic/aff specific evidence. In competition debates I lean affirmative when there is equal debating and the neg has presented a CP that competes based off of certainty or immediacy.

Ks - I like Ks with links to the plan and alternatives that attempt to solve an impact compared to Ks that rely entirely on framework strategies. That being said, I have still voted for positions that were solely critiques of plan-focus or fiat for example.

Theory - Generally I believe that conditionality is good.

If you have any specific questions feel free to email me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lincoln Douglas:

I strongly believe in affirmative disclosure.

Theory: I am mostly unfavorable towards/dislike one sentence theory arguments that seem and are arbitrary in nature. Furthermore, I am unlikely to believe that most theory arguments aside from condo are reasons to reject the debater (ex: solvency advocate theory/states theory/agent CPs etc… is not a reason to reject the team).

Please attempt to be clear. I have found this to be a problem more often in LD likely because of the short speech times.

FAQ: (Nearly identical to Jasmine Stidham's thoughts)

Q:I primarily read policy (or LARP) arguments, should I pref you?

A: Yes.

Q: I read a bunch of tricks/meta-theory/a prioris/paradoxes, should I pref you?

A: No thank you.

Q: I read phil, should I pref you?

A: I'm not ideologically opposed to phil arguments like I am with tricks. I do not judge many phil debates. You may need to do some policy translation/over-explanation however so I understand exactly what you're saying.

Q: I really like Nebel T, should I pref you?

A: Avoid reading evidence from debate blogs. If you'd like to make a similar argument, just find non-Nebel articles. This applies to most debate coach evidence read in LD. T whole-rez generally is fine.

Q: I like to make theory arguments like 'must spec status' or 'must include round reports for every debate' or 'aspec' should I pref you?

A: Not if those arguments are your idea of a round-winning strategy. I am annoyed by strategies that rely on your opponent dropping analytics that weren't sent in the document.

Q: Will you ever vote for an RVI?

A: Nope. Never. I don't flow them.

Ping Luo Able2Shine 4 rounds

Jonathan MacMillan Dougherty Valley High School 4 rounds

Adam Mimou Hire 6 rounds

Hayden Nguyen Hire 6 rounds

Aidin O'Brien Park City 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 12:44 AM PDT

Add me to the chain - Aidin123@berkeley.edu

ASU LD: Do what you do best. Though within progressive-based arguments, I have a better understanding of some arguments over others; below is a quick look for prefs:

1 - Policy/Traditional

2 - Theory, Common K's (Cap, Set-col, etc..)

3 - Phil, Whacky K's (Need more explanation for me to evaluate fairly)

5/Strike - Non-T K Aff's, Tricks, Friv Theory (I do not have the background that I think I need to have to evaluate all arguments fairly and to the quality that you deserve, and friv theory is just an incredibly annoying nuisance)

- Scroll to the bottom for some additional specifics about things

- I haven't judged fast debate in like a year so please please start slow and build into it I need to adjust back.

LD at the bottom:

Just call me Aidin

UC Berkeley Chemistry 23' GO BEARS! BOO PINE TREES!

LD Coach Park City (2020 - Present)

TLDR;

I'm a very expressive person if my face says I hate it. It means I hate it. If I nod or smile, I like what you're saying. Follow the faces

I hate extinction level impacts! I think they create lazy debating where there is a convoluted link chain that will never remotely happen, BUT UTIL!!! So you can run extinction, but to your opponents say MAD.

Impact turns anything that isn't morally repugnant -- corruption, terrorism, oil prices -- because there are two sides to every story

I will say clear three times before I stop flowing altogether. Whatever is not on the flow is not going to be evaluated. PLEASE SIGNPOST!

Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh a little more, and then after weighing, weigh again for good measure

Write the ballot for me in the last speech; the easier it is for me to vote for, the more likely you are to win

Utah Circuit: I debated a lot on the local circuit and now judge a lot. Have impacts and weigh.

- One rule: An extension is not an extension without an explanation and warranting behind it. I will not flow "Extend Contention 3," and that's it.

PF:

Follow my dearest friend Gavin Serr's paradigms for a more comprehensive look at how I would judge PF.

BIGGEST THINGS

- Don't steal prep - It's not hard to start and stop a timer.

- I default Neg. If there is no offense from either side, I'll stick with the status quo

- It's not an argument without a warrant

- A dropped argument is true, but that doesn't mean it matters. I need reasons why the extension matters. I'm not voting on something that I don't know the implications of it.

- Reading a card is part of the prep, without a doubt.

- If you want me to read a card indite, it's not my job as a judge to win you the round.

- If you will talk about marginalized people, framing and overviews are your friends.

- Please have link extensions in both the summary and FF

- Weighing requires a comparison and why the way you compare is better. Which is better, magnitude or timeframe? IDK, you tell me.

LD:

LARP

Solvency

DAs need to have solid internal links

Offense on the DA needs to be responded to even if kicked

Perms need to be contextualized

K's

A flushed-out link story is fabulous; do this every time you run a K.

line by line analysis is of the utmost importance

explanation and quality is better than quantity; I do not vote on things I do not understand, so take the safe route and spend a little more time explaining 5 arguments than dumping 15 that are all blippy

Use a framework and weighing case as your friend.

AFF - please extend and weigh case

Theory

I love the theory. Few caveats, however.

1) I hate frivolous theory. If you run condo bad on 1 or 2 off, I will likely drop your speaks because you're annoying. That being said, please respond to it, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses to it.

2) Disclosure is a MUST. Don't run disclosure theory if your opponent doesn't know what the wiki is. You don't need to disclose new aff's. 30 is enough time to prep.

3) Please WEIGH as much as possible I don't know the difference between an opponent winning time screw and another winning on the ground.

4) Competing interps - The less I intervene, the better for y'all, especially on the highest layer of debate where the round is won or lost. So I try to limit "gut checks" and reasonability unless otherwise told to in the round.

5) No RVI's default but can be changed with hearty effort

6) Please slow down on theory; it's hard to flow everything at top speed, especially if it's not carded and has 5 sub-points.

How I write my RFD's: “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence and I don’t even know where it’s going. I just hope I find it along the way.” - Michael Scott

How I give my RFDs: “I talk a lot, so I’ve learned to tune myself out.” - Kelly Kapoor

How I feel judging: “If I don’t have some cake soon, I might die.” - Stanley Hudson

What I want to do instead of judging: “I just want to lie on the beach and eat hot dogs. That’s all I’ve ever wanted.” - Kevin Malone

What happens when no one weighs: “And I knew exactly what to do. But in a much more real sense, I had no idea what to do.” - Michael Scott

Have questions about chemistry or Berkeley? Ask away

Debate is something to be proud of, win or lose, and have a smile on your face.

Michael Orr Mountain View HS 4 rounds

Luis Peralta Arcadia High School 6 rounds

Greg Pratt McClintock High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 12:27 AM MST

Updated 4/11/24 for the Chance National Qualifier - GOOD LUCK TO ALL competitors

I admire and appreciate your skill, ability and preparation. As Adam Smith articulated in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I work from the assumption that you are all praiseworthy. And, like Aristotle, I view our time together in this activity as a journey toward the good.*

Summary LD Expectations

Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
I reject all extinction impacts
I reject all progressive debate
I reject kritik
If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Congress

Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, PO, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't.
I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos"the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
Excellent overview of Congress expectations.
PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf
Members of our community who have taught me a great deal:

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

Deepa Rajagopalan BASIS Peoria

Anish Ramireddy Peninsula High School 6 rounds

Sanjeev Ranjan BASIS Peoria 3 rounds

Neha Sethi Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 7:57 AM MST

In terms of experience, I was a high school debater, and have also helped coach teams as a college volunteer. While I competed in LD debate, I am familiar with all styles. I can also follow both lay and flow style debates.

General Points

1) Please include me in all email chains. My email is: neha_sethi@msn.com

2) I don't mind spreading for the most part, but please don't go overboard. I can't vote for you if I don't know what you are saying. If you spread to the point where I can't understand you, you will also lose speaks.

3) I do my best to treat all evidence presented as the truth until it is refuted by the opposing team. However, if I feel that you are lying or misconstruing the truth excessively, I will generally dock speaker points even if I have to give the win to your team. If your opponent is lying, you have to point it out to me, otherwise, I will note that they win the point by default.

4) If you want me to evaluate something, a card or tagline generally isn't enough. You should be warranting your argument thoroughly. I find it valuable if you tell me why your evidence is of higher value than your opponent's, especially if it directly contradicts their evidence.

5) Signposting is great. I don't necessarily need a full off-time roadmap, but I can follow along better if you let me know during your speech where you're going.

6) As you head to your last few speeches, do your best to write my ballot for me. If you don't tell me how the round should be evaluated, how the arguments should be weighed, and how you win the round then I may not give you the win.

7) Lastly, feel free to ask me any clarifying questions about my paradigm or otherwise before the round starts (if time permits it). Please just be respectful about it.

Lincoln-Douglas:

1) I am not a fan of pre-fiat Kritiks, especially since they're usually just a way to exclude the affirmation from the round. Ensure you have role of the ballot which will warrant why my vote has an impact on the real world.

2) A role of the ballot only influences how I vote on pre-fiat argumentation. It is not a replacement for framework unless your entire case is pre-fiat. Also, make sure that you provide evidence on how the ballot will cause change.

3) Please try and reserve theory for arguments that are generally abusive of positions that leave one side without any ground. I'll vote on RVIs (reverse voting issues) if they are made, but I don't usually vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "vote against the opposition for violation x..."

4) For post-fiat Kritiks feel free to run anything you want. However, I prefer alts to be more fleshed out than a simple "reject the resolution..."

5) I have no issues with topicality as long as the impact of the topicality on the round is specified.

6) Generally, I value framework and impact analysis over everything else. Skipping one will make me less likely to vote for you, as I either won't know how to evaluate the impacts of the round or because I won't know how to compare them.

Public Forum:

1) For the most part, I don't really flow crossfire, but if something significant is mentioned I will take note.

2)I would recommend weighing arguments in the context of magnitude/probability/time frame. I also appreciate impact calculus.

3) Your Final Focus should not have 3-4 different arguments. It should be focused as you have to implicate your argument against every other argument in the debate.

4) I'm not a huge fan of theory in public forum, but if there is substantial abuse and the theory is not just a way to get out of debating I'm open to it. If you run theory you need to explicitly tell me how to evaluate.

Policy

1) If you throw extremely topic-specific acronyms at me I may be confused, I don't know the topic as well as you do. For the most part, I'm fine as long as you don't go overboard with the acronyms in a sentence.

2) Kritik is ok if you can tie it to the topic at hand. Please do not use an arbitrary Kritik that has no relation to the topic.

3) I usually value engagement and clash over anything else. In order to win, you should address what your opponent is saying, as this should not be a debate where two teams are talking about two completely different worlds.

Senthil Sivaprakasam BASIS Peoria

Jeff Sloan Pueblo West High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 2:54 AM MDT

I've been judging LD and PF debate for 11 years, mostly locally but also at nationals and some circuit events.

LD
I tend to prefer traditional V/VC debate, as that is what I am most experienced in, but I am open to progressive LD with some exceptions (see below).

This is my preferred form of debate: I look for strong framework threads from contentions up through criterion and value. I pay close attention to cross-ex questions and answers. I prefer quality over quantity, which means I like focused, robust, tightly-knit, well-reasoned arguments, and not an evidence barrage designed to overwhelm your opponent. Ultimately, I'm looking for clear clash.

Counterplans are fine only if topical. If you are planning to read a K, do so at your own risk. I tend to be more receptive to Ks that directly challenge an assumption within the resolution as opposed to calling some aspect of your opponent's presentation offensive or unethical. If you are running anything complex, explain it thoroughly and avoid jargon, because I likely will not be familiar with it given my traditional judging background. I am OK with fast talking, but do not spread. If you have a quick delivery, please share docs. I do flow. Anything beyond Ks and plans (tricks, spreading, theory, etc.) are a no-go.

PF
Like LD, I prefer a traditional PF debate with clearly delineated contentions, a strong framework and good linkage between contentions. Because a close round usually comes down to evidence clash, I want you to make clear to me which evidence you consider strongest and why it should sway me. Similarly, I expect you to help me understand how your evidence and arguments stacks up against your opponent's. On cross-ex I look for good, probing, thoughtful questions that help me see potential weaknesses in your opponent's case. Gotcha questions are a non-starter and should be avoided.

PF is not CX — do not spread. That said, I am OK with a rapid delivery, but please share docs if that is your tendency.

General notes:

Don't forget the resolution — a good argument that does not effectively address the resolution can be a loser.
I will vote for anything that is not racist, sexist, abusive, etc. as long as you win the argument.
Do not be abusive or try to win simply by overwhelming your opponent (you likely will not win this way).
I will ask to see evidence at the end of the debate if I need clarity or better understanding. My asking to see evidence should not be construed as meaningful for either side.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I am happy to talk about myself and my paradigm.

Pronouns: he/him/his :)

Allyson Spurlock The Harker School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 4:02 AM EDT

Hi, I'm Allyson Spurlock (people also call me Bunny)

She/Her

allysonspurlock22@gmail.com

I did policy debate for 4 years at CK McClatchy High School in Sacramento, CA where I qualified to the TOC three times and was a Quarterfinalist. I currently coach LD for Harker.

I will diligently flow the debate, read the relevant evidence flagged by the final rebuttals, and assign relative weight to arguments (which originate completely/clearly from the constructives) in accordance with depth of explanation, explicit response to refutations, and instruction in how I should evaluate them.

I have few non-obvious preferences or opinions (obviously, be a respectful and kind person, read qualified/well-cut + highlighted evidence, make smart strategic choices, etc).

I have thought a lot about both critical and policy arguments and honestly do not think you should pref me a certain way because of the kinds of arguments you make (HOW you make them is pretty much all I care about). Judge instruction is paramount; tell me how to read evidence, frame warrants, compare impacts, etc.

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, but your speeches need to do the work of extending/applying specific warrants. Condo is probably good, but many CPs I think can be won are theoretically illegitimate/easily go away with smart perms. Debating the risks of internal links of Advs and DAs is much more useful than reading generic impact defense.

Framework debates:

Different approaches (on both sides) are all fine, as long as you answer the important questions. Does debate change our subjectivity? What is the role of negation and rejoinder? What does the ballot do? Fairness can be an impact but the 2NR still needs to do good impact calculus/comparison.

Policy Aff v K:

FW debates are often frustratingly unresolved; the final rebuttal should synthesize arguments and explain their implications. Because of this, it is often a cleaner ballot for the 2NR to have a unique link that turns the case and beats the aff without winning framework. 2ACs should spend more time on the alt; most are bad and it is very important to decisively win that the Neg cannot access your offense.

Misc:

+0.2 speaker points if you don't ask for a marked doc after the speech

Vasudevan Swamidurai BASIS Scottsdale High School 4 rounds

Naveen Thogati BASIS Peoria 2 rounds

Jasmin Vicente BASIS Scottsdale High School

Fei Wang Hamilton High School 2 rounds

Katie Wang Canyon Crest Academy 6 rounds

Stephanie Warner Corner Canyon High School 6 rounds

Sara White Clark HS 6 rounds

Vijay Yelmat BASIS Peoria 5 rounds

Sarah Zhou Canyon Crest Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 23, 2024 at 2:03 PM PDT

BE NICE!!!
add me to the email chain: sarahczhou5@gmail.com
For PF:
i think PF is somewhat a speech event. please don’t try to run prog arguments in PF, just because I know prog args does not mean I want to hear them in PF.
assume I have zero topic knowledge
the shorter the round and the easier my ballot the higher your speaks
i don’t care much for grand crossfire so if both teams agree to skip it i wouldn’t mind at all
For LD:
general-
1. i evaluate debates technically, based off my flow
2. arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact
3. default judge kick, comparative worlds, reasonability
4. Weighing evidence and impacts is a good way to debate
5. Clash debates are good
6. Clarity > Speed
7. 3 cards or less —> send in body
8. Ev ethics or clipping means you stake the debate
9. Disclosure is good, not disclosing is a voting issue
10. Don’t steal prep
11. Use CX to ask what was skipped
— CPs:
- Condo is good –number of advocacies don’t matter
- CP solvency should be explained thoroughly in the 2NR
- I don’t like cardless CPs
- PICs are good
DAs:
- No such thing as zero risk to the DA
- Don’t really like Politics DAs
K/FW
- Link debate should be at the top of the 2NR/2AR and the 1NC should have link walls
- Alt should directly solve the links
- Aff gets to weigh the case
- Don’t use FW to make the aff lose offense
- Any K you go for should be explained properly – don’t assume I have prior K knowledge about things like Baudrillard
- Normally default neg on K vs T FW debates
Phil
- Won’t vote on permissibly or presumption
- Niche FWs will require some explanation
T/Theory
- If you go for it, don’t just read off blocks
- Fairness > Education
- T debates need offensive/defensive caselists
- Predictability > Limits
- Nebel is ok but definition debates should be meaningful

For policy:

Hi! My names Sarah, my email is sarahczhou5@gmail.com

I did LD throughout all of high school, but I only competed on the national circuit in sophomore year, my junior and senior year I taught progressive LD because I didn't have enough time to compete.

I went to around 10 tournaments in my sophomore year and went to camp twice so I'm pretty well versed in policy arguments, theory, T, etc. I personally really only ran policy and theory args so I'm not super great with Ks but I do know how they work. I will say that I don't know much about some of the more niche Ks that are ran in policy so if you are going to run those in front of me you have to explain them well.

Feel free to run any kind of argument but again your gonna have to take time in your speech to explain what the argument is.

Spreading is fine, just be clear.

For speaker points I feel like I'm usually pretty generous just don't be racist or rude and you'll have at least a 28.5.

Honestly pref me at your own risk I haven't touched debate in a while so this will definitely be an interesting experience for all of us. Email me if you have any questions!

Login to Tabroom

Arizona State HDSHC Invitational

2024 — Tempe, AZ/US

Varsity Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List

Judges