Tabroom.com

NSDA Middle School National Tournament

2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US

Policy Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Joey Antonelli Sierra Vista Middle School Irvine

Keerthi Chalamalasetty Hire

Keerthi Chalamalasetty Irma Rangel YWLS (Middle School)

Leo Crowley Hire

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 4:04 AM MDT

Albuquerque Academy '24

Email: AlbuquerqueECdocs@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Leo and I use He/They pronouns. I don't care if you call me judge or Leo during round. I've been doing policy debate since sophomore year but I've put a lot of time in. I like progressive debate; I'll evaluate arguments before anything else. If a flow is moot resolve it, or I'll look elsewhere. I'll flow everything you say. Racism, sexism, transphobia, or any uninclusive and/or ad hom attacks will warrant you a loss and 20 speaks. I'm honestly awful at rewarding speaker points but I'll do my best.

TL;DR - Tabula Rasa. I'll evaluate anything but there must be a warrant. I want to see indepth debate rather than broad 10 off debate. Heres Arg by Arg if its helpful.

1 (good) 5 (okay) 10 (bad)

K's - 3 - don't abuse FW, have an exportable method

CP's - 1

PIC's - 4 - don't make a tiny NB, have a clear link story, NB's must be solved by PIC.

DA's - 1 - have a clear link story and establish brightlines for the brink and link burdens.

Theory - 2 - must have a full shell (interp, violation, standards, Voter) - don't spam theory, max ~4 shells - weigh potential vs. in-round abuse

Topicality - 2 - Must have a full shell as above - Weigh the standards, Fairness and education are an Internal Link.

Indepth

Kritiks - I read Capitalism K's primarily - I understand most psychoanalysis links; I buy Root cause Links too.

I understand Lacanian Psycho, Capitalism (maoist, marxist-leninist, materialist, humanist, idealist whatever), Security, biopolitics (not really agamben as much as foucault), necropolitics, Grove/Anthropo. I don't understand

I don't understand/need explanation - Death good, Kant, baudrillard, bataille, and some others. If not listed assume you need to explain the theory of power.

Evaluation - I'll start at FW then evaluate Link/Link turns, then Impacts. No links/link mitigation is a valid aff answer and will weigh into impact. Super abstract impacts should come with examples of how the link has been triggered in the past.

K Framework -

Interps - I like creative interps, Roll of ballot/roll of judge, multiple neg interps etc. I think "aff is a research project" and "you link you lose" are pretty bad but I will vote for them if aff doesn't answer it well.

Standards - If the K links to FW I'll probably have to evaluate it. AFF should weigh fairness/education as a prereq to Phil. Weigh different education and fairness NB's.

Counterplans -

AFF - You should ask the status of the advocacy in the first cross ALWAYS. Your shell should have Solvency deficits, offense, and perms, but any of the three if well articulated is enough to win the arg. I think creative NB relinks are really cool. Feel free to read theory - It's always a procedural so I'll evalute it first, then the perm, then offense and solvency. Intrinsic perms and Perm do the CP/Perm do the aff are both justifiable.

NEG - Every CP must have a solvency advocate OR at an analytic as to why it solves in the 1nc. the block should have an advantage by advantage solvency. I buy any form of competition if you extrapolate it. You should weigh the NB versus the solvency deficits. Make sure the CP solves the NB.

Status of the Advocacy - I buy condo bad and good - excessive condo definitely is a voter but you should prove that. Dispo is a bad arg unless you establish what the condition is. Uncondo is not usually strategic for the neg.

Disad's

I think Disad's are the purest argument -

UQ - Make it predictive - establish a brink here - I'll buy descriptive and predictive, examples are good, recency isn't everthing but is very helpful. If there isn't a brink I buy UQ o/w the link.

Link - Have a contextual link, on the NATO topic most links are non-uq or not enough to trigger the impact. If the link is conceded its only the impact debate. Linear links are true but you should just make it a case turn.

Internal link - Once again, establish the burden of the internal link, how much econ decline causes war etc.

Impact - read whatever, I don't care, I weigh Probability x Magnitude. Timeframe can be used to weigh too.

AFF - There's a million answers here, you should flood the neg here, 15 analytics on each DA is fine. 1 good arg can win the flow.

NEG - Generics are typically an uphill battle but I've got mad respect for people who are good at them.

Ryan Currey Hire

Lexani Damiano Hire None

Pamela Doiley BCLA-McCormack None

Zachary Fernandez Hire None

Rae Robert Fournier Palos Verdes Intermediate School

Last changed on Tue March 19, 2024 at 10:14 AM EDT

Prologue - Nuts and Bolts of My Judging

Have fun and learn something! Don't let a single bad debate round ruin your whole career (or even your weekend).

Hi! I'm Rae (they/them).I'm fine if you call me "Judge," "Rae," or "Mx. Fournier." I don't know why you'd call me anything else.

I'm fine with email chains if that's what you're most comfortable with. If you have problems where you "forget" to hit reply all or emails get magically "lost" in the ether, let's use speechdrop instead. Here is my email if not: reaganfbusiness@gmail.com If you have questions before or after the round you can email me as well.

Experience:

Charles J. Colgan High School (2018-2022) - I debated at Colgan for 4 years in PF, and Policy, LD, and Congress for my senior year. I debated the water topic my senior year in policy, but I honestly did such little research I don't know if it matters that much.

Western Kentucky University (2022-Present) - I'm in my second year of debating at WKU, where I do NFA-LD and am planning on switching to primarily compete in NDT-CEDA next year. For what it is worth, I won the 2024 NFA-LD Grand Prix National Tournament.

Do not run arguments about death being good in front of me. Do not read explicit material surrounding sexual assault in front of me. You will be dropped and given the lowest speaker points possible if you do this, and I will also probably talk with your coach. I am fine with non-graphic depictions of SA given a content warning.

If there is a problem with your opponent's evidence (ethical or otherwise), please bring it to them before you bring it to me.

If I think you're in the top 50% of the pool, you should get a 28.5 or above for speaker points. I don't try to make an exact science out of speaker points, because I don't think most judges follow those little charts they make. A lot of it is based on the context of the round and the tournament. You will be closer to the mean if you are in novice or JV because I struggle to identify who is at the top of the pack of these divisions, purely out of my own inexperience.

I've voted aff 38/64 (~59%) of the time. I attribute this more to a small sample size than a strong aff bias, especially considering that I've judged many different kinds of debate at several levels. You might think I have a disposition towards the aff based on this paradigm, but I think I have a disposition against the way negs try to engage in many instances. I’ve tried to be transparent about my prejudices to boost your chances of victory.

Try to keep your own time. I start time when you start talking, and I stop flowing after your time runs out, and will call it shortly after. Not making me do that is really cool too, though.

Number your arguments! It makes things easier for you and for me. In that same vein, slow down on tags and analytics (esp. If they weren’t in the doc). Sidenote: Numbers organize arguments, they aren't replacements for arguments. If your 2AC on case sounds like a calculator spitting digits at me then I'm going to stop flowing and be visibly miffed.

I’m fine with you “inserting” evidence if it is just for my visual reference, but if you want me to flow it as anything other than an analytic, you should be reading it because debate is an oral activity.

I am not a very fast flower, and I will clear you twice before I stop flowing entirely and give you the fluoride stare. In general I am going to signal to you whether or not I like an argument via facial expressions and body language, which is largely out of my control. It would do you good, then, to look at me when you’re giving a speech.

Something I have seen that bothers me - you cannot strongarm me into voting for you. Calling me “stupid” if I don’t vote for a DA (something that has happened on the circuit I compete on) is a surefire way to cap your speaker points at 27.5, even if you win. The core of debate is persuasion, and I cannot think of a less persuasive strategy than yelling at me, threatening me, accosting me based on a decision I haven’t made yet, etc.

I update my paradigm a lot. This is because I’m learning a lot about debate after being a (mostly) lay PF debater in high school. This also has the fringe benefit of making me understand my own positions better, and scratch out takes that end up being not very sound.

Chapter 1 - My General Debate Philosophy

I like debates that include affs who read a topical plan, negs who read arguments about the plan (excluding process counterplans that do the aff, Ks that don't rejoin the aff, bad theory arguments like ASPEC, etc.), and debaters who cut a lot of cards and do not run from engagement. Still, I will try to fairly evaluate debates I don’t like.

I think death is bad because suffering is bad and because life is good, thus extinction is bad. It is difficult to persuade me that any of the things stated in the previous sentence are wrong.

I don’t like arbitrarily excluding arguments based on content alone (sans the above warning in bolded letters, but that is strictly for personal reasons, and if reading “death good” is something you have to do every round for some reason, you should strike me regardless). Assertions that an argument is “problematic,” “science-fiction,” or “stupid” are unlikely to convince me to vote for you absent an explanation. Although, the bar for explanation becomes lower the worse the argument is. If you would describe your argumentative preferences as “trolling,” “memes,” “tricks,” or anything in that region - I am a bad judge for you, as your opponent will have comparatively little work to do to defeat you.

As an extension to this, if I feel neither side has explained their case sufficiently, I'll default to card quality / reading the cards. If you don't want this to happen, explain your argument.

You should assume I know nothing about the topic, and debate accordingly. I’m a big dumb idiot who needs everything (especially acronyms if it is a very technical topic) explained to me. This, in my opinion, will not only improve your explanation and avoid making your speeches a jargon salad, but is also probably the best way to approach having me as your judge, given that I do very little topic research for high school resolutions (if any).

Try or die framing is very intuitive to me, and it should guide many late rebuttals where the neg is going for a disad. It is hard for me to vote neg if the aff has definitively won that the status quo causes extinction, and there is a risk that voting aff can stop that extinction scenario. Negs should mitigate this through 1) in-depth weighing and turns case analysis and 2) impact defense.

Chapter 2 - Affs

I read up the gut, very topical affs in my own debating, and this is what I prefer to see debates about. I generally prefer big stick to soft left because I find the strategy of calling link chains fake to be generally unpersuasive, but I do not have any strong preferences here. I have also found some soft left affs to be frankly overpowered due to how true they are and to how little disads seem to link to them.

I think T/FW is true, but I by no means automatically vote neg in these debates. I think K teams have figured out ways to put a lot of ink out on the flow in addition to being more persuasive. However, I think that under closer examination, a lot of the arguments that these teams make are either (a) wrong or (b) misunderstanding the neg's argument. For instance, I find the claim that an unlimited topic is good because it gives more ground to the neg is facetious and is a blatant misrepresentation of the way neg prep happens.

Here’s how I prefer the traditional impacts to FW: Clash>Fairness>Skills

I don't know if fairness is an impact - but I think I'm more easily persuaded that it is than many other judges. I think the usual 2AC strategy of just saying “it’s an internal link” is insufficient given how much explanation FW debaters tend to give in the 2NC/1NR. I also think the aff probably relies on fairness as a value in the abstract as much as the neg does - else they would concede the round to have a much more educational conversation on the aff.

Clash as an abstract value, i.e., that it makes us better people by allowing us to come to new convictions about the world, seems extremely true. In my own personal debating career, deep debates over a singular resolution have allowed me to come to a very nuanced understanding about the topic. I think there’s also empirical research which backs this up, but I can’t remember the study.

I’m also fine with skills, especially since it’s frequently the more strategic option. I don’t know if it’s true that debate makes people advocates (it definitely gives them the tools to become better advocates, but I don’t know if there’s an actual correlation there). It also isn’t apparent to me that becoming an advocate is something that is something which can be exclusively achieved through plan-focus debate. A normative reason why debating the resolution you’ve been instructed to debate would be helpful for convincing me of this argument (e.g., learning about immigration policy is good to become an immigration lawyer and help people who are persecuted by ICE).

There are other impacts to FW, of course, but I’d like more explanation for these if you’re going to go for them in the 2NR, as I will be less familiar with them.

If you are for sure reading a K aff and I'm you're judge, here's what you can do to improve your odds:

I need a strong reason in the 2AC as to why switch-side debate doesn’t solve all your offense.
I prefer a well-thought out counter interpretation to impact turning limits.
A functional critique of the resolution which mitigates the limits DA (if applicable)

If you're reading a K aff and I'm you're judge, here are some things that will not improve your odds:

"Karl Rove, Ted Cruz, etc."
Saying predictability is bad when you make debates incredibly predictable for yourself
Saying that FW is intrinsically violent

Chapter 3 - Topicality (Not Framework)

Love it! I think that learning the difference in legal terms is incredibly valuable for topic education, and learning how to navigate those differences is a potent portable skill.

I think I'm better for reasonability than most judges. It doesn’t mean (despite popular explanations) that the aff is reasonable, but that their counter interpretation creates a reasonable limit for debate. Yes, this requires some judge intervention, but it is likely I will have to intervene anyways in T debates due to the fact that I don’t know what the topic (that I have done zero research on) should look like anyways.

Yet I still find myself persuaded by the neg in many debates on topicality. The aff frequently lacks explanation for what their version of the topic looks like, which makes it difficult to endorse it. Aff teams would do good by explaining what affs are topical under their interpretation, what kind of debates that invites, and why those debates are good.

Although I think in principle “T Substantial” having a quantitative definition is nonsensical absent a field-contextual definition, I find myself increasingly persuaded by negative pushes on this question. The argument that the resolution includes the word “substantial” for a reason, and that quantitative barriers are the only way to make the word matter, for instance, is compelling - especially if the aff meets a particularly low threshold of reductions/expansions (i.e., an aff that expands social security by 0.02% is probably not substantial).

Topicality is never an RVI. Don’t bother reading them.

Chapter 4 - Non-T Theory

SLOW DOWN ON THEORY PAGES-- I cannot flow as fast as you can talk. I get that you don't want to spend a lot of time on "New Affs Bad," but if I have nothing legible on my flow then if the neg goes for it, you're kind of toast!

I find the debate community’s shift towards counterplans which do the aff to be unfortunate. As a result, I am generally slightly more aff leaning on counterplan theory than some of my peers. However, I think the only reason I would reject the team absent a strong, warranted push by the aff is conditionality.

Condo-- I think 2 condo is acceptable in NFA-LD, maybe 3 in policy if the topic is really aff biased. I generally think the neg should be more argumentatively responsible than what the status quo is in progressive debate. Kicking planks and 2NC counterplans are suspicious but aren't unwinnable. This is an opinion that gets me a lot of heat, and I understand that there is an argument to be made for infinite conditionality, but I simply don’t know why 2-3 condo isn’t enough for the negative. It seems to me that the quality of debates goes drastically down, with less engagement and more late-breaking arguments as the number of conditional positions goes up. This is magnified by counterplans with no solvency advocates or counterplans that do the aff.

50 State Fiat Bad-- I think this is way more viable than most people think, as the aff is usually right that there’s no lit on universal 50 state action. The neg articulating that states v fed is the core of the topic and that the CP is uniform probably solves a lot of this offense, though.

International Fiat Bad-- I'm confused as to what the academic benefit of being able to fiat multiple, non-USFG actors is. Especially on international topics, being able to fiat that Russia, for instance, ends the war in Ukraine breaks the game.

Disclosure-- I will steal what Justin Kirk says about disclosure because I agree with it 100%: "While I am not an ideologue, I am a pedagogue. If you fail to disclose information about your affirmative or negative arguments on the wiki and then make a peep about education or engagement or clash in the debate, you better damn well hope your opponent does not mention it. Its about as close to a priori as I will get on an issue. If your argument is so good, what is the matter with a well prepared opponent? Disclosure is a norm in debate and you should endeavor to disclose any previously run arguments before the debate. Open source is not a norm, but is an absolutely preferable means of disclosure to cites only. If your opponent's wiki is empty, and you make a cogent argument about why disclosure is key to education and skill development, you will receive high marks and probably a ballot from me."

These are the big ones I have feelings on. I hate the trend in high school LD where people read frivolous theory/trix, I’m not persuaded by it, and you’d be better off reading substantive arguments. Speaking more on trix, please don't read them if I am your judge. I am bad for them. If there is something you have a specific question about, feel free to ask me if I didn’t list it here.

Chapter 5 - Counterplans

I obviously have big feelings about process counterplans. Functional and textual competition is probably a good standard, though objections to textual competition also seem legitimate. I'm not too familiar with deep competition debates, so slowing down if this is going to be a big part of your strategy is a good call in front of me.

I'm honestly not very familiar with 2NC counterplans strategically speaking - heads up. I'm not necessarily opposed to them, but be slower when explaining why you get them if contested.

I am not a huge fan of uniqueness counterplans, though part of this could also be due to my inexperience in judging and hitting them in my own debate career.

Sufficiency framing seems intuitive to me, therefore affs should try to impact out their solvency deficits to the counterplan rather than sneezing a bunch of arguments in the 2AC and hoping the block drops something (I once judged a round where the 2AC read like, 12 solvency deficits which, from my perspective, all made no difference on whether or not the counterplan was sufficient to solve the case). If I have to ask at the end of the 2AC on the CP, “so what?” you have failed to convince me.

I will never vote on a counterplan that had no evidence attached to it when it was first read UNLESS that counterplan uses 1AC ev to solve it (i.e., if the aff's advantages aren't intrinsic). An example of this would be in the NFA-LD Democracy Topic (2022-23), where everyone read affs that said that we should ban a certain interest group from lobbying (ex. the pharmaceutical lobby) and then read advantages about how good medicare for all/price caps for drugs would be. These affs got solved 100% by reading an analytic counterplan that just passed these policies. Even if you are doing this, you should be inserting a piece of 1AC ev or justifying it analytically. I think a good standard is that you need to have solvency evidence that is on-par quality wise with the 1AC.

Chapter 6 - Ks

I am not well-read in most K literature, I’ll be honest. Explain things slowly, and try not to use your favorite $100 word every other word in a sentence.

Some would describe me as an aff framework + extinction outweighs hack. I think if debated evenly against most Ks, I do lean aff on this (especially framework), but I'm definitely not opposed to alternative forms of impact calculus and frameworks.

I don’t like how many judges just refuse to evaluate framework debates and arbitrarily pick a middle ground - this harms both teams as it arbitrarily has the judge insert themselves into the late rebuttals which is completely unpredictable and not reflective of the debate that happened. I will pick either the aff interp or the neg interp, and make my decision accordingly.

I prefer links that critique the impacts or implementation of the plan. I do not like links whose only win condition is mooting the entire 1ac post-hoc, because a representation of the aff is the plan text.

If you’re a K debater, this all might seem a bit daunting. I admit, I do have a bias towards the policy side of the spectrum. However, superior evidence, technical debating, and explanation can overcome every bias I have presented to you. I promise that if I am in the back of the room, I will try to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible.

Epilogue - Weird things that didn’t fit anywhere and I think make my preferences unique

I do not care nearly as much if you reference my paradigm compared to other judges who "cringe" when you make clear that you care about adaptation. I've judged so many rounds where it is evident one (or both) teams decided to completely ignore the fact that I am the one who is in the back of the room. Referencing my paradigm is not only a signal that you've read it, but I believe that a paradigm is a contract that I have signed that indicates how I will vote.

Open CX is fine, don't be obnoxious though. 2Ns and 2As, please let your partner ask and answer questions I'm begging you. (Especially 2Ns, though). Policy debate is a team activity, and part of working in a group is trusting other people. Talking over your partner destroys your credibility.

In and outs are fine - never judged one of these but I truly don’t care as long as both debaters give one constructive and one rebuttal each.

Adiel García Hire

Last changed on Tue April 23, 2024 at 9:52 AM CDT

Add me to the Email chain: 124070@usd230.org

I debated in Kansas for 4 years primarily in KDC with some DCI.

Overview

Tech ≥ Truth (ifykyk)

Clarity>Speed

Debate is a game, so run whatever you want as long as you understand it and explain it well. I'll vote for almost everything (besides isms).

I will say that I think I am best to judge policy v policy, policy v k and k v t/fw. I think that k v k would be cool to judge,but I have limited experience with it.

Judging Preferences

I default to policymaker if not given framework.

T-I love a good T debate. I default to competing interps. If you want me to prefer reasonability you should explain what it looks like. You will never win T as an RVI.

DA-My favorite argument of all time. They can either be super devastating or just meh. A specific link goes a long way. Linear DAs are cool.

CP-I think that every counterplan needs a solvency advocate and some type of net-benefit. I'm fine with delay and consult counterplans.

K-Love 'em. I've ran abolition,governmentality/biopower,imperialism,orientalism, and sett col(my fav). Besides that, I'm familiar with cap,afropess,fem,queer,and academy. I'm not the best for psychoanalysis or pomo. If you are running a k that I'm unfamiliar with that's fine, just over-explain it. I think the link is the most important part of the K. If I can't understand how the aff links to the K, I probably won't vote on it. Links of omission are ok. If you want to win on a k, framework is a must.

Theory-I think that a majority of theory arguments,condo being the obvious exception, are reasons to reject the argument and not the team. I default to condo being good. I'm fine with vagueness and the a-z spec theory arguments. However, I do not buy disclosure theory or new affs bad. I will only blatantly vote for disclosure if the team doesn't disclose before reading their speech. I will not judge kick unless you tell me to.

On case-Love it. I think a lot of people tend to underutilize case arguments. Impact turns are cool.

K-Aff/Performance-I ran a borders k-aff my junior year,but that's about it. Assume that I'm not going to be familiar with your lit. I think you should be in the direction of the resolution. I think you should slow down a bit and explain your advocacy. The 1AC shouldn't just be pre-empts to T. ROB and ROJ are extremely important.

T-USFG/FW-I think that fairness is an internal link, not an impact. Explain to me how debate looks like under your model.A good TVA is a good way to secure my ballot.

Speaks

You start off at a 28.5 and will either go up or down. I will not give you speaks if you ask for them. If you chose to read straight from your computer with no analysis whats so ever, you will not be doing so well. If you chose to speak extemporaneously, keep flow, signpost, and keep me engaged then I will be happy to reward you with better speaks. +0.1 if you can make me laugh in one of your speeches. If you want something to gage speaks off then here.

20: you did something extremely offensive/disrespectful/hostile.

27.5-28.4: mediocre; prob not breaking
28.5-28.9: good; maybe breaking
29-29.4: very good; prob breaking
29.5-30.0: excellent; top speaker quality

Other

I'm fine with death good, but not in a weird way. IVIs are super underutilized. Keep track of your own time. I appreciate overviews.Paper debate is dumb. Impact calc is always good.

Ben Honoroff MS 50

Jeffrey Hsu Phoenix Country Day School (Middle)

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 1:21 AM MST

Jeffrey Hsu

Experience:

Debated 3 years at Desert Vista high school

email: hsujeffrey21@gmail.com

General

I'm down for whatever argument you want to throw my way and pretty open-minded. All I ask is that you impact out the debate (ie why your winning arg(s) should win you the round/my ballot).

For local debaters in AZ, don't just re-read tag lines and believe that is reasonable enough to extend your argument, you need to flesh out your arguments and how they impact the round as a whole.

I might not know as much as you about the intricate, technical aspects of the topic, so be clear and slow on topic-specific phrases/acronyms, especially with T

K v Policy

I think one of the most important parts of these rounds is framework. The neg has to present how I should frame the round in my ballot.

Aff args I like: extinction outweighs, institutions matter, debate is a game, perm.

K v K

Personally, I haven't judged many K v K rounds yet, but I have debated in them. For now, the most important thing that I want in these debates is clash between each side's ideologies; How are your theories preferable compared to your opponents?

For really important details, I'd prefer if you could slow down and emphasize these points. Teams that will read their giant block off their laptop will make me zone out.

FW v K aff

I have been on both sides of these debates and so I am ok with a K v FW round. I usually prefer skills/education args over fairness. Both sides should explain clearly what their version of the debate looks like under their interpretation.

I enjoy DA to interps and impact turning the negs FW. I'm also down for running why your model is still topical/debatable 'enough' but with some significant net benefits over theirs. If you're doing the latter, your interp should be super well-explained in the context of their limits/predictability offense

Theory

love it; I usually reject the arg, not the team, unless given a really good reason to do so. Try and not attack your opponents when you're reading some theory arguments like they just committed the most heinous crime known to man.

Policy

Although I was a K debater most of high school, I enjoy judging policy rounds a lot. Everything is fair game so go and read your 12 off.

MISC

Speaks: I find myself giving slightly higher speaks than average

" 'I don't really take myself seriously so feel free not to take yourself that seriously either.' - My Coach" - Me

Chase Johnson Hire None

Sirini Karunadasa Irma Rangel YWLS (Middle School)

Last changed on Sat April 27, 2024 at 1:22 AM CDT

jnats note: please use speech drop https://speechdrop.net/

Hi! I go by sorin! Senior at Coppell High School.

add me to the email chain :)

s8rink@gmail.com

Email format: ( “aff name” vs “neg name” - “tournament name” - rd #) - or something that has all of that

TLDR:

I'm okay with speed
I flow
off time roadmaps please
I like impact calc and judge instruction
don't be disrespectful
have fun :)

things to keep in mind:

*Please do impact calc! if i'm judging you you're probably a novice so all that means is tell me why ur impact matters more (under ur fw) or using things like magnitude, probability, timeframe, scope

*argumentation is great but weighing makes my job so much easier and i'm way more likely to vote for you

*please signpost! as novices yall can get really messy so it would mean alot to tell me what you're answering and what flow you're on!!

*wont flow new arguments in 2nr/2ar

*keep your own time, incase i forget

*send me a email or tell me if you ever feel unsafe during/after round, and lmk if theres anything i can do :)

*will disclose (if both teams want it) unless tournament rules say otherwise

LD/CX

Evaluation stuff:

Policy args: yes please! I understand this, go for it!, make sure to weigh

DAs: I understand this, go for it!

CPs: I understand this go for it! make sure to explain net benefits, and net benefits of perm if you're aff

Theory: within reason pls

theory for in round abuse and high chance ill vote on it

please make sure the shell is understandable, and clear warranted voters, if i dont get it or don’t know what to do with it, I cant evaluate it properly :(

Default to competing interps, drop the debater, fairness is an i/l to education, etc.

friv theory: if its frivolous ill be highly persuaded by reasonability + low threshold for response , there’s also a time to be “funny” and not funny like don’t read some wild debaters must play Fortnite shell on a identity position

IVIs:something like misgendering or like a jargon ivi i’d prob vote on if won, but for things like author indicts— sure this old white guy is problematic, and I most likely agree with you, but it needs to have like a impact, tell me what reading this author really does yk (and in relation to your position if applicable).

Ks: at your own risk

I am a k debater but that doesn’t mean I know every lit base. (especially if high theory, err on over explanation, talk to me like I’m 5 i don’t mind getting lectured for a bit) Just tell and explain to me what your scholarship says: I wont do the work for u but don’t expect a lot either, just make it so it’s understandable and please tell a story!

If you’re a novice only run if you actually understand the literature and all, butchered ks are painful

I'm not well versed with every literature but doesn’t mean I wont evaluate it

LD Specific:

Framework:most important, tell me clearly why I should evaluate the round w your framing, and induct your opponents

Phil:not preferred

chances are high that im not familiar unless maybe like Kant or Rawls as purely framing mech, so you would have to do alot of work "dumbing it down" for me

again if its basic value criterion sure but dense phil fws i am probably not the best for it, i have trouble understanding it but if u go for it, pls crystalize it in the 1ar and 2nr

I'm not a phil debater, so wont be the best for like specific feedback

Trad: same thing as policy :), just weigh fw for sure

trix/spikes: no bruh, i won’t vote of extrapolations of a non warranted 1 line blip in the 1ac

PF and WSD

Treat me like a lay parent judge that knows how to flow basically

see LD for what i like if it’s applicable

* go at a reasonable speed, signpost, write the ballot for me

for worlds just literally treat me like you would a parent

Speaks

im generous

27 and below: you did something bad (check things that lower)

28-28.9: good job

29-30: good job x2

put a cute dog pic or a funny meme on the doc and ill give you a L 29.8 or W 29.9

Things that lower speaks:

* Any isms (racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc) will be a L w low speaks

* Being disrespectful to your opponent (be nice)

* Misgendering, respect peoples pronouns, if not listed, default to "my opponent" and they/them

speed: idc, just slow-er on tags, send me the docs, spread analytics at your own risk because i might not catch them

(wont effect speaks, unless I like absolutely cannot understand you)

have fun and good luck!

note for middle school NATS:

congrats on being here!!

ill keep track of all arguments:) If I'm typing on my phone I promise I'm paying attention my computer probably just died and I need to type feedback somewhere lol
if you forget speech times don’t be afraid to ask me I got you
I can time for y’all :) (my alarm is like a duck quacking though so let me know if that bothers you)
don’t stress if you’re a few mins late this place is confusing to navigate
if your event is flighted- flt 1 means you start at the time listed, flt 2 means you’re right after the flt1 round but the time should be listed as well
it’s always good to try to use all your speaking time in speeches, but don’t stress too much about it — it won’t evaluate my judging :)
don’t worry about the stuff below unless you understand it, most of it’s not applicable
ask questions if you need anything at all or if you’re confused!

- relax, you did the hard work to get here already, enjoy yourself:)

Daniel Kern Edison Preparatory Middle School

Last changed on Wed June 14, 2023 at 8:07 AM CDT

Schools/Affiliations: Mathematics Teacher/Debate Coach - Edison Preparatory

I did not compete in policy debate in junior high/high, but I have been coaching policy debate for 4 years.

General Paradigm
I'm open-minded and take the stance from a policymaking point of view. I'm looking for an argument that is well-formed and well-explained. I don't care for just running a bunch of random stuff to try to spread someone out, this misses the point of policy debate.

Speed
Clarity. If I can’t understand you, then I can’t flow you and I likely won’t be inclined to vote for you or the position(s) I don’t understand. I slightly have a hard time hearing, virtual rounds sometimes get glitchy - as long as your argument is well-formed, you shouldn't have to speed. Look for cues (not flowing, a blank look on my face).

Line by Line
I prefer line by line debate. I believe you need to flow and I don’t think a team is obligated to share analytical arguments in a flash/speech doc. If the debate becomes disorganized because of your inability to stay on the flow, that’ll likely cost you in some way. Debate, at its essence, is about a clash of ideas...therefore clash is an essential ingredient to a good debate round. A round between two teams who neither extend their own arguments, nor address the specific attacks made on these arguments, is not a debate round, and such a round begs for intervention on my part.

Decision Calculus
I loathe to intervene in a round, but will do so if neither team presents a clear comparative analysis of the issues in the round. You need to tell me why I should vote for you and make that clear in the final rebuttals.

Framework
I’ll start with my paradigm, you tell me where to move to, and convince me of why I should do so, if you’d like to change the framework. Any framework should make it possible for both sides to win and shouldn’t be rooted in a rejection of debate as an activity (though it’s possible I could be convinced otherwise).

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)

If the affirmative is not able to prove that they are topical, that's the first place I will vote. I believe that it is important for affirmative cases to meet the resolution if we are going to have fair and educational debate. That being said, it doesn't take a lot of work for the aff to convince me they are topical. A solid we meet, counter-interp, and reasons to prefer extended throughout the debate are good enough for me. I want it to be answered, but I don't really want to listen to a whole round of debate on T - get through it and move on.

Kritiks

Please don't run a K unless you actually plan to go for it in the round. Running Ks as a time suck and then kicking out of them halfway through the round is a move that I cannot get behind. If a K doesn't have real-world alternatives, it will take more work on your part to convince me that it's a good idea. If something is heavily theory-based, it needs to be explained well.

Performance
Do what you will, I’ll listen. Prefer they be relevant to topic.

Counterplans
I am good with counterplans, conditional is fine, but don’t get too feisty in this regard. Deep counterplan and pic theory give me headaches, so slow down and talk me through it.

Multiple Worlds

No thanks...multiple conditional positions are fine, but not contradictory advocacy. Can’t be convinced otherwise on the matter so save your time.

3NRs and My Decision
I will give an oral critique if time allows and reveal decision if permitted by tourney expectations, but I will not enter into an argument with either team about my decision. I can handle a question or two, but make sure it’s a question. Look, I am always going to do my best, but I’m sure I’ve gotten the decision wrong a time or two, and I hate it when I do. That being said, my usual answer when teams argue why they lost is: I’d feel the same way if I were you, but next time debate better. Then I mark their speaker points down for being rude. Live to fight another day and be aware that you might see your judge again down the road.

Prep Time

I will be lenient as we learn the online format, but that being said, I’m losing patience with the time taken up by flashing files even during in-person debates. Be efficient.

Christian Lawrence Kline Old St. Mary's Catholic School

Amrita Krishna West ELP SLC

Vaden Kumar Hire

Last changed on Fri March 29, 2024 at 6:46 PM CDT

I want big questions and even bigger answers.

Johnke3883@gmail.com

As the judge in this debate round, I stand as a sentinel at the forefront of technical debate, wielding the principles of strategy and skill as my guiding stars. In this arena, where arguments clash like titans and ideas are the weapons of choice, I vow to uphold the sanctity of precision and expertise.

Disadvantages (Storm's Wrath): Just as the relentless storm in Fortnite sweeps across the battlefield, disadvantages serve as the tempests of debate, threatening to engulf unprepared adversaries. Here, we recognize the supremacy of foresight and preparation, for those who fail to anticipate the storm shall be swept away by its unforgiving force.
Counterplans (Tactical Loadout): In the arsenal of debate, counterplans stand as the versatile tools of strategic warfare. Just as a seasoned Fortnite player carefully selects their loadout, so too must debaters meticulously craft their counterplans to outmaneuver their opponents. Here, we exalt the art of tactical ingenuity, where every move is a calculated step toward victory.
Topicality (Boundary Enforcement): Let it be known that within the realm of debate, the boundaries of the resolution are sacrosanct, akin to the confines of the Fortnite map. We stand unwavering in our commitment to upholding the rules of engagement, for in the absence of order, chaos reigns supreme. Here, we champion the cause of clarity and adherence to the established framework.
Kritiks (Foundational Deconstruction): Behold the kritik, a weapon forged in the fires of critical inquiry, poised to dismantle the very bedrock of opposing arguments. Like skilled builders in Fortnite, we deconstruct with precision, exposing the vulnerabilities hidden beneath the surface. In this realm of intellectual warfare, we celebrate the pursuit of truth and the relentless quest for enlightenment.
Case Debating (Fortress Defense): The case is our fortress, the bastion of our beliefs and the embodiment of our convictions. Just as a vigilant defender in Fortnite fortifies their base against enemy assaults, so too must debaters defend their case with unwavering resolve. Here, we champion the virtues of resilience and strategic acumen, for only through steadfast defense can victory be assured.

In this grand arena of debate, where minds collide and ideas take flight, let it be known that technical prowess shall always reign supreme. For it is through the meticulous application of strategy and skill that we carve our path to victory, leaving an indelible mark upon the annals of intellectual history.

So rally forth, noble debaters, and may the spirit of Fortnite guide your every move. For in this epic struggle of wit and wisdom, the vanguard of technical debate shall forever stand triumphant!

Devin Lai Hire

Brandon Lin Suzanne Middle School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:11 AM PDT

Peninsula '25 (hopefully) Yale, Harvard, or Stanford '29 (definitely)

Put me on the email chain: neptunicrager@gmail.com

Do impact calc or I will obviously and visibly flip a coin while staring at you, immediately submitting my ballot following that. You cannot prove a connection between these two things.

Not voting on something I didn't see happen in-round. This includes not disclosing past 2NRs.

+0.5 speaker points for a well-maintained wiki. Let me know if you think you meet that criteria.

CX open + binding, spreading good--this isn't a midwest local (hopefully)

Clipping is an auto-win--just not for you.

Truth > Tech insofar as I will probably try to subconsciously rationalize a ballot for arguments I think are better.

CONDO. It's good, have never gone for condo in 4 years as a 2A, but you can win it's bad--some stuff if you're getting curbstomped on substance and want a cop-out:

If the aff can prove the neg constructed the 1nc in such a way that it was impossible to respond to, i.e. contradictory condo, I'll eagerly vote on it.

2NC counterplanning out of straight turns is annoying and cowardly but you can probably justify it. Aff should straight turn in the 1AR, not 2AC to prevent this. Also, usually it often screws with their offense so be on the lookout.

Number of off doesn't really change how chill I am with conditional advocacies unless your interps make it such--doesn't meet the counterinterp, or the debate comes down to like 1 CP, 1 K vs 3 condo or some numerical comparison where the debate comes down to the merits of that one extra advocacy.

I can tell if you're going for it because you're losing everywhere else and want to turn the debate into a coinflip- I get it, but is substance really that unwinnable for you? Will probably lower your speaks if you go for it as a cop-out but doesn't consciously affect the decision itself.

Have a real interp in the 2AC. Once saw a shell that was "Condo strat skew research dispo solves" and I reconsidered my involvement in this activity. Please, make it well thought-out and intricate in the constructive if you want to have a shot at winning with a blown up 2ar.

K Affs:

I really wanna see a topical K aff debated well. I'm talking Atticus Glen style arguments. High skill floor, but I'll be impressed and give you high speaks if you can pull it off effectively.

Reconsider reading a planless aff in middle school/novice year, but for these debates:

Fairness is an impact and will be unless "just an internal link" is literally dropped

Aff should impact turn neg standards. Your C/I almost never solves their offense and the Limits DA is fire

Very sympathetic to the argument that the only thing my ballot can do is decide who won on a technical level, and convincing me otherwise in the face of competent debating is an uphill battle

Counterplans:

Significantly less convinced of neg's pleas for absurd counterplans on Fiscal Redistribution. Go for the Econ DA! Debate the case!

The Aff should go for theory more. Probably like 70/30 aff in most instances with a well-crafted interp (multi-level fiat, international, multi-actor, honey) (Side Note: Interp's really important. "Process CPs are bad" probably isn't one, "consult CPs bad" probably is.

Send permtexts. It's time-consuming and hard to think under the pressure of a huge 1nc, but competition is a great way out of a debate where you may have zilch against a new process counterplan, and I just enjoy these debates if done well (or competently given it's middle school)

Functional + Textual competition is weird to me. Why not just go for theory instead of making up a new way counterplans compete? Smart perms are fun to see, but seem intuitively bad for neg offense and debate in general.

Offsets is obviously not competitive if they don't have "increase fiscal redistribution" in the plantext. Counterplans compete with the Aff, not the topic--if they're not the topic, go for T!

Taxes PIC competition is 50/50. Aff should have a deficit or be prepared for the Perm do the CP debate.

Universality PICs are... hard. It feels bad to give the Aff subsets, but also probably unbeatable if the neg goes for a PIC? Maybe the solution is just to read social security, idk.

I have a higher standard for advantage CP planks than most. The Aff obviously gets new 1AR answers to planks not substantiated with a piece of evidence if not written out in excruciating detail. If Eagan LS would have read your CP, reconsider.

DA:

DAs are pretty good on this topic, for the first time in forever. You could probably beat every universal BI or JG aff on Econ DA + case--and high speaks if you do.

Contextualizing the link will do wonders. Super hard to justify a neg ballot when your explanation and spin doesn't go beyond the generic 1NC card. If you don't have any specific links, then spin like it's goddamn ballet and go for gold

Rider DAs one of the only probably illegit ones. The best interp of fiat is one where the consequences of the Aff are focused on, not any extraneous BS.

Horsetrading is arguable- it's based on the consequences of passing the plan and the plan alone absent some sort of weird attatchment to it but nobody writes these DAs anymore so who really cares

As the meta moves away from substantively engaging the Aff, I get less and less amendable to neg framework pushes. You don't even have a link to the Aff--you've gone for FW as offense. These often contradict the links, as well--if the aff makes it less likely, but it's also antiblack, isn't it good to prevent antiblack violence?

FW: Aff probably gets the plan but that doesn't mean it's all that matters--best interp is probably that aff has to defend reps but gets to use the consequences of the plan as a justification for them. Neg gets reps links but has to explain why it outweighs the plan's consequences. Both sides agree you can't sever representations from justifications so it comes down to case debate. K debate is case debate!

Perm seems very hard to beat on this topic. When the Aff boxes you into "giving poor people money bad" you're in the wrong parts of the library for debating in front of me.

Alt's super important and people don't put much thought in anymore--go for the perm if it solves the impacts to the K, not the links because double bind becomes real. Alt bad must be a part of the 2ar--"case outweighs" gets you nowhere against competent teams.

Author indicts are gonna need to be impacted out because 20 "deleuze is a pedophile" cards or whatever doesn't really amount to much substantive offense.

Psycho's probably bs. Will be easier to prove I should reject it for unfalsifiability than not.

Very hard to convince me debatability is all that matters with competent precision/predictability explanation by the aff. Predictable limits, precision prerequisite to ground, etc. are all pretty damn convincing and predictability outweighs is generally the aff's best bet.

Not very many reasonable T violations on this topic.

Lean neg on T courts for debatability reasons given there's 0 lit on either side.

Reasonability is just the argument your c/i solves enough of their limits DA that the predictability DA outweighs--explain it more like that instead of "1% risk we solve any of their offense is AUTO AFF BALLOT BECAUSE SUBSTANCE CROWD OUT!"

Non-resolutional procedurals should lose to infinite regress.

Feel free to ask about the decision- I encourage it. It's really helpful for growth to understand how you could have improved your speech and even more so to actually do it (redos!).

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

OLD:

I will never vote for the quid pro quo counterplan. Under any circumstances.

I will drop you for using mac. Non-negotiable.

Firm believer in all disciplines being equal- besides mental evaluation it must also be physical- post-round you will physically combat the other team (or because of online debate challenge them to a clash royale match) to determine speaker points and I will give the winner a piece of chocolate- this also means I am persuaded by a challenge of a physical confrontation in the 1ac in order to determine the ballot.

My memory isn't great so please recite every piece of evidence you would like to extend word-for-word

If I see a plantext, auto L and 25 speaks

Condo is bad. Negation theory ONLY justifies the squo

Vagueness is almost always good- if I can't understand what the aff or alt does by the end of the round that motivates a ballot not to mention the strategic benefits

Ground and Grounds is the same word

Truth > Tech- I do not flow and will be evaluating the debate purely based on cards

RVIs are very persuasive- requires significant negative investment to convince me not to vote on it and that time investment just proves skew further

I will not disclose personal moral beliefs- however if you violate any it will make it almost impossible to vote for you

Trump won the election. Take from that what you will. "Biden solves" will result in a 25 and auto-loss.

Do not look me in the eyes during cross-ex- I will view it as a challenge of my authority and any maggots who dare gaze into the void will be consumed

Argue with the other team after the round to determine my decision- look to pf grand cross for an example

Feeding into the previous vagueness point- this applies to speaking too- I will believe you if you say you finished a card unconditionally and accusations of clipping will be punished

My _ key is broken- please do not say any word with an _ in it or I will not be able to flow it and be irritated

Make an obscure reference to (insert unknown debater) for 0.1 extra speaks!

Please warn me when you're about to start the speech with a 10 second countdown and get verbal confirmation by everyone in the room individually that they're ready for you to start- it's important everyone is ready.

Will evaluate arguments either team asserts as dropped as made even if unintelligble earlier

Please pronounce all punctuation verbally- it prevents me from flowing effectively if you do not.

Riley Dean Ney Hire

Carolyn Sophia Rodarte Hire

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2024 at 1:07 PM MDT

To give a little background im a oncoming senior from Texas. I have done policy for 2 years and am my regions current district champion. Ontop of that I won the national bid for policy debate this year. Now that you know a bit about my policy career/ knowledge let's move onto my preferences.

When it comes to policy I tend to lean towards a more traditional style of debate however this doesn't mean that I will only vote on traditional arguments. I am open to almost all types of arguments including kritiks and theory. However when it comes to both kritiks and theory I will not vote in your favor if you only run theory and kritik arguments. In order for me to vote for those arguments you also need to have additional types of arguments to back you up. The only type of argument I would not vote for is an extinction argument. Personally I find these arguments lack uniqueness and are often just thrown into a debate simply to add in another argument. Now if you do have an extinction argument this will not automatically mean you get the L however it does mean that I will not consider that argument in my vote. So while it won't necessarily hurt you to run the argument it definitely will not help you.

**** Important****

Aside from all the things I have listed above the most important piece of information you can possibly take from this is: You can have the best case in the world but if you do not argue for it you will lose even if I have a copy of your case. I will ALWAYS vote for the team who argued better not the one who wrote their evidence better.

To wrap this all up I consider myself to be a very open judge who is willing to vote on a variety if different arguments. Now aside from all of these points my main goal as a judge is to ensure that the debate is happening in a safe and respectful environment so if I feel that if anytime that changes I will pause or stop the debate.

Goodluck!

Teagan Sahli Hire

Preston Vicenzi Hire

Last changed on Wed February 28, 2024 at 3:00 AM CDT

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

Preston Vicenzi - Prestonvicenzi@gmail.com - Add me to the chain

Pronouns - He/Him

Experience - 4 years of debate at Newton High School, I have competed on the local circuit but I attempt to gear myself towards faster national/TOC level styles of debating but also debated a lot on the local circuit.

A Little About Me - I think that debate is a game, and I think in that game, everyone should have the most amount of fun they possibly can. Run whatever you'd like, even if it's flat earth procedural and other silly arguments, let's have fun. One of the biggest influences of me staying in debate was WGLF and the community of debate.

So Let's unpack...

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

For Novices - If there's a style of debate that you feel comfortable doing, then by all means showcase, but for novices I just want to see that you know the basics down. After a round with me, I will give advice on how I would do it from your standpoint, but get those fundamentals, Case and Advantages vs Disadvantage and Topicality or Counterplan. If you're going to try to run a K in front of me atleast know why the Kritik is important, after that, then I'll give you advice on how to go for it. Have fun, and know that I am not here to go for jugular.

Everything Else...

Impact Turns > Link Turns - ON this note, I love impact turn debates, dedev, Warming Good, etc are good arguments and always are clashy, bonus speaks for going 5 min turn in the NR or AR.

Speed - Speed is good if both sides are cool (don't bully newcomers to Varsity or TOC level style) - changing your tone isn't going to work for picking up authors or tags (I am deaf in one of my ears, so bear with me), so please signpost and give me a little pen time when your going to the next arg. I prefer analytics to be somewhat slower.

Tech>Truth - I believe that everything is fair game, I have and will vote on randomness - I love wipeout, spark, A-Z spec, and Ashtar. Anything and everything can be an argument if it's structured into one. I will not influence the round with anything from my perspective.

Speaks - Everyone starts at 30 and every infraction will make you decrease - Just pure block reading will put you at a 27.5 ceiling. I stand with other coaches who say that if you're just going to read blocks, then you can send your docs and do the debate that way, specific in depth debate like CP's from their evidence or rehighlightings are big boosters. I'm a sucker for ethos pushes, I LOVE PASSION!

DA - I don't believe that there's no chance of the link or the impact. There's always a chance which is the weight I give to the neg. However, the neg needs to win at least one calculus claim in the 2NR if you want me to pull the trigger on the DA. For the aff, I think that if you want me to substantially drop the DA, I want to see a flow of a combination of good attacks, I think going all in on a no link or no impact claim while good if done right, still gives weight to the DA which gives them wait on the case flow.

T - GO FOR IT... I love T to the moon and back, and as a smaller school kid, going for T feels dangerous, but is ultimately sometimes the best bet in almost all the situations. I hate PTIV, its bs, but whatever, it's filler and usually doesn't make it past the 2AC unless it's dropped. Limits/Ground are practically the same thing so you can combine them when running T. If you're running multiple T's just cross apply your standards and voters, same with answering them, it's a major time suck. I default to competing interps unless I am told otherwise and will strictly go off of which definition provides a better impact inside and outside the round. Cards for violations are fire and under-utilized because then it snaps a bright-line because now you establish they are outside of the realm with actual ev. I am down for reasonability because I can agree to an extent that competing is a race to the bottom in all instances. If the 2NR is 5 minutes T, Your speaks are going up +.7 no questions asked.

CP - I love analytical counterplans or ones that are made by using the other teams evidence, because that's fire and is creative. I love theories on the CP, (and I will get more into that later). Specific solvency is overrated, general solvency will do just fine for me, but if you have specific ev you should use it. Going for it - if you decide this is the strat, I need to know why there's more than solving the aff, your net ben should quantifiable in the debate round and should be a reason to prefer. Second, you need to make sure that you explain in the block (before the 2NR) how the CP works and how it accesses the aff which should be a no brainer, but the amount of times someone has shoved a CP down my throat while running 3 off, T,K and CP while extending it for 10 seconds to blow it up in the 2NR is maddening. Perms, those are cool, I say don't do more than three because at that point your just doing nothing because the neg can just combine and answer all of them. Counterplans that are consult or Agency can probably be permed and theoried to hell and back. Lastly I believe that counterplans have fiat unless I am told otherwise by the aff.

Theory - PLEASE - Theory is so underrated, and outside of Condo, I believe that there's reasons to do more than just reject the arg. In fact, if there's work done, I believe that perf con or even fiat bad are reasons to reject the team. If the work is done, it's a possibility. If you go 5 min in the 2NR/2AR all theory, you will see a smile on my face. However, if you do take this risk know it's not guranteed, and I will give leeway on rejecting the arg and not the team outside of Condo.

K - My K lit is the equivalent of a toddler that got out of preschool, I know your basics like Cap, Baudrillard, Afropess and Queer/Fem lit bases, but outside of that, you should explain your stuff. Even on my basics I still struggle tremendously, while I will be able to pick up some other K's like Undercommons, use the 2NC to go over it with me (I like the long o/v ngl). But besides that, I think the K should be impacted out, and EXPLAIN THE LINK. If I am post rounded because your mad that I didn't know how the K linked, I will direct you here. I believe that K's that solve the aff are best, but can be persuaded why the alt's world outweighs the oppressive world of the aff. On Framework, I believe that fairness is an impact and is a reason to prefer weighing the impacts of the case against the K, however, you need to explain why that's good. Espeically on frameworks that say that "The 1AC is an object of research", you gotta give me something to work with. DA's on FW are good and I love seeing people go for them.

KvK - I am not super familiar here, I will be honest, me and my partner always went for T, so take what I know with a grain of salt. I believe that if you're going to go for Cap or another K then you need to tell me why the alt solves the issues of the Kaff and/or outweighs on a material or epistemic/pedagogical level. Furthermore, you'll need to explain to me why prioritzing that argument on FW is best.

K-Affs and T-USFG - I believe that a K-aff should be tangentially connected to the topic in some way. If you are spouting something outside of what the resolution is about, then you'll have to explain how it pertains to the round. GIVE ME A ROLE OF THE BALLOT, if I am left with a Kaff and policy with no ROTB or what my ballot does, I am going to default to whatever I can find on the flow. Specific evidence is good especially if your model is bolstered by the ballot or that the ballot is key to the spillover. I want to see presumption top of the neg case page, and the aff needs to defend that there's something outside of round or why the in round effects is key to accessessing a spillover claim or change. On T-USFG, niche debate is good, and I will go out on a limb and say that Kaffs are more educational than policy, HOWEVER, fairness is by far a better voter for my flow and I also think that argument building and debates over than 2 off Cap K, T is good. Tell me why voting for neg or aff remedies damage inside or outside the round. Being planless means you got to do work on why the model I am going to voting for is the best choice in the round and why supporting policy-bros is no good. TVA's are very persuasive to me, let me know how the TVA can resolve the links and offense in the 1AC

Other Stuff - If you do anything racist, discriminatory, sexist, xenophobic or anything that makes someone feel worse coming outside of the round like just pure bullying I am going to sign a ballot with 20's and call it good, while I also give you my decision reprimanding you to not do that again. If you do it after you were told to stop, I will personally go to your coach, and if I am in the Kansas district, I will know who your coach is.

If you want me to look at a piece of evidence specifically during the decision time tell me.

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

Albert Wang Hire

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 9:22 AM CDT

Parliamentary Debate:

a) I am very tech over truth.

What this means is that I view debate and argumentation as a game to win, rather than who simply has the "best" or most "truthful" case. For example, if Aff says that the sky is yellow and Neg doesn't say anything, I will buy that the sky is yellow. If you don't extend arguments or framework, if you don't give me voters, I will vote against you.

b) When framework clashes come into play, defend your framework and how you weigh your round. Show why I as the judge should view the debate through the lens that you set up. You must win that battle. The same goes for definitions, albeit less important. If you lose either of these two, I will likely have trouble buying your entire case, regardless of the actual arguments.

c) I like it when there are clear impacts that are presented in your speeches that have good links to them, as with a strong, well-organized, and meaningful voters speech to make it last in my head.

d) Additionally, during refutations especially, I'd like to see time being managed well and attempting to refute every argument the opponent makes, and would also like to see your own arguments being repaired and extended because without that you have no more offense to me. Re-iterate your arguments and explain why they still matter. Arguably, this is more important than the actual refutation itself.

e) I enjoy it when you can creatively interpret the resolution, especially in parliamentary debate, so long as you can justify why your interpretation is correct.

f) Overall, the quality of your speaking doesn't really matter as much as it would an IE, but speak clearly and don't go too fast or slow, so that it's easier for me to flow.

Public Forum Debate:

a) A bit of history on the origins of Public Forum Debate:

Public forum debate was originally created as an antidote to the often highly technical policy debate (something you'll hear about in high school). In fact, it was the founder of CNN, Ted Turner, who first introduced the idea for this type of debate, which originally bore his name (Ted Turner Debate). He wanted to create a space where debaters could convince an audience of people who were not knowledgeable about a subject matter to vote for them.

b) In the spirit of Ted Turner, I believe that as Public Forum debaters, you should do your best to convey your ideas in a clear manner. Even in high school, the judges for PF are often lay judges, so I will pretend I know very little about the resolution. It, therefore, is up to you to inform me of what you are talking about.

c) Public Forum is an evidence-based debate. What this means is that I look for strong evidence and strong backing of evidence. If you cannot present evidence in a manner that is convincing, I will have trouble believing your case over your opponents'.

d) Remember that your case is only half of your debate!!! While I cannot emphasize preparing well in advance for Public Forum, you can still win a round with worse evidence than your opponents; it's a matter of how you use your speaking to appeal to me as a judge.

e) See points c and d for parliamentary debate. Keep point b in mind, but I will emphasize that a lot less in PF.

f) Points a and e in parliamentary debate do NOT apply at all to PF. Parliamentary debate is a different style from PF.

g) The quality of your speaking matters more in PF than in parliamentary debate. However, I do not expect the same quality as a dramatic interpretation; it should be calm and informative.

Furthermore, since public forum is meant to inform a lay judge, I will be a lot more strict on aggressiveness than in parliamentary debate. I want you to be nice to your opponents. The only exception is during crossfire; I want to see good questions asked, and a bit of (respectful) pressing here and there is acceptable and encouraged. Just don't seem mad.

Speech:

I will judge based on how good your speaking quality is and how well you're able to organize your ideas. Organization is something that I place a great amount of importance in; it's important to be able to convey your ideas clearly.

===============================================================================

In general, just be nice to each other and don't say rude things to your opponents.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at albert.a.wang@vanderbilt.edu.

Most importantly, have a good time!

In your final speech, if you address me as "Judge Albert", I will know you have read through my paradigm and I will be very happy.

EDIT: Please don't feel any pressure to do the above in the final round at Nationals.

======================================================================

My Points Scale:

30: You killed it. Absolute genius.

29: That was pretty epic

28: Excellent Job

27: Great Job

26: Good Job

25: Could use some adjustments

24 or below: You probably had some theory issues

Note: I will probably give you lower scores than other judges. That's just how my system works.

Also, if you get 28 or above, that's a very significant accomplishment. I don't give many scores above a 28.

Benjamin Williams Chadwick Middle School

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 9:19 AM CDT

E-mail: benrichwill@gmail.com

Hi y'all! My Tabroom name is Benjamin (he/him) but I also go by Ben. I am Graduate Assistant at Western Kentucky University in the second year of an MAE program. I debated for KCKCC in 2016 and 2017 where I competed in a variety of debate formats, including NDT/CEDA, NFA-LD, and NPDA.

Top level, I view debates through the lens of comparative advantages; put simply, you win if the world you are advocating for is better than the other team's. Tell me what your best arguments are and why they mean you should get the ballot.

Argumentative innovation will be rewarded. I tend to like teams who stretch the boundary of the resolutional question without abandoning topic education.

I would like the downtime time of debates (document sending, setting up stands, etc) to be minimized as possible.

Framework/Affirmative Kritiks: I never read affirmative kritiks while competing so if teams would give a good 2AC explainer that would be nice. I like framework debates because they display analytical skills of speakers; debaters who go beyond my expectations will get high speaks. While I primarily think that debate is a game and fairness is a voting issue, I am not fixed to that notion. For the nukes topic, almost all of my research has been policy arguments.

Disadvantages: Affirmatives should read offense against disadvantages. Negatives should apply the disadvantage to the case debate. Impact turn debates are fun for me.

Counterplans: The best 1NC's have case specific counterplans. I err negative on most theory arguments but I still can be convinced to vote aff on overly abusive counterplans, for example CP’s that have purely artificial competition. The best 2AC responses involve add-ons/new offense. Unless there is a reason otherwise, I view counterplans through the lens of sufficiency.

Negative Kritiks: I like negative teams that can adequately explain how their alternative resolves all of the links to the criticism. I like affirmative teams that effectively weigh the impacts of the 1AC against the K

Case debate: Negatives should engage with the scholarship of the 1AC. While generic impact defense is important, it does not suffice as a strategy. Affirmative teams should utilize their 1AC in the 2AC/1AR to hedge against offensive negative arguments.

Conditionality: I generally think that hard debate is good debate and that affirmatives teams should be able to defend the 1AC from all angles. However, I have become increasingly sympathetic to affirmative teams that have to defend against multiple counterplans with multiple conditional planks.

Chaz Wyche Science Park Middle School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:14 AM EDT

Two primary beliefs:

1. Debate is a communicative activity and the power in debate is because the students take control of the discourse. I am an adjudicator but the debate is yours to have. The debate is yours, your speaker points are mine.

2. I am not tabula rasa. Anyone that claims that they have no biases or have the ability to put ALL biases away is probably wrong. I will try to put certain biases away but I will always hold on to some of them. For example, don’t make racist, sexist, transphobic, etc arguments in front of me. Use your judgment on that.

FW

I predict I will spend a majority of my time in these debates. I will be upfront. I do not think debate are made better or worse by the inclusion of a plan based on a predictable stasis point. On a truth level, there are great K debaters and terrible ones, great policy debaters and terrible ones. However, after 6 years of being in these debates, I am more than willing to evaluate any move on FW. My thoughts when going for FW are fairly simple. I think fairness impacts are cleaner but much less comparable. I think education and skills based impacts are easier to weigh and fairly convincing but can be more work than getting the kill on fairness is an intrinsic good. On the other side, I see the CI as a roadblock for the neg to get through and a piece of mitigatory defense but to win the debate in front of me the impact turn is likely your best route. While I dont believe a plan necessarily makes debates better, you will have a difficult time convincing me that anything outside of a topical plan constrained by the resolution will be more limiting and/or predictable. This should tell you that I dont consider those terms to necessarily mean better and in front of me that will largely be the center of the competing models debate.

Kritiks

These are my favorite arguments to hear and were the arguments that I read most of my career. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. As I mentioned on FW there are terrible K debates and like New Yorkers with pizza I can be a bit of a snob about the K. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as antiblackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. Explain it or you will lose to heg good. K Lit is diverse. I do not know enough high theory K’s. I only cared enough to read just enough to prove them wrong or find inconsistencies. Please explain things like Deleuze, Derrida, and Heidegger to me in a less esoteric manner than usual.

CPs

CP’s are cool. I love a variety of CP’s but in order to win a CP in my head you need to either solve the entirety of the aff with some net benefit or prove that the net benefit to the CP outweighs the aff. Competition is a thing. I do believe certain counterplans can be egregious but that’s for y’all to debate about. My immediate thoughts absent a coherent argument being made.

1. No judge kick

2. Condo is good. You're probably pushing it at 4 but condo is good

3. Sufficiency framing is true

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Theory
Just like people think that I love K’s because I came from Newark, people think I hate theory which is far from true. I’m actually a fan of well-constructed shells and actually really enjoyed reading theory myself. I’m not a fan of tricky shells and also don’t really like disclosure theory but I’ll vote on it. Just have an actual abuse story. I won’t even list my defaults because I am so susceptible to having them changed if you make an argument as to why. The one thing I will say is that theory is a procedural. Do with that information what you may.

DA’s

Their fine. I feel like internal link stories are out of control but more power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense. Zero risk is a thing but its very hard to get to. If someone zeroes the DA, you messed up royally somewhere.

Plans

YAY. Read you nice plans. Be ready to defend them. T debates are fairly exciting especially over mechanism ground. Similar to FW debates, I would like a picture of what debate looks like over a season with this interpretation.

Presumption.

Default neg. Least change from the squo is good. If the neg goes for an alt, it switches to the aff absent a snuff on the case. Arguments change my calculus so if there is a conceded aff presumption arg that's how I'll presume. I'm easy.

LD Specific

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Philimon Yosafat Ridgecrest Intermediate School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:57 AM MST

Yo I'm Philimon. I debated in Az and I did LD. I got 6 bids and a couple of speaker awards over my career. Tech>truth, I'm not gonna intervene unless someone does something problematic. I am good for a lot of things and I don't have any predispositions against or for certain arguments, nor do I have any opinion on what a debate should look like. I hated judges who were like that so I'm open to pretty much anything.

email: pyosafat23@gmail.com

Quick Pref Sheet

(Note: I'm fine at evaluating anything and will vote on anything with a warrant and an implication, these are just my familiarity with certain arguments/debates)

K/K-aff: 1

K-aff v T: 1

Policy v K: 1

K v K: 1

Tricks: 2

theory: 2

Policy v Policy: 2

Phil: 3

Extra Info

My A strat is the K, but don't read it just cuz I'm judging. I read antiblackness Ks through my entire debate career and know a bit about a few other lit bases but don't think I will do any work for you on the thesis level. Read stuff you're comfortable with, not stuff that you think I'll like. I like any type of links, but I want a crystalized explanation of the link. The alt has to do something, whether it be destroying the world or refusing something. You don't need to win the alt to win the k, but if u kick the alt and go for the links, you'll have to do a lot more work on the link debate. Also, I love fire 2nr overviews that explain the thesis link and alt very efficiently.

Phil

I'm fine with phil, but I don't want your syllogism or framing to be straight buzzwords. I want an explanation of what your framing means and how i should use that to evaluate the round. Also, I'm prolly not familiar with your lit base so don't just extend without a simplified explanation of it.

Tricks

I've always appreciated tricks and i read them myself here and there. Don't be dodgy or your speaks will suffer. I will gladly pull the trigger on tricky arguments but if you're gonna go for them, explain them well.

Theory

I'm great for theory. Default DTD, competing interps, and yes RVIs. I want you to weigh your standards and explain exactly how their model is bad for fairness or education. I'll vote on frivolous theory but I'll have a low threshold for responses. If you win the abuse story and WEIGH IT properly, you'll have my ballot.

Policy

I always enjoyed debating against a policy aff. I'm great for policy too, just don't make the round irresolvable. Give me a framing mechanism to evaluate the round and then weigh under that framing. I like simpler link chains, but please explain your link chain clearly, and tie that to the impact.

I don't judge kick. Always include a net benefit to the cp. If you're affirming, win the perm or put disads on the counterplan and you're set. The 2NR should always weigh the net ben above the aff.

I debated T a lot and I was fine on both sides of it. I mainly read a K aff, but trust me, I am great for a T debate and don't have any bias. I am prolly better for a education 2NR than a fairness 2NR but am willing to vote for either. You don't have to win a TVA but it will help a lot.

Misc

I'll gladly vote on disclosure if you win your shell.

Don't spam independent voters without warrants.

Use cx effectively. What that looks like means either asking clarification questions or executing a strategic sequence of questions. Don't just use it to let them speak while you get 3 extra minutes of prep.

Tbvnkz references will be receive +0.5 speaks

Login to Tabroom

NSDA Middle School National Tournament

2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US

Policy Debate Paradigm List

Judges