:D just be nice and I’ll give good speaks

don't be too toxic

pretty familiar with this topic

speed isn't an issue, but I should be able to understand tags

email is natudaniel02@gmail.com if there's an email chain add me

Central '19-'23

Current a coach for Central

Hi! I’m Cayden, I use they/them pronouns, please use them! I’m generally quite a neutral judge however I think that making debate an inclusive and fun space outweighs all else.

I have bad hearing so please speak extra loud and if it’s online, make sure your mic is clear!

My email is cayd3nhock3y12@gmail.com, if there's an email chain I’d like to be on it for ease of everything.

This note comes before anything in this paradigm and its at the top for a reason: Please just run whatever you feel best running. I would rather have you run something I’m generally not partial to well than something I like badly. The best debates come from people running what they know best, so do that!

MS/Local debate notes-

1. What I said above about having fun in debates applies even more here, I coached MS and currently coach novice and truly just want it to be a positive experience for everyone involved!
2. Read a plan text! If you are going for a CP or K, read the CP text or alternative!
3. At the end of the day, my role in debate is to help you learn and grow, I am more than happy to answer any questions before or after the round, please feel free to email me if you think of questions after the tournament is over!!!

Some notes:

Judge Instruction-I think debate has lost a lot of what I think is one of the most important pieces which is the story of arguments. I am down for the tech level, but you are much more likely to get my vote with good judge instruction and consistently explaining the story of your args and how they shake out by the end of the round.

Spreading- Clarity comes first. I will be on the speech doc for the ease of things however I will not flow off the speech doc. If I cannot understand your tag, date, and author I will flow it as an analytic. I firmly believe that policy debate would be a far better activity without spreading, that isn’t to say I see no purpose in spreading, I absolutely understand it, but I do think it is bad for our education. If you are reading this and worried I won't be able to understand you, just slow down on your tags a little bit for me and we are good, I can flow you I pinky promise. I will also call clear three times for each person after that, if I can't understand you I won't flow it.

In round non debate stuff: I debated online for a year+ so trust me, I fully understand that “normal” policy debate ethos has gone out of the window, that being said, I would prefer if you do whatever you can so I can hear/understand you better as my hearing is not great. I also will not tolerate being explicitly rude in round. I was a very assertive debater myself so I’m not saying don’t be assertive, but don’t just be flat out rude, especially during cross. You will be getting your speaks docked. As stated earlier, debate should be fun and inclusive and I think that this is an important part of it.

Tech v Truth- Not gonna lie, unsure who is like a true truth>tech judge these days. I'm securely tech>truth, only spot that I think is a little bit closer towards truth is on bad IL chains on DAs. I also weigh arguments as new the first time they have a warrant, analytic or ev.

T- I am down for T however my standards on T impacts are higher than the avergae natcir and lower than localcir. I default to models but am also more likely to happily pull the trigger on in round abuse.

Ks- I ran Ks on both sides and love them over most policy arguments however I’m not going to try and claim to understand your complex literature I just have not read. Very comfortable with gender/queer ks (not a fan of fem ir outside of debate but I know the lit so take that as you will), cap, security, militarism, biopower, colonialism, I know a bit of afropess lit but not a ton. If you are able to explain your K literature well to me I would love to see you run your K, however if you can’t, I’m not going to try and do the work for you. I also probably buy most no link args over bad link args BUT I do tend to give alt solvency a fair bit of leniency. I am down for you link you lose good or bad debates, down for most K args, not a fan of baudy or psycho but I'll judge em fairly I just won't be the happiest camper.

PTX DAs- I kinda hate them but I totally get that they are a very legit strat especially on the topic, but please be able to defend why PC is real.

CPs- Go for it. I ran a lot of these and see they have a place, that being said I’m also very open to hearing arguments against that. I think that on perm theory I’m pretty deadset neutral but I default to test of competition (idk any judges who don't anymore). I can also be convinced that X type of CPs are bad for debate if given good education and fairness arguments.

K Affs- I ran one, go crazy, love a good planless debate, love a good framework debate. Some of my favorite rounds have been performance style but also some of my least favorite have been bad K affs. I am probably not your best judge for a fairness bad round. Also, I have only ever heard one good death of debate argument and I think nearly all of the rest are not worth it in front of me.

FWK- I go through this first (after like T and stuff) if its present and it will never be a "wash" for me. I default to a policy maker but also ran basically every fw under the sun so I am happy to be convinced otherwise. Please slow down on this once you get to the rebuttals and I love techy cross applications of other flows to fw.

Condo!- I go into each round deadset neutral on condo. I've seen teams win condo v a 1 off conditional advocacy and teams win v condo running 10+ conditional advocacies. I probably am truly deadset neutral on my own opinions around the 6 condo advocacies line, slightly more likely to vote aff once you hit the 10 off mark. All of this can be 100% changed by the round in front of me (obviously) just know these are the mental lines I think I have.

Theory in general- I am sad to say I feel like I need to add this because of Central. I will vote on most theory args, I defualt to condo good but that can be easily changed in round. I also think in round abuse args are always going to be the strongest but models of debate is fine too. At the end of the day though, just because I will vote on it doesn't make me happy to and your speaks will reflect that.

Also, unless the tournament rulebook specifies disclosure, please don't run disclosure theory in front of me, I believe that if you can win on disclosure theory, you can win on something else.

Also for those who’ve read this far, every reference to lotr/hobbit will get u .1 speaker points.

Add me to the email chain: indigo.sabin@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

Hey all! I did Debate for four years at Eagan Highschool, and am a current freshman in college. Feel free to ask me any and all questions before the round. I’m happy to disclose if the tournament allows, and I’m also happy to answer any questions regarding my decision. However, know that my decision will obviously not change after talking to me after round.

General stuff: I'm Tech>Truth, which means I will evaluate all arguments no matter the legitimacy of it. That doesn’t mean I want to though! I think the longer Im involved with debate, the more I’ve started to lean toward the truth side of things. This is mostly because I don’t want to vote off of a bad argument just because it's funny. I think it’s so much fun to write those cases, and use them when you’re out of then tournament or with your friends. But I also know that can be frustrating for some trying to take each round seriously, regardless of their position in the tournament. I will vote for these arguments if you win on the tech, but I don’t want to, and you’re going to have to do a lot of work to do that in the first place. If there is actually no clear offense on either side I vote neg on presumption, which is lame, but so is a lack of evidence. I’m not really worried about that though.

Aggression: I truly despise aggressive debaters within cross and if you are one of those people I will give you a 25. Please be nice to each other. Debate is a activity/game we play to further our learning, understanding, and argumentation, not to show that we are better or that our opponents are foolish for not acting the same as you.

How to win my ballot:I’m looking for clear and concise argumentation along with consistent and comparative weighing. Speed is fine, but clarity is key in terms of persuasiveness. I also ask if you are going fast that you’ll send a speech doc. Im a judge that likes to call cards, and if you’re going to go fast on top of that, I would prefer receiving speech docs. As I said earlier I will vote on just about anything, but I need to see strong warranting at every level of the link chain, and I need YOU to tell me why your case is better than the opponents. Basically whatever side will be the easiest and clearest path for me to vote, I’m going to take it. So I ask you make it easier for me, because messy debates are, well, a mess to deal with.

Weighing: I'm begging you to weigh. And start weighing ans early ans you can. Weighing in rebuttal has never hurt a team, and just creates a stronger narrative for your side, and why you should win. Weighing becomes one of the first things to be forgotten, which makes more work for me to do comparison for you. You really don't want that, because I am not going to look at your contention the same way you do, so tell me how to look at it!Otherwise I'm going to make a decision 50% of you don't love.

Back half: Please condense the flow within your Summary, I do not need every single argument I've heard this round within your summary. First summary is fine to bring up some brief evidence to block out the negatives rebuttal. After Second summary I will evaluate absolutely nothing that is new within any of these speeches. FF should just be a more concise summary that uses THE EXACT argumentation used within summary. I absolutely hate bringing up new arguments in final focus and just thinking about it now makes me sad.

Theory/Prog:I do and will evaluate theory, but I will not vote for any frivolous theory.

-I’m a paraphrasing hack, because evidence in debate is so atrocious. You need to have the evidence in your card verbatim, and you need to have cut cards, I’m begging you.

-I will vote on trigger warning theory if one hasn’t been provided. I’m not stingy on how this is done, you can give a trigger warning verbally, or through a google form. I really don’t care how the trigger warning is delivered, as long as both sides understand the content they’re going to hear.

-I like disclosure, but it’s not an auto-win if you’re in the pro disclosure side. I really don’t love judging disclosure but I will.

-I’m not the best judge to evaluate Ks but I will. It’s not my favorite debate, and I don’t really see much of a purpose. All arguments and experiences are valid, but there’s a time and a place for those to be argued for. I think since most people don’t have good answers to it, it becomes a tool used to win, rather than to highlight an issue within our community or world.

Speaker Points: 99% of the time I won't give you anything lower than a 27, unless you say something truly triggering, offensive, racist, sexist, or rude in any way. Tbh speaker points are pretty dumb, so I give relatively high speaks. I wouldn't worry about it as long as you're a half decent human being. But if you’re really looking for that 30, here’s what I’m looking for.

Speaker Point Breakdown
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

Overview

-eaganlsdebate@gmail.com -- add me to the chain.

-Pronouns: He/Him/His.

-Quals: Semis at the TOC, qualled three times, and bid leader.

-Tech over everything. I will ride the train to stupidity. If you win that the only way to save aliens is to make ourselves extinct, then I'll submit my ballot to save the aliens. Read anything that you think you can win on.

-I think my TOC 2NRs are indicative of my debating career/thoughts: Framework (twice), an agent CP with an internal nb, a process CP, an advantage CP + impact turn, and Christian wipeout (the 1NC had the procedural 'debaters must evangelize the resolution', and the block hid wipeout so it was dropped in the 1AR). Be scrappy.

-I think that I place a higher emphasis on the meta-level of debate (like framing and framework) than most judges do, so spending more time on those will probably be helpful. I will never intervene and create a middle ground interp.

-Neg terrorism is good and makes the debate more interesting. My most fun 2ACs were always against 10+ off. Aff teams should win on theory or counter-terror (straight turn the DAs, read stuff that can be cross applied across the flows and don't cross apply till the 1AR, and impact turn internal net benefits).

-In my senior year, 19.6% of my 2ARs were condo (10/51 rounds). I am good for theory. Conversely, our 1NCs always had >= 5 condo positions unless we had a judge that explicitly said they hated it. It's about the practice, not the number. The judge subjectively thinking that the 1NC was abusive is irrelevant to the theory debate. Save your 2AR time by not ranting about how it was impossible for you in this round. Spend the saved time on why a model of condo makes offense untenable.

-Innovate more -- I'll give high speaks.

-Try-or-die is pretty intuitive -- if you're guaranteed to go extinct, I'd always choose the other option, even if there's a very small chance that it can save us.

-Inserting rehighlightings is good and should be done more -- it lowers the barrier to entry for ev comparison and deters bad evidence.

-I appreciate card docs that look nice and speeches that are organized and consistent with the doc. I'll reward it with high speaks.

-No substantive argument is off limits: wipeout, warming good, and hidden aspec are all fair game.

-People need to update their cards more. Politics updates from three months ago is untenable.

-Read more impact turns.

-Ad homs are logical fallacies that don't win ballots.

Controversial takes

I think that too many judges paradigm's are the exact same and don't really tell you any insights into the judge. Additionally, I think that if you don't have any controversial takes about debate, you haven't thought about debate enough. Obviously, however, I won't act on any of these absent better debating from the team that goes for it.

-Plan text in a vacuum is true. Furthermore, judges who simultaneously hate positional competition while saying that plan text in a vacuum is bad don't understand competition. It's derived from the mandate of the aff, and PTIAV says that mandates of the aff can only come from the plan text.

-Wipeout and spark are strategic arguments just because of how much the prep disparity is. 2ACs nearly have zero offense that isn't obviously wrong.

-K's outweigh condo. The entire point of fw is a theory debate about how the 1AC was rhetorically violent, so, the neg only cheated because the aff cheated first. It's the same reason for why T or any theory about the 1AC logically precedes any theory about the 1NC (eg, condo or perf con).

-Soft left affs should be the norm. If deployed right, the security K should deter all big stick affs because it's right that all of the 1ACs impacts are fake. Furthermore, if aff teams were able to debate framing contentions properly and judges didn't hack for extinction outweighs, the aff win percentages would skyrocket. There's a reason that no one takes debate cases seriously irl, and people just need to be able to import that logic into debate.

-Textual competition is terrible. I'm not just saying that functional is better, I literally think that it would collapse debate. The distinction between only being able to permute words vs being able to permute letters seems to be an arbitrary line drawn to make it work in the aff's favor. But, taken to the logical extent, it would be that you could literally permute any combination of letters or punctuation to make any sentence. Especially because the aff gets to choose the plan and jam as many characters in it as possible, this seems like it would be very hard to beat. The best answer I heard was PICs deter, but under a model of textual + functional, the majority of the PICs wouldn't be functionally competitive, but the ones that are could be read either way, so I don't get how this is defense.

-The ev for the death k is so much better than the ev against the death k.

-Negation theory is one of the worst arguments to defend any CP theoretically. It justifies literally every single CP. A CP that fiats that everyone starts being nice to each other and solve the 1AC's impacts if and only if the aff isn't passed is justified.

-The only impact to condo good is neg flex. Everything else is made up to fill up 2NC time and deter 1As from extending it in the 1AR (note that if you're in front of me, you can read neg flex as the only piece of offense and not reduce your chances of winning at all. Obv put defense though). Conversely, research is the best impact for condo bad, but other ones like strat skew are decent as well.

-Vagueness is probably a real thing and probably should be remedied, but no one really knows how to do it because there's no non-arbitrary interpretation. If you find one, I would be very good for that debate.

-The fiat k is atrocious. Everyone fiats things all the time and they don't hate themselves.

Defaults

These can be changed with any amount of debating, but it'll be what I fall back on assuming that nothing is said in the debate.

-Yes judge kick.

-Infinite condo.

-Util is good and extinction outweighs everything except for s-risks.

-I'll flow and evaluate everything through an offense/defense paradigm.

K-Affs

-Impact turns>Counter-models. Counter-models make no sense to me, because any competent neg team can win that it's arbitrary and devolves into justifying any aff.

-I think its more strategic to go for fairness than clash, but you don't over-adapt to me.

-Reading T is no different than other forms of engagement vs K affs.

-Read more stuff vs K affs -- word PICs against un-underlined portions of the 1AC or impact turns to stuff like warming are all fair game.

-Go for presumption. When teams choose to give up fiat, they require winning that voting aff does something. It doesn't.

-I will not know what I'm doing in K v K rounds.

-I think that I'm more lenient on neg teams for links to DAs. If one of your cards says your method does something, impact turns to that definitely link.

Ks on the neg

-Neg framework interps should moot the plan. Trying to debate the K like it's a CP means that it'll lose to the perm double-bind.

-RFDs that say "framework was a wash" are incoherent to me. Framework is a theory debate that determines how you judge the round and it's a binary choice between the two interps that are proposed. I'll always evaluate the fw debate first and then evaluate the rest of the debate through the lens of whichever team won fw.

-Philosophical competition just seems like a worse version of positional competition too (you not only get links off of what the 1AC says, but now the vibes that it gives off too?), but teams seem to really mess up on this. If they don't have a counter-interp to philosophical competition, as they often don't, it seems like it should be a clean kill for the neg.

-Use more K tricks. I'm very good for it.

-Aff teams should defend their method. If you're saying Russia is bad, then defend Russia is bad. I think it's much easier to answer a lot of Ks (especially IR ones) by just taking the hard-right approach and saying that your method is good and accurate.

-Beating 'extinction outweighs' relies on you winning an alternative to util (or winning fw to moot the impact ofc).

-Update your cards. There is so much lit being written but people are still reading ev from like 2008.

-More teams should go for theory against alts -- most are nonsense and fiat way more than should be allowed.

-Going into the 2AR, you should have a clear ballot. The first 10 seconds should explain what that ballot is. This is true of every 2AR, but especially important in K debates because there are so many floating parts, and teams go to them seemingly with no direction. If you're going for fw+extinction outweighs, then go for it. Don't spend time extending the perm.

-If the alt is material, it mostly always has some great DAs to go for. Going for heg good vs basically any material alt is almost always a viable strat.

Soft left affs

-They're good. I believe that a lot of them lose because judges hack for extinction outweighs. In order to beat it, you need to have a framing interp that is logical and precise.

-I think the best framing interp is still numerically based, but you need to fight back against probability times magnitude. The interp that I read was ln(impact) * probability. Of course, this had some problems, but I think something similar to this is much better than something like "probability first" or "prioritize X".

-Other framing interps that I think are defensible rely on what the alternatives to util are actually in the lit, like deontology. But, if you read something like this, the bar for explanation will probably be much higher.

-There are a lot of things wrong with most framing contentions:

---Probability first: quite obviously bad (a 75% risk of a paper cut doesn't outweigh a 74% risk of being tortured).

---Cognitive bias: a helpful tiebreaker, but it's not an interp. Also you open yourself up to cognitive bias claims going in the other direction.

---Conjunctive fallacy: doesn't assume debate where dropped args are true, so the diminishing effect, while true irl, is useless for debate.

---Don't evaluate future lives: might be true (probably not though), but largely irrelevant as if they win their interp, 7 billion * 1% will still outweigh.

---Util is racist/sexist/ableist: it still requires you to have a counter-interp for framing. Even if you win that util is the worst thing in the world, if I don't have some other heuristic to evaluate impacts, then I have to use util because it's the only one introduced in the round.

T

-I have a MUCH lower threshold on plan text in a vacuum than most judges. I think it's probably a true argument, given that the alternatives to plan text in a vacuum all justify positional competition, and the main piece of offense, planicality, links harder to the counter-interp. Also, technical mistakes like not putting a counter-interp in the block, or brushing it off seems to make this a slam dunk for most aff teams. If you think your interp is good, read a CP that competes off of it and sandbag the T debate till the block -- it's probably strategically better anyways.

-Read more cards.

-I'm not entirely sure how to evaluate reasonability, assuming the aff wins it. While competing interps seems to have a pretty clearly defined threshold (you win if I'm >50% sure that your model is better), reasonability seems pretty arbitrary. At what point should I draw the line in saying the aff is "not that abusive"?

-Debatability and predictability are often talked about in a vacuum, separated from the actual context of the debate. Everyone agrees that a definition that isn't predictable at all or one that would destroy our ability to debate would be worse than a middle ground that is fairly predictable or fairly debatable. As such, I think teams should spend like time arguing about whether predictability or debatability outweigh, and spend that time explaining how their opponents interp isn't predictable or debatable.

CPs

-My high school 2NRs consisted a lot of terrible CPs ranging from the "Reddit" CP to the Space Elevators CP to various consult/pressure CPs. As such, I have a fairly high bar for this type of stuff -- it is very winnable in front of me, just because a lot of teams end up going for the wrong arguments, but in an evenly debated theory or competition debate, I will probably lean aff.

-Teams don't go for theory enough -- that's a massive mistake. Conversely, Neg teams should exploit the fact that aff teams don't go for theory enough and read more cheating CPs! If a team isn't willing to go for theory against the future gens CP, then they deserve to lose.

-In the same vein, if you're hitting a team that won't punish you, you should abuse condo to the maximum extent possible -- 2NC CP out of deficits and straight turns and read contradicting conditional positions to force concessions.

-Every CP is a PIC, and they all have a process. Make your theory interp precise.

-I'm very good for condo debates -- on both sides. Condo is about the practice, not the number of condo you read in the round -- number interps are inevitably arbitrary and devolve to infinite anyways. It's probably the only theoretical reason to reject the team. The only neg impact is neg flex -- I don't know why people go for anything other than that in the 2NR.

-Negation theory is stupid.

-If you read hidden ASPEC, the other team drops it, and you don't go for it, I will nuke your speaks. Why would you even put it in the 1NC then? Certainly not a time skew.

-Immediacy and certainty ev is almost always terrible and cut out of context -- inserting a couple rehighlightings and doing quick ev comparison in the 1AR makes most process CPs unwinnable going into the 2NR.

-Do more work for the debatability DA for definitions.

-In the middle between "functional only" and "textual+functional" -- I would lean towards the latter, but weird perm texts and scramble perms make aff abuse very easy if textual competition is allowed.

-Analytical CPs are good. If its obvious how they solve the aff, no explanation is needed. If it's complicated, then you should explain it, preferably in the 1NC.

DAs

-Politics is a good DA, I'm not sure why everyone seems to hate it. It's a negative consequence of the plan that's probably real for most affs.

-Good for fake DAs that rely on artificial competition.

-I debated on three topics where there was no link uniqueness (water, CJR, and NATO). Thumpers are extremely useful. If a neg team can't tell you why the link would be triggered by the plan but nothing else that already happened, it's probably a losing DA.

-Uniqueness CPs and CPing out of future thumpers is pretty much always legit in the 1NC, and debatably legit in the 2NC.

-Both sides should read more evidence on what normal means is on most process DAs. Ie, if you're aff facing a resource tradeoff DA, reading ev that normal means is increased congressional funding is often a good argument.

-I think turns case is often overhyped. It depends on the neg winning the uniqueness and link, which the aff team is rebutting anyways.

Impact Turns

-Go crazy. I'm good for Russia war good, spark, wipeout, and whatever else you have.

-Spend more time on sustainability, I think that it normally frames most of the rest of the debate, and whoever wins it often ends up winning.

-Fiat out of aff scenarios!! It's such an easy way to zero a majority of aff offense. I think winning condo means 2NC CPs are legit (might make the abuse story better in the 2AR though), but 1NC CPs are preferable if you can predict their offense. I will give high speaks for smart CPs.

-S-risks outweigh X-risks. While it's often helpful to have a card for this, I'll automatically assume it absent impact calc from either side and make it a side constraint to avoid a small risk of any S-risk, similar to how judges would evaluate a 1% risk of extinction over anything else even without explicit impact calc.

-Spark: please go for better args. Nuclear winter is made up and is solved by the bunkers CP. Nuclear tornadoes/Saarg (who is the only person writing about this btw) is empirically wrong and taken out by a CP that spaces nuclear attacks out. UV is better, but people in the poles would probably survive. But, civilizational collapse would eliminate all tech, making us vulnerable to all disasters and elimination potential for beneficial AI and space col. Those are S-risks that def outweigh any neg scenario (which, to be fair, are almost always worse than aff scenarios).

-Wipeout: depending what version you go for, this can be decent. Aliens and negative V2L is probably easily beaten. But, I think future evil tech and animals are both winnable position. Obviously, in an evenly matched debate, the aff would always win, but these debates are often not evenly matched in terms of how much prep each side has.

Hi, I have never judged debate before.

(This is written by Anastasia Koch, my friend, read her paradigm)

Clarity of speech and arguments is important. Don’t talk light speed, if I can’t follow it isn’t on my flow. If you look like you lost me you probably did.

Please be clear when you spread

My name is Adai and I go by any pronouns (no preferable pronoun). email me questions at applesober@gmail.com I love debate and maybe it’s just dominoes pizza bribing me but it’s also the friends you make along the way, the world issues you learn, and the argumentative speeches interacting together. Of course the lost of sleep comes along the way but that’s besides the point.

What I have debated

Emerging technologies- Big part NATO sec coop, not the best topic out there but the HS novice packet definitely taught me things like the block, respond to arguments, argument constructions. I learned T with it and it was my favorite block. Something I really liked running was the capitalism Kritik because NATO is very much capitalistic especially with their history. I was also making a orientalism K here because of how orientalist NATO is.

Oceans- Okay this was only for one debate practice round so it doesn’t really count but I had gotten against aquaculture and use T-ocean, Environment-K, Space-CP, and Landbase-CP which went well and I learned a lot from it too

Orientalism K - currently working in that even for the new topic (economic inequality) but I would need a really good link and a lot of different ones but I will work on it

Cap K -Capitalism K is a one of my favorite Ks out there simply because of the epistemology in it

Biopower k -I like this one too. it doesn’t have a lot of good links but the impact of it is so sad sometimes for me

My judging experience

If you’re reading this during the western conference then you should know that I have not had any debate judging experience, so if I say something mean make sure to report it to jswede@augsburg.edu,your coach or me. Definitely I have experience watching a JV HS round before while flowing it and also I just pick habits from other people so all the judges from the 7 tournaments I’ve went to definitely taught me how to judge from now when looking back at past experiences.

I've also judged four middle school debate tournaments and continue to love debate even more.

Case -This is a really important part of the AFF so if you’re the AFF make sure your case is passed and read you case stuff first because I need you to win case for me to actually vote you in the end (assuming you won off-case)

Disadvantage - DAs can actually be great points to turn against the whole case which would make me vote NEG. If AFF can proof that they don’t link I will most likely not vote for DA. Also like Uniqueness/no Uniqueness isn’t big enough for me to vote for you so focus on other things like link, solvency, impact etc

CP - make sure to pair this with a DA, usually the CP doesn’t solve all parts of the AFF but if NEG can proof that AFF links to DA and there would be an impact, than I would vote CP (assuming the CP is relevant to the DA)

Kritik - Love Kritiks, I think it definitely challenges the AFF and the whole argumentative of the rest of the debate. Impacts are usually true for kritiks so if NEG can just proof that they link then it’s enough for me to vote NEG because AFF is creating this issue (It’s almost a DA but has CP in the alternative). Alternative is weak for Ks so AFF can definitely attack that it doesn’t solve but NEG should make sure that you respond to perms

Topicality -Run them if you can, I will vote NEG if the AFF doesn’t respond or if the AFF is not topical as T is a stock issue. You can run them to help you Ks by forcing the AFF’s response as a link to you K (anything someone says in debate can and should be used against them)

Theory - Never used or ran theory debates before, know them well enough but I don’t think I will be judging people who will run them anytime soon but I understand the fundamentals well enough to vote against CPs and K alts if you runcondo or AFF if you runaspec

1A -the 1AC and 1AR is the opposite of hardness level but if the 1A can deliver a really good 1AR then they should be able to read persuasively in the 1AC and read through enough cards to make it hard for the 1N to respond to

2A - The speeches you give can be hard but good practice makes it well, I expect you to extend things that the 1N drops in their 1NC speech and also like if you can also respond to all the new arguements after the 1NC is important (I always use the strategy of “out casing” them to make the 2AC drop things) to respond to everything and extend everything else because if the NEG points that out then you are down bad

1N - I’m the 1N/2A and usually it’s just focus on out reading cases and off-cases and especially in the 1NC stressing AFF out with things they have to respond to is a really good strategy (you might run into ‘spreading’ Ks but I doubt it). 1NR speech is not really special because you’re just taking everything else that the 2NC didn’t say

2N - You get the most important speeches of the NEG, the 2NC is where you take the things you want to win on and spend the most time in that and then the 2NR is the NEG’s closing speech pointing out what the AFF dropped after the 1AR (if they dropped things) but it’s just plainly telling the judge what to vote on

speakerpoints -How I will be dividing and assigning speaker points is by scale, 25 no matter what (if its below that then you definitely said something offensive to me), 26 for good CX questions/CX answers (you can pass this if you met a higher requirement to get high speaks), 27 you’re reading clear and you constructive have fluency (it should sound like you use the words daily), 28 spreading really fast with clarity with all the other things mention combined and I should hear some argumentative cross applications and responding to a lot of the specific arguments really well, anything above 28 is either speakbumps or if you can win on case and off-cases then that’s a good 29.5 (good persuasion)

Fit “I scream, you scream, we all scream for icecream” in your speech and I’ll give you a speakbump

Clarity ——————-X————— Spread,,I do want like a really good mixture of both, but maybe for my earliest years of judging clarity is more persuasive and easier for me to flow

Tech X———————————— Truth,, Definitely when you’re interacting with the argument would actually be how you win the whole debate, it’s like how a perm answer missing from your speech could make you lose the whole ALT or CP

Listen ——————————X—- Flow,, Flow should be the best way of judging a debate, if you just listen there will be things that are out of your mind and a lot of strong arguments made are the best way to say who did the best throughout the debate

Aff bias —————X————— Neg bias,, I do not have any bias whatsoever, I think that each side has it’s strength and each side has things that they can do to win the debate but definitely I walk into a debate expecting for both sides to be strong

Competition —-X———————— Fun,, Debate is fun but the competition is what makes it fun

Doha ElShennawy (she/her)

If you have an email chain, any questions or anything else that you would like to let me know, please use doka.debate@gmail.com.

Background:

I am a debate captain for varsity policy at Rosemount High School. I will probably only judge middle school debate or high school novice, at least for now; all things in my paradigm will be meant for novice/rookie debaters.

Prefs:

T & Theory: I have a bunch of experience with both, so I'm pretty much fine with you running those

Ks: Most of my senior year was one off afropess, or an afropess k-aff, and I mostly ran one-off the year before. I loooove Ks and will definitely vote on them. No, you don't necessarily need to win the alt to win the K flow, as long as you explain why.

CPs: I’ll vote on these too, but make sure you know what the net benefit is and to explain it in round.

DAs: If you’re running one, make sure you explain the link!! (and internal links), otherwise I have no reason to even consider the DA in the round.

General tips:

Speaker points: SIGNPOST!!!!!! Unless it’s the 1AC, you should be giving a roadmap for every speech. Don’t be overly aggressive or passive aggressive/condescending to anyone in round or in the room. Keeping your speeches organized and making sure your tags are obvious and clear will help you out a lot, both in speaker points and just having generally neater debates. Saying “next” between cards or numbering them is the easiest way to do so. If you interrupt someone as they’re trying to answer your cross-ex question and then use “they didn’t even answer our question” as some sort of leverage in your next speech, I’ll immediately take off speaker points because that’s honestly just annoying. Please don't start screaming as a way to emphasize your point; sure you can talk a little louder than usual, but I'm not trying to get a migraine and it's honestly just annoying and unnecessary, no matter how much of a "tactic" you seem to think it is.

CX: As long as there are 2 people on both teams, I’m fine with tag teaming. Just make sure that you ask or answer most of the questions if it’s your cx time. If you’re mav against a team of 2, I’m fine with you taking any extra CX time as prep.

When extending cards, make sure you explain why you are extending the card and contextualize it in the round and why it is important. If you don't, there might not be any real meaning to it, especially for me as the judge.

Feel free to ask me any questions before, after, or during the round. As long as it’s debate related and not cheating, I’ll give you an answer if I have one. I’ll add more things as I think of them. Again, my email is doka.debate@gmail.com.

WE MUST DEBATE

MNUDL Update:

Good luck and have fun! Don't worry too much about reading my paradigm. You guys got this.

About

Put me on the email chain - danielwochnick@gmail.com

Hi!

I'm a senior LD debater from Eagan, this is my fourth year competing

He/Him, you don't have to call me "judge"

Feel free to send me an email for pre/post round comments + questions (please add your code/name and round #)

Important

I'll listen to pretty much anything (exceptions are no bigotry, no personal attacks), but I won't vote on it if I don't understand it

Be respectful, don't do anything stupid (I will drop you if this becomes a problem, especially if your opponent points it out)

I'll disclose a decision if both debaters are okay with it

I will accommodate whatever you need to be comfortable (I have no preference if you stand or sit, wear a mask, debate on paper or read from a computer, have you camera on or off, wear a suit or pajamas, sit in the front or back of the room, etc. as long as I can hear you clearly when you speak)

Novice LD

A lot of novice debates can be a little messy and hard to evaluate so please do these things to get my ballot:

Please please signpost during your speeches (tell me where you are on the flow)

Weigh, weigh, weigh - tell me why your offense is more important than your opponents (timeframe, magnitude, probability) and explain why your method of weighing is better (i.e. why should extinction/big impacts outweigh over more probable impacts)

Clearly extend your offense. Spend enough time on your side of the flow, because that's what will win you the round

Tell me how I should evaluate the round, and why that means you should win (link back to your framework)

Make strategic decisions. Focus on the arguments the arguments that give you the best chance of winning, and don't waste time on arguments that don't matter that much. Know your win condition.

Analyze the warrants in cards. If your opponent reads a block to your case, explain to me why the warrants in your evidence are better or more applicable to the argument.

“DO NOT HAVE A VALUE DEBATE. NO ONE CARES” - Eagan WW. Unless you give me a really good reason why the value debate matters, I probably won't care and it won't effect how I evaluate the round. Debating framework is still great, just focus on arguing why your critereon is a better way to evaluate the round.

Varsity LD

Speed:

I won't be able to flow spreading, especially online. If I can't flow it I won't evaluate it. Fast speed for locals is fine.

Argument Preferences (These are just my defaults, I am happy to be convinced why certain arguments are good/bad):

Spend more time explaining things I'm less likely to understand if they're important to the round

I'll vote off the flow (Tech > Truth but I'll give some leeway filling in obvious gaps)

Traditional LD - Go for it

Policy - Multiple condo is probably bad unless the aff is a plan, otherwise policy stuff is great

Phil/Framework - “DO NOT HAVE A VALUE DEBATE. NO ONE CARES” - Eagan WW, otherwise no preference (but explain it well)

Theory - Theory is good, frivolous theory is bad (unless it's funny). Fairness is probably good. Default to reasonability, drop the argument, RVIs good but convince me otherwise

K - Not super familiar with K lit so explain it well

Tricks - Just don't (Unless it's funny, then maybe)

Speaks

You'll get higher speaks if you make smart strategic choices or if you make me laugh

+0.5 Ask your opponent a question that's not debate related in cross (+1 if it's funny)

+0.5 Give me song recommendation(s)