Tabroom.com

JCHS Practice 4

2023 — Johns Creek, GA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Seojean Ahn Hire None

Akshat Anand Hire

Krishna Anand Hire

Gia Atmakuri Hire

Zoe Boddie Hire None

Isabel Chen Hire

Heidi Chung Hire None

Charlotte Clement Hire None

Xiwen Deng Hire

Alex Etingof Hire None

Katherine Forero-Rodriguez Hire None

Samantha Forero-Rodriguez Hire None

Guliana Freitas Hire

Jayson Ty Gonzalez Hire None

Carden Green Hire None

Yoseop Han Hire None

Lance Heydinger Hire None

Nitya Jaswani Hire None

Sung Su Jung Hire

Saanvi Kadiyala Hire

Elly Kang Hire

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 12:51 PM EDT

she/her | add me to the email chain: ellykang@mit.edu

competed in nat cir public forum for 4 years at marist

general notes

tech > truth

please preflow before the round

i will always prefer better comparatively weighed arguments

love weighing introduced earlier (especially in rebuttal!)

warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence

can handle speed but will clear you if i can't understand + you should be slowing down on taglines, send speech docs in the email chain if you spread

if you do paraphrase, please at least have cut cards. if evidence is called for and sent in the email chain, it should be sent in cut card format. if you don't have a cut card for key evidence, your speaks and the argument will be dropped.

won't evaluate arguments in cross unless they're made in speeches

rebuttal

must frontline in second rebuttal (at the very minimum, frontline what you collapse on and every offensive argument)

implicate your responses and tell me why they matter in context of the round

summary + final

defense isn't sticky

collapse in the back half. for anything you collapse on, extend every part of the argument (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)

back half should be consistent. everything in final needs to be in summary or i won't evaluate it

progressive argumentation

i do believe reading cut cards and open source disclosure are good norms, but reading those shells is not an auto win. you have to win the shell for me to vote off it

i don't like friv theory that doesn't actually contribute education or fairness to debate + probably won't evaluate it. i consider friv anything that isn't disclosure, paraphrasing, or content warning theory. but note i have a fairly high threshold for what requires a content warning

have judged kritiks several times, but not the most familiar with them. if you read one, i'll do my best to evaluate

other notes

i give speaks solely based on strategic decisions in round

if you are any kind of -ist in round, i will immediately drop you with the lowest speaks i can give

if you have any questions you can always ask! feel free to email me if there are any others after the round

Savanna Kaufmann Hire None

Aditya Khanolkar Hire

Last changed on Thu February 22, 2024 at 6:46 PM EDT

Hey, I am Aditya Khanolkar, and I am a Varsity debater for Ivy Bridge Academy.

My email is: adiall41.k@gmail.com

Speaking/Talking Speed:

I am okay with you speaking fast as long as whatever you are trying to articulate is expressed clearly, eloquently, and professionally. Spreading is okay as long as I can understand everything you are saying. If this is not the case, I will dock speaker points, and ask for a case stock.

My ballot:

You must impact weigh, no impact weighing is an automatic loss in my books. In the weighing debate, the more comparative, the better. I prefer, well warranted out weighing that is comparative as opposed to a bunch of weighing mechanisms that are spammed in summary, and are super blippy.

Have a clear narrative throughout the round. This helps me understand which argument is most important to each team rather than having a ton of random arguments that aren't clashing. Usually, this means collapsing on an argument in summary, but there are times you can extend two, or even three.

Extend claim+warrant+impact (don't forget links or you lose impacts and have nothing to weigh). You have to provide a crystal clear linkchain into how your impact triggers exactly.

Your final focus should write out my ballot; extend the most important pieces of evidence, extend your weighing, and emphasize the most important argument in the round.

Flowing:

I am a traditional debater so I don't care for progressive/theory debate tac-tics such as K's, T shells, DA's, etc.

Please signpost, this allows me to evaluate arguments much more easily because my ballot is decided based on the flow

Again, I am okay with you speaking fast as long as what you are saying is clear and eloquently expressed. If you can do this while spreading, great! If spreading prohibits the clarity of your speech, speaker points will be docked, and I will ask for a case stock.

Rebuttal:

Carded responses are preferred, but for more abstract responses, I would like for you to back them up with an explanation and logic. This means clear warranting, implications if necessary, and a robust link chain if needed.

Well-thought-out responses over a bunch of blippy responses, (quality over quantity).

For first rebuttal, please don't go over your case again as there aren't any responses to it yet.

Summary:

I would prefer that you impact weigh in summary rather than in rebuttal because it allows you to make it comparative.

Extend your most important argument, and emphasize the most important offense you have on your opponent's case.

If you are giving first summary, you can bring in new evidence to frontline the second rebuttal but don't bring in a completely new argument.

Evidence/Cards:

I would prefer for you to add me to an email chain if it is started.

If it takes you more than two minutes to find a card, I will cross that card off my flow and we will move on.

Other Things:

Any rude or disrespectful comments will not be tolerated in any way and will result in an immediate loss for your team.

If you have any questions about the reasoning for my ballot, you can email me or we can have a short discussion after the round if time permits. Please don't be rude or disrespectful

Have fun, and make sure to enjoy the debate! At the end of the day, debates and tournaments contribute the most to your growth as a debater.

Riya Kinnarkar Hire

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 6:00 PM EDT

Hey, I'm Riya!

I consider myself a regular flow/tech judge.

Here are some of the key factors that will influence my decision in a debate:

Contention: I prefer clear arguments with strong warranting and evidence. Try to emphasize your most important points and have realistic impact scenarios.

Rebuttal: Try to respond to all of your opponent's main arguments and go into specifics if you have time. Make sure you read concise responses with good warranting, and avoid repetition. Try to avoid extra time in this speech because it’s essential to have good offense that you can extend throughout the round. Please signpost to make it easier to understand your speech and so I know where you are on the flow. Going in order will prevent unnecessary confusion and will make your responses more understandable.

*I strongly encourage frontlining in second rebuttal.

Summary: I consider summary the most important speech of the debate. Here are some of things I’m looking for:

Case: Make sure to briefly extend your case, but try not to make it too long to save time for the rest of your speech. Frontline your case, especially against turns. Collapsing on your best arguments is encouraged but definitely not required.

Responses: Extend your most important responses; everything you want me to evaluate in the round needs to be in summary. Try not to drop arguments.

Weighing: Weighing is crucial. Try to specify which weighing mechanisms you are using and give warranting as to why it outweighs your opponent’s impacts (comparative weighing.) Please do not just state weighing mechanisms, but explain them thoroughly.

Final Focus: Explain to me why you should win the debate, extend and weigh.

Other

Time: I will be keeping time but please try to keep time as well. :)

Speaking: I’m fine with fast speaking as long as it's understandable.

Please be respectful to everyone in the round, and have fun!

Feel free to ask any questions!

Shreya Kumar Hire None

sheryl lin Hire None

Allen Liu Hire

Hughes Liu Hire

Jayden Liu Hire

Anmol Matharu Hire None

Vida McLeod Hire

Aditya Mukker Hire

Arjun K Myneni Hire

Kevin Niu Hire None

Kanav Puri Hire

Ender Robertson Hire None

Brent Shi Hire

Ashwini Srihari Hire

Mason Dennis Stansbury Hire

Alisha Tan Hire None

Kento Taylor Hire

Last changed on Fri March 15, 2024 at 6:16 AM EDT

redid this cus i was bored

northview 25/northview bt

debatebtbc@gmail.com

Overview

Biggest Influences: Matt Cekanor, Jerry Chen, Ayush Potdar

Tech>>>>Truth in every instance. The only role of the judge is to vote for the team who did the better debating, not to arbitrarily intervene using predispositions. I.e. I will evaluate any arguments; wipeout, spark, death good, aspec, etc. are all fair game.

"i don't care about death good, wipeout, etc. it's usually not that deep---debate's a game where we don't believe in our arguments. say whatever you want, just be prepared to defend it." - Michael Ross

"Judges who say "I'll vote on anything except [xyz]" don't understand what tech over truth means." - Archan Sen.

Given the above---"When debating ask the question of Why? Technical debating is not just realizing WHAT was dropped but WHY what was dropped matters and how important it is in the context of the rest of the debate. “If you start thinking in these terms and can explain each level of this analysis to me, then you will get closer to winning the round. In general, the more often this happens and the earlier this happens it will be easier for me to understand where you are going with certain arguments. This type of analysis definitely warrants higher speaker points from me and it helps you as a debater eliminate my predispositions from the debate." - Matt Cekanor.

Novices

"Avoid reading too many cards---the novice packet comes with a large set of evidence BUT most of these are not independently sufficient arguments that can be voted on. Avoid the tendency to read the "extend [insert]" block in the file and instead write out analytical extensions to what you have already read in previous speeches.

Example: If you read a 1AC with a warming impact, then subsequent speeches should NOT read another warming card but instead say "Extend [insert] 1AC evidence---it says that warming is exclusively anthropogenic with [insert] timeframe of [insert] years that comes before [insert neg impacts] and outweighs."

Other things that boost speaker points and get you closer to the win:

Being well read on your arguments---this means not having to look at your cards during 1AC cx (because you should already know it)
Putting in a clear effort---if I notice you're not trying it'll be hard for me to vote for you, debate is highkey a myth but at the end of the day should still be taken seriously.
Signposting and being clear---say when you're moving from one offcase to another."

- Aryan Bhattacharya

Topicality

competing interps good. evidence comparison. case lists.

ground > limits in my op. It's just more convincing. But again, you do you---I'll def vote for limits if it's better debated.

CPs

Judgekick unless the aff tells me why I shouldn't. Never made sense to me why I should vote for a world worse than the squo

I'm decent at competition; probably err neg if all else is equal. If perms get super technical or its about theoretical justifications, not as comfortable.

Read solvency advocates in the 1NC for the most part. 20 plank Adv CPs with no solvency advocates are hella abusive, but I probably like it given neg terrorism is cool. But the 1AR also prolly gets new answers.

"Answer the net benefit or lose! You do not want to hand the neg a try or die push, especially because your deficits likely will not outweigh 100% risk of a conceded net benefit." - Jerry Chen

DAs

Sure. Impact calc and case defense. Need uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact throughout the debate. Tell that story in the 2NR.

DA turns the case is underrated.

Kritiks

i run ks on the aff and neg 90% of debates. That being said, if your theory of power is some pomo bs, I'll definitely vote on it but I have little to no background knowledge so explain it well. or dont idrc ill just nuke your speaks.

Good links. ie there must be quotes from 1ac evidence or cross ex, at the minimum.

"Framework interps should moot the plan. Going for the alternative coupled with links to the plan's material implications means you will lose to the perm double bind." - Jerry Chen

Framework goes aff or neg; I will not create my own "middle ground" interp. I will start from framework, given it is called framework, thus is how I evaluate the debate.

Kritikal Affirmatives

read whatever. Have a topic link if you want. topic link makes it easier to beat the TVA but if you don't want one, you do you.

burden of rejoinder still exists. i.e. it is still a debate.

impact turns > c/i. most counterinterps are hella arbitrary and self serving, so unless you have something more nuanced than "topical affs plus us" the ci is probably ass.

T-USFG

fairness >>> everything else. fairness paradox is objectively true---but, as with everything else, it can be out-debated.

Do ballot instruction.

2nr needs to go to case, i.e the subject formation debate---if you grant them "we make everybody less racist" then you will probably lose on "racism ow fairness."

Other

Condo is good. Its not 1980 anymore. Go for it if you want and I will evaluate it objectively, but I find "no condo" to be unpersuasive.

Tag team cross is fine.

Card Doc? No. I don't read evidence---unless told to AND it's relevant to my decision.

Inserting evidence is good.

Orelia Thottam Hire None

Olivia Tye Hire

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 5:31 PM EDT

Hello my name is Olivia Tye, I'm a varsity debater at Ivy Bridge. I've been debating for 3 years with Ivy Bridge and have been to Multiple international tournaments. I am a 1st speaker, but I've done 2nd as well.

General Preferences: I have none. Any speed is fine as long as your words are clear and concise. Collapsing is a must and that includes collapsing on your best responses not just cases. I will time every speech, but you must as well. Note* I am strict when it comes to prep time so do not attempt to steal prep, or when asking for cards continue to prep. I will be tracking that. Lastly, if you want to add me to your email chains when providing evidence to your opponents that is fine.

Email: olivialtye@gmail.com

Specified Preferences: None, just be respectful please. Talking over others irritates me the most.

Main Point/Case Read: None, but if I can't understand you I'm not flowing it.

1st Rebuttal: Please provide an off-time road map and stick to it. Do not deviate from it or you will mess up my flow and I may miss some of your points.

2nd Rebuttal: Again please provide an off-time road map and stick to it. Frontline here and weigh if you can. please do. I'm not going to weigh your impacts in my brain because I don't have time for that. at all.

Summary: This is where I vote in the end. I expect all four aspects of the summary to be in your speech 1. weigh (*most important) 2. Frontline (As a Tech Judge I do expect you to frontline everything for the most part, but if here a really bad response that doesn't make sense just say it's flawed and move on. Even if it's bad, don't drop it) 3. Collapse not only on your cases. 4. Extend and Collapse on responses.

FF: Everything applies from Summary to here but do collapse more, and do not bring up any new evidence. If any new evidence or responses are brought up, I will not be taking them into consideration and writing them on my flow.

Last Notes: When it comes down to Crossfire, I expect everyone to be respectful; however, do not give a lengthy response just to suck up time. Get to the point please and thank you. Also, if Crossfire gets heated, do not yell as I understand this is when the debate gets heated (Trust me IK). I do still expect everyone to respect one another.

Speaks: The lowest I will give is a 27 unless you are a bigot or racist or misogynist (If you are - Ill drop the debater :)

Matthew Xia Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 3:51 PM EDT

add me to the email chain. my email is matthew.wang.xia@gmail.com

tech>truth

Things that I don't like and will auto give you a loss for:

1. Profanity, racism, anything else that is offensive

2. No cheating. like stealing prep or any other type of cheating.

Down the debate:

Contention: I dont rlly care what type of case you run as long as it has evidence and warranting. Also, make sure it relates back to the topic. Warranting > Evidence

Crossfire: I'm not going to be listening to crossfire that much so if there is something important you want me to flow, say it in the speech.

Rebuttal: Just go down their case and you can weigh if you want. Second rebuttal must frontline at minimum the offense but defense is preferred.

Summary: This is the hardest and most important speech. Unless it's completely one sided, I am probably getting close to casting my ballot here. Impact weighing must start here if you want me to evaluate it. Also, defense isn't sticky so extend everything and don't forget to frontline. If you extend cards and collapse on one case, it will make it easier for me to vote for you.

Final Focus: Summarize the debate here. This speech should be almost identical to summary and I'm not going to evaluate anything new. The only thing that can be new is weighing mech's but at least extend the ones used in summary.

Weighing:This is one of the most important things in the debate so don't mess up. I need to see interactive weighing or else I'm probably just not going to evaluate weighing at all.

Speaker points: I usually start my speaker points around 28.5, and go up and down depending on how you do throughout the round. Speaker points will rarely affect my ballet.

Theory and most prog: I'm not the best at evaluating prog arguments so make sure you run it well if you want me voting on it. Also, don't run any wacky theory because the more wacky the theory is the less likely I am to vote on it. I dont really know K's yet so you can run it but I'm probably not gonna understand a word you are saying.

Disclosure: I believe that disclosure is a good norm so you should do it.

Make sure to signpost, if you don't I'm probably not going to be able to flow it meaning it's harder for me to vote for you.

If you actually read all of this then make a reference to why the country Poland is good and get +1 speaks (in first or second cross)

Ray Y. Hire None

Evelyn Zhang Hire None

Login to Tabroom

JCHS Practice 4

2023 — Johns Creek, GA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges