Valley Spring Junior High
2023 — West Des Moines, IA/US
Junior High Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideIowa City West '26 | she/her my email is @miabd26@icstudents.org
I'm currently a varsity debater, this past season was my novice year in PF
General:
- I won't vote on theory or K
- tech>truth
- Time yourselves please I will not time you
- Be nice
Things I want to see/hear:
- Off-time roadmaps & signposting, this helps me flow
- Frontline in 2nd rebuttal
- Extend your case through speeches!!
Things I don't want to see/hear:
- Don't spread, if I miss something that's on you, it hurts me more than it hurts your opponents (my wpm is 250, going any faster than that will risk an incomplete flow).
- New args in second summary or final focus
- Analyze your cards, don't just read card after card
I don't really like the speaks system but here goes anyway:
30 - god tier, you're actually cracked
28-29 - good job, you're better than I was my first couple rounds
27-28 - average, not good but not bad
26-27 - I can understand you and you made an effort
25-26 - idk what you said but it wasn't good or I just couldn't understand what you were saying
Email is dafallaw17@gmail.com
PF Varsity at Iowa City West High. I also do speech but that's irrelevant.
PF:
In general, tech > truth.
If I'm not flowing then slow down.
Make sure all arguments are correctly warranted.
Don't just read cards. Analyze!
Off time road maps and signposting are helpful for flowing.
Please try and respond to all arguments as soon as they are made or else I'll have to flow your opp's argument as a win.
Make sure to extend all arguments! Nothing sucks more than forgetting to mention an amazing point in summary therefore preventing your partner from bringing it up in FF, meaning I can't flow it!
Have fun!
Speech:
good luck!
Speaks:
30: wow
29.5-29: great work
28.5-27.5: pretty good
27-26.5: okay
26-25.5: you need to work your stuff out
≤25: mad corny
my name is Sam Ebinger
i will evaluate tricks if they are properly extended (ie don’t just say it once in the first speech and never go back to it)
run whatever
Also I value attaching your contentions to framework in my final ballot
not a parent judge
Yea that’s about it.
have a good round ig
Email is se51061@wdmcs.org
quick prefs:
Policy/LARP/normal substance - 1
Theory - 1
K - 1 (T and Non-T are both fine)
phil - 4
Tricks - 3
Iowa City West ‘25, he/him/his.I did PF for two years
Mainly a PFer, scroll down for other events
add bashireltyeb01@gmail.com to the email chain
tl;dr
tech > truth, speed is fine, good for prog & substance, win the weighing, win the round
the yap:
read bolded parts if you're in a rush
The substance:
Frameworks are fine, but please warrant them. Don't just say "the framework is structural violence", say “the framework is structural violence because xyz”.
I generally enjoy unique arguments, squirrely cases are cool and really show creativity. At the same time, I think it's super impressive to be able to read a stock contention and frontline it well enough to win. Literally read whatever you want.
Defense isn't sticky
if you weigh i'll look to that first. If you don't, i'll just choose whatever argument i like better. Please weigh. Link Weighing > Impact weighing.
Please weigh in rebuttal/summary and just extend your already existent weighing. I’ll evaluate new weighing in first final but I will not be happy.
I have a soft spot for impact turns. Spark, Climate change good, (existential threat x) good, are all fine. i can't believe i have to say this but please don't try to impact turn inequality impacts
rebuttals don’t have to extend, 2nd rebuttal MUST frontline.
Disads are fine. If you’re basically just reading another contention in rebuttal, then I’ll flow it and evaluate it, I guess. If your disad is responsive to smth your opponent read (e.g discourse of SV perpetuates it) then I will be very happy. Responsive disads are fire.
Overviews are good. Weighing overviews are great.I enjoy debates with weighing overviews a lot and i think it is incredibly underutilized. I don’t know how much I agree with the idea of reading an overview and trying to win that the overview is terminal defense on everything your opponents read, but I’ll flow it if that’s you.
I'm not too strict about extensions, just make sure they're there.
pls pls pls don't yap and extend case in cross.ask questions and move on. I'm probably not listening that attentively. Cross is meant for you to clarify arguments to your opponents, not to me.
Progressive arguments:
No rules are set in stone.
I'm pretty comfortable judging a theory round. I default Text > Spirit, No RVIs, CIs > reasonability, Yes OCIs, DTA for evidence violations i.e paraphrasing, DTD for out of round violations i.e disclosure. I would only default to these if no paradigm issues are read; please read paradigm issues.
paraphrasing is bad, and disclosure is good. I will vote on paraphrasing good/disclosure bad if won.
Nothing is frivolous. I’ve read some really "dumb" theory shells and I had an absolute blast doing it. Do whatever you want in round; if you win it, i’ll vote on it. (As long as it isn’t ___ist)
I'm good for the K. identity Ks/Cap/Sec/Fem are usually fine. I read afropess quite a bit so I am familiar with a lot of the key aspects of the literature. I have also encountered many SetCol/Cap Ks so I should be good for those unless your K is super unique, in which case please explain it well. I'm good for most performance Ks, just make sure to extend your performance. Stolen from Zion Dixon: "Debate is antiblack. I don’t just believe it, I know it." I will honestly probably be biased towards antiblackness Ks unless the person reading them is not black. Non-black afropess is an Auto L25. I am primarily a K debater and really appreciate the concept of Kritiks, so if you have a K you wanna test out, do it!With that being said, I am human. I will make mistakes.
Callouts are dumb. I refuse to flow them or vote off of them.
IVIs are fine, just warrant them. If the violation is really bad, run a shell. At the same time, I don't expect you to read a shell with an interp like "Debaters must not misgender their opponents". If it's something personally harmful to you then either run an IVI or ask to stop the round. Stopping the round is not a guaranteed win, If it's something that isn't triggering to you or something that you think you can power through, please continue the round.
Metatheory > Theory = T > K > Substance
Do NOT read a TKO. A round is never over until final focus and if they're getting cooked then just let them get cooked and use it as a learning opportunity.
Tricks are fine, I just hate them. I want you to know that. I've debated them before and I know they're dumb. I will still vote on them, but I will hate the round. If I hate the round, I probably won't be too generous with speaks. If you're going for a trick, explain it and dumb it down in the backhalf.
contact me for any questions on progressive debate, I'm happy to help.
General things to note:
Your speaks will be fine
I don't care how fast you speak.
I don't care if you're sitting or standing.
I don't care what you're wearing.
I don’t care if you cuss.
rambling
"It's not allowed in PF" isn't a response. "Our coach didn't teach us" isn't a response. "We're not allowed to disclose" isn't a response. "What's the wiki?" isn't a response. If your response to theory/Kritiks is basically “nooo this is PF :(“ you will lose. I'm tired of people pretending like underprivileged debaters have no clue what theory is. There are hundreds of theory rounds online and there are lectures that teach you parts of a theory shell. You don't have to pay thousands of dollars to go to camp to learn what a theory shell is. If you're interested in going to a camp but you can't afford it, google outreach debate. If you have a budget and want to practice a lot of rounds, google PFBC/NSD. I went to both and they taught me a lot. If you're a debater competing in varsity, you should be able to respond to any form of argument including but not limited to theory, kritiks, impact turns, squirrely arguments, etc. your response to a shell should either be a “we meet” or reasons why the interp is bad (preferably a counterinterp but anything is fine).I am a debater from a small school and I knew what theory was by the end of novice year. My second year, I was running it. I guarantee you that you're smarter than me. If I could put in 40 minutes to read about it then so can you. I think too many teams try to get away with lying about team policy to get out of theory shells which won't work with me. If your coach tells you explicitly not to do x thing, make sure they give you reasons as to why x thing is a bad norm so you can beat it in round.
"Put the public back in public forum" and "keep progressive debate out" arguments are antiblack. THIS IS NOT A MATTER I CAN BE TECH > TRUTH IN. If you research the history of Public Forum, you'll find out that the real reason the event was created in 2002 was to keep black voices out. This was a product of the Louisville project that forced judges and competitors to interrogate their own antiblackness. I'm not trying to make things up nor am I a conspiracy theorist. I am just tired of hearing these arguments by debaters that don't know any better.
Policy
I will vote on anything, a Plan vs CP debate is probably boring but I'm comfortable evaluating it. I'm a good judge for DAs, theory and very basic capitalism kritiks. I can probably evaluate Identity Ks, Performance Ks, and Setcol Ks but pls don't be the 8+ off in the 1NC team. I can probably flow it and keep up, but I'd really , really rather not. The sweet spot is usually 5-7 off if your strategy is to dump offcase positions.
Spreading is fine, with the caveat that you have to 1) Enunciate and be clear 2) Send a speech doc 3) Slow down on analytics and tags
Kritiks are my favorite form of argument, if you have a K you want to test out, this is your time.
Good T-FW is heat
I'm a big fan of extinction outweighs!
I know nothing about the topic, please explain acronyms at least the first time you say them.
Condo is usually good but I'll vote on condo bad if you win it(Same with any other argument)
i'll judge kick ONLY if the neg makes the arg in round
Please don’t cite my paradigm in round.
I will always disclose who I voted for regardless of tournament policy. It is stressful, anti-educational, and useless to not disclose.
If that's not enough for you, most of my views in debate are shaped by Sophia Gustafson (except for the PF traditionalist part)
Please send all speech docs to icwestdebate@googlegroups.com and sophiargustafson@gmail.com. Please label each email with the round number, the partnership code, and the side. Example: "R1 Duchesne BB AFF v. Iowa City West KE."
Resources
I have compiled some resources to get better at debate here!
TLDR
Always tell me "Prefer my evidence/argument because." Meaningful and intentional extensions of uniqueness + link + internal link + impact (don't forget warrants) in combination with weighing will win you the round. NOTE: I am a PF traditionalist. Spreading will not get you far in rounds with me.
Experience
I attended Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa and debated with Ellie Konfrst (Roosevelt GK). I was a two time state champion when competing. I broke at the TOC and placed ninth at NSDA nationals my senior year (2018). I have also coached at NDF the following years: 2018, 2019, 2020. I am currently a 3L law student at the University of Iowa. I am the current varsity PF coach at Iowa City West. I have coached two teams (Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart BB and Iowa City West KE) to qualifying to the gold TOC.
What you should expect of me
It is my obligation to be familiar with the topic. I am also a very emotive judge, if I look confused please break down your argument. It is my obligation to provide for you a clear reason why my ballot was cast and to ensure that you and your coach are able to understand my decision. However, it is not my job to weigh impacts against each other / evaluate competing frameworks. I am always open to discuss the round afterwards.
Flowing
I love off time road maps and they help me flow, please give them! What is on my flow at the end of the round will make my decision for me and I will do my best to make my reasoning clear either on my ballot or orally at the end of the round. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I also appreciate language that directly relates to the flow (tell me where to put your overview, tell me what to circle, tell me what to cross out).
Extensions
It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the uniqueness+links+impacts. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively.
Framework / Overviews
Framework
If a framework is essential for you to win the round / to your case it should be in constructive. I want to see your intention and round visions early on, squirrel-y argumentation through frameworks muddles the whole round. Only drop the framework if everyone agrees on it. If there is no agreement by summary, win under both.
Overviews
There are two types of overviews in my mind.
1: An overall response to their case.
Good idea.
2: Weighing overviews.
GREAT IDEA
I prefer overviews to be in rebuttal.
The Rebuttal
Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I also have a soft spot for weighing overviews and usually find them incredibly valuable if done and extended correctly.
If extended and weighed properly, turns are enough to win a round, but if you double turn yourself and muddle the debate you wasted critical time that could have been spent on mitigation/de-linking/non-uniques.
My preference is that the entire first rebuttal is spent on the opponent’s side of the flow. For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts. The second rebuttal should engage both the opponent’s case as well as the opponent’s responses. Ideally, the time split should be between 3:1 and 2:2.
Summary
I believe the job of the summary speaker (especially for first speaking teams) is the hardest in the round and can easily lose a debate. Extending framework/overviews (if applicable), front lining, and weighing are the three necessary components of any narrative in summary.
Structure:
- Case extensions (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)
- Frontlining
- Defense/Turn extensions
- Weighing (this can be put anywhere among the other three above).
Frontlining =/= narrative extension.
Defense in the first summary. Make smart strategic decisions. If the defense is being blown up - or mentioned - in final focus it needs to be in summary.
Final Focus
This should be the exact same as your summary with more weighing and less frontlining. It is okay to extend less arguments if you make up for it with weighing.
Speed
Clarity is critical when speaking quickly. My wpm is about 200, going faster than this is risking an incomplete flow on my ballot. If I miss something because of speed, there was an error in judge adaptation.
Organization through all speeches is essential and especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible. Tell me where to flow overviews otherwise I'll just make a judgement call on where to put it on the flow.
Progressive Arguments
I'm fine with Theory / Ks / role of the ballot though you always should "dumb them down" to language used in PF and you must clearly articulate why there is value in rejecting a traditional approach to the topic. Theory / Ks / role of the ballot will also need to be slowed down in terms of speed. Also, you need to read theory right after the violation happens. If you read it as a spike to throw the other team off, I will not evaluate the argument.
I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you.
Cross
I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme (some jokes are always preferred). Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).
Speaking
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.
Hey y'all! I'm Shreya and I did L.D for five years from Valley High School. I qualified to the TOC and NSDA nationals multiple times and am able to judge both circuit and traditional debate. As a debater, I primarily went for phil or K's, but also went for theory and T a decent amount too.
As a heads up, I don't flow off the doc. For the initial speeches, I'll give you a bit more leeway but if in the rebuttal speeches, you're flying through blips, don't send the analytics, and I don't catch an argument on my flow I won't vote on it. If for example, the 1AR makes a new eval after the 1AR claim and the 2AR collapses on it, even if was conceded, I won't vote there if I didn't hear it.
Add me on the email chain shreya.ananya5@gmail.com
This is a quick paradigm for Blake
I like to think that I am a pretty tab judge. I can evaluate phil, K's, theory, T, tricks (not all tricks but most), and LARP to a lesser degree.
If you have me for a performance v performance debate or a LARP v LARP debate, I'm probably not your best bet. If by the end of the debate, I have to read the evidence and intervene, something went wrong.
If an argument is conceded, but I can't articulate what it means, what the warrant is, or how it affirms/negates, I will not vote on it.
Other miscellaneous notes
Please be comprehensible
I will say slow and clear
I won't vote on eval after the 1AC or 1N
I pay attention to CX
Things that will make me sad and potentially you sad as well
- Being mean/sketchy in CX to novices or inexperienced debaters
- Choosing to read only off the doc for rebuttal speeches (I think inventing new arguments on your feet is a good skill to cultivate)
- Reading an unreasonable amount of offs instead of engaging with the AC
- Headache inducing underviews
- Not weighing or going for new arguments in the rebuttal speeches
Please collapse in rebuttal speeches and tell me how to vote. Judge instruction makes life easier for everyone. Your rebuttals should sound a lot like my ballot. Collapse and isolate a layer, explain why you're winning that layer, and why you outweigh your opponent.
This paradigm is for lay debate but applies to circuit debate too
I'm willing to vote on any argument insofar as it is warranted and not offensive. Here's the best explanation of how I'll judge lay debate.
First, I'll look to who's winning the value/criterion debate. If one debater is winning an entire contention and its impact (ex; nuclear war) but isn't winning that consequences matter than I won't look to that offense.
Second, I'll look to who's extending their contentions or arguments throughout the round. If the 1AR drops a really good argument and then brings it back up in the 2AR I won't vote on it.
Third, I won't evaluate new arguments made in the 2AR or completely new arguments in the 2NR because that isn't fair to your opponent, they don't have a full opportunity to respond.
Fourth, I know that persuasiveness and rhetorical choices are given great importance in lay debate and while those will definitely help if you have me as a judge, know that I ultimately vote based off the flow.
Finally, be nice! Debate can already be an exclusionary space and its important that as opponents (and judges) we work to actively make it better and that starts with being kind to your opponents.
I look forward to your debate, feel free to ask me any questions!
Kyle Kopf (He/Him/His)
West Des Moines Valley High School ‘18 || University of Iowa '22 || Iowa Law '26
I want to be on the email chain (but I do my best to not flow off of it): krkopf@gmail.com
Conflicts: Iowa City West High School, West Des Moines Valley High School
Bio: I coached Iowa City West LD for 5 years. I debated LD for Six Years. Received one bid my junior year and 3 my senior year.
I don't like long paradigms so I did my best to keep this as short as possible. My opinions on debate aren't what matters anymore. I try to be as tech as possible and not intervene.
OVERVIEW:
I won’t automatically ignore any style of argument (Phil, Theory, K, policy, T, etc), I will only drop you for offensive arguments within that style (for example, using a policy AC to say racism is good). That being said, I am more familiar with certain styles of arguments, but that does not mean I will hack for them. Shortcut for my familiarity with styles:
Phil – 1
Theory/T – 1
K - 1
Policy - 2
Tricks - 3
Online Debate:
-Please speak at like 70-80% of your top pace, I'll be much more likely to catch your arguments and therefore vote for you if you actually slow and don't rely on me shouting "slow" or "clear" a lot. Also, slow down extra on underviews, theory, and author names because I'm extra bad at flowing those.
-Please keep a local recording in case your speech cuts out to the point where I miss arguments. If you do not there is no way for me to recover what was missed.
-I find myself flowing off the doc more with online debate than I do normally
-If you think there are better norms for judging online I should consider, feel free to share before the round!
-I will always keep my camera on when debaters are speaking. Sometimes I turn my camera off during prep time. Feel free to ask me to turn my camera on if I forget.
SPEAKS:
Based on strategy, quality of discourse, fun, creativity etc. NOT based on speaking style. I will shout “clear” as needed without reducing speaks.
SPEED:
Don’t start speech at top speed, build up to it for like 10 seconds. Slow down significantly on author names and theory underviews.
IDENTITY AND SAFETY:
Firstly, I've stuttered for my entire life, including the 6 years I was in debate. Speech impediments will not impact speaks or my evaluation of the round whatsoever. I default shouting “clear” if needed (I always preferred being told to clear than losing because the judge didn’t understand me) so please tell me if you prefer otherwise.
Secondly, If there is anything else related to identity or anything else that might affect the round, please let me know if you feel comfortable doing so.
Ks:
This is what I primarily read in high school. I’m familiar with K strategy, K tricks (floating PICs need to be in some way hinted at in the 1N), etc.
Theory/T:
I read some theory although significantly less than Ks. Since I've started coaching I've become a lot more familiar with theory strategy. Assuming literally no argument is made either way, I default:
- No RVI
- Competing Interps
- Drop the debater on theory and T
- Text of interp
- Norms creation model
- “Converse of the interp/defending the violation” is sufficient
Phil:
I started reading phil in high school and I coach a lot of phil now. I'm comfortable in these debates.
Tricks:
I'll vote on just about anything with a claim warrant and impact.
Policy:
While I never debated policy arguments in high school, I've judged a lot of policy-style rounds and am much more comfortable with them now.
Postrounding:
I think post-rounding is a good norm for debate to encourage good judging, prevent hacking, etc. Always feel free to post-round me. I'll be VERY strict about starting the next flight/round, allowing debaters to be on time, etc but feel free to find me or email me later (email at top).
Misc:
*If you're kicking a CP or K, you need to explicitly say "kick the CP/K", not extending is not sufficient to kick
*All arguments must have some sort of warrant. The warrant doesn’t have to be good or true
*If an argument is new in the 2, I will disregard it even if it’s not pointed out. To clarify, you still should point it out in case I missed it.
varsity at valley high school
please weigh and extend
quick prefs
1-phil
2- theory
2/3-tricks, k v larp/phil
4- k v k
5-larp/stock, identity k
strike- silence pik
phil-- yes. my favorite part of ld is philosophy and i try to run it as much as possible. I have no clue why so many people on the circuit are so openly hostile to it. Ill impact offense to winning fw, meaning if a kantian fw is against a larp aff and kant debater wins framing, sans turns permissilbity or uplayer, kant will win 100% of the time
theory- yes, i like it as much as phil, i just cant keep up with spreading theory out and ton of shells and a messy flow. please make it easy for me. no thoery is friv
tricks- neutral opinions, can be fun but also annoying.favorite tricks gotta be floating piks, least favorite gotta be ext o/w. skep, skep triggers, and permissiblity are not tricks imo, i dont know why people think they are. will NOT vote on eval after x or speech time stuff.
K- dont like ks too much, but dont hate them, have kinda mixed feeling. try to give warrants for rob instead of it being impact justified. least favorite parts of ks are a) not responding to case and just linking them more into the k, b) being sketchy, if i cant tell what the hell the alt isI WILL NOT VOTE ON IT.like, what the hell is refusal?
identity- i just straight up dont know if i can evaluate them
larp- boooooooooo
silence pik- please dont run this god awful pik
Claudia Taylor Johnson High School '26 | she/her | Areddy6010@stu.neisd.net
I am currently a varsity debater, this past season was my novice year (1st year) in PF.
General
- tech > truth
- I will always disclose unless told not to
- Run what you want as long as it's warranted & has impacts
- Time yourselves
- My maximum words per minute is 250; going any faster will risk an incomplete flow
Things I want to see
- Off-time roadmaps & signposting
- Start front lining in 2nd rebuttal
- Weighing, especially in summary and final focus
- Interaction (aka actually RESPOND to what your opponents say, don't flow through ink)
- Collapse, don't extend stuff you know you can't win
Hi, I'm Lucy, I'm a 2nd-year debater at Valley
Pronouns are She/Her
Email: lr44452@wdmcs.org
Novices:
I will vote on any argument with a claim, warrant, impact
Please weigh your arguments
Try your best to come up with creative arguments in rebuttals
IF YOU ARE CONFUSED/HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT MY DECISION PLEASE ASK ME. I've only debated for two years, so it's very possible I missed something or just didn't articulate my thoughts clearly enough in the rfd.
The most important thing is to learn and have fun. Debate competitions can be super stressful, especially if it's your first one, so just remember to slow down and enjoy the experience. I think a lot of times people get caught up in the competition aspect of debate and forget that it's a really fun activity.
I will flow the whole round - decided to include this in here bc when I was a novice a ton of judges didn't flow and it was super annoying
On framework: Actually interact with your opponent's framework, and tell me why to evaluate under yours in the round. Framework is like the seasoning that keeps debate from being bland
Speed is fine, just make sure I can understand you
Read whatever makes you happy
Obviously don't read anything discriminatory. Judges shouldn't even have to put this in their paradigms
If you tell me a joke I might consider giving you better speaks
If you want to HEAR a joke I have several good ones up my sleeve
If you have questions, email me or ask during the round
ADD ME TO THE CHAIN: adamsalem07@gmail.com
I am Adam Salem a freshman at West High School. I have 2 years of Policy experience with some PF and LD arguments.
My rules for judging are the following
• Tech over truth
• I expect you to time your own speeches and cross (I will be timing but will not comment)
• I will always disclose so please don't rush out after a round
• If I catch either team stealing prep after 1 warning I take away speaker points.
• Your prep ends when your hands are off the keyboard not when you are done adding cards
My Preferences:
• Sign-Post (I forget this sometimes too but please try)
• Road Maps (Off time of course)
• Dont stall CX just ask new questions
Instant Speaker Point loss:
• Direct and offensive racism
• Adding arguments in Final Speeches (also will not weigh them in the round)
Instant Speak Addition
• Greet the other team and shake their hand
• Be polite after every speech
+0.3 if you roast any of the following LD, Jerry Li, Gwen Smith, Max Schebel, Quincy Tate, Taha Salem, Or your partner (PG-13)
I like speechdrop.net but email chains are good too. (also sry in advance this is longer than I thought it was gonna be)
gwsmi26@icstudents.org
I'm Gwen Smith, a student @ICW '26. Im a Varsity debater, I mostly do LD but I've done PF tournament, a Policy tournament, Congress, and some speech events (HI, Spont, Extemp). I'm familiar with how most stuff works. Feel free to just call me Gwen, Judge, dude, bro, anything is chill with me.
Any pronouns are good, if you have preferences please feel free to tell me. I believe that debate should be accessible to everyone so if you have a specific thing that helps you in round or something that you think I should know, I promise I will listen to you and I understand that everyone is different. Other accommodations, just email me before the round or come up and find me, Ill usually be wearing some loud shirt or big headphones and you can just flag me down.
I'll eval most stuff as long as there is good warranting for it. (and it's not incredibly bigoted [racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc]. i.e. if you run something really stupid (shoes theory, anarchy, etc.) ill only evaluate it if it actually has something semi-valid to back it up. Everything in Jayden Noblitt's paradigm is against my evaluation ethics /j.
TL;DR: Be nice in round, be persuasive, everything is chill with me, Ill vote on pretty much anything if you convince me enough. (Novices can just ctrl f "novice")
Tech>>>>>Truth, if you have good warranting for the moon being made of cheese, its true for the round. Also no new arguments in the 2AR I will not vote on them
Framework/phil- I love seeing framework clash, please try and interact with your opponents if applicable. I'll include opinions on this during RFD and my notes. Phil is literally so fun, do what you want.
Policy Style (LARP)-These are alright, I'm personally more of a K and phil debater so I don't really read these, just have good warranting and have good tags. im very neutral about these. Im not a huge fan of extinction impacts and would like to see something more unique, that being said, im not gonna penalize you for it. I would rather you dont read this in front of me, but if you do, make it interesting (SPACE COL!!!!)
Speed- I can handle most speeds. If your spreading is clear and I'm on the Email chain I should be ok. I might shout clear if it's really bad. SLOW DOWN ON CLAIMS AND TAGS PLEASE!!!
Trix-These are fine ig, I dont particularly enjoy these, but if the debate boils down to the trick, Ill vote on it. If the trick is stupid I might actually not vote on it because I personally hate responding to them. I will not vote on any more than 2 Aprioris, three friv shells or anything realated to Joe Biden /j. (Refer to Isaac McCarty)
CX- I love CX please please please do more than ask for repeats of cards and really try and play the debate game with your opp. Especially as a novice I would love to see it. I believe CX is binding, if I hear it I assume its true for the round.
Ks- I am a K debater, so yes its great, just make sure it actually links and your K is unique. I will eval pess, make your links believable and if theyre not unique, make them better. If your K is too dense and like full of jargon Im really not going to want to evaluate it. please explain your lit so I can understand your argument.
Theory- totally fine, just make it not incredibly friv unless you plan to make the round funny. Defaults are as follows
Competing Interps>Reasonability || No RVIS>RVIS || Education>Fairness (I think debate should be more educational, if you want me to vote for fairness, make me think so, debate is inherently unfair for POC, queer, and female presenting debaters). || 1AR theory is fine
Speaks- Yes everyone's favorite part. I'll give speaks based on a couple factors. 1) If you come up with creative arguments and have clash on different fronts. 2) If you use your time in good ways and give good speeches. That shows that you are thinking about what you're doing instead of just doing it because someone else told you to.
30- You were great. You made good arguments, and made some really bold choices in round.
29- you were good, speeches were clear and convincing, I can tell you know what you're doing.
28- This is pretty average for me. You were a good debater and I liked your overall style but there were some key things in round that were hard to follow.
27- Where Ill start from, you were pleasant, but you maybe were unorganized or unclear in some way. You dropped some important stuff and you werent particularly convincing.
26- I wasn't very convinced by your arguments and you didn't use your time well, something in round was off
25 or lower- you did something in round that was really bad and were overall not a very sportsmanlike competitor.
Disclosure- I fully believe that people should know who won the round but I'll mostly be going off of what the tournament wants me to do. I probably won't disclose speaks because I personally enjoy the thrill of knowing who won awards.
FOR NOVICES IN PARTICULAR
Debate is meant to be fun, especially when you're just starting out. It's ok to not know what you're doing. Try and extend, make some rebuttals, weigh, and do what you can in round. When you're a novice trying to do conventional debate is much better than if you were given some crazy varsity-level stuff that you don't understand. If you want to talk after the round, I will be happy to explain anything you might not have understood. The round is gonna be messy, I know that, even if you dont think so, ive judged novices, coached novices and been a novice.
Flows- I think flowing is super important. I will do some of both, flowing off the doc and what you say. I don't really flow author names but still please say them, otherwise ill think you are reading uncarded information. PLEASE FOR MY SANITY SIGNPOST!!!! PLEASE GIVE A ROADMAP BEFORE YOUR SPEECHES SO I KNOW WHERE STUFF GOES!!!!!!!
Other
Please ask if everyone is ready before you start speaking, it helps us all. Also, I will time every speech and prep time. I will know if you are stealing prep. If I don't, it's just a personal error.
+0.2 speaks if you tastefully roast Jerry Li, Quincy Tate, Adam Salem, Jayden Noblitt or Landon Stull. +0.1 speaks if you tastefully roast any debater/coach from ICW. Fun ties/Bowties also get +0.1 speaks or if you bring me food/candy/gum/soda. Im a goofy person, be funny, I don't want the round to be uncomfortable for you. If you show me your spotify and I like your music taste, instant +1 speaks. (If you can prove monism is true and you are Joe Rankin, Auto 30 speaks) (If your case is in Comic Sans, we need to have a chat about your life choices)
I love some funny pop-culture references, overall if you are a pleasant debater and a pleasant person I'll think pretty well of you. Pet pics will also get +0.1 speaks!!!
If you have questions about the round, I'll usually be happy to answer them, I completely understand what it's like not fully knowing what you lost a round on. Most of it will happen during disclosure and in my notes. Kind postrounding is totally cool. If something I did harmed you in round and you feel uncomfortable talking to me about it, please tell tab so I can do better in the future, there have been plenty of times where I was too scared to talk to someone in charge about my worries. If you need to talk after any round even if Im not your judge, Im here to help.
Hello there, I am Cristian Soto.
Email - CS55124@wdmcs.org
I’m a second year debater at Valley High School, West Des Moines, Iowa, 3650 Woodland Ave.
I am not against really complex cases and tricks but again I will vote for the debater that destroys the other one the most (don’t be too mean).
Quick prefs:
Not taking the round too seriously (be fun)
Anything that can be considered a trick (Sorry Dave)
Being confident (not enough to make me dislike you, I will drop you if you act like this)
Praise or something idk.
Questions or concerns at my email (mentioned above) although I probably won’t read it.
Hey I’m Landon, 5th year LD debater from West Des Moines Valley.
Debate how you debate the best and tell me why you won! I’m fine with speed: Circuit out round level on cards but slow down a little on analytics and important tags. But if your opponent asks you not to then don’t.
Please be respectful to your opponent, everyone is here for a good time! A few tips to win in front of me:
- Weigh, weigh, weigh! If you can't respond to one of your opponent's arguments, tell me why your argument is more important. In your last speech, tell me why your arguments matter and why they matter more than your opponents.
- Extend your arguments! Respond to any rebuttals and summarize your argument.
If you have any questions at all, please ask me (5153066717) - this should be a good learning tournament for everyone involved!
call me “chat” + 0.5 speaks
im going to keep things simple; run wtvr you want idrc js as long as you understand it and make it understandable AND as long as you explain it to where not only i understand it, but so does your opponent. i will NOT vote on sexism, racism, ableism, ect. NO SPREADING
i love framework debates ngl - meaning that usually if there isn’t SOME sort of fwrk debate i get a little sad. if there isn’t a fwrk response on the opposing side, notice that, take it into account and WEIGH your arguments AND their arguments (easy w)
i LOVE self ownership.
I DO NOT LIKE EXTINCTION AND NUCLEAR/NUKE WAR ARGUMENTS. this being said, i would hope that novices from past tournaments have figured out other arguments that are FAR more interesting.
i agree w sam and jimmy regarding tricks - js extend it fully
i understand that since you guys are first-years you will try to spread, but if you’re not being CLEAR then neither of us (me and your opponent) will understand and will get frustrated. THIS BEING SAID AND EXPLAINED PRIOR TO ROUND; i don’t understand spreading, i can’t fully grasp the arguments and it makes me upset. i do have attention and focusing problems so please don’t spread.
if you include "999" in your debate round (that's LOGICAL and MAKES SENSE), then you get +1 speaks.
i may have gone to a decent amount of tournaments in the past year and a half, but that doesn’t mean that i know what you’re talking abt. i go into these debate like i don’t have a brain lol — ALSO some cases like carceral geo or some argument that NEEDS to be fully researched before debating makes me confused. if you don’t have a good explanation, how can i understand? much less judge?
btw i went 2-4 at a local big questions tournament and got 27.1 speaks, so you can say im pretty intelligible at debate
if you have any questions you can ask me in person!
if you're stalking my history in judging there is one round with a bunch of random letters and words - don't worry abt it
Tech>Truth (Unless morally abhorrent)
TLDR:I like fun clash based around well-thought out arguments. I love phil debate; especially less commonly read authors. Theory and Ks are great too. LARP is sometimes ok but I generally don't like it,
LARP-4/S-If u don't justify consequences and just say u outweigh I WILL DROP YOU. I find the inability of LARP debaters to understand and debate against phil and K's to be madding. Outside of that, I am fine voting on this, so long as you have clearly explained why ur framing is better, but I will have a bias against any phil arguments owing to my personal belief that util is morally abhorrent.
K's-1/2-K's can be fun if they make sense. I do tend to buy anti-K theory against K's with really abusive alts, but can obviously be convinced otherwise.
Theory-2
Phil-1-Phil is the reason LD is different from policy. PLEASE ACTUALLY READ WARRANTS, THO. Especially if u reading some obscure author.
Tricks-2-So long as you have unique, well explained and sense-making arguments, you're golden to read these. Need warrants or else I am much less likely to vote. TRICKS ARE ONE PART OF THE ROUND I WILL DO MINIMAL TRUTH>TECH IF UR ARGUMENTS ARE ILLOGICAL OR POORLY EXPLAINED.
Hi my name's Nate,
I'd prefer if you just call me Nate, but "judge" is fine too.
Iowa City West '23
University of Iowa '26
My email is weimarnate@gmail.com
I did LD on the national circuit. I acquired 9 career bids to the TOC in LD, made Quarters of the TOC my junior year and Doubles my senior year. Any speed is fine.
I now do college policy debate at Iowa, I'm fine for any arguments, I will vote off of the flow.
If you are a novice read whatever arguments you want I will be able to evaluate them. Please make sure to extend arguments, and respond to important things.
I will vote on any argument with a claim, warrant and impact. I will vote for any style, the following is just a preference of what I'm most familiar with, I will not hack against you or hurt your speaks because of what style you debate. (The only args I won't evaluate/I will drop you for reading is saying something like racism good)
I enjoy creative and strategic positions. Speaks are based on strategy/technical skill.
I will evaluate arguments such as death good.
I will not vote on "evaluate the debate after X speech arguments" because they break the round and I don't think I could coherently explain how I evaluate the extension of an argument (e.g. "this arg was extended into the 2NR and dropped by the 1AR) in a speech that I did not evaluate (assuming I evaluate the round after the 1NC).
Tech>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth
Prefs:
Tricks-1
Phil-1
Theory-1
Ks-2
LARP-3
LARP
I don't LARP very much but LARP is pretty straight forward so I'll be able to evaluate a LARP round. If you're going to have a dense larp debate there's probably better judges for you to pref, but just because I'm your judge doesn't mean you can't larp.
Tricks
Tricks can be good and bad. 100% tech>truth. I will listen to anything with a warrant. If you read a variation of condo logic please understand conditional logic. If you actively bamboozle (this does not mean overwhelm with blips) someone you will get high speaks. There is a difference between making tricky arguments in the sense of you fooling your opponent and just spamming arguments like "no neg analytics" in the underview. I'll vote for both, but the former will receive much higher speaks.
Ks
I read a decent amount of Ks in high school and only read Ks in college. I'm open to whatever type of critique you want to read. In high school I read some disability studies and existentialism-esque (e.g. Nietzsche and Camus) literature, in college I've read disability studies, setcol, trans studies, and psychoanalysis. This is not an excuse to under-explain if you are reading one of these lit bases. Please hint at a floating PIK in the 1NC.
I'm probably a much better judge for Ks then when I was in high school, feel free to pref me relatively highly if you're a K debater.
Theory
I will listen to all theory shells no matter how frivolous. I default to drop the argument on shells read on specific arguments and drop the debater on shells read on entire positions, no RVIs, and competing interps. To clarify, these are only my defaults if literally zero arguments are made, e.g. you read a whole shell but don't read paradigm issues. Please read paradigm issues, because if you don't I'll tank your speaks. If you read paradigm issues, and your opponent agrees to them or explicitly reads them again in one of their shells I will use those. So, if the AC and NC read shells with, dtd, no rvis, and competing interps, then the 2NR can't stand up and go for yes RVIs.
Phil
Phil is probably what I like to watch the most. I think the NC AC strategy is very strategic and will give you good speaks if you execute it well. Hijacks and preclusive arguments are cool. If you think your framework is super complicated for some reason just explain it well but I'll probably be able to evaluate a phil debate. Please weigh in the framework debate because that makes it a lot easier to evaluate. I default epistemic confidence.
Defaults
Truth Testing
Presumption and permissibility negate.
See theory section for theory defaults.
Metatheory>Theory=T>K
I default to strength of link weighing between different theory shells on the same layer, but would highly prefer you make weighing arguments between shells. E.g. "1NC theory>1AR theory", "T>Theory", "Spec shells outweigh everything" etc.
Note on hitting a trad debater/novice:
Do whatever you want, I'm not going to tank your speaks for like, spreading, reading theory or something. I also won't hurt your speaks if you just have a phil or larp debate with them, any approach is fine. The only thing is don't try to embarrass or make fun of them. You deserve to win if you did the better debating but you don't need to insult them or something like that.
Note on Post Rounding: Please do it if you think I intervened. I can take it, feel free to let me hear it if you think I've wronged you. You deserve to get angry at me if I robbed you of a win (which is not my goal just to clarify).
You need to extend things in every speech even if your opponent didn't contest them in later speeches. E.g. your 2ar can't be 3 minutes answering T and not extend any substantive offense.
Speaks
Things that will hurt your speaks:
1. Reading no framework in the AC.
2. Doing no line by line (unless just blitzing overview arguments was strategic in the situation, which is conceptually possible).
3. Ending cross ex like a minute early.
4. Being rude or way overconfident.
5. You're clearly just reading off a doc that someone else wrote.
6. Making the round really messy (especially when there was a clean way to win).
Things that will boost your speaks:
1. Clearly knowing the arguments you're reading. E.g. being able to explain your framework really well in cross.
2. Weighing and just making the round generally easier to evaluate.
3. Doing what you want to do and just executing it well.
4. Being funny.
29.7-30: You will break and make it deep out-rounds. OR you did something really creative or interesting, like made the 2AR impossible because your 2NR was so good.
29.4-29.7: You'll probably break and could win a few out-rounds.
29-29.4: You'll probably break.
28.7-29: You'll probably be on the bubble.
28.4-28.7:You'll probably go 3-3 or maybe break.
27.8-28.4: You did a little worse than average.
Hi i'm Flora she/her
pls add to chain flzhu25@icstudents.org
i'm a junior @ iowa city west (3rd year in LD)
shortcuts:
1 - theory
2 - phil, k
3 - larp, trix
tech>>>truth
read whatever i'll eval as long as it's not hateful/discriminatory
novices: you will get many many speaks if you weigh, engage in framework debate and extend !!!!
defaults: TT, metatheory>theory, fairness>k
defaults can be changed w 1 argument
theory - i will heavily dock your speaks if you clearly don't know what you're doing, but assuming you do go for it. i won't eval a shell with no paradigm issues (i.e. no theory defaults, read paradigm issues or don't read theory). will vote on an rvi if it's argued for
k - i read a lot of queer theory, i'm familiar w cap/stock, pess, lacan, other generics etc. not good with other high theory. pls explain ur stuff
phil - i'm familiar with most generic phil, just make sure u explain it well. please justify your framework. morality and justice are the same thing
trix - if you read trivialism in novice i will cry and be sad but don't worry i'll do my best to eval. send doc if you read this stuff i'm bad at flowing.
larp - i never did this and don't think i ever will, but it's pretty straightfoward so go ahead. condo's probably bad but i can be convinced otherwise. no idea what judge kick is
+speaks for ethos
glhf