Tabroom.com

Valley Spring Junior High

2023 — West Des Moines, IA/US

Junior High Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Minna Abdalla Iowa City West

Ellie Chen Iowa City West

Waad Dafalla Iowa City West

Samuel Ebinger West Des Moines Valley High School

Bashir Eltyeb Iowa City West

Last changed on Tue April 23, 2024 at 4:42 AM CDT

Bashir(He/Him/His). debate for Iowa City West (2022-2025)

I do PF mainly on the natcirc now. I semi’d the TOC my Junior year and 2x state champ

Mainly a PFer, scroll down for other events

add bashireltyeb01@gmail.com to the email chain

read bolded parts if you're in a rush

quick prefs:

Policy/LARP/normal substance - 1

Theory - 1

K - 2 (ask me before the round about the K you're reading, some are 1s and some are 5s)

phil - 4

Tricks - 4

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.

Progressive arguments:

just because I can evaluate prog doesn't mean you should run it. If substance is your thing then run substance. My role as a judge is to adapt to you. I want you to have fun, do whatever makes you happy.

Theory:

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)

Kritiks:

I'm good for most of these, but high theory Ks (Camus, Baudrillard, etc.) are probably not a good idea, 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 pess 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, this is your chance.

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.

I will drop you for misgendering someone, apologies don't solve and i'm not at all open to hearing arguments that claim otherwise. I am a lot less comfortable voting off a misgendering IVI if you don't have your pronouns up on tabroom.

I will drop you for reading any form of argument that advocates for your opponents/partner/yourself to harm themselves. I will stop the round and vote you down with the lowest possible speaks if you even tangentially sound like you're advocating for someone to harm themselves.

Metatheory > Theory = T > K > Substance

"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.

contact me for any questions on progressive debate, I'm happy to help.

General things to note:

Your speaks will be fine, I will very rarely give below a 27

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.

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 reading high theory is really not a good idea

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.

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)

Please don’t cite my paradigm in round.

If that's not enough for you, most of my views in debate are shaped by:

they’re way smarter than me and have more in depth paradigms.

Jacob Giblin St. Augustin Middle School None

Sophia Gustafson Iowa City West

Last changed on Mon April 22, 2024 at 7:22 AM MDT

Please send all speech docs to icwestdebate@googlegroups.com . Please also send the speech doc to cooper.john@iowacityschools.org . 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.

Shreya Joshi West Des Moines Valley High School

Last changed on Fri December 15, 2023 at 10:09 AM CDT

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 Iowa City West

Last changed on Wed February 28, 2024 at 3:37 AM CDT

***I've only judged a couple of tournaments this year, so I won't be as used to some of your top speeds***

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.

Jerry Li Iowa City West

Jayden Noblitt West Des Moines Valley High School

Aanya Reddy Iowa City West

Lucy Rhein West Des Moines Valley High School

Adam Salem Iowa City West

Gwen Smith Iowa City West

Last changed on Mon February 26, 2024 at 5:22 PM CDT

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 bright yellow 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.

Cristian Soto West Des Moines Valley High School

Landon Stull West Des Moines Valley High School

Last changed on Wed February 14, 2024 at 6:47 AM CDT

Hi, I’m Landon! If you got me as a judge, you’re in luck: I have a plethora of experience on the national big questions circuit

-9.5 career bids because I’m fing like that

-Big Questions TOC 7th and 8th grade

-Small Questions TOC senior year

I’m also amazing at local circuit pf (I was 4th speaker the fred smith’s farm invitation three years ago) so I would say that I’m very qualified to evaluate your tricks (no trixs aren’t just for kids I like them very much thanks) and Ks.

In PF, I mostly went for performance or tricks but often a combo of the two. In Big Questions, I exclusively LARPed (the kind with swords and people who refuse to use deodorant). After my career of victory, I was offered a position teaching top-lab at flagship for the small-minded little ld fers. There, I gave things such as the kant lecture, so I’m more than qualified to evaluate your phil round!!

I have been influenced in this activity mostly by Deena McNamera, Aidan Makeef, The Neenah Team, John Thilges, as well as Fisal, Jerry, and Spencer from the best Iowa debate team.

Below is a list of my preferences for your LD debate round. (I reserve the right to change these at any time, including before I submit my ballot after the 2ar.)

There’s only one of you. Yall need some skitzo meds fr. If I hear a debater refer to themselves as “we” or “our” and you don’t explicitly tell me you suffer from schizophrenia (or however tf you spell it) I will drop you because this isn't pf (although I wish it was) and having more than one person on a side is cheating.

LARP - Unless it’s in big questions, being good at debating because you can larp is like having a fast car because it’s fallings off a cliff. :) That’s how I’m smiling now but I won’t be smiling like that if you whip out a powertagged extinction link and start using words like try or die. My ballots gonna miss ur boat and I’m gonna be greenlighted to tank ur speaks. If you line down nuclear weapons to nucs I will literally “nuc” your speaks so hard you think ur in Nagasaki.

K Debate - No I don’t care about your metaphorical K alt that doesn't do anything. If you’re spitting straight jargon I will fill the ballot with nonsensical jargon about why I didn’t vote for you. Yes I know I said I went for Ks in pf but this isn’t pf now is it. Cussing out any post-structuralist is enough for me to scratch it off my flow. I If you start blabbering on about baudrilalrd I’ll read that one card myself and the rfd against you will be “pure s***” “what a f***”

Spreading - If you sound like someone shoved an air compressor up u we’re going to have a problem. If you can’t spread, don’t. I will say clear once. If your annoying voice pisses me off again I’ll just submit the ballot for your opponent. If you spread falsetto I will make a “false” call about the round being over early so I don’t have to listen to you anymore.

Theory - no, tf. This isn't a god darn socratic seminar. If you start blabbering about your theories I’ll give you my own theories about how annoying you are and how you lost with an L20.

Tricks - yes. Hidden indexicals + egoism is def the move. However, if you start blabbering on about trivialism I will conclude that it is true if this sentence is true that ur an ahole who deserves an L20. Proceed with caution. Your ballot might say “dropped bc these args were annoying asf, stfu.”

Phil - yes, I love talking about old dead white guys and I love it even more when you don’t care about your philosophy, but rather about the best way to hide enough tricks to kill a medium-sized Victorian child.

+1 speaker point to whoever finds the most creative way to steal prep. But also, IF THE MF TIMER IS RUNNING YOU SHOULD NOT BE FING TYPING

+.5 speaks if you fabricate a ss for a disclosure shell and get away with it

+1 POINT IF YOU READ UR OWN FING PREP. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD IF SOMEONE RUNS CARCERAL GEO IN FRONT OF ME AND CLEARLY DOESN’T UNDERSTAND IT I WILL DROP YOU SO FING HARD YOU’LL WISH YOU WERE STUCK IN THE PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.

Thank you for coming to my ted talk and good luck.

Jordan Sturgill West Des Moines Valley High School

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 8:48 AM CDT

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

Jimmy Wakefield West Des Moines Valley High School

Nathan Weimar Iowa City West

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 11:29 AM EDT

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.

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. I will give you good speaks if you read a new paradox that I've never heard of and you clearly know what it says (or if you invent a paradox/trick). I will also give you good speaks if you execute theory tricks creatively. 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 higher speaks.

I read a lot of ks. I like k tricks, please hint at a floating pik in the NC. Some literature I am fairly familiar with is Deleuze, Nietzsche, Camus, Lacan, Baudrillard and Berardi. If I didn't list something you can still read it this is just some authors I am more familiar with compared to others.

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. I.e. 1ar theory before NC theory or vice versa.

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). And, if you throw in a good roast we can have a good laugh.

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.

29.5-30: 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.

29-29.5: You'll probably break and could win a few out-rounds.

28.8-29: You'll probably break.

28.5-28.7: You'll probably be on the bubble.

28-28.5:You'll probably go 3-3 or maybe break.

27.5-28: You did a little worse than average.

Flora Zhu Iowa City West

Login to Tabroom

Valley Spring Junior High

2023 — West Des Moines, IA/US

Junior High Paradigm List

Judges