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 Sun September 10, 2023 at 4:27 PM CDT

Hey! I’m Bashir (he/him/his) and I’m a Junior at Iowa City West (whs ‘25).

please add me to the email chain.

Add me using this email: bashireltyeb01@gmail.com

I am primarily a Public Forum debater, but I have experience in LD, speech, and policy as well. I prefer tech > truth. If you say that the moon is made of cheese and your opponents do not contest your claim, then I must assume that the moon is made of cheese for the round.

For progressive debate, please read the bottom of the paradigm.

General things to know:

Tech > truth, ALWAYS!

I will always disclose unless asked not to or if the tournament does not allow it.

Time yourselves

Don’t steal prep.

I will default Cost Benefit Analysis unless an alternative framework is brought up

Feel free to joke with me in round or with your opponents if you know them. The ultimate goal of debate is to have fun.

If you bring up progressive arguments against novices then I will transform into your parents and disown you on their behalf.

I'm probably not listening to cross, if there is something important for the round then ask me to pay attention and I will.

Any accusation of clipping will lead to the round being stopped immediately. If there WAS clipping, the accused loses. If there wasn't, the accuser loses.

Read theory in front of me and the minimum speaks you'll get is a 29.

Things I want to see from you:

Judge guidance. Tell me why I have no choice but to vote for you and why you're winning the round

Signposting

Off-time roadmaps

Link and impact weighing

Frontlining

Smart analytics and explaining your evidence. Don’t just regurgitate cards, explain to me why they matter and implicate them to your opponents’/your arguments

Extending arguments throughout the round. If you plan to weigh an argument, extend it first

Things I DON’T want to see from you:

Being mean in round

“Asking” sentences in cross

New arguments in Summary/Final Focus

Getting high speaks from me is probably easier than with other judges. I’ll start off with a 28, and your speaks will be affected by how the round goes. Speaker points are NOT a reflection of how the round went. You can get higher speaks than your opponents and still lose the round.

If you believe I have wronged you, you can postround. Come and talk to me, explain to me why my decision was wrong, and we can talk it out.

Progressive Debate:

If you’re a novice at a local, please ignore this section. Otherwise, here are my views on theory:

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 generally believe paraphrasing is bad, but disclosure is honestly a gray area. I don’t think small schools have to disclose, but can easily be convinced otherwise. Those are just my personal views that would be easier for me to vote on, but 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)

Ks: I’m good for these! 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. 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.

While I do understand some K literature, I will not do any of your work for you. If you don’t explain it well in round, I’ll pretend I don’t understand it.

Tricks: no.

Jacob Giblin St. Augustin Middle School None

Sophia Gustafson Iowa City West

Last changed on Sun September 10, 2023 at 3:11 AM MDT

Policy Paradigm

I am a PF judge; adapt accordingly. Here are some things I can think of now:

Don't read Ks or K affs
I can evaluate plans, counter-plans, disads, etc.

sophiargustafson@gmail.com is the email for the email chain!

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. 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 PF coach at Iowa City West.

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:

I prefer 1 or 2 voters not line by line. (I will flow line by line, I just don't prefer it.)

I prefer starting on defense and then ending on offense and weighing.

I prefer frontlining first and extending narrative after the fontlines.

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 Thu July 27, 2023 at 10:17 AM CDT

Hey y'all! I'm Shreya and I did L.D for five years from Valley High School in Iowa. 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 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.

This is a quick paradigm for the NSD camp tournament

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 may not be your best bet. If by the end of the debate, I have to read the evidence and intervene to do weighing, 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 things that I will not vote on

1. Eval after the 1AC or 1N

Disclosure against novice labs
More than 2 off against novice labs (util framing does not count as an off)

Things that will make me sad (and potentially you sad as well)

Being mean/sketchy in CX to novice labs
Reading skep or determinism or frivolous shells against novice labs
Going only for the resolved a-priori in the 2ar when there is a substantive route to the ballot too
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! Also, lowkey check out the novice paradigm as well, all of it applies

This paradigm is for Junior High Nationals

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 junior high.

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 at nationals that persuasiveness and rhetorical choices are given great importance 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 Mon September 18, 2023 at 5:16 PM CDT

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

Last changed on Wed September 27, 2023 at 4:36 AM CDT

(the quotes may or may not be accurate)

Email- jaydennoblitt@gmail.com

Jeremy Bentham," Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense—nonsense upon stilts. The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation."

David McGinnis ,"ChatGPT is to debate as a calculator is to calculus"

Davis McGinnis, "Debate is about making as little mistakes as possible, when you start out you'll be making lots of mistakes, but slowly they'll get smaller and smaller until eventually they're small enough that no one notices them

Donald Trump, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

Donald Trump, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to Justice anywhere"

Ghandhi, "sometimes you have to toot your own horn cause no one else will do it

Kant, "it is good"

Otto von Bismark, “Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.”

paradigm opinions

I don't feel like paradigms are good, because why should my opinions matter to someone who's just trying to have a fun time and debate. I get that judge adaptation is really important to the activity, but god knows judge screws are the worst thing ever. That aside, I feel debate is aneducational game where people can just go on trips and have fun with friends. This leads me to the view that debate should be chill and fun, and too many people are the opposite of that. There's to many kids in suits acting all stuck up and tight. Don't get me wrong, if you want to dress up that chill, I think its fun to, and I get that debate can be nerve wracking. At the end of the day, if you have fun, ill have fun, and debate will be a bit more fun, and if you act less stuck up, ill act less stuck up, and debate will be a little less stuck up.

Paradigm proper

Read what you want, just have fun cause then ill have fun

there are things i cant evaluate as well, however. Dense phil, Dense k, and identity k will be hard for me to evaluate

Boring Larp will also be hard for me to evaluate, as its boring. (i think arguments like, "this will boost the economy!" are boring. You legit dont pay taxes why are you talking about the economy)

Aanya Reddy Iowa City West

Lucy Rhein West Des Moines Valley High School

Last changed on Fri May 5, 2023 at 7:31 AM CDT

Hi, I'm Lucy, I'm a 2nd-year debater at Valley

Pronouns are She/Her

Junior high kids:

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 a year, 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.

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

For novice LDers:

Email: lr44452@wdmcs.org

I have almost exclusively done LD but debated PF once and did horrible (take that information as you will)

Impact weighing is so important - please do it

A lot of debaters don't seem to realize that there's a fine line between being aggressive in CX, and just being a flat-out jerk. Be aggressive, but don't be overtly mean to your opponent. I will probably give you lower speaks.

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

I will vote on any argument/style of debate

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

Adam Salem Iowa City West

Gwen Smith Iowa City West

Last changed on Wed July 26, 2023 at 5:49 AM 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 a PF tournament, a Policy tournament, and some speech events. I'm familiar with how most stuff works. Feel free to just call me "Gwen" ("Judge" is also fine)

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.

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.

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.

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 stuff-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.

Speed- I can handle most speeds, I go pretty fast in rounds so it's kinda contradictory to say you can't go that fast. 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. (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.

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.

Theory- totally fine, just make it not incredibly friv unless you plan to make the round funny. (Look to Jerry Li's ICW Paradigm for all my prefs as well)

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 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.

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, Bashir Eltyeb, Flora Zhu, Abby Guo. +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. If you do something else funny or you're able to work in good B99/Good Place references or do anything else that's generally cool, I will award extra speaks based on personal preference and quality of items.

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.

Cristian Soto West Des Moines Valley High School

Landon Stull West Des Moines Valley High School

Last changed on Wed September 13, 2023 at 5:23 AM CDT

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."-Donald Trump

My name is Landon. I debated for Valley High School for 3 years and now go to clown college. I am majoring in juggling with a minor in tiger taming.

If you have any questions please forward them to my shrekretary. He is on the corner of Love and Life St.

Debate is your activity, not mine. I will vote for anything as long as you start speaking.When I debated I mostly ran a prioris, Wilderson, irony, and conditional CPs.
Here are some of my ideological preferences:

If you run nontopical Kritiks of anything, I will pick you up and demand that I can award a 9001 speaks in tabroom (THAT'S OVER 9000!!!!!11111)
I like bow ties. They remind me of bow tie pasta. And bow tie pasta is delicious.
If you say Kant is not racist I will say I Kant even pick you up.
Godstrom is an auto-win condition as soon as it is introduced in the round.
I enjoy playing Yu-Gi-Oh in my free time. If you introduce a trap card while extending a spike from the AC I will have to leave the room because of epi[lepti]c seizures. My epileptic seizures are only triggered by shouting "You've just activated my trap card!!!!1!1!1!"
I enjoy sass and rudeness. If you stand up in CX and shout "WHAT ARE THOSE!!!!!!1!1!1!" I will check your opponent's shoes. If I agree with your analysis/find Crocs someone will get hurt.
When people have cases written in 48 size pink Comic Sans font.

THINGS I HATE:
Regular ties/suits. If you wear these I will nuke you. Not your speaks, but you.
Netflix and chill. We're at a tournament, it's clearly Dropbox and chill.
Spreading unless it's with a butter knife.
I hate how we don't use the entire 30 point speaker scale. As such, I will presume everyone starts with 0 speaks and move you up based on your performance in the "my preferences" section. Speaks may go negative too.
Reading cases. Why can't you people memorize them?
Flowing unless it's a rap battle.
Breathing while reading your case. You have a biological capacity to give a 6 minute speech in one breath.
Modern medicine.
When teens say they should be able to make autonomous medical choices.
When jury nullification is used in the face of perceived injustice.
People who hate Donald Trump.

THINGS I WILL NOT VOTE ON:
Debating the topic
Kant
Korsgaard
Bostrom (different from Godstrom)
Contradictions bad
Irony bad
Orange chicken not tasty
"PF is for dumb people"
Wifi theory bad
Adolescent autonomy
No adolescent autonomy
Nietzsche
Heidegger
Bow Drillingard
Philosophy
Theory
Critical Philosophy
Debate

VARIOUS RANTS

Theory:
I think 100% of theory debates are just high school teenagers with a talent for speaking at 9001 wpm (THAT'S OVER 9000!!!!!!!!!!!1!1!1!one1one1) that are always short of breath and complaining about how they don't receive education (THAT'S WHAT SCHOOLS FOR!!!!!!!!!!1!1!1!1!ONE!1!ONE!) and fairness (PLAY SOME YUGIOH!!!!!!!!!!!1!1!1!1!ONE!1!ONE!). I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEORY IS, IF YOU SAY THIS IS THEORY THEN I WILL GIVE YOU MY OWN THEORIES I HAVE CONTEMPLATED FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS WHILE I HAVE BEEN IN CLOWN COLLEGE. SUCH AS THE THEORY THAT JUGGLING BALLS IS RELATED TO THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. OR THAT TIGER TAMING IS A DANGEROUS OCCUPATION.

Speed:
I like going over 80 mph. I don't like it when I have to drive 80 mph into you because you are talking so fast it gives me severe migraines.

Ks:
When you say this is a K I either think of the word every girl texts me ever when I text her or the KKK (Kangaroo Kollecting Klub). Side note, I am an avid Kangaroo Kollector and if you bring me a plush kangaroo I will be extremely happy and probably pick you up, although it does still depend on you winning Godstrom.

MISC:
I think Public Forum is the most pure form of debate. The people in it don't contort themselves in odd shapes and die trying to breath while speaking and rant about if the world exists or whether we should consult inanimate objects/ghosts/specters. As such if you ask to flip for sides before the round and use CX as a crossfire I will disregard the Godstrom rule and hand you an auto win 30.

I enjoy a good rap battle. I don't care if you can't rap, if your opponent wishes to engage you must engage in a battle or I will nuke you. If you lose the battle I will nuke you anyway, so you have nothing to lose.

If during round you are not being energetic enough I will shout"YOU NEED TO GET WILDER, SON!!!"You absolutely cannot prevent me from doing this.

I don't care about conflicts between schools. Anybody I judge from Valley gets a lose -30.

Don't argue with me after round. If you ask one question I will burn your ballot. Don't question me since I carry around matches at every tournament. Also, I don't care if we have electronic ballots since I already took your laptop to fill out my ballot anyway, so I will just destroy it.

Extra speaks for writing cases on tree bark.

If you extemp a case I will call for cards after the round. If you did not extemp and you claimed you did I will force you to get brain surgery to see if your brain waves showed that you did extemp your case.

I will be clicking on this link and playing it on full volume for the duration of the aff speeches. If you have a beats pill, you will get 420 speaks.

I will be playing this for the duration of the neg speeches.

Cross-Xandprep timewill be spent listening to these tracks.

Everyone in this room is now dumber

I don't believe in having offense.

I don't believe in there being a single winner. I will only vote double win or double loss.

In general I hope to evaluate debates similar to Ashton Woiwood and Nick Bostrom.

The only thing better than long walks on the beach is watching old people cry."
--Joseph Whisler

it’s time to take those analytic blocks and stuff them right back in your expando, cuz all this stuff in the AC is empirically denied.

Jordan Sturgill West Des Moines Valley High School None

Jimmy Wakefield West Des Moines Valley High School

Nathan Weimar Iowa City West

Last changed on Wed July 5, 2023 at 8:52 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 '27

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.

If you are a novice read whatever arguments you want I will be able to evaluate it. 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