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 None

Waad Dafalla Iowa City West

Samuel Ebinger West Des Moines Valley High School

Bashir Eltyeb Iowa City West

Last changed on Tue November 19, 2024 at 9:32 AM CDT

he/him/his.

hi! my name is Bashir and I competed in PF on the Natcirc for two years under Iowa City west KE and EA. In this time, I accumulated nine bids and semi’d the toc in 2024. My go-to strategies were mostly kritikal.

Performance/K-AFF - 1

K - 1

Theory - 1

Policy/LARP/normal substance - 1

Tricks - 3

Phil - 4

add bashireltyeb01@gmail.com

icwestdebate@googlegroups.comto the email chain

Public Forum

the yap:

read bolded parts if you're in a rush

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.

pls collapse bro im begging pls i cant do this anymore

"Progressive" arguments:

cowardice is a voting issue.

Metatheory > Theory = T > K > Substance

No rules are set in stone.

Theory:

do what u gotta do

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.

RVIs mean that you should win for winning sufficient defense on the shell.

OCI means an interp that generates offense. For example, if someone read disclosure on you, "Debaters may choose not to disclose" is not an OCI. "Debaters must not disclose" is.

if it matters, I think that 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)

"Give us 30 speaks" = 27 speaks

The Kritik:

Please, please don’t just read a K because you see me judging your round. Contrary to what appears to be popular belief, I know how to evaluate substance rounds. If you are not a Kritikal debater, don’t make yourself one for me. I can evaluate it =/= you have to run it

I'm probably good for the K. I've slowly but surely began understanding the cap K a lot better and I feel pretty comfortable evaluating it. Iread 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." Non-black afropess is an Auto L25.

I have voted on non-T Ks before, and I am likely to again. I want to be very clear that I am not a K hack, and that I find T-fwk to be particularly compelling. I've read my fair share of the K and I have come to believe that Topical Kritiks are objectively superior. They show effort, are a lot more unique, and frequently cannot be stolen from the wiki. I will vote for the non-T K if you do enough work on the flow, but I will be a lot more inclined to vote on T.

High theory/pomo is a little tricky. I've read a lot of Baudrillard and Gillespie in rounds and I've dabbled a little in Foucault and Deleuze books. I will be honest that I lowk don't understand a lot of the lit. I am not opposed to judging a pomo round, but pls explain it like im 5. if you manage to successfully explain a pomo K to me, 30s.

KvK: These rounds are a little hard for me to evaluate just because a lot of teams don’t really interact with the warranting of the other K/why it outweighs. Cap vs Setcol is probably easier for me to evaluate than Camus vs Baudrillard.

I believe that the onus is on K debaters to think about the scholarship they are reading. I am not a debate moralist, but certain literature is personal enough that it is (at the very least) strategically questionable to not investigate your relationship to what you are talking about. I am not making a claim such as "non-black people can't read anti-racist literature" or "only Indigenous people can read setcol" but I am saying that you should be able to answer questions such as "Why are you reading this?"

IVIs:

i actually don’t hate IVIs which i guess is a hot take for some reason. I think IVIs are fine if you warrant them.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.When evaluating IVIs, I take a position of reasonability. I will still evaluate them, and I think arguments like "T is racist" are considerably reasonable. However, your weighing on C3 is not an IVI. Read whatever, call it whatever, but I will decide whether it's an IVI.

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:

I 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 you're going for a trick, explain it and dumb it down in the backhalf.

Phil:

Do whatever you want but there is a 99.99% chance I have zero clue what you’re talking about for constructive. I understand the strategic benefit of reading these arguments, however I want you to know that you should be explaining your literature very well in the backhalf to win my ballot. You will get high speaks if you teach me something! I won’t fill in gaps for you.

General things to note:

Your speaks will be fine. I usually give speaks based on round strat

I’m good with spreading—make sure you are.

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.

I nod. A lot. To both teams. I nod when I think something makes sense or when I understand an argument. My nodding is not a sign you are winning or losing the debate. I am very expressive. Don’t spend more time on something just because I nodded. However, spend less time if you see me confused.

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 Libertas/NSD. 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 was to keep black voices out. 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

everything above still applies

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.

In an evenly matched LD Debate, the negative will always win. That is why I presume aff. You can change this with warrants but I do believe that going aff is objectively harder.

I enjoy T-FW/Extra-T shells as well. The Ideal 1NC is 1 off then case. Do not run from clash.

I'm a good judge for performance and K Affs. I read a decent bit of them when I debated .I've read Gillespie, Baudrillard, Warren and Wilderson lit if that helps you with anything

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)

Jacob Giblin St. Augustin Middle School None

Sophia Gustafson Iowa City West

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 5:32 AM MDT

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. Also, every second it takes you to send emails gives me one less second to think critically about my decision. Please be speedy with the emails! NOTE: 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 an attorney in Iowa City practicing workers compensation, personal injury, and medical malpractice. I am the current varsity PF coach at Iowa City West.

I have coached five teams (Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart BB, Iowa City West KE, Iowa City West EA, Iowa City West ED, and Iowa City West GA) to qualifying to the gold TOC. Iowa City West EA semi'd the TOC in 2024. While coaching various teams, I have helped secure upwards of 30 bids total.

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 cool 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.

A list of prog I have voted for in the past: IVIs (author/rhetoric based), DTD (based on in-round analysis), afro-pessimism, black nihilism, disclosure theory, paraphrasing theory, etc.

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 Fri November 8, 2024 at 4:17 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 - 2

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 regardless of the reason.

-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:

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.

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 Thu November 14, 2024 at 4:29 PM CDT

Email--jaydennoblitt@gmail.com

DId three years of debate for Valley High School, graduated in 2025. Qualled to the TOC my senior year.

bottom line is debate however you like, I have opinions on what debate I like /. how I think debate should look like, but ill evaluate anything

I will not vote on an argument I don't think I could reasonably articulate back to someone, ie if I don't understand it im not voting on it

Phil>theory>tricks>K>Larp

Phil-Favorite type of debate, especially when there are two clashing framings (NC AC debates are fun). The more niche the standard the more interesting IMO. I've ran things like Nagel, Kant, Locke, Hobbes, Jeaggi, Contracts, Inclusion framings, Egalitarianism, Self Ownership, util etc. Ive seen a lot of Phil Affs try to cheat their way out of having to defend their framing through things like indexicals and AFC, while I won't discourage things like this, If your framing has a good syllogism you should be able to beat back things like Util NCs and Kritiks.

Theory- Good. I will probably have trouble flowing a lot of analytic blips that come natural to spreading out theory, so if there something being said off the theory doc you might want to slow down a bit, its not my fault if I don't vote for a theory blip that I didn't flow because you went to fast. If the interp, violation, standards, voters, and paradigm issues aren't extended, the shell isn't a complete argument and thus I will not vote on it.

Tricks- Neutral opinions, think they're fun but probably bad for the acitivity, but hey, debates a game I guess. The more substantive the trick the more Ill want to vote on it, ie id rather pick up someone on indexicals or skep than eval after the AC or no neg analytics.

K- Probably not the best for it but I'll obviously evaluate it, you just might need to do some hand holding. Id much rather have actual clash than a long overview in the 2N. Kritiks need two things 1. Why an underlying assumption is bad and why we ought to focus on that (ie Theory of Power and ROB) and 2. Why the AC contributes or is rooted in those underlying assumptions (ie Links). I'll evaluate Kritiks similar to how id evaluate a Phil NC. Not very good for K v K debate, I often find them to be two ships passing in the night

Larp- I'll be upfront, my least favorite type of debate, and I find it really boring. I don't know much of the jargon besides the basic stuff, and evidence comparison is not my strong suit (Tell me why your evidence is better very explicitly). You must verbally kick the counterplan. I don't understand why some debaters don't read a framing in their case, if there's no framing im not voting on your case. Extinction outweighs < A syllogistic explanation of util

Random things

I won't evaluate arguments made new in the last rebuttal speeches, but it's still good to point out new arguments made in the 2N in the 2AR in case I don't clock that it's new.

All arguments must be connected to something that allows me to weigh the offense, IE give me a reason to care. A shell needs a voter or I can't vote on it, a K needs a ROB or something else for me to vote on it, and an AC or NC needs an ethical framing for me to vote on it.

Unless someone makes an argument that is trying to trigger presumption or permissibility, I will look for anyway not to vote on either of them, but if there truly is no offense in the round, I will default neg.

Speaks are arbitrary, but a 28.5 is like average

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 Thu November 14, 2024 at 3:50 AM CDT

I like speechdrop.net but email chains are fine ig. (also sry in advance this is longer than I thought it was gonna be

smith.gwen0403@gmail.com

I'm Gwen Smith, a student @ICW '26. Im a Varsity debater, I mostly do LD but I've done PF, Policy, 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. If you are bigoted in any way shape or form, I will vote you down (if you do something like accidentally misgender someone thats fine, but if you keep doing it were gonna have a chat afterwards with your coach)

TL;DR: Be nice in round, be persuasive, everything is chill with me, Ill vote on pretty much anything if you convince me enough. For event specific stuff, just ctrl f your event. (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

LD:

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 debater so I don't really read this stuff, 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 or three friv shells.

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. Unique ROTBs are the best way to win rounds in front of me, I want you to tell me what my job as a judge is in the round.

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

PF: Because this event is meant to be much more accessible for the public, I generally discourage and dislike techy (LD and Policy level tech) stuff. I will evaluate based on your weighing mechanisms (basically how well your impacts fall into place), contention level evidence is really important, but please dont just read word for word off your speech doc and add in some analytics, its a lot of the same stuff as for LD, but because of the structure of the event, I expect slower speaking , less jargon and incredibly clear link chains. (however, im a super tech judge so ill probably go with about anything, these are just my thoughts on the event and how it should be evaluated).

Policy:

Look to my LD prefrences for stuff like Ks and Theory (ill cover Topicality here)

Topicality:Make the violation good and tell me exactly what makes their case non topical, if you cant, I will default to the link being there, if you can't delink your case from theirs, I will assume the link is true.

K Affs/Non T Affs:These are fine, I love K affs and critical analysis of topics because I think it gives debate a life that a lot of other stuff really can't do anymore.

CP:These are also fine, If I can understand its relation to the plan, then youre fine.

DA:Ngl, these sound like whining most of the time, that being said, run as many as you want, I don't care.

Condo:I think conditionality is real, people should be able to drop arguments and collapse to strong arguments in the later speeches. You must convince me that its bad if im going to vote on it.

Analytics: Please Please PLEASE convince me with your own words, CARDS ARE BORING in the later speeches unless you have devastating evidence against your opponent.

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.

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. Be kind to your opponents, your judges, your coaches, your partner and yourself, debate is hard on people and its important to show compassion to those around you.

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. Im a goofy person, be funny, I don't want the round to be uncomfortable for you. (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)

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 post rounding is totally cool, im always down to talk about evaluation if done nicely. 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

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 Fri September 20, 2024 at 1:11 PM 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.I now do college policy debate at Iowa.

I'm fine for any arguments, I will vote off of the flow.

*******For Congress: I am new to congress but I will do my best to evaluate the round. My background is in LD and Policy but I will evaluate the round like a congress round so don't worry about the rest of my paradigm*******

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.

Any speed is fine.

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.

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.

Flora Zhu Iowa City West

Login to Tabroom

Valley Spring Junior High

2023 — West Des Moines, IA/US

Junior High Paradigm List

Judges