Maine East Regatta
2024 — Park Ridge, IL/US
Novice Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideGeorgetown '28
Glenbrook South '24
^^Add both to the chain.
Glenbrooks: ten minutes of prep is unnecessary. If both teams agree to use 8 minutes instead, I’ll boost speaks by 0.2 for each competitor. But you cannot renege: i.e. an aff team can’t agree to use 8, then take an additional 2 for the 2AR and say that they’ll just take the speaks hit. That would be unfair to the neg team that predicated their decisions on the fact that both sides have 8.
“I’m impenitently tech > truth/rep/ethos/etc. That means no holds barred when it comes to what you can say in front of me. If you think you can defend the ad-hom, the fiat K, death good, or FSPEC against your opponent at a technical level, go for it.
There are of course implicit costs with taking extremist positions. You run the risk of someone in the room calling for the round to be ended. In which case, my hand is forced and I must intervene. The only two cases in which I intervene are:
1. I’m informed that someone isn’t comfortable with the round going on. That can occur for multiple reasons and is up to the debater’s discretion. You can end the round if your opponent calls you a slur or you can end the round if your opponent calls one of your arguments ‘stupid.’ One of those will go significantly better than the other when you talk to tabroom.
2. I’m forced by tabroom or any law that obligates me as a United States resident.” Specifically, I am a mandated reporter.
Specifics
- My philosophy as a judge is that my ballot is meant to render a fair decision. This consideration is binding and immutable. Every action a judge chooses to take or not take is in pursuit of this objective. Both teams enter the round expecting a fair evaluation.
- You must time your speeches. I will not.
- If you do not disclose every piece of evidence you read on the wiki, your speaker points are capped at 28.5.
- Debate is brain rot when it comes to buzzwords. If you think that using bigger words necessarily makes your argument better, I wish you an amazing college degree followed by a professional life fully impeded by your inability to communicate in an accessible way. Yes, use big word, but explain big word. I might know what your topic jargon word means. I am less likely to know what any K word longer than ten letters means. And I definitely have no idea what your framework disad is called. You are part of a communication activity. Act like it.
Although I vote purely on tech, I have certain biases that "kick in" when neither team makes an argument. I will fill in this section as I judge more rounds and discover certain scenarios when "tech over truth" may not be able to fully play out.
Judge kick. I'll do it if you tell me to, but if you don't, I won't.
Record on some relevant issues:
K-aff vs framework: 3-1 Neg
Aff vs K: 1-0 Aff
Evelyn Alsop, she/her
Northwestern '28
Maine East '24
Add me to the email chain: evelyn.a.alsop@gmail.com and mehsdebate@gmail.com
General philosophy: Contextualizing evidence in round is the most convincing way to win a debate. Please don't make me say "two ships passing in the night" in my RFD.
DAs:
I really like them...as long as they're well thought out. I tend to prefer DAs with strong links, otherwise there's no way for your impacts to happen. That being said, please make sure you tell a story with a DA and contextualize your evidence to the round.
Counterplans:
I tend to lean against perf con, do with that what you will. However, I will need a team to point it out within a round in order for me to vote on it. ALWAYS PERM A COUNTERPLAN!!! Please show me how the perm solves for the counterplan, but as neg tell me why your counterplan avoids an impact and how it solves for the aff. I lean neg on counterplan theory unless it's condo against more than 8 off.
Kritiks:
I debated policy affs and neg strategies throughout high school, which means I need you to have quite a strong alt and I find it hard to vote for a team without an alt. Please contextualize your links to this specific aff, especially if the other team points out that it's generic. Please make sure there is an impact to your K and that you extend it, otherwise there's no reason to vote for it.
Topicality:
I'm very familiar with T and think it's an underused strategy, but that means that you still need to do it well in front of me. Please make sure that you're showing why your standards matter, and contextualize them into this round. Caselists and TVAs are super persuasive. Please also show why fairness or education matters and how that plays into a specific round.
Theory:
I'm open to theory debates as long as both teams point to specific in-round abuses and have proper interps/counterinterps. If you're going for theory, please make sure you have strong arguments on standards.
Hafsa Amin (she/her)
northside '24
Novices:
- run whatever you like, just be sure to explain the argument
- don't be rude to anyone in the room during speeches or cross-x (this goes without saying)
Yes put me on the chain: grantandersondebate@gmail.com
If you need me to type my email in I might take that as a sign that you didn't read my paradigm, but I understand that tech can be hard sometimes.
The most important thing:
The most important part of debate is participation, so if you're going to be a jerk to me, your partner, or your opponents, you will lose speaks. Remember that everyone comes to debate from a different starting point, just because you debated in middle school doesn't mean you are a better person than everyone else. For the other side of that coin, I'll try and be as nice as possible and just remember that one bad round in your second tournament doesn't mean that debate isn't for you or that you should quit. I've found myself there plenty of times but I've always come back to debate, it will be OK.
To all novices I am judging:
If you are reading my paradigm you are doing a good job, I'm probably going to tell you to read it anyway so nice job :).
Onto my actual paradigm:
FLOW
I've run most args at one point or another. I will be fine with literally whatever, just explain it well.*
Do impact calc and explain your link chain. If you can do line by line that would be great.
Just don't drop arguments, this will literally win you most of your debates, flowing, line by line, and analytics will help you.
*this is mostly true as long as you aren't racist sexist homophobic etc.
**I feel the need to add that advocating for self harm to yourself or others is vile and I will vote you down immediately and give you a 0 speaks.
PREP:Prep ends when you press save on your word doc or share on your google doc. If you are talking to your partner about anything debate related that isn't a tech problem you should be running prep.
One last thing:Remember to chill out, this is a debate round, you're going to be ok no matter what happens, and the other people in this room are your friends.
PS:If you bring up the 2013 cheese wiz incident at Patty's Birthday Party in North Dakota you will lose the round and I will be telling Wayne Tang about you.
Yes, add me to the email chain: dianabarr433@gmail.com
Tech>Truth to a certain extent
Overview:
Debate is a game! Its meant to be played. I love all arguments and know all the generics. I usually run Da's, K negs, Theory, Cps, T. So expect me to know a lot about that. However, remember that all arguments must be properly fleshed out for me to vote on them.
I must say that K Affs are a no for me. I will vote for them If they are thoroughly explained!!! but it is much harder to convince me, given that it's not even part of the res and I might not understand the theory, so I am more inclined to vote on T especially if all components are extended on the neg. But debate is a space to learn, don't be discouraged to run what your heart desires, if you are good at something the flow will show it.
More Specifics:
Speed is fine, but don't yell lol pls
I flow CX, and I count it.
28.5 is average speaks
perchance-
she/her
co-captain of jones debate
yes I want to be on the email chain: rboyle@cps.edu
give roadmaps and signpost
don't be afraid to talk to me; I promise I don't bite! I'm here to help.
If I see that you are just reading straight down blocks that your coach or varsity wrote for you for the entire debate, I will dock speaks. I want to hear your own arguments. You are smart. You can do it. I promise!
On the other hand, if you finish reading your speech doc and you pick up your flow and start responding to the arguments on your flow, I will boost your speaks significantly
If you go for T, it should be 5 full minutes in your 2nr
Please time yourself. this includes speeches and prep. Please do not ask me how much time you have left in the middle of a speech and please don't ask me for 36.3761 seconds of prep.
I don't tolerate any form of discrimination. it will result in an automatic loss, the lowest speaker points possible, and an email to your coach.
if you read my paradigm and say "lukas flynn sucks" to me at some point before I submit the ballot, I'll give you +0.2 speaks
Hi, I'm Natalee.
She/They pronouns
Currently a college student so if I'm remote in my dorm apologies in advance (I prefer in-person WAY more but I'm at UIUC so what can I do)
If you want UIUC advice find me at a tournament or email me :)
ADD ME TO YOUR EMAIL CHAINS PLEASE: nataleemburkat@gmail.com
I don't really care what you run as long as you know about what you're talking about and can debate successfully. (I have no preferences and am comfortable with most if not all policy debate arguments)
Remember confidence is key, so if you think you suck just fake it til you make it. I promise you, you will do just fine :)
BE NICE TO EACH OTHER!!- I will not hesitate to give you a 25 if you are rude to your fellow debaters and/or me. ALSO, Debate should be educational and a safe space for any and all students, so any hateful and discriminatory language will not be tolerated and will result in a 25, an automatic loss, and a report to your coach in speaker notes or in person if I know them.
I'm more of a tech judge, so when it comes to arguments, if the debate is close I will tend to rule on who dropped the least amount of arguments (for aff it'd be dropping case+off, and for neg it'd be dropping case)
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE use all your time. Especially if it's the 1/2NC and 2AC, there is always something you could be adding to your argument/addressing to fill up time.
Also, don't hesitate to ask me any questions-- I am always happy to help at any time >:)
By the way, I will always time you, BUT I would massively prefer if you also timed yourselves as I am terrible at giving 5,3,1 warnings, and then you can pace yourself accordingly: so it's a win-win for both of us :)
DEAR JV/VARSITY: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE STOP SAYING "# OFF" TELL ME WHICH OFF (K,T,ETC)
If you really feel like knowing my personal thoughts on specific argument types you can take a look here, but don't let my opinions stop you from running what you like running:
(take this with a huge "old-person" grain of salt because I was a 2017-2019 debater and that cemented my opinions significantly)
K affs- Back in my day (you will hear this a lot), K affs were a joke and you'd run them strictly for funsies. K affs of today's age deal with more important topics, so I always enjoy listening to them. HOWEVER, I will not vote on a K aff if you stray far from your base argument. K affs are about committing to the bit--- if you don't bring up the point of your K aff in every speech, you're not going to win. Also, my opinion on K affs is they don't really mesh well in the Policy format, so to be voter they must be done with the utmost strategy to not get bombarded by T for 2 hours and lose. Also, you will not be getting phenomenal feedback on K aff structure because I was strictly policy back in my day and I feel like my opinions on structure are probably outdated and unhelpful unless you have a policy aff.
Ts- A good T or two are fun to run as a neg, however, if you drop everything and go strictly T in the end (disregard if you're neg against a K aff), I will not vote for you. Ts are the weakest neg argument in my opinion because it's just an "Ummm actually" arg and there isn't much depth to it to be a significant voter.
Counterplans (CPs)- I love a good counterplan. It is arguably my favorite neg argument type. If you have a good counterplan you are golden in my eyes, as I feel like logically this makes the most sense to do as a neg. In recent years, CPs have kind of fallen off and people are using Ks as a replacement--- don't use a K like a CP, get a good CP and run it and I'll be overjoyed and you'll probably win, assuming the rest of your argument is sound.
Every other argument I have no strong negative or positive thoughts on.
Issues I constantly see in JV and Varsity:
Aff:
- Remember you are the aff, don't let the neg's arguments run the debate, and make sure you are always putting the aff at number one importance and impact calc that with whatever neg throws at you.
- Don't drop your own arguments and make sure to pay attention to EVERYTHING the neg says and address it. This sounds like common sense, but it is not.
- Something that annoys me: make sure your Solvency has a dedicated Solvency section. I'm an oldie and this new structure throws me off every time I judge and you'll hear me complain about it in feedback every time. Make my life easier and just get a dedicated section so I know for sure you solve.
- Make sure to utilize your 2AC well--- the 1NC is probably going to pull whatever they can pull, if something doesn't make sense in regards to your aff, read some answers if you have time, but if not just be like "This doesn't apply" and explain why and I'll give it to you. Valid neg args should always be the main focus of your off section.
Neg:
- Treat neg like a stock portfolio--- diversify your arguments, the more the merrier. Overwhelming the aff is the best strategy as neg, because the more time you waste for them the less time they have for their arguments and will probably drop more, which results in a win for you.
- Controversial opinion: debate (specifically Policy debate) is a game. As a neg, I encourage you to have as many arguments as possible even if they don't make sense in the 1NC to overwhelm the aff. As long as you have some sound arguments, throw in whatever you want.
- Never concede an argument until the end. Keep aff on their toes, even if that won't be your end argument. I recommend keeping your discard argument in smaller and smaller doses so you can get the important stuff read and then concede it in the 2NR to waste the optimal amount of aff time.
- Impact calc is your bestie--- if the aff is more harmful than helpful and you have valid arguments to back that up, as long as you push this argument, you will win.
Both sides:
- Pay attention to clash. If you are only focused on your argument and not the other teams, it'll be a bad debate and no one will be happy. You always want to directly counter and extend the previous 2 speeches as a rule of thumb. (For example: I'm the 2NC so I'm going to pull my arguments against the 2AC with respect to our extensions of the 1NC and make sure everything is addressed from both flows.)
- Stay on track--- the amount of times when a minor argument gets turned in the whole debate appalls me. If you are making arguments, that are not strategic, that don't make sense to link to the aff, don't make them. The 1AC sets the precedent, if the rest of the debate strays, it is not an effective or good debate.
- The most important one: quality > quantity. When we get to rebuttals, I often get bombarded with hundreds of random statements about the debate at hand. If those are stand-alone statements, I won't consider them voter. You need to say them, and then apply them to the debate, because arguments are useless without depth. Think about the ICE paragraph structure and apply it to every rebuttal you make.
- If you are switching between analytics and cards, announce it. It's much more helpful because it signals to everyone when they need to intently listen, as there's no doc to help with comprehension. That being said, if you do read anything that is not sent in a written and readable format, make sure it is clear and concise, especially the important parts. If I don't hear it, it didn't happen--- so make sure the important parts are extremely clear and distinct.
GBN '24
Dartmouth '28
2A/1N, she/her. Please do not address me in the second person.
In accordance with guidance from my employer, please use a SpeechDrop or Tabroom initiated fileshare, NOT an email chain.
Everyone should aim to make the round an enjoyable and educational opportunity.
Flow.
Tech > truth. However, I will not vote on death/racism/sexism/etc good.
Complete arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact. I will not evaluate arguments that do not have a claim, warrant, and impact.
You do you in terms of argument type/style/performance and I'll make my decision based on the line by line at the end of the debate and try to be as least interventionist as possible. Judge instruction shouldn't be missing from any type of debating.
Feel free to ask questions about my decisions. But keep in mind that debate is ultimately a communicative, persuasive activity, and if I have voted against you, that means you have failed to communicate to me the merits of your argument no matter how good you thought your debating was. In other words, stay humble ☺️
Have fun and good luck!
Prefer you use the tabroom docshare thingy if it's set up at the tournament. If not, use shrutikde93@gmail.com and direct complaints to WayneTang@aol.com and kaylanfdebate@gmail.com
If the tournament has no rules on the usage of generative AI, I consider it fair game as long as the resource is accessible by both teams.
- All except one of my partner and I's 2NRs my senior year was the Cap K (the one being a process CP and disclosure theory). The amount of policy-kritikal Affs I debated was split roughly 60-40 respectively.
- Every affirmative I read was topical. Aside from novice year, every impact I've tried to win a round on has been based on extinction being bad. I've argued everything from small-scale nuclear war to death-star rays exploding the universe (this wasn't a one-off thing a lot of 2ARs were on this).
- I'm studying Statistics and Computer Science, not IP law. I know nothing about existing rules and regulations about IP. Explain to me the acronyms of IP acts and laws; if you don't I'll try and figure it out myself and you will likely despise my decision.
- I think life has value and don't really want to hear arguments contrary to it. If you think your argument is more nuanced than a vanilla nihilist perspective, make sure it's clear by at least the second time the argument is debated. If you really feel passionate about winning this argument and feel I've evaluated it unfairly after the round, I'd be happy to discuss my perspective with you afterward.
- I don't keep up with debate rankings/new meta strategies anymore, so I'm probably out of the loop on whatever Michigan's hivemind thought up this summer.
- I'm not here to judge debaters as people; if you think someone presents an active harm to this community, I'm not the person who's likely to be able to do anything about it. Please talk to the coaches, speak with the person if you feel comfortable, or find an alternative. Ad hominem arguments don't disprove the arguments introduced (if you think they do, please explain). Many of these things (at least in high school) stray far, far, away from keeping the community safe and devolve into debate gossip/rumors for the sake of it.
Non-RFD/Ballot Stuff:
- Debate is very stressful and time-consuming; remember to be happy you're even here. I took this activity too seriously until it was too late, so don't make the same mistake.
- No one's born a great debater; it's just exposure. I'd suggest spending less time comparing your statistics to those on the coaches poll or whoever Reddit decides is this century's newest great debater.
- Resource disparities are huge in debate; don't ignore your privilege.
lukas
he/him
Jones 26
yes put me on the email chain --- lflynn@cps.edu
---------------
middle schoolers - i encourage you to ask about debating at jones
---------------
high schoolers:
READ THIS PART
- if you show me you follow @jones.debate on insta, +0.1 speaks
- if you show me you follow @jonesdebate on tiktok, +0.1 speaks
DISCLAIMER - please lmk if you followed after the round, not during. i can't add extra points if i haven't decided on the original ones.
---------------
actual stuff:
- i'll vote on pretty much anything
- probably not the best for topicality and theory
email me with questions: agarvey@cps.edu
LVHS '25
Captain of LVHS debate team, Varsity debater
Speaks
Spreading is fine but clarity is key--- if you're unclear -0.5 speaks
Tag-team is also fine just don't take over your partners cx or speaks will be docked
Overview
Time yourselves please!!
I will only take cx into account if it is brought up in a later speech however any "cx non binding" args will not be taken into account.
I'm fine with anything however I dislike K affs. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them I will just be much harder to convince. I normally run K negs, T, CPs, DAs, and Theory so I will know a lot about those. Overall, if you flush something out well my preference shouldn't matter. I vote on the flow.
I will not use any of my own outside knowledge to vote on something. Any decision I make is going to be based on purely what happens/is brought up in the debate round.
tech > truth
leah.debate@gmail.com
GBN ‘24
Dartmouth ‘28
What you should know:
-
Read whatever you want to read.
-
I’m not familiar with the IPR topic. I don’t know your acronyms.
-
If I have the doc open, it’s to read your cards and write down authors. I will not use the doc to fill-in speeches that are unclear.
-
The burden for a full argument is claim + warrant. “Extinction” is a claim without a warrant. “Reject the argument, not the team” is also a claim.
-
The above applies to cards. I will read non-highlighted parts of cards if necessary to resolve a relevant contextual question. I will not reconstruct sentences that are highlighted into shreds.
-
I will default to probability x magnitude unless told I should do otherwise. That applies cumulatively across internal link chains.
CPs:
-
I lean aff on competition/theory for CPs that can be read on any topic.
-
I lean neg on counterplans that compete creatively based on a resolutional phrase.
-
Not all, but many theory arguments make more sense when couched in competition.
Theory:
-
Your interpretation matters. I am more persuaded by theory arguments that are specific enough to solve some of the other team’s offense. “Uniform 50 state fiat bad” is more persuasive than “50 state fiat bad.” “3 condo” is more persuasive than “condo is good.
T:
-
I am less persuaded by the argument that I should vote to normatively limit the topic even if unpredictably.
-
I can be persuaded by reasonability, but not if it’s just the aff whining. “Reasonability” is really just an impact to arbitrariness that lowers the bar for “predictability outweighs limits.” That is, if the neg has arbitrarily attempted to exclude the aff in a manner that could easily exclude a different set of affs in a different debate, it might be more “unreasonable” to vote on limits for the sake of limits.
-
Both teams can get a lot of mileage out of describing which metrics are most significant for determining predictability.
Ks:
-
I’ll do my best to evaluate whatever you read. But, I have never read a planless aff. On the neg, I have very rarely gone for an argument that’s not T.
Hey y'all! I'm Jen and I’m currently a Senior at New Trier (c/o of '24). Please make sure to include me on the email chains. My email is: hjenn8109@gmail.com. When sending out docs, send them as word docs. Include all your cards in your speech—make sure you read what’s highlighted. If it's not highlighted, but it is bolded/underlined, etc then tell me beforehand, so I can follow along.
I do not have any predispositions or preferences for any arguments, just please make sure that your arguments are well extended and links, impacts, etc. are explained thoroughly. If you're going to spread, slow down when you're moving onto different arguments, and I'll do my best to follow along. That being said, I ask that all rhetoric used in round is kept in check and that we’re not making any racist, xenophobic, homophobic comments, etc. Please also be respectful to/of everyone in the room. No disrespect towards anyone will be tolerated. Finally, make sure you speak clearly, indicate when you're moving on to a different topic, and have fun!
AFF teams-- please, please flow so you're not dropping all NEG off case positions in the 2AC.
Everyone please use all your speech time and CX time!!
Daniel Heylin
Email chain -share.tabroom.com
I’ve been coaching policy debate for the past 8 years at Sarah Goode STEM Academy, but did not participate in high school/college debate. I spend most of my time coaching rookie/novice teams.
I am generally tabula rasa. Everything in the round is up for debate. It is up to the debaters to tell me what to prioritize, teach me what processes I should use to evaluate, and make my ballot an easy decision. My ballot will usually go to the team who best solves the round for me, making the 2AR/2NR incredibly important. Tech does matter, but story matters more for me.
I don’t have many preferences on specific arguments. I generally prefer rounds that emphasize analysis of their cards and focus on good line by line/clash, rather than a card dump or spreading. I have a better handle on traditional policy debate, so if you are going for a K or K Aff, make sure to take the time to explain it to me. I need to be able to understand it in order to vote for it.
A note on speed, I cannot flow what I cannot hear/understand. Please make sure you are especially slowing down on your tags.
Email - skhaden@s207.org
Maine East 25'
Tech Over Truth to an extent
No Death Good or Racism Good
If you bring me food your speaks will be increased by .3
I'm judging novices so my range is from 27.5-29 typically.
I haven't judged yet so I don't really know but that's what I intend for the range to be, if you get below you probably did something very bad.
have fun in this activity, it's really good for u
Debate is so good for getting accepted to good colleges, good for getting better at processing information for ap classes and college and travelling is really fun
So don't view debate as a chore, have fun, make it as fun as possible for yourself, just try your best.
Ask questions so you know what do better next time
Alexandra Lorence, She/her
Maine East '24
add me to the email chain: alorence16@gmail.com
DAs:
I really like them...as long as they're well thought out. I tend to prefer DAs with strong links, otherwise there's no way for your impacts to happen. That being said, please make sure you tell a story with a DA and contextualize your evidence to the round.
Counterplans:
I tend to lean against perf con, do with that what you will. However, I will need a team to point it out within a round in order for me to vote on it. ALWAYS PERM A COUNTERPLAN!!! Please show me how the perm solves for the counterplan, but as neg tell me why your counterplan avoids an impact and how it solves for the aff. I lean neg on counterplan theory unless it's condo against more than 8 off.
Kritiks:
As a more policy leaning person, I need you to have quite a strong alt and I find it hard to vote for a team without an alt. Please contextualize your links to this specific aff, especially if the other team points out that it's generic. Please make sure there is an impact to your K and that you extend it, otherwise there's no reason to vote for it.
Topicality:
I'm sorta familiar with T and think it's an underused strategy, but that means that you still need to do it well in front of me. Please make sure that you're showing why your standards matter, and contextualize them into this round. Please also show why fairness or education matters and how that plays into a specific round.
Theory:
I think theory is underrated and can be a really good argument if done well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will vote on any argument, so long as it is persuasive, respectful, and solves better.
clarity>speed!! especially with analytics!
time your prep and speeches. I will try my best to time them, but at the end of the day, it is your responsibility.
.
Hailey Lorence, she/her
Maine East '24
Add me to the email chain: hlorence78@gmail.com
CX is a speech please stand up and face the judge :)
Calling me judge or Hailey is fine
I won't take time out of your prep if a team asks for a marked version of the doc, u should give it to them. however, if u need to ask the other team clarification questions after the cross, you do need to take prep for that. If a debater needs to use the restroom that is completely fine, but unless there is a timer running there is absolutely no prepping. I try my best to time speeches, cx, and prep but I am human and do make mistakes, so you are still responsible for timing your own speeches, do not expect me to do so or rely on that.
Do not steal prep, if there is not a speech or prep timer running you should not be prepping, this includes going over strategies with your partner, at this point in the season y'all should already know better, but I'll only start docking points if I have to remind you more than once.
-
General philosophy: I tend to lean more policy in my argumentation, but that doesn't mean you can't read Ks in front of me. Please just make sure you explain it extra well because I'm likely not that familiar with the literature.
DAs:
I like them as long as they're well thought out. I tend to prefer DAs with strong links, otherwise there's no way for your impacts to happen. That being said, please make sure you tell a story with a DA and contextualize your evidence to the round.
Counterplans:
I tend to lean against perf con, do with that what you will. However, I will need a team to point it out within a round in order for me to vote on it. ALWAYS PERM A COUNTERPLAN!!! Please show me how the perm solves for the counterplan, but as neg tell me why your counterplan avoids an impact and how it solves for the aff. I lean neg on counterplan theory unless it's condo against more than 8 off.
Kritiks:
As a more policy leaning person, I need you to have quite a strong alt and I find it hard to vote for a team without an alt. Please contextualize your links to this specific aff, especially if the other team points out that it's generic. Please make sure there is an impact to your K and that you extend it, otherwise there's no reason to vote for it.
Topicality:
I'm pretty familiar with T and think it's an underused strategy, but that means that you still need to do it well in front of me. Please make sure that you're showing why your standards matter, and contextualize them into this round. Caselists and TVAs are super persuasive. Please also show why fairness or education matters and how that plays into a specific round.
Please be respectful, I will not tolerate anything homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.
—Speaker Points—
Below 26.4: you did something wrong (cheaty/offensive)
26.5-27.5: Below average
27.5-27.9: Average
28-29: Above average
29+: Very good
Email Chain: The Round must use the in tabroom, or similar, to share files as this is safer for you & me :)
speechdrop.net is easy to use. Use this if the tabroom share isn't setup.
Debate Experience
I've never debated. If you want detailed analysis of your speeches and in round decisions I am not your judge.
"Coaching" Experience
Philips Academy- Chicago, IL 2010-2012
*I was a second adult.
Kenwood Academy- Chicago, IL 2014-present
*My main focus is coaching and supporting the novices (and driving the bus). If you're planning to run a strategy far outside something that a generic novice packet would include and a novice would be able to understand I likely won't either... Just because my team runs K Affs doesn't mean I understand what they are doing.
**If you are going to try to argue that Racism or any of the isms doesn't exist or isn't that bad then I'm probably not going to vote for you. I try to go in neutral but I can't completely divorce the round from what I believe to be true about the systems of the world and our society (which include racism, sexism, etc..)**
I want to hear clash and a good demonstration of understanding from the AFF and NEG (if you're reading a card you should understand and be able to explain it - especially in R speeches. basically "why is this argument or evidence important". I find I give slightly more leniency to the negative in terms of understanding especially for novice debaters, but, Affs you chose the case so you should know and understand your own cards and plan.
Good signposting is so important to me and really helps me to flow arguments and not waste time trying to figure out which flow you've moved on to.
I'm always looking for good impact calc and a good solid explanation of why your team wins over the other. "they dropped x-y&z" often isn't good enough for me- why were those arguments essential for them to win and without them they have now in your interpretation lost the round.
I'm okay with spreading as long as I can understand what you're saying. don't just assume because you sent out the cards that you can blur all of your words together. If I can't confidently flow it then I wont and it wont be part of my decision. For novice debaters it is often helpful to slow down for the tags. sign posting and a clear roadmap are also essential to a well organized debate. (it might not be normal but I love when debaters give the name of their offs in the 1NC- just helps me stay organized).
please run your own timer
You don't have to ask to take prep, it is your prep, use it! just make sure you don't steal prep.
Racism, bigotry, homo/transphobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia, or hatred towards a group is never acceptable and I will give the win to the other team almost automatically.
Be respectful and assume best intent from your opponents.
Emma Mitic, she/her
Maine East '25
Add me to the email chain: emitic@s207.org (or if u have questions afterwards abt the round)
CX is a speech-- please stand up and face the judge :)
Calling me Judge or Emma is fine
General philosophy: I tend to lean more toward Policy in my argumentation, but that doesn't mean you can't read Ks in front of me just make sure to explain it extremely well and don’t drop case unless u have proper framework.
Obvious rules: Cheating or racist, homophobic, or sexist comments will result in an L and low speaks.
Don't clip cards please!
extra notes: I won't take time out of your prep if a team asks for a marked version of the doc, you should give it to them; however, if you need to ask the other team clarification questions after cross, you will need to take prep for that. Stealing prep will make you lose speaks. Also, don't prep after the doc is sent out. If a debater needs to use the bathroom during a round that is totally fine; I will, however, most likely ask you to close your computers if nobody in the room is taking prep time while someone is out. I will do my best to time every speech along with you and keep track of everybody's prep, but I'm human and have made mistakes before so keeping track is never a bad idea.
Generally, my RDFs are short and don't include a lot of debate tips and tricks because I understand that people want to go to their next round or to lunch or whatever, but I do like it when debaters ask me questions after the round, and I'm happy to answer them. If I'm answering another team's questions, you don't need to wait if you do not have any additional questions after the RDF.
DA's:
I really like them...as long as they're well thought out. I tend to prefer DAs with strong links, otherwise, there's no way for your impacts to happen. That being said, please make sure you tell a story with a DA and contextualize your evidence to the round.
Counterplans:
I tend to lean against perf con, do with that what you will. However, I will need a team to point it out within a round in order for me to vote on it. ALWAYS PERM A COUNTERPLAN!! Please show me how the perm solves for the counterplan, but as neg tell me why your counterplan avoids an impact and how it solves for the aff. I lean neg on counterplan theory unless it's condo against more than 3-4 off.
Kritiks:
As a more policy-leaning person, I need you to have quite a strong alt and I find it hard to vote for a team without an alt. Please contextualize your links to this specific aff, especially if the other team points out that it's generic. Please make sure there is an impact on your K and that you extend it, otherwise there's no reason to vote for it.
don't run death good k please. . .
Topicality:
Please make sure that you're showing why your standards matter, and contextualize them into this round. Extend your impact throughout. Please also show why fairness or education matters and how that plays into a specific round. I'm not 100% familiar w the topic and all its terms yet so explaining terms or interps is never a bad idea.
natalie nguyen (uiuc '28)
she/ her pronouns
hard of hearing (please speak up during speeches and cx)
for other inquiries & email chains (if we are not using speechdrop/ tab share): natalienguyen4311@gmail.com
ex debater & ex head captain at von steuben, was a stand-in coach during '22-'23 season
was a finalist for naudl's doty for 2024 which was really cool
debated policy '20-'24, judging since '21 (hs & ms)
taught by my goat victoria yonter
see me in person? come say hi!
my baseline rules/ things i do:
> any type of bigotry (absolutely not acceptable)
> being rude to either judge(s) or the opposing team (speaker points docked)
> i time speeches on my end. i'm pretty punctual on speech times, so i will cut you off if time is up. for hs (jv + varsity), time yourself for prep!
> i will flow cx, but that is mainly just for my note-taking.
> i'm a tech > truth kinda person
> quality of cards > quantity of cards
> call me judge or natalie, i don't care (i feel old either way)
argument prefs:
aff/ case: extend advs! i like hearing more about them. in the case of k-affs, i love them! please make sure to be clear about the rob and advocacy/ solution.
da: i like da's, but usually they're indifferent to me if not properly extended. usually tend not to vote for them tbh.
cp: i'd only really vote for cp's if properly explained. they are not my favorite offcase and i tend to not vote for it because they are poorly extended. please explain them clearly if you are running it. for process cps, i often do not vote for them.
t: as much as i say that i dislike t, i consider it very important and will consider it in my ballot. you have to win on all five factors of t to get me to vote. i am also a big person on the idea that hard debate is good debate, so take that as you will.
k: big fan of, yes! i am familiar with common k's (cap k, identity k's), but outside of that, please make sure to really push it. love a GOOD cap k.
framework: fw fw fw! easily can get me to vote for you if you have a strong FW debate.
specifics off the top of my head:
> i genuinely cannot control my face so if i make a weird face please ignore me.
> i am a big person on urban schools/ small schools impact. i personally came from a hs where we barley had a debate program (or at the minimum, a very small functioning one) until my senior year in hs. this is something that i will vote for if articulated properly.
> i'm a good judge for anything lgbt and racial theory, nuclear infrastructure, nuclear war, environmental racism, nato, arms/ weaponry, socialism + communism, american interventionism + war & climate change related. (can you tell i study history)
> i think that larger scale arguments about education good or education bad are great. think about what you take away from this debate round out side of debate, how it shapes you in learning and as a person, what this can bring upon, etc. same feelings towards the debate space is good/ debate space is bad. being critical about the space you exist and move in is crucial for education.
if you are wondering about something that is not listed here, feel free to ask! this is just quick thoughts and i can go into depth if needed.
Put me on the email chain -- rrodebate@gmail.com
General Notes:
• 2024-25 topic -- Haven't judged any/many rounds yet so would prefer if you explain topic specific terms/acronyms used because I'm 99% sure I have no idea what they mean.
• I will tend to follow the speech doc but I only write what I hear. Slow down on analytics please. And please sign-post!!
• Default tech over truth, unless told otherwise in-round.
• Can vote neg on presumption.
• CX is binding if you say it's binding.
• Only saying "they dropped x argument" is not an extension to said argument.
• Clarity > speed (obviously, but some of you...). (Note: I've recently made the transition from flowing on paper to laptop and I am significantly slower, so keep that in mind if you decide to spread analytics).
• Any intentional racist/sexist/homophobic/etc comments = 25, and I will vote you down.
• Feel free to ask me about any arguments pre-round that aren't on my paradigm.
Specific Arguments:
DAs - Specific links/internal links > generic links (if it's still applicable to the AFF it's fine).
Weigh the impacts please.
T - If they don't meet your interpretation explain why I should consider your interp over theirs. Please flesh out your standards.
CPs - CPs should solve enough, have a net benefit, and preferably carded, please. Otherwise I will probably vote on the perm.
Multi-planks are good if you say they're good (and vice versa). PICs/PIKs are good if you say they're good (and vice versa). Delay CPs are good if you say they're good (and vice versa). I think you get the gist.
Ks - Love specific links to the AFF, but Link of Omission is fine if not answered properly. The links should be properly fleshed out by the 2NR.
I'd say at the very least I have a basic (and I mean BASIC) understanding of some common K's (Cap, SetCol, AB, etc). I'm not that great with high theory stuff like Baudrillard but if you really want to read it don't let that discourage you from doing so. That being said, please explain your stuff instead of just using K jargon.
Specific alts > vague alts, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for it. Judge kick is debatable.
Theory - I can vote on theory but I wouldn't recommend going for it unless there is clear in-round abuse. Similar to the T, flesh out the standards and impacts. Two condo is good, Three+ can be sus. New AFFs bad is generally bad argument in my opinion (with the exception of tournaments that have AFF's preffed and rules around that). Can vote on perf-con. Aspec is funny. Disclosure theory -- eh.
K AFFs - Always incorporate all of your AFF throughout the debate. PLEASE be thorough on your solvency mechanisms.
Explain thoroughly how your permutation works when answering a K. Would prefer if you provide a role for the Neg/ a way for the Neg to engage with the AFF if they ask rather than saying "that's not our job." ROJ/ROB flesh out your standards so that I know why I should prefer your interpretation. Would prefer if you explain the jargon you use as much as possible because I may not know the words you're using. Reading a generic advocacy/K AFF that can be used in literally any other resolution is not necessarily my favorite and can be an issue if brought up by the NEG in the T/FW debate. I prefer when K AFFs teams get more creative with their advocacy statement and solvency mechanisms.
For the NEG:
I can vote on T-USFG/FW (preferably with a TVA(s)). The TVA does not have to be perfect. I also value SSD a lot as well, so please read it! Additional note: going for portable skills is a bit of an uphill battle for me, I tend to buy arguments that we won't end up being policy makers after this activity anyways. In general, just explain why your model of debate is better than theirs and you should be good.
I can also vote on CPs that solve and/or DAs/Ks that link.
Niles West '23
Michigan State '27
Coaching at Berkeley Prep
Email Chain:hinashehzaddebate@gmail.com
Specific Args
Kritik:
Framework determines whether links need to be unique. Dropping AFF impacts on case put you in a hard position if you are not winning that they shouldn't be able to weigh case. Teams should not allow the neg to act like/say they fiat 'movements' or 'mindsets' otherwise the debate becomes an uphill battle for the aff. If your overly offensive with no defense it makes evaluating the debate hard. Negative kicking the alt and going for links as DAs can be strategic but understanding uniqueness and framework in these debate is key. KvK rounds for the most goes which ever side has more perm + no link work, specific links are super important in these rounds. Can we do line by line? I don't get heavy theory of power debates absent specific link explanations to the aff and line by line. This is my hot take — I think perms should have some sort of net benefit to it. I don’t think it’s needed everytime if there is a lack of link debating, but often times a net ben to the perm helps me better evaluate the perm vs the alternative.
Framework:
I find myself in the back of clash debates 85% of the time.For me Impact articulation matters---when teams blend impacts and become repetitive/generic it often will make you lose these rounds. These debates should make it clear whether its about models of debate, just fairness in this round or both etc. I believe that "debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad. Competitive incentives may overdetermine actions but you need to win it and explain what it means to the round, inserting it 40 times isn't going to get you anything. I find TVA's to be wayyyy more persuasive than SSD but no matter what at least one of them should be extended because you definitely need to be able to access at least some of their offense. Aff you should just go ham on the impact turn, but it gets hard to evaluate debates where the 2AR is extending every DA and not unpacking/comparing impacts---explain the intrinsicness between your aff and the topic. I think the best way to beat neg standards is by turning predictable limits. I do think debate can create subject formation, but you still obviously need to win it. Oh I love it when the Aff team CX's on how fairness is an impact, framework teams seem to struggle on articulating the impact to it seems very circular by the end of it.
Topicality:
I am not very familiar with topicality on the IP topic, thus things like TVA, list of good AFFs under your interpretation, list of bad AFFs under their interpretation, definition comparison, explanation of neg ground under your interpretation AND the other teams are helpful.
Disadvantage:
yes plz. don't feel like you can only go for the k infront of me! ev comparison matters in these debates when its close so do it for me! I am not a fan of teams reading a bunch of definitions to get out of links, but if you justify it then fine...
Counterplans:
I just don't think I am that good for competition debates, process counterplans confuse me. Rehighlighting 1AC evidence is a good way to show the CP overcomes solvency deficits. If you think the CP does not solve all of the aff, you should probably have some impact d/turns or whatever on what you don't solve. If you go for the perm over explain for me. Big fan of advantage cp's. Yes judge kick if unless I am advised not to. I like advantage cp's. Do you need a solvency advocate? Probably. Will I vote for you if you justify not having one? Maybe...
Miscellaneous
I have read both k and policy oriented args throughout highschool and college. I would say more k in highschool and have been more flex in college.I will vote for anything---I refuse to intervene and leave my own bias's at the door before debates. Obviously I believe if an argument is dropped it gets 100% weight. But If I can not explain the argument after the end of your speech then you most likely didn't do enough work for me, I dont vote on claims without warrants.
I have started to flow on paper and most likely will when judging unless I forget flows. This being said if you don't give pen time, or enough indepth explanation for me to jot down a warrant (especially in rebuttals) it is your fault! I usually wont flow the 1AC or 1NC.
I have a high threshold for voting on theory other than probably condo, but I think condo is probably good but ill vote on it, I think the aff is in a bad spot when the 2AR is making new extrapolation on it, this is often what makes teams going for condo lose on.
I don't clear people its weird to interrupt flows of speeches imo but this means if ur unclear and i cant flow you its just not my fault. If you prefer being cleared please let me know before the round starts so I know everyone is on the same page.
Tech > Truth
Clipping is a weird issue to resolve, its weird to record someone without their permission? But if I catch you clipping I wont record but you will probably lose.
I give high speaks, getting away from blocks, your knowledge about the topic, organization are all the big things that go into how I give speaks. If you aren't clear and I miss an argument, its your fault, so give more pen time between flows.
For other forms (pf, ld) I will evaluate rounds like I would a policy one. I am not familiar at all with either topic and am not great for weird theory things, trix etc.
I don't think I would be the person I was without the people around me who supported me and helped me through these years of debate. That being said it would be selfish to not want to give back. Debate is expensive, time consuming, has biases so if you ever need help, support etc. Don't hesitate to reach out.
Feel free to post round if you don't agree with my decision. I am happy to discuss it!
I will give you higher speaks if you make a funny joke about Zaria Jarman
Email: danielasilvio2007@gmail.com
Please include me in the email chain, thanks. Please make sure the tournament name, round number, and both team codes are in the subject of the email chain. Or with this new speech drop thing, the aff should make the speech drop and share the code with everyone in the room.
I've been on the Maine East Debate Team for the past four years and have judged for the past year. I am a hard-core flower when it comes to judging.
When deciding the round, please don't leave the room or start talking obnoxiously loud - I unfortunately have to think.
General/Personal Things -
I am a policy leaning judge, I understand Ks to a certain degree, but I don't understand them in deep way. I definitely understand general K's more than Identity K's. With that being said, still run whatever you want to run, but at the end of the day, keep in mind what judge is in front of you. People can't vote on things they don't understand -- especially if the team is messy with it/doesn't explain why I should vote on it.
Along those lines, please run things that you are comfortable with, don't try to bite off more than you can chew - you will get too ahead of yourself. Run what you know best - whatever that may be.
- I am fine with tag teaming, but at the end of the day, it is still one person's cross-x, so your partner shouldn't be overpowering you. Know what you are doing and show me that you know that you know what your doing, or in worst case scenario, fake it till you make it.
- Please stand up during your cross-x, I don't flow cross-x, so I need to be able to hear you.
- If the other team is not answering your questions - they either have no clue, or your not asking good questions.
- Please face the judge when you are spreading, or when you are in cross-x - just a personal thing.
- A marked version of the doc, excluding a big MARK or a bunch of enters where they cut a card, is prep time.
- Don't steal prep, it becomes evident. Will doc speaks.
- Feel free to call me judge, or Daniela/Dani, I am fine with either.
- Make sure that you are timing your own speeches, and prep time, of course I will be also timing your prep, but at the end of the day, it is still your responsibility
- I am not ok with extensive swearing. A few swear words is ok, and here and there, I don't mind. If it is becoming apparent in every speech - it will tank your speaks. A swear word should not be in every sentence.
- I am not ok with sexism, racism, don't say anything transphobic or homophobic. I will end the round, I simply won't hear it, and I won't subject myself or anyone in round to hear it. If you have any questions regarding this, feel free to ask me pre-round.
- Make sure that the email chain, with everyone included on it is sent out before the round.
- If I say clear, make sure that you clear.
CASE -
If you are AFF, you need to be able defend your AFF in it's entirely, you need to have answers to your cross-x questions, and you need to be able to defend it, and properly extend your impacts, and your advantages across your speeches. Though, with that being said, don't overly cover case, and make sure that you are responding and talking time during your speeches to hit on off case.
CP -
Please say 'Counterplan' - not "Cee-Pee" it's kind of annoying, and it's really just a me thing. If you Perm a CP, please make sure to throughoutly explain how the perm solves better than the actual CP, make sure to flush out the impacts and the Net benefit. If you drop the net benefit, you are losing the CP. Make sure that your CP also links to the aff, if you drop the link, the CP doesn't become a reason for my decision.
If there are multiple perms, make sure that you respond to each one, and clearly state when you are responding to each one.
DA -
Prove how the DA links. If you can't prove that, you just wasted time.
I think DA and Case debates are good as long as the DA scenario makes sense and the line by line is properly executed.
Please don't go for a bad ptx scenario that has no internal link.
Condo/Theory/T -
I am just going to put this all together. They don't all need to be run together - I don't expect them too, but I am going to write about them together. I know that they are all separate arguments. (My paradigm didn't save the first time, and I really don't feel like writing this in full detail all over again. If you are deathly concerned about my thoughts on this deeply, and this goes for any of my stances on any argument, I don't mind to take a minute before the round to answer the questions.)
Don't run condo good/bad unless the neg team exceeds more than 3 CONDITIONAL off case. That is my line of discretion. If you drop one of these three things, whatever that may be in round, it becomes ammo for the other team to point out and use against you.
If you hit T - make sure you have a C/I, preferably with a card. I'm not too picky. No C/I by the time of the 2AC - assume that you probably lost on it if the Neg team goes for it. To win on T you have to prove that the Aff is not topical and explain why being topical matters. Don't only say "Fairness and Education" those are just words, you need to explain what that means and why it's important to debate.
T is a voter for me!
In the end what really matters is how you extend and frame the theory debate. I will most likely vote for the team that better contextualizes their theory arg.
I'll vote on a dropped theory arg as long as it's properly extended.
Ks/K AFFs -
Like I said before, I understand Ks to a certain degree, but at the end of the day, more unique Ks are not my strong suite. I have run and judged and looked into CAP, and Security. I have hit a bunch of K affs while debating, so yes, I am not stupid when it comes to this topic, don't assume that I am. Everyone has a strong suit, and this is not mine.
Make sure that there is FW, a link and an alt. Make sure that this is all defended and not dropped by either team. I will actually cry if neither team reads a FW card. Especially if that's the only thing to evaluate at the end of the round.
Have fun, especially your novice year -- it's your time to learn and grow, if you don't like my comments on my RFD take it with a grain of salt, but I say useful things.
If you made it this fair - and most usually don't, but I will raise you're speaks if you make a Taylor Swift/dress to impress Reference or complement me on any of my stickers.
Niles North '19
MSU '23
He/Him
add me on the email chain Matt.Sturt.debate@gmail.com
TLDR: I like debate a lot. Speak clearly. Speaks probs 27.5-29.5 Be Coherent. Tech>Truth most of the time
!=impact
you should do the following
FLOW
DO LINE BY LINE
you should not
BE RUDE IN CROSS-ex
BE ABLEIST , SEXIST, RACIST, or anything along those lines (I do not shy away from stopping rounds or calling people out) you will be reported to your coach and you will (hopefully) face repercussions
STEAL PREP i will also call you out for this
BE A RUDE PERSON
long version
OVERVIEW
I believe that debate is a game, but not just a game. There are extrinsic and intrinsic values to debate that come aside from winning. my thesis for deciding rounds is whether or not a policy is desirable, so things aside from that don't have a ton of pull on decision. if you do run an arg that you think is not like this, I am most likely not the judge for you. If you somehow get stuck with me, its not impossible to win these types of args, but if you can switch your strategy, i would if i were you.
T
in order for me to vote on a t arg, I need to know what is bad about the aff specifically in terms of 'breaking debate'. whether it be education, fairness ( which im pretty sure is an !, but my mental jury is still out on that one) or any other possible ! on t args. I also dont know this topic super well rn, so please explain things to me so that i know what this arg even is and am able to vote for it
Aspec is a real arg, you should flow and catch it (even if its not on the doc), but i might doc your speaks if you go for it. This should NOT be your strat going in, but if you feel that passionate about it, put it on another flow
i hope in the age of virtual debating you have the heart to at least put it on the doc. Please don’t put me in the situation where I have to vote neg bc the affs computer lagged and missed your .2 second ASPEC shell
DA
A big thing on this aspect of the debate is both the ! level, but also how one gets there. if you read a nuke war = extinction !, the amount i deem it probability of both a. happening and b. it killing absolutely everyone is intrinsically intertwined with the I/L debate. I care a lot about every part of the DA, so you better have a convincing story about your DA. Also just a side note almost every DA, in my opinion, is theoretically legit, only exception is rider (NOT Horsetrading, those are different @TimFreehan). This includes Ptx, but I do have a bs meter and if its egregiously false/lacking ev, my bar becomes much lower to vote on aff o/w with just ! analysis.
THEORY
i think most things are probs a reason to reject the arg. conditionalitY is not this way obvi. my mind can change on this, but like if you're going for theory i probs know what they are doing is abusive.
COUNTER PLANS
Counter plans were the heart and soul of my novice/jv debate career, but fell to the side as I looked forward into debate. That being said, your generic process/agent/actor/topic counterplan will still need some explanation, as to why it is a. better b. mutually exclusive and c. not too cheaty. refer to what i said above about theory, but if you go for a cheaty counterplan, and you're losing the judge kick part of the debate (more on that later), then rejecting that arg is pretty important in your stake in the debate. With aff specific Counter plans, Im gonna need you to explicitly say what the fundamental differences are between yours proposal and the aff. Do the same things as above to avoid losing to the Perm, but I will put some faith that you either wrote it, or understand it enough to know how it interacts. Again if you dont understand it, good luck getting me to.
Advantage cps are great, PICs that steal all of the aff except a word or phrase are probs abusive, but prove to me why they aren't
KRITIKS
My opinions on kritiks has changed in recent years. I think they are a useful tool, but im going to be honest, its hard to explain hyperspecific philosiphies in 3 minutes at lightning speed. I reserve my right to vote for an argument that i cannot explain to the other team. same goes for a a fw trick. if you explain your kritiks well (this includes the link), i will be much much much more likely to vote for them. I lean towards weighing the hypothetical implementation of the affirmative vs a competetive alternative very highly, but this is not unwinnable.
K AFFS/ FW
fun fact about me: i read and defended a planless aff for exactly 3 rounds during my highschool career and lost all three of those rounds, so please do not consider me an expert in the realm of planless/kritikal affirmatives. this does not mean, however, that i am against this style of debate. when debating I have gone for fw every time against a k aff except once, so I understand that offense against it the most. just being honest, i do think policy debate should be rooted in some form of policy or action, so i inherently lean towards frameworky type args, but I can and will vote for K affs, given that I understand them.
if your strat as a non traditional aff is "C/i - the USFG = the people" im not the judge for you. You will lose this arg 99% of the time in front of me
Overall, I am fairly policy oriented, but like the k when read/explained well
any questions be sure to email (it is at the top) me or ask me before the round - i am an open book and will tell you preferences that i have
she/they
northside '24 - 1A/2N ./ university of michigan '28 (not debating)
please put my email on all chains (kinseydebates@gmail.com)
if you are quickly skimming paradigms b/c prefs are do in twenty minutes: yes, I went to the TOC and did policy in hs, no i don't think k-affs are the root of all evil but framework is a good argument in the rare instance that is it is run well, do what you want!
**2024 note: I have judged very few debates on this topic and did not work at a camp this summer so please explain your acronyms and do not rely on me to infer topic norms if you are going for topicality.
Top Level Takes
- racism, sexism, homophobia, etc will be voted down, lowest speaks, and I will contact your coach (don't do this!)
- tech > truth, sorry libs :0
- please flow. if you ask "what did you read" in cx or answer an off in the 2AC that was not read in the 1NC I will scream.
- do not read death good (and do not argue with me about why you should be allowed to read death good)
- condo is debatable asf. my partner used to read at least 8-10 off in every 1NC but I am also persuaded by arguments that it is probably evil and bad for debate skills writ large. that said, if you go for condo (undropped) when you are winning substance i will be sad.
- explain why dropped args matter or I will not care.
- impact calc is beautiful
- my face will make it very obvious whether or not you are making sense; adjust accordingly
- I like to think that I am a pretty good flow, but please slow down on theory and huge framework dumps for everyone's sanity.
- ideally I do not have to read 25 cards from each team after the round and determine their evidence quality based on my own biases, explain why your ev is better/matters but don't over-rely on cards, debate is a persuasion activity first and foremost
- write my ballot for me at the top of the 2ar/2nr
DAs
- need good case debating especially in rebuttals to win my ballot
- the more creative the better
- your link story must make sense
CPs
- I love an advantage cp that is strategically crafted to avoid double-binds and das
- process cps have strategic value, but it's difficult for me to buy that it isn't solved by an intrinsic (i.e. other issues) perm unless you relate it to the topic somehow.
- creative perms get good speaks
- shotgunning 20 perms w/ zero explanation does not get good speaks
Ks
- good w/ anything but I have the most experience w/ cap, fem ir, setcol and anti-blackness. if you read high theory stuff you're going to have to do a lot more explanatory work.
- links are offense if you explain them strategically
- don't read ks you don't understand
T
- impact calc of your interpretation's implications is the most important part of the round
- fairness as an impact vs an internal link is something I don't have a concrete opinion on.
- i don't know topic norms for this year so that should not be the hinge of your entire topicality argument.
K-Affs
- do whatever you want and I will try to adapt accordingly, but I am probably not the best judge for a k-aff team in a framework debate. I think the best k-affs have some kind of topic link, but again you do you and I will follow along just make sure to explain your top-level theory and why it certain instances the theory has more value than in-round topic ideals like fairness and education
- k v. k get very messy very quickly but can also be super interesting! make sure to explicitly explain your method of organization/world-building and why it is better than your opponents.
Theory
- down for a theory debate, but if condo is your strategy every time you probably have a bad aff.
- PICs bad, perm theory, condo bad are prob more convincing to me (but perm/pic theory is prob just a reason to reject the team).
- unlikely to vote on agent cps bad, utopian fiat, etc unless explicitly dropped and very well impacted out but that's just me.
- you have to read standards/impacts on condo the first time you read it. "condo bad" is not an argument w/ out impacts and I won't flow it.
hi novices, follow the heade
About me:
- email: 254230@glenbrook225.org
- i go to glenbrook north
- im a junior
if your round starts in 15 minutes: ⏲
- try your best not to drop anything
- i will probably vote for anything you just have to explain it well enough
- dont be mean
- im more policy than kritik but i will listen to anything
- PERSUADE ME, its ok if you dont know what your talking about
- if your reading this your doing the right thing
Speaks:
- if you flow on paper i will give you +.1 speaks if i see them and i approve (ask me before round if you have questions)
- i prefer clarity over speed
- if you somehow put in a joke about these names I will give your +.1 speaks (kirsten kelly, andromeda lifshits, chloe zhu, kenneth paul royer III, henry Keiffer, sofia shaw)
-
29.6-30 - The Best - Everything you could ask for as a judge and more. (Top 5 speaker award)
29-29.5 - Very, Very good - Did everything you could expect as a judge very, very well. (Top 10 speaker award)
28.6-28.9 - Very Good - Did very well as a whole, couple moments of brilliance, but not brilliant throughout.
28.3-28.5 - Good - Better than average. Did most things well. Couple moments of brilliance combined with errors.
28-28.2 - OK - Basic skills, abilities, and expectations met. But, some errors along the way. Very little to separate themselves from others. Clearly prepared, just not clearly ahead of others.
Below 28 - OK, but major errors - Tried hard, but lack some basic skills or didn’t pay close enough attention.
- Below 25
Spectrum:
Policy------------X---------------------------------K
Tech--------------------X--------------------------Truth
Theory (only if you explain why voter)-----X----------------------------------------No theory
Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards
condo good------X------------------------condo bad
States CP good-------X---------------------------States CP bad
Politics DA is a thing----X-------------------------Politics DA not a thing
Longer ev------------------------------X-----------More ev
HS affs must tax-----------------------------X--------HS affs not required to tax
I'm currently a head coach at New Trier Township High School outside of Chicago, IL. I've been at New Trier since 2012. Prior to that I was the director of debate at Cathedral Preparatory School in Erie, PA. I debated at the University of Pittsburgh ('07) and at Cathedral Prep ('03).
Here are some defaults into the way I evaluate arguments. Obviously these are contingent upon the way that arguments are deployed in round. If you win that one of these notions should not be the standard for the debate, I will evaluate it in terms of your argumentation.
*I evaluate the round based on the flow. Technical line by line debating should be prioritized. That's not to say I'm always a "tech over truth" judge. I'm willing to listen to reasonable extrapolations, smart debating, and bringing in some context. However, I don't think I can interpret exactly how an argument in one place should be applied to another portion of the flow/debate unless the debater does that for me. To me, that injects my understanding of how I would spin one argument to answer another and I don't want to do that.
*Offense/Defense - I'm not sure if I'm getting older or if the quality of evidence is getting worse, but I find myself less persuaded by the idea that there's "always a risk" of any argument. Just because a debater says something does not mean it is true. It is up to the other team to disprove it. However, if an argument is claimed to be supported by evidence and the cards do not say what the tags claim or the evidence is terrible, I'm willing to vote on no risk to that argument. Evidence needs to have warrants that support tags/claims.
*I prefer tags that are complete sentences. The proliferation of one word tags mixed with massive card text (often without underlining) reduces the academic integrity of the activity.
*Evidence should be highlighted to include warrants for claims. I am more likely to vote on a few cards that have high quality warrants and explained well than I am to vote on several cards that have been highlighted down to the point that an argument cannot be discerned in the evidence.
* Teams are getting away with some real scholarly shenanigans on evidence. I've seen cards that run 6-7 pages long and they are highlighted down to a few sentences. I think it is up to the debaters to exploit this, but I'm less and less impressed by the overall scholarship in the activity.
*Arguments require claims and warrants. A claim without warrant is unlikely to be persuasive.
* A note on plan texts: start defending things. I find that most plans are extraordinarily vague and meaningless. They are "resolutional phrase by X." There's no plan text basis for the fiat claims AFF teams are making. All of the sudden, that becomes some wild extrapolation on how the plan is implemented, what a Court decision would look like, that it is done through some random memo, etc. all in an effort to avoid offense. I've just grown a little tired of it. I'm not saying change your plan because of me, you need to do what you need to do to win the round, but the overall acceptance of plans that do not say anything of substance is trend a frown upon.
*Performance/Non-traditional Affirmative -
I can still be persuaded to vote for an AFF that doesn't defend the topic, but it's become much harder for me. I find myself being increasingly on the side of defending the resolution.
My old paradigm read as follows: I would prefer that the debate is connected to the resolution. My ultimate preference would be for the Affirmative to defend a topical plan action that attempts to resolve a problem with the status quo. I think that this provides an opportunity for students to create harms that are tied to traditional internal link chains or critical argumentation. Teams should feel free to read critical advantages, but I would prefer that they access them through a topical plan action. For example, reading an Affirmative that finds a specific example of where structural violence (based on racism, sexism, heteronormativity, classism, etc.) is being perpetuated and seeks to remedy that can easily win my ballot. Debaters could then argue that the way that we make decisions about what should or should not be done should prioritize their impacts over the negative's. This can facilitate kritiks of DA impacts, decision calculus arguments, obligations to reject certain forms of violence, etc.
Teams who choose not to defend a topical plan action should be very clear in explaining what their advocacy is. The negative should be able to isolate a stasis point in the 1AC so that clash can occur in the debate. This advocacy should be germane to the resolution.
I am not wedded traditional forms of evidence. I feel that teams can use non-traditional forms of evidence as warrants explaining why a particular action should be taken. An Affirmative that prefers to use personal narratives, music, etc. to explain a harm occurring in the status quo and then uses that evidence to justify a remedy would be more than welcome. I tend to have a problem with Affirmative's that stop short of answering the question, "what should we do?" How a team plans to access that is entirely up to them.
*Kritik debates - I like kritik debates provided they are relevant to the Affirmative. Kritiks that are divorced from the 1AC have a harder time winning my ballot. While I do not want to box in the negative's kritik options, examples of kritiks that I would feel no qualms voting for might include criticisms of international relations, economics, state action, harms representations, or power relations. I am less persuaded by criticisms that operate on the margins of the Affirmative's advocacy. I would prefer links based off of the Affirmative plan. Kritiks that I find myself voting against most often include Deleuze, Baudrillard, Bataille, etc.
*Theory - Generally theory is a reason to reject the argument not the team. The exception is conditionality. I find myself less persuaded by conditionality bad debates if there are 2 or less advocacies in the round. That is not to say I haven't voted for the AFF in those debates. I am willing to vote on theory if it is well explained and impacted, but that does not happen often, so I end up defaulting negative. Avoid blips and theory blocks read at an incomprehensible rate.
*CP's CP's that result in the plan (consult, recommendations, etc.) bore me. I would much rather hear an agent CP, PIC, Advantage CP, etc. than a CP that competes off of "certainty" or "immediacy."
*Case - I'd like to see more of it. This goes for negative teams debating against nontraditional Affirmatives as well. You should engage the case as much as possible.
Other things
*If your strategy is extinction good or death good, genocide good, racism good, patriarchy good, etc. please do all of us as favor and strike me. These arguments strike me as being inappropriate for student environments. Imagine a world where a debater's relative recently passed away and that student is confronted with "death good" for 8 minutes of the 1AC. Imagine a family who fled slaughter in another part of the world and came to the United States, only to listen to genocide good. These are things I wouldn't allow in my classroom and I would not permit them in a debate round either. Since I can't actually prevent people from reading them, my only recourse is to use my ballot.
Glenbrook South 25'
xe/they (they/them is fine)
Call me by my name please, not judge.
email chain -> junioryongdebate@gmail.com
*****
the stuff you really want to know :
- Clash is good, responding to the other teams args is better, doing both earns you a double thumbs up
- Impact calc is appreciated, tell me why you should win, why does your argument matter more than the other teams
- Arguments that you can explain and understand well >>> strange "(not) funny" blocks that your Varsity wrote for you
- Fine judging most arguments, as long as YOU can explain them. This gets a little weird if you're reading something no one knows. It needs to be explained thoroughly only if you want me to vote on it, do not assume I know what you're talking about, especially since we're off-packet now.
- I will adapt to you, debate in the way that is most comfortable to you.
*****
other things that you should also know :
- Don't steal prep, that means when the timer is up, your hands need to be off the device unless you're sending the doc.
- Stand facing me, not the other team when speaking, same during cx
- Speak clearly, your face should not be buried in your screen.
- PLEASE DO NOT GO FASTER THAN YOUR LIMIT. I know some novices like to go fast cause its cool, but no one will understand you, which means I won't either. If I cannot understand or hear you, I will not flow, meaning I will not vote on that arg cause you were unclear.
- Be nice. Yes, be competitive, but we're human.
- Don't make any offense jokes, comments, etc. I do not take homophobia, transphobia, racism etc. lightly and will lower your speaks to the ground.
(if you get me a black milk tea with boba -> +.3 speaks)
She/ her
Nt ‘24
Add me to the chain: sarazareadebate@gmail.com
Toplevel
If you are reading this and do not know how to send out an email chain, now would be a great time to learn
If you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Auto L + lowest possible speaks + contacting your coach
Flow! showing me flows after rounds = extra speaks
Try to make my flow as clean and organized as possible
Give a roadmap before your speech and signpost clearly
Time your own prep, Cx, and speeches
I <3 turns on both sides
Talk during all of your speech time, this is a great way to learn
coming up with your own arguments>>>reading your varsity's blocks
I <3 it when you frame my ballot for me and give overviews at the top of rebuttals
Pronouncing “hegemony” and/ or “democracy” correctly = +0.3 pts
Case:
I <3 case debating when it’s done well
I like it when you extrapolate warrants from your cards, compare them with the opponents’, and compare evidence
DAs:
Do clear line by line
I like impact calculus when it’s under 1 minute and impact turns. Tell me clearly why your impact outweighs and why you turn their impact
If you do ev comparison, tell me why UQ does or does not matter in the context of the round
If you’re neg and go for this, give me a clear internal link story in the rebuttals
Counterplans:
Explain why you're textually and functionally competitive, and why you solve all of case
If you're aff, impact the difference between the plan and the counterplan
Topicality:
Do standards debating comparatively, tell me why your standards outweigh the other teams'
Impact out why the aff specifically is bad or good for debate
Kritiks:
Make your link specific to the aff. reference author names and if you can, rehighlight cards
framework makes the game work
CX:
Tag team is fine
Don’t dominate your partner’s Cx and don’t be rude in general, otherwise I will actively deduct your speaker pts
I like it when you ask card-specific Qs and reference authors
—
Pls ask me if you have any questions or are confused about anything after I give my rfd! Debate is a game, so don't get too stressed; the most important thing is that you have fun and learn. policy debate is an activity to be proud of, win or lose :)