Tabroom.com

Maine East Regatta

2024 — Park Ridge, IL/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Aayan Ali Glenbrook South High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 10:08 AM CDT

Glenbrook South '24

aayanalidebate@gmail.com

Time everything -- speeches, cross ex, prep -- I am not timing for you.

Run whatever you want. Don't care about how many off-case.

The important things here:

Lean slightly NEG in framework debates, but will probably vote aff if the neg doesn’t have good external offense like fairness.
Dropped arguments are true, even if they aren't true in real life, and I'll vote on them.
Reward strategies with deep research with great speaker points.

Theory/topicality:

These debates have an inherent ceiling in terms of how much of your skill they demonstrate. I'm generally receptive to the idea that the never-ending race to the "best for debate" theory interp causes arbitrariness and substance crowd-out.
No strong opinion on the "other issues perm," besides that it's hard to decide a winner if near-evenly debated. Because perm do the CP involves evidence, I prefer that debate.
Theory is a better route than competition for answering most "cheaty" counterplans. This is a controversial take, but if you disagree with me, I implore you to tell me your answer to "nuke China if and only if the plan." I heavily prefer interpretations like "uniform 50 state fiat is bad," or "fiating a non-policy action is bad," over "process CPs bad" or "agent CPs bad."
Default to predictability being the gold standard. It determines what an in-round unfair practice is. Reasonability is not separate from the interps debate nor does it mean T is non-viable. Instead, it’s the impact to predictability, and also reduces the threshold for aff offense on the interp debate.
Evenly debated, I'll probably judge kick, but only if the neg tells me to.
Condo? The number definitely matters. Around 5 or less will always be fine, but it’s hard to tell the aff that they need to prove the aff is a better solution than 15 planks with 30 ways of solving each advantage.

Critiques:

Better for the K on the neg than my high school argument choice may suggest. I don't think it's very hard to defend the 1AC's justifications; state/heg/cap good arguments obliterate most kritiks that boil down to "you did a government."
I'll never create a middle ground framework that the debaters didn't propose. Generally, don't think the middle ground framework makes sense -- a plan's consequences don't trade off with its logic.
Clever permutations and alt theory are underutilized against the cap K. Teams shouldn't have to rejoin "everyone becomes happy communists."
Hard to win "ontological" claims unless there are dropped warrants.

Substance:

The best debates are ones that use more evidence and less unsubstantiated spin.
Default to risk = probability x magnitude.
I care a lot about terminal impacts.
Reverse causality matters. "The IRS is key to democracy" being highlighted in a card doesn't matter if the card doesn't explain why, absent the IRS, democracy wouldn't exist.
I love studying statistics and love debates comparing studies.

Evelyn Alsop Hire 3 rounds

Hafsa Amin Northside College Preparatory 6 rounds

Grant Anderson Northside College Preparatory 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 11:33 AM CDT

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:

Yes put me on the chain: goanderson@cps.edu

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.

FLOW

I've run most args at one point or another. I will be fine with literally whatever, just explain it well.*

Run 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.

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.

Diana Barrientos Von Steuben 6 rounds

Rowan Boyle Jones College Prep 3 rounds

Natalee Burkat Jones College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 10:41 AM CDT

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)

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.

Eunji Carpenter Glenbrook North 3 rounds

Shrutik De Northside College Preparatory 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 2:31 AM CDT

FOR NOVICE STATES: IF YOU DO NOT SEND ANALYTICS IN THE 1NC/2AC, SPEAKS ARE CAPPED AT 28.5. Not sending in the block or 1AR is fine.

shrutikde93@gmail.com

please add: kaylanfdebate@gmail.com

direct all questions and complaints to WayneTang@aol.com

Non-Negotiables:

add me to the email chain or I WILL dock your speaks to 27.1

Kritikal affirmatives will NOT be read in my round--you may NOT express your identity, EVER!

If I ever catch you stealing even a PICOSECOND of prep time, I WILL talk to your coaches and remove you from the tournament. Stealing prep counts as the time is takes to bring your computer to the podium, sending the documents, time it takes for the document to travel through the internet and land in my inbox, and time it takes for my to open the document, download it, and send it to the rest of my team. If you need to use the restroom, I will take prep time. You should have gone before.

Capitalism is GOOD. I will NOT be convinced otherwise. If you even ATTEMPT to spew that PINKO COMMIE LIBERAL GARBAGE I will contact tabroom and remove you under suspicion of espionage.

How I Judge/Prefs:

Pref me a 1 for every kind of debate (I am extrimeley smartt:)

I was born in the royal house of the Riad and therefore have been surrounded by the wonderful works of critical authors such as Wayne Tang, Brian Roche, Cole Weese, Jack Hightower, ZIDAO WANG (ZIDAO ZIDAO ZIDAO ZIDAO), and Trufnananv.

I am very wealthy (as a result of my genius) and have no time to listen to the grievances of debaters who think economic "inequality" (if everyone would just work hard, they would obviously succeed). If all were up to me, I would prefer debate centers around discussions of how to maintain corporate profits (reverse redistribution would be a prime example). But if you must, I will listen to discussions of economic "inequality". My decision will involve a rating of the socioeconomic setting your school is in (the richer the better, of course) and your ability to explain the benefits of capitalism and the unvaiability of nationalization of the means of production. I will also give a decision based on evidence not introduced into the round and arguments I have written down on flows of the past round I have debated in (possibly from my extremely successful novice year under the Criminal Justice topic (I won our impact calc tournament after school)).

Reasonability is possibly the greatest argument ever created (aside from cap good). I am an extremely reasonable person (my notes above reflect this) and generally agree that if the Affirmative defends the word "fiscal", or "money" they are Topical.

After the round I will ask for a document of all pieces of relevant evidence that will influence my decision. I will permit debaters to add evidence not read in the round that helps their position (especially if it is cap good) and I will thoroughly read through it come to myown conclusions based on said evidence (typically will be that cap is good). If I see the words "CNN", "MSNBC", "The Guardian", "New York Times", or another information source that clearly fabricates lies on a daily basis in a speech document with your school's name on it (regardless of if you read said evidence in the round) I will immediately vote you down and report you to tabroom.

I am especially fond of T-Reverse Federalism versus Dispositionality Turns T debates.

I think Topicality debates that boil down to standards about standard deviations are my favorite to judge.

I am extremely intelligent and am able to adjudicate any kind of debate. My favorite debate is AFF CP vs NEG DA, with the CP being the complex 50 states CP and the DA being the Supreme Court Political Capital Tradeoff DA and the Federalism DA.

Speaker Points:

I determine speaker points based on your outside knowledge of real world happenings. This includes your score on a 50 question MCQ about the principles our President Donald Trump stands for that you have 49 minutes to complete, a random number generator from 1-30, the number of letters in your last name, your ability to use Euler's Theorem to calculate the area of a oblate spheroid to then find the size of the apothem of a three dimensional pentagon, and your ability to explain an auxillary theorem in a minimum of 300 words. This all must be done during your final rebuttal or your speaker points will be capped at 27.

As a genius, I have many thoughts from previous topics I feel are relevant and should be archived in more grand settings, but as the Library of Congress has denied my petition, I submit these thoughts to you as the following:

NATO Topic:

I determine speaker points based on your outside knowledge of real world happenings. This includes your score on a 50 question MCQ about all articles of the North Atlantic Treaty that you have 49 minutes to complete, a random number generator from 1-30, the number of letters in your last name, your ability to use Euler's Theorem to calculate the area of a oblate spheroid to then find the size of the apothem of a three dimensional pentagon, and your ability to explain an auxillary theorem in a minimum of 300 words. This all must be done during your final rebuttal or your speaker points will be capped at 27.

Pursuant to Article 21 of the North Atlantic Treety (novices, it would behove you to memorize the text of every treaty of NATO as that will be very relevant for your speaker points), I will quickly give a decision based on evidence not introduced into the round and arguments I have written down on flows of the past round I have debated in (possibly from the Criminal Justice topic).

Lukas Flynn Jones College Prep 3 rounds

Alexis Garvey Von Steuben 6 rounds

Leah Goldberg Glenbrook North 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 2, 2024 at 4:57 PM CDT

GBN '24

leah.debate@gmail.com

I don't think this paradigm will provide you with any relevant insights. Within reason, just debate what you want to debate.

If you care, these are the most important things to keep in mind:

1. Be a good human

2. Flow

3. Tech > truth, but the burden for a full argument is a claim + warrant

4. Debate is a persuasive and communicative activity. At the very least, pretend like you care

5. Do impact comparison

6. I would rather you reason out why their argument is wrong than read blocks you don't understand

Specific thoughts if you're still reading:

DAs:

- This topic has great core disads with expansive lit bases and links to every aff - you can impress me by knowing more about the aff than they do

CPs:

- The existence of actual disads means I have a slightly higher bar for a legitimate CP, but I'm fine with anything you can justify on the flow

- I am getting increasingly frustrated by internal net benefits with ridiculous spillover claims not about the CP - you can likely beat these with analytical pushes

- Paint a picture of your vision of the topic.

- Absent an argument explaining otherwise, I think predictability is the most important internal link because a topic with arbitrary limits is functionally unlimited.

- Might be a hot take but I actually find the T taxes controversy pretty interesting. That being said, I think teams are getting away with making broad, exaggerated claims on both sides of the debate. Just saying "states CP" or "econ DA" isn't an argument.

Ks:

- Without other instruction, I will weigh the world of the aff against the world of the alt by comparing the consequences of each scenario

- If you read anything more complex than cap/security/generic topic ks, you need to be particularly explicit in judge instruction, but that should be true regardless

- In debates with more material alts, the "perm double bind" is often compelling. The less that argument makes sense, the more likely I am to wonder about the value of the neg's framework interp

Theory:

- Everything except condo and maybe 2nc CPs are reasons to reject the argument

- Condo is probably good, but it becomes more questionable when the neg can kick planks or combine separate cps

Jennifer Hernandez New Trier High School 6 rounds

Daniel Heylin Goode STEM Academy 3 rounds

Syed Khaden Hire 6 rounds

Samreen Khan Niles North High School 2 rounds None

Alexandra Lorence Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 14, 2024 at 4:46 AM CDT

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 Marie Lorence Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 14, 2024 at 5:22 AM CDT

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

Devon McSager Kenwood Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 20, 2024 at 12:46 PM CDT

Debate Experience
I've never debated

Coaching Experience
Kenwood Academy- Chicago, IL 2014-present
*My main focus is coaching and supporting the novices (and ordering the bus). If you're planning to run a strategy far outside something that a generic novice would be able to understand I likely won't either... (okay, maybe that is cutting myself a little short- but truthfully ...)

drmcbride@cps.edu

I try to enter the debate as neutral and open as possible. 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).

K- I enjoy K debates as long as the NEG really understands their advocacy and their alt. If you can't explain it you likely can't defend it well.

DA- cool.

CP- also cool. nothing big to note here. (I'm a little boring and I like a CP to be paired with a clear DA)

please run your own timer

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 Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 10:13 AM EDT

Emma Mitic, she/her

Maine East '25

Add me to the email chain: emitic@s207.org

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 immediate L and low speaks.

Don't clip cards, please

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. stealing prep will make you lose speaks. 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. 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 im happy to answer them. If im 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 pls

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. Im not 100% familiar w the topic and all its terms yet so explaining terms or interps is never a bad idea. ur interp needs to make logical sense at least a little bit.

Natalie Nguyen Von Steuben 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 25, 2024 at 10:34 AM CDT

i'm natalie nguyen ^_^ (von steuben msc '24 yayyyyy)

she/ her pronouns

hard of hearing (please speak up during speeches and cx)

email for email chains & reaching out: ntnguyen4@cps.edu

current varsity debater & head captain at von steuben, was a stand-in coach during '22-'23 season

current treasurer & ambassador of the debater leader council (dlc) for blue/ silver

debating policy for ~ 3-4 years, judging for ~4 years mostly middle school (all divs) & high school (rookie & novice)

feel free to say hi or just chat with me! i'll have stickers if you do so :^)

talk to me about debating at von!

my baseline rules/ things i do:

> any type of bigotry (absolutely not acceptable; auto-loss, no speaker points, will be reporting you)

> being rude to either judge(s) or the opposing team (speaker points docked off)

> i'll ask if you need to be timed (i'll still time on my end anyway lol). i'm pretty punctual on speech times, so i will cut you off if time is up.

> i give feedback to both sides (general feedback + team specific feedback).

argument preferences :

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.

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. please explain them clearly if you are running it. for process cps, i hate them (especially concon don't run that).

t: not the biggest t fan. run it if need be, but i probably will not vote on it unless it has weight in the round.

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.

framework: honestly not really the best at fw! please explain it thoroughly.

specifics off the top of my head:

> i genuinely cannot control my face so if i make a weird face please ignore me

> never say "my roadmap is 3 off & case". just tell me what the off is.

> if you're running multiple off with different worlds & such, please be clear about them!

> love good loophole cx questions! please utilize them to your best extent!

> also love good/ bad for education args.

> aff, if you guys didn't read a plan text & the neg called you out in a speech, then it's an auto-win for the neg. the neg does need to be really in my face about it though for me to count it as a voter. if the dropped plan text isn't mentioned at all, then i will not vote on it.

> piggybacking off of the last point, dropped ADVs or dropped arguments of any sort need to be mentioned in the following speech. be in my face about it. if it's not mentioned at all, i will not consider it as a voter.

Santiago Padilla Solorio Academy High School 6 rounds None

Ramon Rodriguez Thomas Kelly College Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 11:00 AM CDT

Put me on the email chain -- rrodebate@gmail.com

General Notes:

• Fiscal Redistribution topic -- Judged a decent amount by now.
• 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.

Fiscal Redistribution Topic Thoughts:

Just thoughts I've had while judging this topic:

• Neg ground is trash.
• Cap K :D
• SetCol can cook!!!!!
• Firm believer that Single Payer is not topical.
• This Governmentality K is.... interesting........
• Degrowth job guarantees -- ._. say that again.

Tarun Shah Lane Tech College Prep H.S. 6 rounds

Hina Shehzad Niles West High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 27, 2024 at 5:14 PM CDT

Please add me to the email chain: hinashehzaddebate@gmail.com

Niles West '23

Michigan State '27

Last Update - 1.22.24

**TLDR**

I will try to not let my beliefs influence me, that being said I will not tolerate any offensive acts (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc). You will lose automatically, be given the lowest speak points and I will email coaches/school. Now that is out of the way, you should do what you do best. Most important things are keeping the round organized, show your knowledge about the topic not just read blocks. Arguments need warrants behind them, inserting top level claims even if its dropped is NOT a full argument. I am not as familiar with the highschool topic, so clear explanation, no weird acronyms will be appreciated. Last but not least, debate is suppose to be an activity where you have fun, yes competitive incentives exist but don't let that be the only thing you get out of debate.

**Specific Args**

Kritik:

I enjoy these debates when there is clash between arguments. I believe that 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. 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.

Framework:

I think that I am better for framework than most people may think, but Impact articulation matters for me cause 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 probably overdetermine actions but like 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.

Topicality:

I am not very familiar with topicality on the highschool 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. I honestly think aff ground is probably a good impact specifically on this topic.

Disadvantage:

Yay I actually like DA and Case debates, comparison and organization is super important in these rounds. High Schoolers read literally horrible DAs that they will never go for, don't be afraid to straight turn them. Rehighlightings prob are good.

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 and truly solves the affirmative. 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.

**Miscellaneous**

I am willing to vote on theory, but I dont want to vote on aspec.

Condo is good!

I feel like clipping is a weird issue to resolve, like its weird to record someone without their permission? But if I catch you clipping I wont record but you will probably lose.

Tbh I lowkey 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. Teams also need to be giving more pen time between flows.

I feel like debate can change your subject formation, like you spend so much time in the activity, you make such close friends, spend hours researching and more. Like it is true debaters read things they don't agree with, but it is also true that debate is a unique place because its not like you are just out doing strategic debating and talking about things like IR with like your aunt or school friends. Also like I truly don't think you can look some of these judges who have spent their whole lives on debate and say that debate hasn't shaped them into the person they are now.

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.

Feel free to post round if you don't agree with my decision. I am happy to discuss it!

Pin by Julie Reed on Sassy Frog | Frog quotes, Frog pictures, Cute frogs

Daniela Silvio Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 7:59 AM EDT

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.
Feel free to call me judge, or Daniela, 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 reasonability.
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 andexplain why being topical matters.Don't only say "Fairness and Education" those are just words, you need to explain what that means andwhy it's importantto 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'sproperly 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.

Matthew Sturt Niles North High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 13, 2024 at 1:46 PM EDT

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.

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

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

Kinsey Weisenberger Northside College Preparatory 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 7:30 AM CDT

kinseydebates@gmail.com

Hey Jake (LEE)
I made one phone call
I got the same house as you
Same cars, too
It's really not that hard
Oh hey, by the way, welcome to the top little brother
Feels good, huh?
But let's not forget how you got here
(YAH-YEET)

Little brother Jakey try to roast me? (what?)
Little brother standing on his own two feet?
(not for long)
I'm a dog, you're a puppy, call you Kong
Let's talk about your garbage that you call a song
It should be every other day, just some strong advice
I made you famous once, it's about to happen twice
Yeah, you on Disney, but who helped you read all your lines (that's me)
Don't forget boy, you were my shadow on Vine
Now you got a few subscribers, and you think that you're the shiz
I'll admit, you got money, you got bars, you got chicks
But you're a d***
You ain't thankful for your fans, it's kinda funny
Do your investors know Team 10 ain't making any money?
See, it starts with the talent, but it's hard when you got none
I think you kinda salty 'cause I'm the favorite son
I'm a maverick, you're a sidekick, yeah I brought you to LA
If there's one thing you should know
You don't frick with the Logang

Hold up, Ima throw up
Looking at your face you don't know what it means to glow up
Trying to dance and acting class
It's doing nothing now you try to rap
(come on, hold up)
Catch the flow, you can't, oh no
Maybe Team 10's got it
I mean, that's how you grow
But you still can't sell out any shows
No, you still can't find some matching clothes
(YAH-YEET)

You're just killing the vibe, fact
You ain't doing it right, double fact
Trying to play ball with the dogs
You don't know what you've done you just ruined your life, yeah
You're just killing the vibe, yeah
You ain't doing it right, yeah
Trying to play ball with the dogs
You don't know what you've done you just ruined your life, yeah

What happened, Jake?
Man, we used to love each other
After all, we came from the same mother
Biologically, you know that makes us brothers
So much negativity, it really makes me wonder (why?)
I feel like you just need a maverick shirt
(Link in description!)
When you insult me Jakey, it really hurts
Sometimes I wish my real brother was Dirk
(Disney!)
But now I gotta go and put you in the dirt

Yo, wait what?
hold up, hold up
Why'd the music stop?

Uh Oh! That's Alissa Violet
Used to be your chick
Now she in the Logang
And you know she on my, team!

Those cars ain't yours man
That shiz was just floated
Gun tattooed on your leg
'Cause she knew you weren't loaded

I act movies that your fans watch with their baby sitters
I thought you were my boy, guess I have a baby sister
You're tryna, be a model shoulda, kept nells visser
Go make another video, 'bout who's the better kisser

Is it called Team 10, cuz you take 10 percent of your friends? (That's fucked up, Jake)
When the contract dies, so does their carrer it ends? (That's also a fact)
Are you mad just 'cause you couldn't sign the Dolans? (They're smarter than you)
So you had to replace them with some spanish twins? (haha WEAK !!)

It's every day bro, do you give up at night?
We 24/7 man, you picked the wrong fight
I'm a savage
You are average
I'm a beast
I'm going wild
This song will be the death of you
I'm 'bout to be an only child!

Ruby Werber Glenbrook North 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2024 at 12:09 PM EDT

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

David Weston New Trier High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 3:19 AM CDT

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 that 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 prove that. 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 makes 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.

Junior Yong Glenbrook South High School 2 rounds

James Yu Univ Of Chicago Lab School 6 rounds

Sara Zarea New Trier High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 12:34 PM CDT

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 :)

Login to Tabroom

Maine East Regatta

2024 — Park Ridge, IL/US

Novice Policy Paradigm List

Judges