Tabroom.com

North Shore Debate Series 1

2023 — Northbrook, IL/US

Novice Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Aayan Ali Glenbrook South High School

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 1:56 PM EST

Georgetown '28

Glenbrook South '24

aayanalidebate@gmail.com

gbsdebate2024@gmail.com

^^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 reneg: 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 three 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.

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.

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: 2-1 Neg

Aff vs K: 1-0 Aff

Omar Ansari Niles West High School

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 10:32 AM EST

https://debate.msu.edu/about-msu-debate/

omar - he/him -

Michigan State (MSU ‘28) [Philosophy Pre-Law]

Niles West (nw '24)

currently doin debate @ MSU, debated in HS as well

Chicago Illinois => Skokie Illinois => East Lansing Michigan

chain:

[omaransaridebate@gmail.com ]

from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free

top level:

don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

do what you're good at

you are responsible for what you say in-round

keep track of your own speech and prep time, idk why i have to say this but yea

explain topic terminology i am not versed in the high school topic lit at ALL

i have a resting grumpy face it’s not because of you

things i will not vote on - death good, heg good, malthus

PREFS:

1- KvK

2- KvPolicy

3- PolicyvK

4-[] - Policy v Policy

^caveat --- this does not necessarily mean adapting, I'd much rather judge a decent/good Policy v Policy debate than a bad KvK debate, so [again] do what you're good at

_______________________________________

extra:

judge intervention is bad - i will try to evaluate the arguments the debaters have made thru their framing as per the flow, and if non-existent i probably default to an offense-defense paradigm

- i go by the flow and will probably not be following along with your speech document, i may request a card doc sometimes but i prefer not to read much ev after round

if i look like i can't hear you, i can't hear you. speak up!

i enjoy fast, tech-y debates where teams are adequately engaging with each other's evidence and arguments - don't underutilize things like cross ex and rehighlights

primarily a K debater but i've read policy aff, K affs, gone 1 off, gone 6 off, etc., etc..tldr i've gone for the K and also done policy land means you do not need to "adapt" but this does not mean you don't need to do judge instruction and LBL (or at least cleaning up the flow) Lol

primarily am a 1a/2n but i double 2'd a decent chunk my HS senior year if that helps with anything(?)

- 2a at heart

lean neg on most questions of theory, maybe slightly aff on process competition, DA's - link debate is super important should have a well-developed link story, I am a sucker for a good Disad + Case 2NR, CPs are cool no like innovative thoughts here lmfao just do yourcompetition well, PTX is gas love going for it but make it extra clean for me

K-links to the plan are nice but not super necessary, Alts need not resolve the link if they can avoid it and/or solve the aff, you don't need an alt to win but you need framework tools+telling me what do to with their alt offense when not going for it,FW - have only debated on the aff side of this but I'm probably better for FW than you think, but “ fairness paradox” is not a real argument if you’re going for fairness plz don’t be like it’s an impact because of like flowing and speech times like brother…., clash may be more persuasive in front of me because winning a fairness as an impact means winning maintaining debate as it currently is is good., KvK - Not sure to what extent this rly exists in high school, but do your thing! I'm 100% down for these, have been in the room and in very high quality debates between things like Moten and Harney vs Post-colonial/Settler Colonial studies, M&H vs Pessimism debates, etc., etc. I think knowing your case is supremely important in these debates (and for the neg vice versa). Perms can be kinda fake in some of these debates, but that does not mean that you shouldn't go for them. A reason I like these rounds is because I feel more qualified than in many other rounds to adjudicate these so if this is your thing go for it, but if it isn't, don't decide to solely based off of my paradigm.

"You can insert re-highlightings. You have to explain the arg and the implication for me to evaluate it. e.g. "Alt causes - inserting" is not a complete arg, but "Alt causes - x, y, z, proves the scenario is inevitable - inserting" is a complete argument. As someone who values high quality research and has a disdain for the proliferation of bad cards highlighted to say what you want it to say, inserting re-highlightings is a good backstop for the proliferation of bad cards. I agree with the sentiment of people who are anti-insertion because debate is a communicative activity, which is why I believe you still have to communicate the argument that you think the rehighlighting proves. If you are having a problem with teams spamming re-highlightings, maybe you need better cards..." - stolen from Tony Miklovis' paradigm

"[For high school] Asking for a marked doc means that cards were marked, not that they didn't get to every card in the doc. If you want to ask which cards were read, you need to run cross-x or prep." - stolen from Ryan Cavanaugh's

please think through your arguments, I don't want a 1NC with the Cap K and Growth good Disads or other blatantly contradictory arguments

this is more for the debaters' sake but please disclose on your wiki, it really isn't that hard

for paradigmatic / argumentative influence, Alden Conner is who taught me how to do K debate and policy-stuff was more of a amalgamated mix of folks!

another thought is just don't be a terrible person, it's weird to read critical arguments about settler colonialism/racialization etc. and then outside of the context of a debate round say and do nothing about Palestine. good/bad faith will not be something I take into consideration during my RFD as I only adjudicate stuff that happens in round, but I've seen and known too many people in HS K debate who pretend to gaf abt certain issues & things and IRL don't. you are morally bankrupt and you need to reflect on both your subject position and the implications that sort of pornotroping has on yourself and others.

feel free to give me a music recc after round music is great

+0.2 for redbull

if you're a novice don't sweat a thing, this year is meant for learning!! always feel free to ask any questions after the round and i'll answer to the best of my ability

Evan Blitz Glenbrook South High School

AJ Byrne New Trier High School

Last changed on Mon November 18, 2024 at 4:59 PM CST

ajbyrne1018(at)gmail.com

New Trier ‘16

Northwestern '19

Coach at New Trier: 2016-2019, 2023-Present

I also help out Northwestern when I can.

DEBATES NEED TO START ON TIME PLEASE!

DEBATE IS A GAME OF IMPLICATIONS AND VOTING THRESHOLDS - THE TEAM THAT IS TELLING THE MOST COHERENT STORY WINS 99 OUT OF 100 TIMES

Tech>Truth because otherwise why would I flow but I am far more Truth oriented than other judges - You should be cutting good cards and reading good arguments.

A "good" argument can be pretty much anything (except for ASPEC, Conditions CPs, and Animal Wipeout).

IN SHORT: Policy vs Policy is my background but I have judged many clash debates over the years.

That being said, I do not enjoy judging big framework debates - I find these debates almost always nearly impossible to resolve in any way I find satisfying.

IMPORTANT: I am finding myself desperately fighting for pen time lately. Please keep in mind that I am a human being constrained by how fast I physically can put pen to paper. I am not a clairvoyant super robot who is going to transcribe perfectly every word you say.

Background: I debated at New Trier for four years (2x TOC qualifier) and then at Northwestern for three years. In the "real world" I am pursuing my MEd in School Counseling from Loyola University Chicago.

I value debaters that show enthusiasm, passion, and respect for the game. I am eager to reward preparation, good research, and debaters WHO DO NOT FLOW OFF THE SPEECH DOC. I have nothing but contempt for debaters who disrespect the game, their opponents, or (most importantly) their partners.

Debate will never be the correct forum for the mediation of interpersonal conflicts - if you disagree with this statement you need to strike me.

Debate is a communication activity. I am not flowing off the speech doc and will not reward a lack of clarity or debaters who think it is a good idea to go 100% speed through their analytic blocks. I will be very lenient for teams that are on the opposing end of such practices.

Fairness probably matters - affs that have no plan should probably have a good connection to the topic

I am bad for the neg when it comes to T - I am pretty much downright hack for predictability and reasonability - neg teams often read incoherent cards and do zero impact calculus and should be punished for it. T-Subsets is an argument I strongly consider to be intellectually dishonest.

I’m not voting for ASPEC- it has to be clearly labeled in the 1NC and then dropped by the 2AC for me to even begin to think about voting neg on it. Even then I probably still won’t vote on it.

Default is no judge kick– I need specific 2NR instruction for me to do that for you. “Sufficiency framing” is not the same as judge kick.

Process CPs are fine-ish (except Conditions I mean c’mon). I like theory debates and the degree to which I lean negative on CP competition/theory absolutely depends on the germaneness to the topic. Consult Japan on a Nukes/Military topic? seems pretty good to me! Showing up to a domestic topic with an international actor CP? Try Again.
I like Perm do the CP more than the Intrinsic Perm - I get why it is a big thing now - however I think it gets the aff into a sticky position where they now need to now win a certainty debate for their own perm instead of taking the (in my opinion) much easier route of pointing out that a CP is not competitive.

Pretty high threshold for ever considering a 1AR argument "too new"

Even higher threshold for ever considering a cross-application unpredictable - kick out of things correctly.

Zero risk of the DA is real, zero risking a DA without needing to read evidence is possible.

Plan Popular is not an argument that link turns an agenda DA.

Not all impacts are equal - I am convinced that impacts like Warming or US-China war deserve carded responses. I am much less convinced that impacts such as Super Volcanos or Nanomachines deserve the same treatment

I'm probably not going to vote for Animal Wipeout

I really like the K but if your Kritik is just the framework process CP I don't think you will have much success in front of me.I need one or both of these things to be true in order to vote neg on the K: 1. I am skeptical of the aff's ability to solve their internal links and/or 2. I am reasonably confident that the alternative can resolve the aff's internal links

Bring back the ethics impact! Ks these days have too many extinction impacts.

If you talk to the other team while they are prepping for their final rebuttals - I am taking away a full speaker point

Eunji Carpenter Glenbrook North

Dylan Chikko Niles North High School

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 7:11 AM CST

2/18/2024 update...please read - i am now several years removed from the point when i was actively involved in debate and kept up with the topic. i judge a combined total of around 20 policy/ld debates per season. my exposure to the topic starts and ends with each debate that i judge. my knowledge of the topic on any given season is essentially nonexistent, and my knowledge of post-2018 debate in general is probably diminishing with time. i wouldn't call myself a lay judge by any means, but a few steps above. the safest way to win a debate in front of me is to slow down (not to the point where you aren’t spreading at all, but still a bit more slow than you’d normally speak), and focus on the quality of arguments over quantity. pick a few arguments to explain in depth as opposed to having lots that aren't explained well. line-by-line in the style of "they say...but we say..." will also get you a long way with me...overviews/"embedded clash"...not so much...you can feel free to scrap your pre-written overviews entirely with me. if you want the decision in a debate to come down to the quality of evidence, please make that clear in your speeches because i won't do that on my own (i don't usually open the speech docs anymore, nor do i flow author names/card dates. keeping that in mind, statements like “extend the chikko evidence” with no elaboration whatsoever are meaningless to me, as i won’t have any idea what that specific evidence says without an explanation). i won't vote on arguments that i don't understand, miss because of speed/lack of clarity, etc. - i have voted against teams in the past because they went for arguments that i either couldn’t flow or couldn’t understand, even if they may have “won” those arguments if i’d had them on my flows. attached below is my old paradigm, last updated around mid-2019. it is all still applicable…

my old paradigm:

Happy new year.

Add me to the email chain: dylanchikko@gmail.com

I don't time anything. Not prep time, not speeches, nothing. If no one is timing your speech and I notice in the middle of it, I'll make you stop whenever I think the right amount of time has passed. The same is true for prep time.

I have no opinions on arguments. I know nothing about the topic whatsoever outside of the rounds I judge. I don't do research and don't cut cards. I'll vote for anything as long as it's grounded in basic reality and not blatantly offensive. Speak slightly less quick with me than you usually would. I'm 60/40 better for policy-oriented debating (just because of my background knowledge, not ideological preference). But I'll vote for anything if it's done well. My biggest pet peeve is inefficiency/wasting time. Please direct all complaints to nathanglancy124@gmail.com. I’m sure he’d love to hear them. Have fun and be nice to your opponents/partner/me.

I'm an Assyrian. A big portion of my life/career as an educator consists of addressing and supporting Assyrian student needs. That influences my thoughts on a lot of real-life topics that regularly end up in debates. That's especially true for debates about foreign policy and equity. So do your research and be mindful of that.

Don't say/do anything in front of me that you wouldn't say/do in front of your teacher.

Feel free to ask me before the round if you have questions about anything.

Winston Chu Glenbrook South High School

Alden Conner Niles West High School

Kylan Elliott Glenbrook North

Last changed on Sat November 2, 2024 at 9:58 AM CST

General Info

Kylan (pronounced KAI-LINN.) If you’re not sure how to pronounce it just call me Judge.

Put me on the email chain - @gbneldb8@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her

I am a freshman at Loyola University Chicago and compete in British Parliamentary debate, but I debated policy for 3 years. I am not familiar at all with the current topic so please explain your arguments in detail.

2A/1N

Don’t be an ist or a phobic or you will be receiving a fat L, the lowest speaks, and an email to your coach.

Tech > Truth

Make me laugh in a speech = +.1 speaks for every time

Don’t make new arguments in the final rebuttals, I’m not evaluating them

I do flow while looking at the doc but I will be listening to what you say. Still, try to be as clear as possible. I’m cool with speed but if someone in the round wants to have a no-spreading round for something they can’t control, you should do one. If you don’t send analytics and you’re speeding through blocks, I will flow what I hear. If I don’t get something important, that’s your fault.

Send analytics for higher speaks

I’m fine with wipeout, death good, spark, but if you’re going to read those PLEASE consult with the other team first.

I am fine to judge policy or Ks. I am familiar with security, cap, set col, queer theory, and some psycho + baudrillard. However you should still be adequately explaining everything during the round, especially if you’re doing some high theory jargon.

I have a lot of opinions on debate and specific arguments, but I leave those at home when I go to judge. I will vote on almost any argument if it's warranted out/explained properly. Do whatever you're comfortable with, just explain things and we'll all have a good time

I will vote on hidden aspec but it will significantly lower your speaks.

I think speaker points are arbitrary and honestly kinda cringe. I'd say my average is around a 28.5. I probably won't give you a 30 unless you absolutely knock my socks off, or you win an argument saying why I should give you a 30. My typical lowest speaks for debaters is 27.5, but 25s (or whatever's the lowest the tourney will allow) will be given if you are being actively harmful.

Conclusion/TLDR -

Don’t be a bad person and you’ll probably be fine. Explain things. Try to be funny and enjoy yourself!! Debate is so competitive and stressful nowadays and having fun should be prioritized way more than it is. Happy debating!

"Flow" - Michael Greenstein

"If I get to tell you who won right after the round, I invite you to ask questions on my decisions, respectfully disagree and tell me I'm a fool, and/or schedule an appointment to catch these hands." - Owen Crouch

Leah Goldberg Glenbrook North

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

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.

Ks:

Neither side should assume that I am familiar with the literature you are reading. That’s partially because I probably am not and partially because of my above comment about claims and warrants.
I think about Ks differing from DA/CP strategies in that they set a different threshold for what types of links can generate competition. The purpose of framework is to set that threshold.
I will never conclude that framework is a “wash.” The winning interpretation will determine how I evaluate the debate.

Planless affs:

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.
I am generally less persuaded by aff strategies vs T that rely on counter-interpretations intending to solve a meaningful portion of neg offense. I am more persuaded by affs that try to impact turn.
The neg should explain what its impacts actually mean. “Fairness” or “clash” are usually just secret internal links to some version of either topic education or skills.

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.”

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.

Isa Harrison New Trier High School

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 9:12 AM CST

Isa Harrison (she/her), I debated for NT 4 yr, now freshman on Macalester team

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

don't do or say anything racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, or problematic, if you do you will lose and I will tell your coach

Tech>truth

I have not looked into the arguments on the highschool policy debate topic I have very little experience judging the IPR topic please don't assume I know what you are saying.

To get high speaks:

1. At the top of the 2nr and 2ar you should give me an overview of why you win the debate

2. Organize your speech by argument

3. In the rebuttals do impact calc (tell me why your impact is better/worse than theirs)

4. Be funny, but not too funny (very small margin for error)

Ask me any questions about the round after!

All the stuff below is just my thoughts on debate which I will ignore if you are winning on a technical level

CPs:

I'll assume judge kick unless argued otherwise, Condo is probably good. If you kick it theory goes away unless it’s condo.

(Process cps)

I don’t love process cps but I will vote for you if you win lol

I love intrinsic perms, I think the neg's best defense is proving their cp is germane to the aff (the process is a key consideration needed for the success of the aff, cards that say the aff needs to be done through the process to specifically promote the process)

I think the lie perm is underutilized against consult type process cps, nobody actually has cards about "genuinity."

I think process cps bad makes sense especially if you point out how the neg is avoiding the case debate and explain how that’s a bad model for debate. But the intrinsic perm is much better.

(pics)

I love pics, they probably aren’t bad. Affs should have offense or key warrents off of every aspect of the plan.

(adv cps)

I love adv cps, new 2ac addons justify new 2nc planks. Explain your planks well, sufficiency framing, and the link to the nb and you’ve got a goated neg strat

Precision determines the predictability, predictable limits > fair limits

I love plan text in a vacuum on the aff, the neg needs a counter interp or I assume the worst. I think more neg teams should go for presumption against ptv when applicable; if their solvency ev says the untopical thing then ptv flows neg.

T comes before theory

Ks:

I ran a few ks (cap, fem ir, biopolitics) but I was never that good at it. I will not vote on something I can’t understand at all but I will try my best to read your stuff and evaluate fairly. I want both teams to instruct me to explain how I should evaluate the debate if they win framework in the context of the neg's links, the perm, and the alt.

K affs:

I don’t like kaffs, especially when it is not obvious what argument the neg could make that would actually negate the aff on a case level.

T-USFG is a true argument so the aff has got to be extremely technical to win. If I don’t know what voting aff means I will vote neg.

I am very convinced by switch side debate, a TVA, or presumption to vote neg.

Nathan Heftman New Trier High School

Last changed on Sun October 20, 2024 at 5:25 AM CST

Email: nheftman@gmail.com

New Trier 25'

He/him

I will try to be as tech over truth as possible, and I will evaluate the round as such. Exceptions are listed below.

Please do not be mean in the round, don’t physically touch/attack your opponents, don’t use slurs against your opponents, don't clip, generally be friendly people. I will not vote on Racism Good or Death Good, and reading them will result in minimum speaks and an automatic loss, as will doing any of the other actions listed previously in this paragraph.

Topic Thoughts:This topic is pretty complex and if I am judging you on it, that means you're a novice. In that case, pls just do your best, take time to understand the arguments, and pay attention to the internal links you're reading.

Policy:

Case: On the aff, please know your aff. Especially for the 2AC and 1AR, being able to quickly know what arguments and cards you can field against miscellaneous case arguments both improves your ethos and your time efficiency. Ideally, every part of your affirmative has a strategic use later on in the debate, and knowing how to use your affirmative can be hugely helpful. On the negative, if you know your opponent’s aff better than they do, good on you, you’ll probably be getting good speaks this round if you can translate that into success. Aff specific strategies and arguments are very snazzy too.

Counterplans: All good. For competition make sure to keep your standards clear, I will be more sympathetic to a partially intrinsic perm if the counterplan isn't specific to the aff.

Disadvantages: There isn’t much to say. I like them. They’re pretty cool. Explain your links, explain your internal links. Do impact calculus. The more specific your links/the DA as a whole is to the affirmative, the better.

Kritiks: I default to the judge weighing the desirability of the aff or a permutation vs a competitive alternative, but I am open to any other framework that’s debated well. I have done a good deal of debating with the Capitalism K, some with the Psychoanalysis K and Security K, and I probably have a half decent grasp of most other things as well like SetCol, Biopolitics, etc. If you want to read high theory/pull a snazzy K trick, please articulate it well. Floating PIK’s are fine, but will make me sad and probably lead to low speaks.

Kritikal Aff’s: I’m not a “no plan you lose” judge, but I’m probably not the best person to have in the back if you’re reading a K Aff. I’m fairly amenable to most K’s but I have done a lot more policy than K debating. If you get me as your judge, please explain things clearly for both sides, especially if it’s K vs K. Check the section about kritiks for my knowledge of the literature. I’m definitely not the best person to pref if you’ve got a tournament that’s good for K’s, but I for sure like to think I’m not the worst.

Topicality: You need to explain and compare your standards and impact for topicality as you would for impact calculus. Plan Text in a Vacuum is not a magic wand you can wave at the negative to make their topicality argument go away, it’s a real argument. I will vote on it, but you actually need to warrant it out like you would any other interp.

Theory: I will vote on any theory that is debated well enough (Something dumb like A-Z Spec has a very high threshold for being debated well, if you want to go for it, have fun, but know what you’re doing.) If the theory argument IS something silly like Neg Fiat Bad, I’m much more likely to be ok with short responses and new answers if it is blown up later. Standards shouldn’t just be whining, you should articulate your theory standards very clearly, along with all other parts of your argument, as you would with any other. I will give you the ballot on these arguments but unless I genuinely believe the other team has done something abusive, you will probably be getting very low speaks. I default to weighing topicality/neg theory over aff theory, a word from the neg on this will probably cement that point if it comes down to it. For conditionality, infinite condo is good unless debated otherwise.

Cross: Please be chill in cross, it’s totally alright to be intense and a little combative, especially in an activity like debate, but it reflects bad on everyone when there’s unnecessary conflict in cross. If you ask your opponent a question, don’t immediately interrupt them, and conversely, don’t keep talking if your opponent wants to ask another question. I will lower speaks for both of these actions. Asking “what cards did you read” and the like will count as cross time, and I will start the timer if you ask a question of this variety. Sending out a marked copy before cross is alright, but you better be using the benefits you get from those and talking about their ev.

Novice Policy:

Note: Check policy for my opinions on arguments, this is really more for a couple specific things for novice debate.

To begin, great job checking the paradigm, that’s an excellent habit to get into, and will put you in a better spot for debating, especially against opponents who don’t.

Remember to debate well and be friendly, your opponents are most likely just starting out in high school debate, as are you, so try and build a good relationship. Everyone around you is part of a community, and it's not one any judge takes lightly.

Also, if your varsity gave you this big scary theory folder with things like ASPEC in them and told you to read it, you can, but you sure as heck be able to explain it or I am going to be very very annoyed, and the round will reflect as such.

Middle School:

If you are in middle school, the most important thing you ought to take away from the round is better speaking skills, and a big part of that is being able to respond to opponents arguments with your own. You can read arguments that just pass by without clashing, but arguments that prove a point while disproving opponents are going to be better. As new debaters, I don't expect you all to speak fast or make spectacular analytical arguments, so if you speak well, make arguments that counter your opponents, and use your cross-examination time to the fullest, you will get good speaker points. I really encourage you to write down your opponents arguments (flowing), so you can make arguments that clash against your opponents, and know what to extend into later speeches if you're opponents don't respond to your arguments. Next, concerning background knowledge, if you have an argument that you know but isn't in the packet, you need to explain it very well. If you use so much jargon that your opponents cannot engage you on this point, I'm not going to look favorably on the argument, and if you use so much jargon that I cannot understand it, I literally cannot weigh the argument at all, because I don't know what it means. Lastly, please just be nice people. No judge I know likes to vote for someone who is rude or aggressive during debate, especially cross examination. If you clearly won the debate, you will get my ballot, but if you are rude, don't expect high speaker points. You all are entering the activity, you will be debating with those around if you stick with the activity, and most likely, you will be going to the same school as them as well. Building friendly competition is much better than aggressive rivalry.

P.S. If you tell me a joke when the debate is over, you'll get an extra .1 speaker point. If you find a typo in this paradigm, that’s another .1 speaker pt. (I don’t think there are any but want to make sure.)

June Jack New Trier High School

Last changed on Sat October 5, 2024 at 7:36 AM CST

Tech>truth.

geographyandnewsnerd@gmail.com
ntpolicydebate@gmail.com for high school rounds.

June Jack (She/They/Zhe). New Trier '25
LD + PF at the bottom.

--------

Tech over truth.

I'm on team 1% risk.

Only time I will strike something for newness if not pointed out is the 2AR.
Will vote on most things but probably lean towards the side with better topic specificity.

Compared to some older judges, I can often be persuaded more by "spin" and judge instruction compared to evidence.

Improve your points by line-by-line and judge instruction.

--------

!Ts -

Love an impact turn, read lots of cards. 2AC probably needs cards to answer.

If your strategy relies on wipeout you should not pref me. I am extremely sympathetic to arguments on why "death good" is not something that should be read in this activity.

T -

Better for T than the average judge. The 1AR often does not develop enough warrants to justify the 2AR they give.
Better for PTV than the average judge.
Reasonability is best framed as a substance crowd-out DA.
Cards about limits explosion/ground loss are underutilized.

Ks -
I generally find the aff persuasive on FW/K tricks as long as the 1AR doesn't drop something. Usually they do though.....

Please give me warrants and pen time if blasting through analytics on framework.

Go for framework. Unless it is the cap K. This applies to both sides.

Counterplans:

Love a good PIC or Adv CP.

Process CPs are fine.

I default to judgekick under condo - aff debate against should start in the 1AR at latest.

DAs
Please have turns case in the 1NR. If the 1AR drops turns case, I will protect the 2NR.

Link is probably more important because uniqueness is probabilistic.
I like 1AR cards.

K Affs - I'll vote for them if they win the flow.

I'd like but don't need both teams to have a vision for debate, how arguments evolve and get evaluated over the season, etc.

Fine for either fairness or clash. Revive jurisdiction!!!!
Neg does best when they have inroads to aff offense. (TVA/SSD/our impact turns)

Best aff DAs are about the reading of framework. I'm probably better for the impact turn than the counter-interp.

Would prefer but do not require a role for the neg and an advocacy at least somewhat tied to the resolution.

Theory

Most theory either has no brightline or is better expressed through competition.

Condo is almost certainly good and also probably the only reason to reject the team unless something else is dropped.

I am not the best for big explosions from the 2AC to the 1AR to the 2AR.

insert rehighligtings--x-----------read them
presumption = less change---x------------presumption goes auto-aff when there's a neg advocacy
read all the cards---x---------------------less cards
evidence comparison--x----more cards

People who've influenced my thoughts on debate:
Tim Freehan, Rafael Pierry, Tim Ellis, Gabe Jankovsky, Arvind Shankar, Will Soper.

Postround me.
-----------------------------

PF - I come from policy. I'm chill with whatever. I will flow.
LD - I consider this pretty close to one person policy, with perhaps some slightly sillier arguments. Rest of paradigm still applies.

I don't know or care that much about LD norms.
Send ev in a document. Before the speech.
Please do line-by-line.
Probably more open to affs that defend a specific plan rather than the rez than most LD judges.
make the roadmap off-time
spreading good
Clash is good. I have a higher bar for things like a warrant and a lower bar for a response that y'all probably expect.

Misc things:

Any use of AI to generate prompted text and use the text as "evidence" is a fabrication of evidence and is a reason for an ethics challenge.
If the 1AC clips, I won't stop the round unless the 1NC points it out. Please have a recording if you want to accuse the other team of clipping. I will however, vote against the clipping team. I just want y'all to get an educational debate and I will give a full substance RFD.

richard jo New Trier High School

Kirsten Kelly Glenbrook North

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 7:41 AM CST

GBN ‘25

She/Her

1n/2a

Put me on the email chain: kirstenkdebate@gmail.com

General Notes:

1 - I give speaker points on a full 30 point scale, most people do 25-30 point scale but that doesn't allow for the full 30 points I need to gauge the quality of your speaking. This means that if you are very bad you get a 0, if you are okay you get a 15, and if you are varsity level good you get a 30.

2 - I'm generally tech over truth unless you read an argument that is morally horrible.

3 - Don't steal prep.

4 - Send analytics, it's novice debate and analytics contribute to clash.

5 - Have fun with debate.

6 - FLOWWWWWWW - I didn't think that I needed to flow as a novice, as most do, and that was a horrible choice. You will be bad at flowing but this will only make you better.

7 - Try line by line on your flow.

8 - Do impact calc, compare Probability, Timeframe, and Magnitude between your impacts and the opposing team's impacts.

9 - Don't call me judge, just call me by my name. Phonetically: k-ear-stin but i also respond to curtain.

10 - Don't be rude (this includes towards your partner) or read rude arguments (like racist, sexist, homophobic, ect.)

11 - My favorite kind of debate to watch is a da case debate, please engage on the case flow.

Feel free to ask about my philosophy before round or over emial

**Aff**

1 - I'm not the best judge to read a k aff in front of but if you can explain it well then go for it.

2 - For policy aff's, start the 2ac, 1ar, and 2ar saying your impacts doing impact calc.

**Neg**

Unpopular opinion - I love to watch a T debate.

If you are going for the da in the 2nr, the 1st thing you say should be "Da outweighs case ("and turns case" if it does)" and then explain why.

I love ptx das!!!

Read whatever kind of cp you want. I will believe in any kind of perms so go crazy.

If you are able to explain a k well enough for me to understand it, you'll have my ballot. I've read security, psycho, cap, fem, and queer ks. I also read the logistics k aff at camp.

Theory:

1 - I will almost NEVER vote on spec and will vote against you if you hide spec (NN).

2 - I will maybe vote on condo if the neg is abusive.

3 - I think a more compelling argument is Perf Con.

4 - Neg gets as much fiat as the aff.

Spectrum:

policy-------------------X--------------------------k

tech-X---------------------------------------------truth

theory----------X-----------------------------------no theory

read no cards---------X--------------------------read all the cards

condo good------------------------X------condo bad

Finally

1 - make me laugh, i'll boost your speaks. (say a joke abt one of my friends (Ruby Werber, Len Livshits, Kylan Elliot, Henry Keefer, Kenneth Paul Royer III, Chloe Zhu, Tyler Prozes, Gabby Miller, Isabella Foster, Sofia Shah, Henry Martin, any New Trier Juniors, GBS juniors, or any GBN debater)

2 - Online debate only - keep your camera on, if mine isn't on, assume I'm not ready.

Audrey Lam Glenbrook North

Leonard Livshits Glenbrook North

Alexandra Lorence Maine East High School

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

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 Maine East High School

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

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

Lorelai Mandal Niles West High School

Louis Martinez-Scarampi Glenbrook South High School

Sahithi Medikondla Glenbrook North

Last changed on Fri June 21, 2024 at 8:29 AM CST

general notes:
phonetically: sa-hee-thee
she/her
put me on the email chain: sahithimdebate@gmail.com
gbn 25’, current junior
topics: water, nato
former 1a/2n — do not go for every argument in the 2nr, if you do I will give low speaks.
I no longer am a policy debater, and for those reasons I will not understand topic lit as well as judges currently debating this topic, judges who are coaching this topic, or judges with more experience than me.

top-level/pet peeves:

- please flow, that is the only way to learn in debate
- do NOT refer to me as “judge” or my name (do not attempt it, most people pronounce it wrong & it’s odd), simply say vote aff or neg
- do NOT be sexist/racist/xenophobic/queerphobic etc. you will get the lowest speaks possible.
- do NOT refer to anyone in the debate with “you guys”. not only is this disrespectful and harmful, it will link to “you guys theory” and that is not a debate I would like to judge.
- I hate judge intervention, tech > truth. I will reach a decision on the words said, which means warrants should be stated if I am meant to prioritize certain cards/arguments. If that's not enough to make a clear rfd, I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. the more work I have to do the lower speaks will go.
- I LOVE clash and impact calculus, have it and I will appreciate it. a way to do this is by interacting with ev. and conceded arguments (please give warrants as to why should I prioritize your ev.) —- side note: refer to cards with the author and the year with a concise two words on either the technical element or the actual contents of the card because it helps with my flow (ex: extend Ord 20 no impact…)
- framing: I need rebuttal framing at the end of the debate. if not done it will require intervention and a clean win could turn into a close loss.
- if you’re running 7+ off please give me clear indications like “next” or “ ___ da”, always give a road map regardless of how many off.
- I ran a lot of cp/da neg strategies. however, I enjoy topicality and understand k literature if properly extended, k-affs are ok. I do not enjoy theory and will only vote on it if a lot of work is done —- side note: I believe that the best debaters are able to be flex debaters, but I appreciate well-built arguments so please do not change your strategy necessarily if you think I would be able to understand nuances in your k lit. if you think I can’t then mark me down on your pref sheet.

cx rules (very aligned with that of gershom chan’s):
- look at me during cx, not your opponent even if I don’t make eye contact with you
- I pay attention to cx, do what you will with that information
- I like tag-team cx but do not dominate — there is no justification for oppressing your own partner if they’re trying to speak, don’t do it.
- If you fail to ask the status of the off, I will be less inclined to vote for condo
- "every da is a net benefit to every cp" should preferably not be said in the 1nc, the 1ar gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2ac "links to the net benefit argument" on any cp that relates to the da– I generally think the debate becomes a lot messier so don’t do this.

rfd:

I will make it clear what arguments I had to intervene on and which each side was clearly winning. this includes looking at card docs and at my flow, I will be thorough (my former debate partner says I have a tendency to write too much, this paradigm proves that point and that’s because I like judging) — I will take a bit to make a rfd. ask me questions in round and feel free to send me questions post-round as well, the best way to get better is to understand what you can do better.

//I will not give a two-sentence rfd unless deemed absolutely necessary.

speaker points:

I start at 28.4 (pretty average)

- to go lower you are either (a) sexist/racist/homophobic etc., (b) use derogatory ways of referring to anyone in the room or any group/school someone is affiliated with (c) are completely unable to create any clash during the round (if you read blocks throughout the debate that do not relate to what is happening in round I will notice), (d) give no direction in your rebuttal speeches and require heavy judge intervention (e) provide no roadmap and make the debate incredibly hard to follow (f) clip cards
- to go higher you are (a) a clear speaker (firm believer of clarity over speed), (b) strategic, generate clash effectively, and properly extend arguments throughout the debate (c) limit dead time and mark cards (d) flow! if I notice you are flowing I will give higher speaks

—-prep-time: I might have a timer, regardless do not steal prep—-
—stop here if your round starts in 15 minutes—

t:
- if you have fairness as an impact please do not say “the neg has no 3nr”, it’s ineffective and I don’t need to hear it
- I need a counter-interp for any textual definitions
- I like limits arguments a lot but I need external impacts to aff/neg ground etc with proper interpretations [I believe this to be really important this year]
- overall, I’m not the best judge for high-level topicality debates as much as I find it interesting and may default to evaluating counter-interps to determine who wins – I do understand buzzwords conceptually but need a lot of work if you’re going to go for it.

//on this topic I believe t to be a great strategy, and therefore will try to be knowledgeable before the season starts

da:
- I ran ptx my entire novice year, so I love a good da. however, if you’re just going for the da turns case argument I will need a good 2nr. just assuming that the da will outweigh simply because the aff “didn’t cover it enough” is usually not enough of a compelling reason to vote on it.

include:
- framing the debate (da outweighs…)
- impact overviews, the story of the internal link, and impact calculus
- turns case either (preferably in more than one way): impact, internal link, solvency
- do line-by-line on the flow to answer any relevant uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact that the aff has as offense on the da **you must still have a compelling reason, just saying that “the affs argument isn’t specific enough to the da” is not enough**
- at least a minute on case, usually case is integrated with the turns arguments but generate offense on the case page as well

//if you’re doing the da as a net-benefit to the cp go for it, although I will need more on the case page, especially solvency

cp:
- I love a good counterplan that’s functionally and textually competitive, if you don’t paste the cp text specific to the aff I will be a bit peeved especially if you’re going to go for it
- aff on perms: please explain what the scenario looks like when there’s perm do both or perm do the alt. etc, that’s the only way I would be able to generate offense on the cp and it will hold ground to the negs arguments on why the perm doesn’t hold true, neg: effectively explain either the negative impact of the perm (the biggest being link to the net benefit but I need more than that) or explain how the function of the perm moots aff solvency —- because perms are often thrown in the 2ac for precautionary measures I believe it to be a well thought out strategy if developed well in the 1ar

include:
- link walls, both on how the cp avoids the impact and how the aff causes the impact
- impacts (preferably short-term and long-term)
- why cp avoiding a nb is important vs. the aff specifically
- if there’s no da, I need a lot on the outweighs argument and a lot on the case page — and if there’s a da I’ll give leeway to the neg

I ran: imperialism, cap, security
I understand: afropess, fem k, baudrillard, ableism are all fine if you explain what’s happening. side note: I read nonfiction and dense philosophical/scientific/political papers on a daily basis “for fun”, and therefore k debates are fine.

- I need a link wall and specific links to the aff to vote on a K confidently, broad sweeping claims that can be applied to any aff on the topic will not receive much leeway in the 2nr and 2ar. debating about a theoretical idea in itself is not what debate is, it’s about how an ideological construct should dictate the policies we are arguing. valerie mcintosh says it the best: “your K should ideally be a reason why the aff is bad, not just why the status quo is bad”. therefore, there needs to be more than “you link you lose”.
- I love a good alt. although I find that both sides most of the time do not interact enough with it.
- neg teams should include links in reference to the perms set forth in debate – treat it like answering perms on a cp and explain how it moots the k framework etc.
- evaluating the K will be determined by a lot of things but good 1ar coverage is necessary. do not undercover and expect me to cross-apply arguments for you — if you can turn multiple links in the 1ar with the same card/argument tell me in the 1ar preferably or even in the 2ar and I will do so. the 2ar cannot be going off of no substance but if there are relative claims that I can connect from the 1ar it should be fine.

framework:
- I don’t love fairness when it’s used as an impact and as if it’s interchangeable with education, I prefer more argumentation on interpretation. in general flow well and you can convince me. do not make claims without warrants [the same way cards are warrants, you need to give me line-by-line & not just buzzwords]
- I find myself leaning aff on framework, just something I’ve noticed so if you’re neg do more work for me explaining why framework under your terms is better.

affs:
- have a solvency advocate
- vague plan texts that aren’t actually established through cx or in the first four speeches immediately undermine and manipulate debate towards the aff in a way that effectively discourages clash and actual argumentation. your aff cannot defend nothing and advocate for nothing. if you reiterate a vague plan text as a mechanism for what your aff does I will effectively not know what political change I am meant to be weighing against neg research. furthermore, it undermines the educational component of debate so specificity is necessary.
- you’re not arguing that the status quo is bad & the neg is going to make it worse, you’re arguing what you’re going to do to change the status quo that outweighs what the neg argues will harm it.
- affs can be cheaty, but so can neg arguments so I will give both the least amount of personal bias I have when it comes to evaluation.

k-affs:
- It’s not my strongest or most favorite part of debate. I understand it on the conceptual level but technically I don’t get how to evaluate the general technical components and nuances of T-USFG, complexity k, cap k that are the norm against k-affs — that said I’m not entirely against it, I would just advise against reading it to me.

theory (it’s really just condo):
- I don’t like theory, I think it’s really hard to have a valuable theory debate. will I vote on it? unfortunately, yes. do I prefer it? absolutely not. that said condo needs to be developed more than “they dropped it, so we win”. theory also should have warrants.
- my note for all theory (fiat, pics, types of cps, aspec, etc.): don’t use it as a cheaty method to trick the other team.

other:

a list (in no particular order) of some of the people in debate I deeply respect, admire, and have high regard for (I draw a lot of the way I judge from their paradigms): rithika tudmilla, yao yao chen, david griffith, jake lee, allie chase, sid kuchimanchi, gershom chan, ariel gabay, kj reese, wayne tang, valerie mcintosh, chris fry.

a note: I strongly discourage drinking copious amounts of caffeine-induced liquids/solids of any kind before or during a tournament in order to compensate for sleep deprivation — just breathe, and trust that it will be ok.

Emma Mitic Maine East High School

Last changed on Mon September 30, 2024 at 7:32 PM EST

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.

Stephen Pipkin Glenbrook North

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 6:23 AM EST

Glenbrook North- he/him

I don't know what has happened to wiki disclosure but current practices are unacceptable. If you don't have your wiki updated to at least include the round report for all your rounds, your speaker points are capped at 27.5. I'll check when assigning points after I've decided so you have until the end of the round. If you have every card you've read for the year uploaded, the floor for points is 29.

Use the tournament's doc share if it's set-up, speechdrop if it's not.

I won't vote for death good.

If you're taking prep before the other teams speech, it needs to be before they send out the doc. For example, if the aff team wants prep between the 2NC and 1NR, it needs to happen before the 1NR doc gets sent out, so I'd recommend saying you're going to do it before cross-x.

1. Flow and explicitly respond to what the other team says in order. I care a lot about debate being a speaking activity and I would rather not judge you if you disagree. I won't open the speech doc during the debate. I won't look at all the cards after the round, only ones that are needed to resolve something being debated out that are explicitly extended throughout the debate. If I don't have your argument written down on my flow, then you don't get credit for it. As an example, if you read a block of perms, I need to be able to distinguish between the perms in the 2AC to give you credit for them. If you are extending a perm in the 2AR I didn't have written down in the 2AC, I won't vote on it, even if the neg doesn't say this was a new argument. The burden is on you to make sure I am able to flow and understand everything you are saying throughout the debate. If you don't flow (and there are a lot of you out there) you should strike me.

2. Things you can do to improve the likelihood of me understanding you:

a. slow down

b. structure your args using numbers and subpoints

c. explicitly signpost what you are answering and extending

d. alternate analytics and cards

e. use microtags for analytics

f. give me time to flip between flows

g. use emphasis and inflection

3. I think the aff has to be topical.

4. I'm not great at judging the kritik. I'm better at judging kritiks that have links about the outcome of the plan but have an alternative that's a fiated alternative that's incompatible with the world of the plan.

5. You can insert one perm text into the debate. You can insert sections of cards that have been read for reference. You can't insert re-highlightings. I'm not reading parts of cards that were not read in the debate.

6. I flow cross-x but won't guarantee I'll pay attention to questions after cross-x time is up. I also don't think the other team has to indefinitely answer substantive questions once cx time is over.

7.Plans: If you say the plan fiats something in CX, you don't get to say PTIV means something else on T. So for example, if you say "remove judicial exceptions" means the courts, you don't get to say you're not the courts on T. If you say normal means is probably the courts but you're not fiating that, you get to say PTIV but you also risk the neg winning you are Congress for a DA or CP.

8. If your highlighting is incoherent, I'm not going to read unhighlighted parts of the card to figure out what it means.

Finn Pluta New Trier High School

Arvind Shankar Glenbrook North None

Kylie Sutton Glenbrook South High School

Lauren Velazquez Niles North High School

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 7:20 AM CST

Name : Lauren Velazquez

Affiliated School: Niles North

Email: Laurenida@gmail.com

General Background:
I debated competitively in high school in the 1990s for Maine East. I participated on the national circuit where counterplans and theory were common.

Director of Debate at Niles North

Laurenida@gmail.com

Experience:

I competed in the 90s, helped around for a few years, took a bit of a break, have been back for about 7 years. My teams compete on the national circuit, I help heavily with my teams’ strategies, and am a lab leader at a University of Michigan. In recent years I have helped coach teams that cleared at the TOC, won state titles and consistently debated in late elim rounds at national tournaments. TL/DR--I am familiar with national circuit debate but I do not closely follow college debate so do not assume that I am attuned to the arguments that are currently cutting edge/new.

What this means for you---I lean tech over truth when it comes to execution, but truth controls the direction of tech, and some debate meta-arguments matter a lot less to me.

I am not ideological towards most arguments, I believe debate structurally is a game, but there are benefits to debate outside of it being just a game, give it your best shot and I will try my best to adapt to you.

The only caveat is do not read any arguments that you think would be inappropriate for me to teach in my classroom, if you are worried it might be inappropriate, you should stop yourself right there.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
When deciding to vote on disadvantages and affirmative advantages, I look for a combination of good story telling and evidence analysis. Strong teams are teams that frame impact calculations for me in their rebuttals (e.g. how do I decide between preventing a war or promoting human rights?). I should hear from teams how their internal links work and how their evidence and analysis refute indictments from their opponents. Affirmatives should have offense against disads (and Negs have offense against case). It is rare, in my mind, for a solvency argument or "non unique" argument to do enough damage to make the case/disad go away completely, at best, relying only on defensive arguments will diminish impacts and risks, but t is up to the teams to conduct a risk analysis telling me how to weigh risk of one scenario versus another.

TOPICALITY

I will vote on topicality if it is given time (more than 15 seconds in the 2NR) in the debate and the negative team is able to articulate the value of topicality as a debate “rule” and demonstrate that the affirmative has violated a clear and reasonable framework set by the negative. If the affirmative offers a counter interpretation, I will need someone to explain to me why their standards and definitions are best. Providing cases that meet your framework is always a good idea. I find the limits debate to be the crux generally of why I would vote for or against T so if you are neg you 100% should be articulating the limits implications of your interpretation.

KRITIKS
Over the years, I have heard and voted on Kritiks, but I do offer a few honest caveats:

*Please dont read "death good"/nihilism/psychoanalysis in front of me. I mean honestly I will consider it but I know I am biased and I HATE nihilism, psychoanalysis debates. I will try to listen with an open mind but I really don't think these arguments are good for the activity or good for pedagogy--they alienate younger debaters who are learning the game and I don't think that genuine discussions of metaphysics lend themselves to speed reading and "voting" on right/wrong. If you run these I will listen and work actively to be open minded but know you are making an uphill battle for yourself running these. If these are your bread and butter args you should pref me low.

I read newspapers daily so I feel confident in my knowledge around global events. I do not regularly read philosophy or theory papers, there is a chance that I am unfamiliar with your argument or the underlying paradigms. I do believe that Kritik evidence is inherently dense and should be read a tad slower and have accompanying argument overviews in negative block. Impact analysis is vital. What is the role of the ballot? How do I evaluate things like discourse against policy implications (DAs etc)

Also, I’m going to need you to go a tad slower if you are busting out a new kritik, as it does take time to process philosophical writings.

If you are doing something that kritiks the overall debate round framework (like being an Aff who doesnt have a plan text), make sure you explain to me the purpose of your framework and why it is competitively fair and educationally valuable.

COUNTERPLANS
I am generally a fan of CPs as a neg strategy. I will vote for counterplans but I am open to theory arguments from the affirmative (PICs bad etc). Counterplans are most persuasive to me when the negative is able to clearly explain the net benifts and how (if at all) the counterplan captures affirmative solvency. For permutations to be convincing offense against CPs, Affs should explain how permutation works and what voting for perm means (does the DA go away, do I automatically vote against neg etc?)

Random

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex and dominating. You are part of a 2 person team for a reason.

Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you have a ton of analytics in a row or are explaining a new/dense theory, you may want to slow down a little since processing time for flowing analytics or kritkits is a little slower than me just flowing the text of your evidence.

I listen to cross ex. I think teams come up with a lot of good arguments during this time. If you come up with an argument in cross ex-add it to the flow in your speech.

Skye Warner New Trier High School

Vivi Webb Glenbrook South High School

Ruby Werber Glenbrook North

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

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

Junior Yong Glenbrook South High School

Sara Zarea New Trier High School

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

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 :)

Chloe Zhu Glenbrook North

Login to Tabroom

North Shore Debate Series 1

2023 — Northbrook, IL/US

Novice Paradigm List

Judges