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 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.

Omar Ansari Niles West High School

Evan Blitz Glenbrook South High School

AJ Byrne New Trier High School

Last changed on Wed April 24, 2024 at 6:48 AM CDT

ajbyrne1018(at)gmail.com

New Trier ‘16

Northwestern '19

Hierarchy of how I want you to refer to me: "AJ">>>> "Mr. Byrne" >>>>>>>>>>"My Dude" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Judge"

Background: I debated at New Trier for four years (2x TOC qualifier) and then at Northwestern for three years. I coached for New Trier from 2016-2019. Back coaching for New Trier for fiscal redistribution topic. In the “real world” I am a pursuing my MEd in School Counseling from Loyola University Chicago.

I have judged 80+ debates on the Fiscal Redistribution Topic

Judging is one of my favorite things to do. 99 out of 100 times I would rather be judging than have a round off.

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 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.

Planless is fine but you absolutely need to defend that choice. I think that my voting record is slightly neg leaning but that is because I do not think aff teams go for enough offense or they struggle to explain what debate looks like under their interpretation.

I am not voting for any argument regarding your interp being “good for small schools”

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 (except Conditions I mean c’mon). Probably neg on most theory questions but also not going to let the neg get away with murder just because they are neg. The less generic and more germane to the topic the CP is, the better the neg is. If you are thinking about reading commissions or an advantage CP, I think you should probably read the advantage CP.

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.

Kritiks are rad. Kritiks that rely entirely on winning through framework tricks are miserable. If I am not skeptical of the aff's ability to solve their internal links or the alt's ability to solve them then I am unlikely to vote negative.

Other things:

Tag-team CX is fine but also sometimes very frustrating to evaluate. If I think someone is not adequately participating in CX, their points will suffer greatly.

Only Mavs and Neg teams debating new affs get to use CX as prep time. If a team wants to use CX as prep time under any other circumstances, the opposing team will be able to read additional evidence during this time.

CX begins at the first question asked, even if that question is something like “What card did you stop at?” (The only exception is “are you ready for cx?”)

Debates need to start on time, please!

More Debate Thoughts

These aren’t intended to be relevant to your pre-round prep. Just some opinions after spending 4 years away from the activity and then judging over 70 fiscal redistribution debates.

Please stop starting your speech at 100% speed. It guarantees that I am going to be unable to flow you for the first 10-15 seconds.
To go off that, why is it considered common practice to have T as the first off in the 1NC? That basically guarantees that I won’t be able to flow an entire offcase position and that doesn’t seem good.
Debaters that try to go fast as possible tend to end up being very slow. Your debate speaking voice should be your regular speaking voice, but faster.
I usually flow on paper, so I take a second to flip between flows. This usually means in every 2AC I miss roughly six perms on the CP because it has become common practice to just dump all the perms at the top of the block instead of the MUCH BETTER practice of spreading them throughout your block.
Seriously, please slow down.
I don’t care if you highlight in purple. Standard highlighting and consistent formatting are a BARE MINIMUM for a speech doc. Otherwise I will assume that you did not prep well for the tournament.
If it can be demonstrated from your wiki that you suck at disclosing I will spend a significant amount of my decision making fun of you. People who suck at disclosure are bad and should feel bad.
From the 2AC onwards, if you are speaking from a computer and not even referencing your flow, you are not debating the right way.
If the 1AC isn’t ready to start at start time, a puppy dies.
Anybody who uses the term “Speaks” to describe speaker points should have more respect for themselves.
Thinking about making it my policy that if I think you are stealing prep, I just give you a 26 without telling you.
Why does nobody read add-ons anymore?
I am pretty sick of <2 minutes of the block being spent on the case pages.
Tournament days are less grueling than they used to be but that has been in spite of debaters best efforts to be as slow as possible. Filling up the debate with dead time means less decision time which is only bad for you. As a wise man once said: “Keep ‘er movin”

Eunji Carpenter Glenbrook North

Dylan Chikko Niles North High School

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

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 Thu January 4, 2024 at 10:39 AM CDT

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: They/Them

I’m a third year debater at Glenbrook North, however I debated in Kansas at Olathe East for my novice year (miss y’all sm)

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 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

Isa Harrison New Trier High School

Last changed on Sun March 10, 2024 at 11:57 AM CDT

Isa Harrison (she/her), New Trier HS

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

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 Fri January 5, 2024 at 5:48 AM CDT

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:

When debating a topic like economic inequality, it is important that we all remember that there are real people suffering from the impacts we read in the debate round. This isn’t another topic about the one in a million possibility of a nuclear war, poverty is something many, many people experience every day, and it behooves every debater to be respectful and thoughtful about these issues.

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: I just had a whole year on a topic with no neg ground, so I’m fine with process counterplans, although I’m going to be rolling my eyes if it seems silly. If you actually debate competition well though, good on you. For competition specifically, if you think it’s getting tangled, please clarify your standards. For PIC’s, like disadvantages, the more specific they are to the aff, the better.

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 lot of debating with the Capitalism K, a decent amount with the Psychoanalysis K and Security K, and I probably have a half decent grasp of most other things as well like SetCol, Biopower, 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 a K Aff. I’m fairly amenable to most K’s but I have done a lot more policy than K. If you get me, 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 standard which I frankly don’t think is half bad. 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 (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, I think dispo is pretty neato.

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. 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 Fri March 1, 2024 at 5:08 PM CDT

Prefs short---high school debater, down for process and meh for Ks. Super tech>truth except for hypertrolly args. The less of the 1NC that could be read last year the better I am for you.

geographyandnewsnerd@gmail.com
ntpolicydebate@gmail.com
if it's a high school round

June Jack (She/They/Zhe). New Trier '25
LD + PF at the bottom.
Yes put me on the chain. I would prefer an email but SpeechDrop is fine. If your docs are verbatimized word, I will probably not get a headache. The farther your email content gets from that, the greater the chance of a headache.
Please email me after the debate for clarification - I'm always happy to explain.
Anything bolded is not up for debate. Anything unbolded can be changed by better technical debating.

I will never vote on ableism / transphobia / homophobia / racism / sexism. I will stop the round if you do something that makes the debate space unsafe.

Do not read Death Good/Wipeout in front of me UNLESS both teams agree to it beforehand. If the 2NR is 5 minutes of wipeout, the 2AR can spend 5 minutes talking about their favorite tea and I'll vote aff. For every speaker that extends a wipeout/death good arg without permission from their opponent, -2.5 speaks.

Ad-Homs or use of slurs / bigotry / misgendering will lead to instant loss, extremely low speaks and I'll email your coach.

Berating your teammate will shred your speaks.

Disclosure is a must. This means verbal aff (unless new) and past 2NRs OR updated wikis. This also means being on time to your room for disclosure. +0.1 speaks for full, working citations, +0.3 for OpenSource that is highlighted (tell me after the debate). Exception for lay / MS debate.
CX is binding. Make sure you are asking questions in your CX. Tag-team CX is fine, as is using it for prep - you don't have to ask me for permission.

PLEASE give me a roadmap
Risk is a %, not black and white.

If the other team has dropped something like T and there's no theory extended, you can stop the round an tell me why. Other team can explain why there's a way out, any way out, they win. Otherwise you win. If you do this and are right, I will give you much higher speaks (29+), and can dedicate the rest of the time to helping the other team. If the other team is right, double 25s for you.

Assume I want a card doc unless it's like a condo debate.

--------

I love Impact Turns - the best are ones that are somewhat plausible - prolif good is probably better than ice age but do what makes you happy.

I am very happy to vote for an aff team that kicks the 1AC and goes for a straight turn of a DA.

My favorite 1NCs are either 8 off, 2 off Adv CP Econ DA, or a very specific case strategy that is so good as to make the other term start reading a different aff.

My favorite 2NRs were either an PIC out of Prolif/Heg and a Impact Turn and my favorite 2ARs were straight turns of BizCon.

Topicality -
I think PTV as modified by highlighted parts of solvency advocates and CX is probably the best model.
Reasonability is best framed as a substance crowd-out DA.
ground > predictability > cult of limits
A T violation that cannot explain why that specific aff is bad for ground should lose to C/I only our aff
An aff that says "one or more of the following" should lose to aff condo is bad

Theory

I think condo is good up to double digits. I'll still vote on the flow. Models > in-round abuse.

I'm cool for your process CP, as long as you beat the perm. I'm better for a smart functionally intrinsic perm than like 85% of judges - but, it comes down to who wins their model of competition. I often have a higher bar for what is a "function".

Solvency advocates frame theory - rehighlighted 1AC cards or aff specific advocates make me much more lenient to the neg on any theory.

Longer article I wrote on my thoughts on theory.

If you can kick Adv CP planks, each plank (n) counts for 2^n extra advocacies. I have SOME limit to condo, after all

Ks -
I'm pretty left but I also go for cap good and heg good a lot. Do with that what you will.
Turns Case / root cause - yes. Fiat double bind, I would rather not.

I'm much better for Kritiks with alternatives that solve some element of the aff than framework. I'll vote without an alt if there's a technical crush on framework. I think "you link you lose" could win, but its not the best arg for me. I'm good for "we get reps links", and I think philosophical competition is probably not the *best* model for debate but it's interesting.

I went for clash as defense to framework and fairness as the external impact as a 2A vs neg Ks.

Ethics:

Util is truetil until you prove it isn't.
"I default to the assumption that extinction is categorically distinct from even 99% of the human race going away." - David Griffith
Soft left affs are fine but are generally unstrategic unless they kick the aff and go for an impact turn - I have yet to see a good team for for framing in the 2AR.

Counterplans:

I love big Adv CPs that solve all of the affs case while avoiding a DA or a straight turned advantage.

PICs are good.

If you go for some super contrived process CP, at least give me some idea of how you solve the net benefit........
"They dropped Federal Resereve indepdence solves extinction pandemics terror" is not an explination. I have a higher bar for process CP INBs then most people, and think they can be devastated in 1NC CX.

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

DAs
PTX DAs - PC DAs are mid. Horsetrading DAs make me happy. Riders make me sad. Floor time makes my eyes sparkle with joy.
Please have turns case in the 1NR. If the 1AR drops turns case, I will protect the 2NR.
5+ 1AR cards usually make a good debate

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.
TVA + SSD + Truth Testing = W
Presumption exists, especially with no ballot key warrant.
2AC K aff w/m means the 2NC can and should read states and politics
I'd prefer clash as with "debate solves the aff better" as a straight turn, but if you want to go for fairness I'm chill with that. Sometimes this is called "Michigan's FW 2.0", for an example see DML's 2023 UMich FW lecture.
revive jurisdiction!!!!

Dogma / advocacy skills / fairness is why their impacts are bad = yay
Fairness double bind = yay?
Fairness is good. What's a warrant? = not yay.

insert rehighligtings--x-----------read them
condo good---x-----------condo bad
cap k -x----------Bataille
clarity + pen time-x---------------------------speed
presumption = less change---x------------presumption goes auto-aff when there's a neg advocacy
read all the cards---x---------------------slow down on the cards
evidence comparison---x----more cards
silly args-----x--win with style

Agree with everything in David's paradigm after -- Can I go for the K/K AFF? --

People who've influenced my thoughts on debate:
Nick Lepp, Tim Freehan, Rockwell Shapiro, Margaret Jones, David Weston, Aaron Vinson, Jeff Buntin, Rafael Pierry, Tim Ellis, Gabe Jankovsky, Arvind Shankar.

"if the 1ac has a song in the back i kinda like that like that's so good. i wish people just did this for fun honestly." - dani roytburg. This includes policy affs. Put on rock or whatever for your hard right aff.

Policy Voting Record:
Econ:
5-6 Policy v Policy
0-1 Policy v K
0-0 K v T-USFG
0-0 K v K

-----------------------------
LD - I consider this pretty close to one person policy, with perhaps some slightly sillier arguments. Rest of paradigm still applies. I've now judged 4 prelim LD rounds

Public Lands
Policy vs Policy --- 0-1
Tricks aff vs Trad --- 1-0
Trad vs Trad --- 0-1
Policy vs Policy + K --- 1-0

I don't know or care that much about LD norms.
Send ev in a document. Before the speech.
Please do LBL.
Probably more open to affs that defend a plan that's resolutional topical.
Performances affs are also fine, T against them is often true.
make the roadmap off-time
spreading good
yes I do flow cross
disclosure is good. lack of it may even be worth a ballot based on the flow. this is good LD disclosure.
silly args--x--win with style
silly args mean phil and paradoxes, not "vote after the 1NC" or "formal clothes theory". Clash is good.
more okay with a tad bit of perfcon than most
PICs---7/10
phil - proud util hack but tech over truth. Util > Rawls > Hobbes > Skep > Virtue > Kant > Rand > dead French guys who use "the Other" that you cannot explain. Only thing LD does better than policy.
I read trixs vs Ks and more people should. Clash-y ones though, not "reject the team"

PF - I come from policy. I'm chill with whatever, including prog stuff / Ks / spreading.
0 PRO - 1 CON Trad on the HSR topic.

To Do: Update K affs section.

Misc things:

Any use of AI or other services to generate random text and use the text as "evidence" is deemed a fabrication of evidence and is a reason for an ethics challenge.
If you think the judge decision in Digital Debate Series #2 Round 3 LASA vs Wichita East was correct or even acceptable, you should strike me.

richard jo New Trier High School

Kirsten Kelly Glenbrook North

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

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 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 Lorence Maine East High School

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

Lorelai Mandal Niles West High School None

Louis Martinez-Scarampi Glenbrook South High School

Sahithi Medikondla Glenbrook North

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 10:10 AM CDT

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, alyssa corrigan, 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 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.

Stephen Pipkin Glenbrook North

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 CDT

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

Last changed on Fri May 3, 2024 at 10:27 AM CDT

20250944@student.nths.net - New Trier ‘25 - they/she/he

tldr:

Be kind, above all.
Tech > truth, except in certain circumstances below
Explain your violation and impacts under theory
you should probably strike me in a K aff debate
My tech > truth ideology peaks in T
explain your Ks
CPs + DAs are chill
I won't vote on death good
constructives are for constructing, rebuttals are for rebutting
relax. have fun.

people who have significantly impacted my thoughts on debate, in no particular order, include Aaron Vinson, Tim Freehan, Dave Weston, Margaret Jones, Rocky Shapiro, Nick Wilson, Josh Clark, Scott Phillips, Becca Steiner, and Whit Whitmore. do with that what you will

Note for MSTOC: I know it’s the TOC, but please try more than usual to be clear. This isn’t just speed, it’s also speaking clearly and confidently. I really want to be able to understand you, but it’s harder over virtual debate than normal :/. Also, I’m doing this in place of APUSH AP test studying. So, any us history statements in your speech will earn you 0.1 speaker point!

First and foremost:

I will never tolerate racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, or general xenophobia. I will email your coach, auto-L, and give you the lowest speaks possible. Debate should be a safe space for people to have fun, not to be attacked. I will stop the round if you do anything that makes the debate space unsafe.

Death good = auto-L, lowest speaks possible, email to your coach. In light of the whole LASA vs wichita east debacle, anything, where if i look at it and think that my 2AC against death good could apply, counts as death good. 2Ns, don’t look at this and think ‘but could it be a throwaway?’ Don’t force debaters to deal with that, you have no clue what people are going through and making the debate space violent and unsafe is the antithesis of why I do debate in the first place. If the 1N reads death good, but i hear the 2N refusing to extend it, 29.5+ speaks to the 2N, or vice versa.(you’ll still lose, though).

Novice version:

Honestly, novice year is the hardest year, and I do not want to make that worse, so please don't adapt your strategy to anything here and if you show up, I think you're doing fantastic. You've got this, good luck, and above all, have fun!!

Theory:

In this instance, you really need to explain to me why what they did screwed you over and probably the farthest I get from tech>truth. Why did a neg generic PIC make it so unfair that you should win the round because they ran it? Is 1 condo advocacy that bad? Should your one-sentence hidden aspec be given enough weight to earn a whole ballot? You can win this, but know that the more teams that have won against it, the more the odds are stacked against you. In-round abuse will change this, though. If the neg ran 15+ condo, weaponized perfcon, or ran ten new 2NC CPs with no justification other than ‘condo!’, something like that, run theory and you have a decent shot.

If you're doing a condo 2AR when the neg didn't drop condo, I probably already mentally voted neg, and ifthe aff takes over 20 seconds of prep for the 2AC, I won’t like it if you try to argue infinite prep time.

Case:

read a good aff, please.

K affs:

I should know what your aff does coming out of the 2AC at maximum, and preferably out of 1AC cx. Especially here, I won't penalize speaks for 2Ns saying 'what is this' and you should respond with something that would be understandable to someone who hasn't read your lit(e.g. don't say 'we advocate for a method of corporeal care', say 'we advocate for creating a space for caring about the condition of humans')

Topicality is capital T true, maybe one of the most true arguments in debate, and both teams know it. Please, act like it. I don’t care whether you go for clash or fairness, as long as you have an impact. Most of the time I go for clash, so if you choose that route, I’m better versed there. I’ll still vote on the flow, so aff teams, you can win.

But honestly, if you read a k aff, you should probably strike me. I don’t believe that these arguments should be ran in novice debate.

In general, I don’t like these debates, and reading dictionary definitions after a round isn’t that fun. But if an aff is genuinely untopical and you're sure that their strategy against all of your offense will be 'no link', go for it!

Ks:

I default to the judge is a policymaker, the aff can weigh the plan, and the neg gets whatever fiat they want, but can be convinced otherwise with good debating and warrants. I'm more familiar with cap and security, so other Ks need more explanation. Side note, if you use words that wouldn't be recognizable to anyone who hasn't read your literature(like simulacra in Baudrillard) then please explain them in the block, not the 2NR, otherwise the aff's job is much harder.

pronounce kritik like critic or cricket and I'll boost your speaks +0.2, and ask Len Livshits or Lindsay Ye why.

CP + DA + ! turns:

For process CPs, I’m aff-leaning on perms, and neg-leaning on theory. For all other CPs, I’m neg-leaning on theory and perms, and aff-leaning on solvency or offense. You need to tell me to judgekick and use sufficiency framing. It’s two sentences and is probably already in your 2NC O/V. If you think that the competition debate is messy, just go to why your standards outweigh theirs(ie- neg bias) and what your standards are.

If your adv CP doesn’t have a solvency advocate, you are the solvency advocate, and I treat the CP’s solvency as such. fyi ;)

100% or 0% risk only exists if the argument was dropped or kicked.

but like...who dislikes adv CPs + econ DA?

2Rs:

Be nice, don't lie, framing my ballot at the beginning of the speech is always a good idea- don't let your opponents decide what the round is about.

Arguments need a claim and warrant in earlier speeches for you to win extending them. eg. ‘CP can’t solve i-law, moving on’ in the 1AR without ‘it’s not a clear signal’ means that I won’t give the 2AR ‘it’s not a clear signal’. I’ll auto-strike new arguments off my flow for the 2AR, so 2Ns, don’t worry. This also goes for the 2NR- you’re not allowed to make up new net benefits or add a fw DA.

This is technically the 1AR, but honestly idk where else to put this- my bar for a warrant in the 1AR is significantly different from the 2AR. For example, states CP. If the 1A says the words ‘extend perm do both - looks like federal follow-on so it shields the nb, done by federal funding and state implementation’ and then answers the neg’s reasons why pdb fails, that is all the explanation I need and the 2AR is clear to extend pdb. I’m a 1A, I get it, 1ARs are hard.

If your 2R is less than five sentences and you win, you’re getting a very high 29. If you lose, medium to very low 28. If the 2NR is less than five sentences and is about to win, but the 2AR somehow pulls off something amazing, everyone’s getting 29.7+ :)

Speaks:

Arguing with your partner will shred your speaks- especially if they're giving the final speech. I don't care if they dropped condo, took 1NR/1AC/1NC(especially 1NC prep can be quite useful, if used well) prep, or went for the thing youthinkwill lose you the debate. You're not helping them nor yourself.

It is very, very, very easy to make me laugh, and this is under the speaks header. Do with that what you will.

I’m a very expressive judge, to the point where if you look at me during the other team’s speech, I’ll probably look back and signal if I buy the argument they’re making or not. Also, I LOVE eye contact during your speeches bc it makes me feel like we’re friends, pls do that and your speaks will look like you’re my friend :)

But I will give high speaks. My baseline is 29, and if you ask post-round I’ll tell you what you got

CX:

Speaking over and then proceeding to repeat exactly what your partner would have said in cx will hurt speaks and almost always what the 1A speaking during 2AC cx or 1N during 2NC cx is like.

Yes open cx, don’t abuse that. The 2N shouldn’t answer all of the questions in 1NC cx.

I will never dock your speaks for asking 'what is this' questions in cross, but it will hurt your ethos if you ask the 1N to explain a core neg generic.

CX is binding, UNLESS the team goes back on what they said immediately and unanimously. Otherwise, you're tied.

I can tell when your varsity just gave you a list of cx questions and told you to ask them, and it’ll hurt your speaks if you do that. Yes, cx is hard, but you need to start out by struggling through it, and ultimately you’ll get way better!

Other:

I’m cool with sending cards in the body of the email.

The more prep time you steal, the less time I have to make my decision, and that favors the team that didn’t steal prep. you’re not just cheating, you’re hurting yourself.

Uncarded arguments are still arguments, but they will probably lose to carded ones. You're a high schooler, 'i’m the solvency advocate' arguments require a LOT of ethos.

Please please please, if you have a blippy 1AC/1NC/2AC, come back from it. This is why I love debate- things can change so quickly and I love being in rounds where people do. Especially this year, it’s kind of a running joke at NT that me and my partner get the worst pairings(at our first 2 tournaments, we faced 8 teams on the coaches’ poll). We didn’t give up until the final speech. You can too.

Run what you're cool with, kick what you're not, and make your 2R the best it can be!

glhf :)

current bias:

Policy v policy: 9-8 neg

Policy v K: 1-1

K v policy:

K v K: 1-0 neg

Vivi Webb Glenbrook South High School

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 3:39 AM CDT

IF YOU ARE READING THIS BEFORE THE ROUND, SET UP THE EMAIL CHAIN NOW AND MAKE SURE THE 1AC IS SENT BEFORE START TIME :)

vivi webb (pronounced vee-vee, not vih-vee). don't call me judge :)

she/her

gbs 2025

add me to the chain - vwdebate@gmail.com , gbsdebatelovesdocs@gmail.com

don't stress, try to relax, and have fun! i know how difficult this activity is and how easy it is to get caught up in worrying about it. at the end of the day, this is a game we're all here to play (and win!) so do your best to enjoy it.

no homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. blatant offenses = stopping the round, giving you 0 speaks and an L. if you make a genuine mistake, apologize and you will most likely be fine (but please hold yourself accountable).

if you have questions about this paradigm or anything debate related before or after the round, please don't hesitate to ask. novice year is all about questions so please please please feel free to approach me with anything (but be respectful, obviously). even the amazing varsity debaters and tournament winners were novices once, so don't be afraid of judgement.

debate thoughts

tech > truth. the exception to this is arguments about death, suicide, or extinction being good. if those arguments are your primary strategy, reconsider. please avoid graphic descriptions of violence/bodily harm/etc. or give trigger warnings.

if you want good speaks and/or the W:

- be kind and respectful to me and your opponents.

- do line-by-line. try not to drop arguments. DON'T BE AFRAID OF CLASH!! IT WILL HELP YOU GET BETTER!!

- flow!!!!!!!! make the effort even if you don't see the point - i promise it is super super beneficial in the long run

- be clear!! make sure i can hear/understand the words you are saying. i will be able to keep up with you in terms of speed but please do not sacrifice clarity for the sake of going fast.if i say "clear", slow down and focus on enunciation/clarity.

- make funny jokes. (specifically, funny jokes about illinois debaters/coaches that you know will get +0.2 speaks.) this is not the same as making fun of your opponents.

- use all your speech time.

- use more than just your blocks, especially in final rebuttals.

- utilize + explain your evidence. also, understand the arguments you are running/making.

good luck :)

Ruby Werber Glenbrook North

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

Junior Yong Glenbrook South High School

Sara Zarea New Trier High School

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 :)

Chloe Zhu Glenbrook North

Login to Tabroom

North Shore Debate Series 1

2023 — Northbrook, IL/US

Novice Paradigm List

Judges