North Shore Debate Series 2
2023 — Northbrook, IL/US
Novice Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show Hidehttps://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:
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
Online - if my camera is off, assume I am not there. Please do not start your speech when my camera is off.
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, rehighlights, etc.
primarily aK 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, good K strategies and 2nr's will be rewarded with high speaks - as a 2N i appreciate the difficulty of strategic choice in the 2NR in both collapsing the Kritik and managing the case debate.
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 requires winning maintaining debate as it currently is is good., Also if you have the idea that I will auto hack aff in fw rounds you're more than wrong and this is here to pre-empt your post round in which the 1ar dropped the tva - evenly debated i'll probably vote AFF but nothing is ever evenly debated
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, SetCol vs M&H affs, 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. Be abt it fr
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
debate inspirations: Rutgers MN (devane and nic are the GOATs of debate imo), Wake EF (both of them!), Alden (Baylor CW), my bsf Hina Shehzad, and many more amazing folks that would take me half my paradigm to individually shout out
College Prep (2015-2019), Wake Forest (2019-2023)
ADA 2023 Champion, CEDA 2023 Co-Champion, 2023 Copeland Panelist, NDT 2023 Quarterfinals, NDT 2022 Octafinalist, NDT 2021 Doubles
Coach at George Mason & Harker
for college policy debates: please also add masondebatedocs@gmail.com
TLDR:
My only actual hardline stances are that I believe line-by-line is good, we should care about how we impact other people, and impact calculus wins debates.
I make decisions based on complete arguments, which require claims, warrants, and impacts/implications.
My favorite debates to judge are the ones in which teams do what they do best. I appreciate in-depth preparation and high-quality clash more than anything.
I prefer to judge debates in which the Affirmative is about the topic, and the Negative disagrees with the Affirmative's proposed change from the status quo.
I prefer not to judge a debate about an issue that would best be resolved outside the constraints of a competitive debate.
I try to flow every word said in speeches & cross-ex unless instructed otherwise.
I think about debates in terms of strategic moves and argument function --- explaining arguments on that meta level is the most compelling and understandable to me, especially in debates with complex legislative nuance and/or critical theories.
I do not flow RVI's - I only flow complete arguments.
I refuse to vote on disclosure or other norm based theory arguments unless a) it is entirely conceded b) i witnessed MISdisclosure with an intent to lie or cheat --- anything else is not worthwhile for anyone's time. New AFFs are good.
Framework debates:
My least favorite debates, but I judge them the most
Impacts? Fairness is an impact, but you gotta do impact calc & can't skip out on warrants. I struggle to see how clash is an external impact but am open to hearing otherwise - for me, clash seems to be, at most, a sliding scale/question of maximization - but you provide a warrant otherwise and I'll write it down. Topic education is guided by predictable limits and/or explaining why the (specific) ground you gained/lost is good/bad.
TVA vs Switch Side? I think 2NR strategy is guided by AFF strategic vision, so my preference is probably based on technical concessions and/or context of the debate.
Models vs Violation? Your call, I've judged both and evaluated each on technical bases. The AFF probably has responses to each, so I don't find one approach more true/right than the other. I'm just line-by-line oriented.
Impact turn vs Counter-interp 2AR? Your call! I only think it's strategic that you pick one or the other and full send - typically starting on the Framework flow with your one major disad to the NEG's interp and impacting it out is the start of many winning 2ARs in front of me. If you go for the counter-interp, don't expect me to fill in blanks either way if it can or cannot solve the NEG's offense. If you're going for impact turns to the NEG's model/interp, then explain why that outweighs/turns NEG offense and probably best to have defense to their interp/model as well.
The NEG can win in front of me that case ought not outweigh Topicality, but you should say that. I do not auto-let kritikal AFFs leverage the case against Topicality if the NEG has presented reasons why I shouldn't evaluate that offense; I think the AFF should answer that argument. My burden for answering this argument is rather low, which is why I tend to be less persuaded by Framework interps about the NEG not being required to meet the burden of rejoinder. I like debates where teams disagree with one another, so this interpretation of what debate can and/or should be isn't something that I really find compelling. That doesn't mean the AFF doesn't have to respond, but I definitely think your offense is magnified by this interpretation of debate and explaining why that's true is compelling to me. However, if this is your approach on either side, you just have to win on the technical debating level, and you'll most likely get my ballot.
AFF v K on NEG? Overly specific AFF interps are less compelling than some version of weighing the effects/justifications against the K, and they tend to link far harder to NEG offense. I'm not a 'will always weigh the case' nor a 'loves the fiat k' truther - I just like impact calculus, comparison of warrants, and explanation of any solvency claim presented. You should still answer the links if going for framework or at least say why the case outweighs or solves the links.
General Debate Thoughts:
I auto-judge-kick.
Theory debates aren't fun to judge, but I understand the strategic utility on both sides. 1 reason condo is good & impact calc >> spending a certain amount of time. I don't think I'm good or bad for a competition debate - I just care about impact calculus and warrants, which can be light in these debates.
If util and/or consequentialism are wrong, you have to say how I should evaluate impacts otherwise. I don't fill in the blanks for either side. Good impact calc tends to win debates in front of me.
I am not a fantastic judge for a competition debate and tend to need you to do impact calc & internal link comparison for me because I will not fill in blanks for this debate or default one way or another. I'm also not great for a process debate. This is the one style of debate I did and coached the least.
Will vote AFF or NEG on presumption
T debates aren't my favorite to judge but Limits ---X--------------- AFF Ground
You must read the re-highlighting aloud if the other team did not read those exact words in the card. If not reading the rehighlighted words aloud, you can also read the line(s) in cross-ex or explain the implication and what the rehighlighting means for my ballot in the tag of the rehighlighting. I think debate is a communication activity, not one where I read cards on my own and independently decide. However, that doesn't mean low-quality ev constitutes a good argument.
I will let you know if I need a card doc - I probably won't. I strongly dislike judge intervention, so I aim to read every card during the debate as it is read to understand the context and completeness of every argument presented during each speech. I try to be predictable in my decision-making, given I believe debate takes a lot of work, dedication, and time, which judges ought to respect by evaluating debates technically by flowing and comparing each argument as presented. This means I also only evaluate arguments presented in speeches. Cross-ex matters, but I can not vote on arguments not also made in speeches.
I am FAR more persuaded by negative criticisms that prove why the Affirmative as presented is bad, not just nonsolvent. I tend to struggle to see how the Negative does not have to respond to Affirmative defensive claims to the K -- framing out Affirmative offense still requires technical debating.
I stop flowing when the timer goes off.
I care about debate. I don't particularly appreciate when teams read cringe and questionably ethical backfile checks designed to mess with opponents.
I think disclosure is, in nearly every case, good. I have zero tolerance for misdisclosure, lying, and shady practices designed to evade clashing with your opponent.
If high-theory kritikal arguments are your bread and butter, just please lead with implications and claims that I can break down into impact-forward arguments. I just don't know how to spell or define some of the words you say very fast, but I will evaluate every debate as objectively as possible always / nevertheless.
I've read most arguments in debate at one point or another, and I have also judged most arguments in debate at one point or another. I would not suggest prescribing ideological convictions onto me, absent what this paradigm describes. I feel as if my knowledge of the following are roughly equitable, for context: communism, international relations theories and american hegemony (its pros and cons), afropessimism, political capital, conditionality and its history in debate, political capital in congress.
I appreciate historical examples as explication for argumentation, almost as much as an explanation of their relevancy to your argument / comparison to your opponents' warrants.
Speaking:
Speed = arguments effectively communicated per minute.
Clarity >>
Speaker Points? I try to default to this table's scale
[30 = nearly impossible to get/seniors at last tournament
29.9-29.7 = fabulous & expect to be in deep elims
29.6-29.4 = excellent & elim worthy performance
29.3-29.1 = good & expect to break
29-28.7 = median
28.6-28.4 = room for improvement
28.3-28 = some hiccups & things to work on
27.9-27.6 = room to improve and there is some debate stuff to learn
27.5 -27 = there is a lot of room to grow
26.9 and below = something went pretty wrong]
LD:
Not great for LD nonsense unless you want to explain things to me with an emphasis on impact calc & judge instruction.
I do not flow nor know how to evaluate phil, skep, tricks, and the like. If you do not defend some form of consequentialism, I am most likely not your judge.
In LD, I do not believe the 1NC/AR has the burden to rejoin frivolous, ridiculous theory arguments placed in the 1AC/NC to avoid clash.
Counterplan theory is fine. Litmus test is if the argument is prevalent in the activity of policy debate, it's probably fine. Except animal wipeout.
I would certainly prefer to not a LD debate with arbitrary disclosure norms; i think these debates and theory shells are worse for novices and access issues.
The most TLDR:
If I cannot explain your argument to you ethically or technically, the odds are that I cannot vote for you.
RVI's & tricks are nonstarters.
Updated Jan 24: Tabroom nuked my old paradigm and I didn't have a backup so this is now (hopefully) a lot shorter
ajbyrne1018(at)gmail.com -please put me on the chain.
I coach for New Trier and Northwestern.
I judged 80+ debates last year and am on track this year to judge even more this year. I like judging a lot and take it very seriously. The only things I love more than debate are my cat and the game Bloodborne for the Playstation 4®
I am far more truth oriented than other judges, I like evaluating the big picture and the interaction between arguments rather than reassembling the technical minutiae of the flow. Debate is a game of voting thresholds and virtually no argument exists in a vacuum.
I reserve all rights to not vote for an argument if I don't understand it and you have to pinky-promise to not yell at me if that happens to you.
Args that I will never consider good enough to vote on: ASPEC, Conditions CPs (unless the plan specifies unconditional action), Animal Wipeout, T-Subsets on this year's high school topic, Any of the "edgy" impact turns,
Furthermore, the cynical weaponization of microaggression language in pursuit of the ballot is a tragedy and therefore I will never vote for these arguments.
Flowing/Clarity: I do not flow off of the speech doc and will likely not have it open during speeches. Please do not read your blocks at top speed in front of me. I will greatly reward debaters who are putting in effort in the clarity, flowing, and organization aspects of their game. If you are standing up for a speech 2AC-onwards without your flows you are not debating the right way.
T vs K: I do not like judging big framework debates, not because I think that K teams are all cheaters but because these are debates where teams just brow-beat each other with their blocks they wrote in August and somehow expect the judge to come up with a satisfying RFD. I heavily rely on offense-defense while deciding these debates and will likely be more deferential to whichever team that kept the debate more organized. Reading T-USFG is not a violent speech act. I find most fairness pushes outside of the most basic establishment of procedural fairness pretty whiny. I am far more interested in clash and the vision each team has for how debate around the resolution should operate.
T vs Policy: I am not very good for the negative in this area. I find reasonability/predictability pushes very persuasive. I am not a member of the cult of limits, Literature limits almost certainly check and high schoolers should be encouraged to cut more cards. I will happily join the cult if I am presented with some good evidence though. I have no idea what Plan Text in a Vacuum means.
CP Theory: I don't vote for Conditions CPs. I think the aff's ability to go for theory is pretty dependent on the germaneness of the CP to the topic. Example: Consult Japan on a Nukes topic is probably pretty good! International Actor CPs on a Domestic topic seem pretty bad! The NGA CP is pretty bad.
My default is not kicking the CP for the neg in the 2NR - That being said you were probably in elementary school the last time I judged a debate that hinged on the CP linking to the net benefit.
I don't know what "non-resolutional theory" means.
Kritiks: I am not voting for the Framework Process CP. Framework is a defensive argument for the negative and I am easily persuaded that "you link you lose" is anti-educational. If the negative wins framework but fails to make inroads on other parts of the K I will vote aff on presumption. However, I am a total sucker for good alt explanation or a link analysis that puts a lot of doubt on the aff's ability to solve their internal links. I will give extremely high points for debaters that are able to use real world/historical examples to effectively bolster their arguments. I find a lot of 2ACs that attempt to answer the K absolutely dreadful.
DAs: Zero-risk is a thing. Plan Popular is not an argument that link turns an agenda DA.
I will look very grumpy during your debate - I am still very likely having a very enjoyable time, I just look like that most times.
Please refrain from talking to the other team when they are preparing for rebuttals
If you are rude to your partner I will call you out on it and give you a 26 - please be normal.
If you are not an active questioner/responder in your designated CXs I will be pretty punishing towards your points.
I miss the Security K :(
Background:
- I debated for Niles West in high school and West Georgia in college.
- BA in Philosophy.
Email:
- For all UMich camp debates: cgershom@umich.edu
- Personal email: gershom000@gmail.com
Top level things:
- If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is.
- If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
- Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
- I’m extremely hesitant to vote on arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.
- Absolutely no ties and the first team that asks for one will lose my ballot.
- Soliciting any outside assistance during a round will lose my ballot.
Pet peeves:
- Lack of clarity. Clarity > speed 100% of the time.
- The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start.
- Email-sending related failures.
- Dead time.
- Stealing prep.
- Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team.
- Asserting things are dropped when they aren't.
- Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards.
- Marking almost every card in the doc.
- Disappearing after the round.
- Quoting my paradigm in your speeches.
- Sending PDFs instead of Word Docs.
Ethics:
- If you are caught clipping you will receive a loss and the lowest possible points.
- If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points.
- If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.
Cross-x:
- Yes, I’m fine with tag-team cx. But dominating your partner’s cx will result in lower points for both of you.
- Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions, and I will run the timer accordingly.
- If you fail to ask the status of the off, I will be less inclined to vote for condo.
- If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.
Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate:
- I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting.
Affirmatives:
- I’m fine with plan or planless affirmatives. However, I believe all affirmatives should advocate for/defend something. What that something entails is up for debate, but I’m hesitant to vote for affirmatives that defend absolutely nothing.
Topicality:
- I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
- The most important thing for me in T debates is an in-depth explanation of the types of affs your interp would include/exclude and the impact that the inclusion/exclusion would have on debate.
- 5 second ASPEC shells/the like have become nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.
Counterplans:
- For me counterplans are more about competition than theory. While I tend to lean more neg on questions of CP theory, I lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps.
Disads:
- If you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn, it should go on its own sheet. Failure to do so is super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders.
Kritiks:
- The more specific the link the better. Even if your cards aren’t that specific, applying your evidence to the specifics of the affirmative through nuanced analysis is always preferable to a generic link extension.
- ‘You link you lose’ strategies are not my favorite. I’m willing to vote on them if the other team fails to respond properly, but I’m very sympathetic to aff arguments about it being a bad model for debate.
- I find many framework debates end up being two ships passing in the night. Line by line answers to the other team's framework standards goes a long way in helping win framework in front of me.
Theory:
- Almost all theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, condo is usually the only exception.
- Conditionality is often good. It can be not. I have found myself to be increasingly aff leaning on extreme conditionality (think many plank cps where all of the planks are conditional + 4-5 more conditional options).
- Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?
Framework/T-USfg:
- I find impacts about debatability, clash, and iterative testing to be very persuasive.
- I am not really persuaded by fairness impacts, but will vote on it if mishandled.
- I am not really persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.
- I am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.
- I don't think debate is role-playing.
- If the aff drops SSD or the TVA and the 2NR extends it, I will most likely vote neg.
1/15/2025 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. i only coach a handful of times per season, with my coaching usually being for our first/second year teams. 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 (especially online debates since that wasn't a thing at the time. i took a hiatus from judging during the height of covid). 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. also answer the other side's arguments in the order that they're made. 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 usually don't open the speech docs anymore, nor do i ever flow author names/card dates. keeping that in mind, statements like “extend the chikko evidence” with little to no elaboration 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, and so on. 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 january 2019. it is all still applicable…
my old paradigm from january 2019:
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.
Glenbrook South '24
246115@glenbrook225.org
Tech > Truth
For novices, understanding your arguments is better than having good ones.
Warrants needed for everything. If the other team dropped T, explain why that means you win the debate.
Please flow. Especially because you're a novice.
+0.3 speaks if you: add me on the email chain, signpost, watch Game of Thrones (I will quiz you)
+0.1 speaks if you: are clear, understand your arguments, make Aayan Ali jokes
Broncos Country
Lets ride
Pronouns - him/he\they
Email(s) - abraham.corrigan@gmail.com, catspathat@gmail.com
Hello!
Thank you for considering me for your debate adjudication needs! Judging is one of my favorite things & I aspire to be the judge I wanted when I debated, namely one who was flexible and would judge the debate based on arguments made by debaters. To do that, I seek to be familiar with all debate arguments and literature bases such that my own ignorance will not be a barrier to judging the arguments you want to go for. This is an ongoing process and aspiration for me rather than an end point, but in general I would say you should probably pref me.
I'm fun!
Sometimes I even have snacks.
<*Judging Quirks*>
- I have absolutely zero poker face and will make a lot of non verbals. Please do not interpret these as concrete/100% definitive opinions of mine but rather as an expression of my initial attempts to place your argument within the particular context of the other arguments advanced in a debate.
- All arguments are evaluated within their particular context - Especially on the negative, as a debater in high school and college I went for and won a lot of debates on arguments which would be described, in a vacuum, as 'bad.' Sometimes, all you have to say is a turd and your rebuttal speeches will largely be what some of my judges described as 'turd-shinning.' This means (unless something extreme is happening which is unethical or triggering my mandatory reporter status as a public school employee) I generally prefer to let the arguments advanced in the debate dictate my view of what is and what isn't a 'good' argument.
- I am not a 'k' or 'policy' judge. I just like debate.
<*My Debate History*>
I am a 2a. This means, if left to my own devices and not instructed not to look for this, the thing that I will implicitly try to do is identify a way to leave stuff better than we found it.
High School
- I debated at H-F HS, in Illinois, for my first two years of debate where I was coached by creeps.
- My junior & senior year in HS I transfered to Glenbrook South where I was coached most by Tara Tate (now retired from debate), Calum Matheson (now at Pitt), & Ravi Shankar (former NU debater).
My partner and I largely went for agenda politics da & process cps or impact turns. We were a bit k curious, but mostly read what would be described as 'policy' arguments.
College
- I debated in college for 4 years at Gonzaga where I was coached by Glen Frappier (still DoF at GU), Steve Pointer (now [mostly] retired from debate), Jeff Buntin (current DoD at NU), Iz-ak Dunn (currently at ASU), & Charles Olney (now [mostly] retired from debate).
My partner and I largely went for what is now be described as 'soft left' arguments on the affirmative and impact turns and unusual counterplans when we were negative.
Coaching
- After graduating, I coached at Northwestern University for a year. My assignments were largely 2ac answers & stuff related to translating high theory arguments made by other teams into things our less k debaters could understand.
- I then moved to Lexington, Kentucky and coached at the University of Kentucky for two years. My assignments were largely aff & all things 2a & answering k stuff on the negative.
- I then coached/did comm graduate work at Wake Forest for two years.
- I then took a break from debate and worked as a paralegal at a law firm which was focused on civil lawsuits against police, prisons, whistleblower protections as well as doing FOIA requests for Buzzfeed.
- I then came back to debate, did some logistics for UK, then worked as an in building assistant coach at GBS.
- I am currently seeking my Masters Degree in teaching.
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 - @kylanelliott2005@gmail.com
Pronouns: She/Her
I am a first year at Loyola University Chicago and now 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
gbn '24
she/her
please put me on the chain: mnf.debate@gmail.com
niles 2024 update: i have minimal knowledge about the topic (i've done some basic research) so don't assume that i have the same understanding about certain issues or that i understand your acronyms and references
most important things!
- be nice to each other, your opponents and me
- flow!
- impact calc and judge instruction should always be a part of your speeches
- tech over truth (BUT i think that truth influences how thoroughly you need to answer something)
- open cross is fine with me, as long as its fine with your opponents. having said this please don't completely take over your partner's cross
- any of the thoughts i have below can be changed with good debating. you do you and i'll do my best to adjudicate the round fairly
aff stuff
- explain your case well. i should be able to explain what the aff does (and its internal link to whatever scenario is extended in the 2ar) at the end of the debate, if i can't then you haven't done this.
- tricky mechanisms are great as long as they can be explained (same goes for questionably topical affs)
- probably not the best judge for k affs. i like t-usfg debates and tend to find clash and fairness arguments pretty persuasive.
counterplans/theory
- willing to listen to anything (<3 process cps) but if the cp is really cheating you should be able to beat it with perms/theory
- you don't need to read the perm texts but they should be in your doc
- condo is probably good (i was a 2n) and it's probably one of the only theory violations that a team should be rejected for. i think most other theory violations are a reason to reject the argument but rarely the team
- if you decide to go for theory please don't just read your blocks straight down, actually answer your opponents argument. you should also be investing substantial time into it
disads
- impact calc and turns case are always part of the best explanations
- explain the story of the disad well, especially if it's more confusing/complex (<3 tricky politics das)
kritiks
- i'm familiar with some of the more common stuff (security, fem, cap, set col, etc.) but anything more complicated please explain well ( you should be doing this regardless)
topicality
- explain your standards and impacts well please! i think t debates can be interesting if executed well
at the end of the day these are just some of my thoughts and i'd rather see you debate well than over adapt and debate poorly. if you have any questions please feel free to ask me! good luck!! have fun!!
Email: nheftman@gmail.com
New Trier 25', Northwestern 29’
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 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 good 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.)
Top shelf:
Pronouns are she/her
Just call me Alyssa or ALB - do not call me judge and dear debate Lord do not call me ma'am.
RE: Truf's flowing off the doc post - times I look at the doc:
-I typically will read the plan text and CP texts during the round in the sense that if I mis flow those we are all kinda cooked. I spot check for clipping on cards every once in a while. If there is an ornate perm text I will check that during the debate. If a specific piece of evidence is called into question during CX or during a speech I may check that piece of ev during CX or during prep. Besides that I will not under any circumstances flow off the doc. If you are unclear and I therefore do not understand your argument I could not expect your opponents to and therefore I will not vote for you.
Email chains: SonomaCardsCardsCards@gmail.com AND alyssa.lucas-bolin@sonomaacademy.org - I strongly prefer email chains over speech drop etc.
I deleted most of my paradigm
...Because I have run into way way way too many situations where people wildly misinterpret my paradigm and it leads to a rather miserable situation (mostly for myself.)
Debate well and we'll figure it out.
I'd prefer you talk about the topic and that your affirmative be in the direction of the topic. I could not possibly care less if that is via policy debate or K debate. False divide yada yada. Both policy teams and K teams are guilty of not actually talking about the topic and I am judging ALL of you.
Speed is fine but I need clear distinction between arguments and I need you to build up your speed for the first 10 seconds.
Tag team is fine but I'd prefer that the designated partner handle most of the cross ex - only intervene if it is absolutely necessary. I am an educator and would prefer to see each student develop their skill set.
Stop stealing prep.
Please make as many T Swift references as possible.
Have solvency advocates - plz plz plz don't read a cardless CP :(
Heavy stuff:
*No touching. Handshakes after the debate = fine but that is it.
*I am not the right judge for call outs of specific debate community members
*I am a mandatory reporter. Keep that in mind if you are reading any type of personal narrative etc in a debate. A mandatory reporter just means that if you tell me something about experiencing violence etc that I have to tell the authorities.
*I care about you and your debate but I am not your debate mommy. I am going to give you direct feedback after the debate. I won't be cruel but I'm also not a sugar coater. It takes some people off guard because they may be expecting me to coddle them. It's just not my personality - I deeply care about your debate career and want you to do your best. I also am just very passionate about arguments. If you're feeling like I'm being a little intense just Shake It Off (Lauren Ivey.)
*Clipping = zero points and a hot L. Clarity to the point of non-comprehension that causes a clipping challenge constitutes clipping.
*I am more than fine with you post rounding as long as you keep it respectful. I would genuinely prefer you understand my decision than walk out frustrated because that doesn't help you win the next time. Bring it on (within reason). I'm back in the ring baby.
Let's have a throwdown!!! If you're reading this before a round I am excited to see what you have to offer.
she/her
Niles West High School 2025
please add me to the email chain: nwdebate.me@gmail.com
general
-- racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. will not be tolerated
-- please be conscious of time -- don't stall between speeches, sending docs, starting cx, etc.
-- don't steal prep -- judges can tell, and it reflects poorly on you and your speaker points
-- clarity > speed -- if i can't understand it, i won't flow it
-- cross ex
-- don't be rude
-- don't take over your partner's cx
-- respect the person whose cx it is -- don't talk over or interrupt the person asking questions
-- don't go for arguments you don't understand -- you need to be able to explain it by the end of the debate
-- feel free to ask questions after the round
-- good luck have fun go wolves
Glenbrook North- he/him
I don't know what has happened to wiki disclosure but current practices are unacceptable. Rather than hard and fast rules, I've decided to just incorporate wiki disclosure into speaker points. The baseline is round reports for all your rounds, including what was in the 1NC, the block, and the 2NR, with full text of your 1ACs and cites for all your off-case. Going beyond that will boost your points. Not meeting that baseline will hurt your points.
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 per CP into the debate. Those need to be sent out prior to the 2A getting to those perms. The idea that you can "make" a perm but then actually write it later is absurd. 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.
Glenbrook South '24
246872@glenbrook225.org to add me to the email chain
2a
First time judging so please go slowly (don't spread too much for example)
Tech>Truth: Evidence does not matter if you cannot present it properly in a way that will shift the debate in your favor
You must understand what you are saying. Think of it this way: If you cannot present your args in a concise and accurate manner to a complete stranger, then you should not be reading it. Know your side of the debate by heart. Cross-examination usually reveals how well teams know what they are talking about.
Flow, flow, FLOW. I cannot emphasize this enough. Winning teams flow.
+0.1 speaks for making a debate-related joke that is actually funny
+0.3 speaks for proper email chain, correct flows, and automatic signposting.
Most, importantly, have fun and relax! Novice year is the time to try new things and make great memories with your friends.
P.S. I don't mind a bit of horsing around at all. Jokes are fine, even the more "spicier" ones if you know what I mean :) You won't get in trouble for what you say in the debate room, unless of course, it breaks a rule or something, obviously. Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing some great debates with all of you! Good luck!
GBN 2025--He/Him
Put me on the email chain: CS.Debate.GBN@gmail.com
You can call me Chris, Christopher, etc. Judge is fine but anything else is preferable.
Read whatever you're comfortable with, but I go to GBN so obviously better for policy than Kritiks.
Tech>Truth.
Hiding ASPEC is cringe, mark it as a separate off or my threshold for aff arguments against it becomes super low.
Give an order before every speech.
Tag Team cross-ex is fine, but don't try to speak for 30% or more of the time.
Impact calc!!!! Sounds super simple but that's what most novice debates come down to. Signposting or slowing down on tags is key to effective flowing for both me and the other team, don't be a robot reading into your screen.
Please be clear, I won't hesitate to clear you, and if it keeps happening speaks will be deducted.
To quote the entirety of a wise man's paradigm "flow."
At the end of the day, debate is a game, make jokes and be friendly. Throw in a niche fallout or Pikmin reference and maybe I'll even boost speaks.
Longer Paradigm thoughts:
Topicality - I think I lean more in the camp that Fiscal Redistribution requires taxes and transfers, but I'm ultimately willing to be swayed in the other way. Other than that everything's fair game. Explain to me why your standards are good and how you solve their standards/how their standards are bad/why yours are more important. I used to be very negative on plan text in a vacuum but I think it's more viable now. DON'T HIDE ASPEC ON T.
Disadvantages - Frame why uniqueness controls the link or link controls uniqueness, straight turns are always appreciated but don't try to be in a situation where you straight turn the disad and then do nothing with it. Explain how the disad turns case, doing it at the internal link level is preferable. Disadvantages are finally a solid position this year and nothing beats a good econ DA debate, but still show me that judge instruction on impact calc, why should probability matter more than magnitude, etc.
Counterplans - Explain to me why your interpretation is good and why there is bad, too many novices just assert their definition and that puts me in a sticky situation, but I think I might lean aff in said scenario. Judge Kick is a natural extension of condo, but give me the condition for the judge kick. States Counterplan can take you a long way, especially with a politics DA, and I would prefer that debate over Lopez Counterplan V359. That being said I'm still willing to vote on process counterplans.
Kritiks - Least familiar area. Don't label arguments on the framework as "DAs," while I think ultimately all negative frameworks end up becoming you link you lose try to convince me it's not. Affs need an argument against the alt or a solvent alt makes for an easy neg decision. Don't just throw out buzzwords, if you don't know what you're doing chances are I know you don't. Impact out your links on the perm and in general, perm double bind is a convincing argument.
K affs - Novs reading K affs is so wacky, I applaud your efforts but chances are you have no clue what you're doing. I'll evaluate fairness as an impact if quantified properly by the neg. K affs probably don't get perms but debate is a game of persuasion. TVAs and SSDs make my job a lot easier. Performance is cool but if you're doing it make sure to keep it throughout the entire debate. Willing to give some leeway to the neg because chances are they also have no clue what they're doing. In general, if you're reading a K aff I'm sorry, I go to GBN.
Theory - Willing to vote on condo regardless of off, but one-off makes reasonability a good argument in the neg's favor, clash on interps and standards. "so-and-so" argument is bad is usually a reason to reject the argument, being a voter is harder to win but still willing to vote on it. "You guys" theory and those sorts of args are hard to win, if I have a reasonable belief that the other team said it without malice or mistakingly I probably won't vote for it. Generally not a fan of SPEC args, use perf-con as a way to justify getting out of sticky situations, it's probably not a voter unless they're being extremely abusive on it. Not voting on actions done out of round. Answer the theory argument on the flow it was introduced on, don't just call it "condo" or "50 states fiat bad"
Other thoughts - Does a set of all sets contain itself? I like technology debates and impacts, science is super cool, and having debates about it is even better. I don't really like disease impacts, and I think it's one of the only times where I could be persuaded to have a 0% risk, but probably not.
New Trier Class of 2025
She/Her/Hers
Top Level:
- Be respectful of me, your opponents, and your teammates
- Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic
You're all novices - be nice and supportive because this is a year to learn, not to crush (and because being nice is generally good). I am here to support you and help you improve but also to make debate fun so if you feel unsafe or you're being hurt by someone else, I will help you resolve it.
I have 0 opinions on what arguments you run other than the caveats above so just do your thing!
If you need help with technical stuff, feel free to ask! On more debating stuff, try your best and ask me after the round. I'll be glad to help you with anything then!!!
Have fun and good luck!!!!
Add me to the chain: kyliesuttondebate@gmail.com
Call me Kylie, not judge
2N/1A gbs '24!
TLDR for Novices:
1. Any of my predispositions can and will be overcome with good debating.
2. Tech> truth. I vote on the flow first and evidence quality next. Debate the quality of the evidence to mitigate judge intervention.
3. Claim warrant and flesh it out otherwise I don't consider it an argument.
4. Theory: Condo is generally good, but I can be persuaded otherwise.
5. K affs: don't read them your novice year
Raising your speaks:
- If you give a 2:30 min 2nr because it's a clear crush, speaks + 0.2
- Show me your flows at the end of the round and if they're complete, + 0.1
- Make me laugh!
- Be a nice person.
Overall, just have fun, this is the year to try new things and argue what you want.
Don't read Death Good in front of me just to secure the ballot, you might get the ballot but your speaks are capped at 25.0.
they/them - call me Skye, not judge
I will not vote on sexist, racist, homophobic, or death good arguments.
Tech>truth.
Arguments need a claim and a warrant. Rounds where arguments don’t have both of those things will end up being very difficult for me to decide.
Disclose or take the speak hit and high preference for the other team on theory/side bias(exception of new affs). I sincerely believe disclosure is good, regardless of one's race, and that the community is better for it.
almost none of the below has actually been relevant in my rounds.
T:
PTV is bad. Very bad. I’m not as anti-ptv as Whitmore, but I do not understand how it doesn’t justify massive effects T.
Personal preference for ground, but I’ll vote for limits any day.
I hate this topic with a burning passion. As such, if you’re aff, you have a better shot going for w/m and reasonability with me.
when i’m a hired(not NT) judge, I’ve been instructed to have a higher bar to vote for the negative on topicality. This means that I will vote on it when dropped or when explained at a natcirc JV or higher level.
^ sorry.
Theory:
In order for someone to make a challenge that the opposition should lose the debate on the basis of an actual rule violation(clipping, miscut evidence, or whatever tournament rules there are. this does not include conditionality or other theory arguments), you have to bring it up during prep time and verbally say 'we are challenging the opposition on the basis of [x] and staking the debate on it'.
Otherwise, I will evaluate it like a theory violation and assume that it's a reason to reject the argument, not the team.
K:
Explain your K, win framework, and have a link that is something more specific than ‘ip bad’ or ‘state bad’, and I’m okay with voting for you.
That being said, please don’t get too technical. The team that starts their 2R with ‘here’s your ballot if you have no idea what’s going on’ is far more likely to get my vote.
Aff teams: no preference for fairness or clash.
CP:
Process CPs: aff leaning on perms, neg leaning on theory or solvency.
All other CPs: really depends on aff construction. If your 1AC has three or more solvency cards, I err aff on solvency. If it has two or less, I err neg. Very neg leaning on perms. States CP and agent CPs are part of our game.
If not otherwise instructed in the 1AR at latest, I’ll judgekick the CP. You don’t need to say sufficiency framing- genuinely don’t know what else I would use.
DA:
Why are people reading perms on DAs without uq cps? Your link doesn’t have to be specific to the plan, it just has to be to the plan.
That being said, I’m coming around on perms to DAs with CPs. I don’t love it, but the innovation DA really might not be competitive against certain affs.
Timeframe. Timeframe timeframe timeframe. Please.
I will dock your speaks(i give high speaks) by 0.1 if you say the words ‘our impact outweighs on magnitude because it’s extinction’ or any version of that. I’m still pretty sure I’ll hear it at least five times in this five round tournament, though.
Theory:
Will vote neg on condo/process cps/neg fiat/etc in basically all instances.
If your ASPEC shell is hidden and something like ‘aspec - they didn’t - that’s a voter for fairness and clash’, the 1A gets new answers.
Disclose your 1AC and past 2NRs- you don’t need to disclose the 1NC.
when I’m judging ms: I have no idea what is going on with theory when I’m judging middle school- y’all have weird disclo and new arg rules. 99% of the time, I will strike the argument off my flow instead of rejecting the team. If someone would like to stop the round and ask their coach, please do, but I also prioritize, you know, letting y’all debate rather than actually stopping a round.
Relax. Have fun.
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
Glenbrook South 25'
xe/they (they/them is fine)
Call me by my name please, not judge.
email chain -> junioryongdebate@gmail.com
*****
the stuff you really want to know :
- Clash is good, responding to the other teams args is better, doing both earns you a double thumbs up
- Impact calc is appreciated, tell me why you should win, why does your argument matter more than the other teams
- Arguments that you can explain and understand well >>> strange "(not) funny" blocks that your Varsity wrote for you
- Fine judging most arguments, as long as YOU can explain them. This gets a little weird if you're reading something no one knows. It needs to be explained thoroughly only if you want me to vote on it, do not assume I know what you're talking about, especially since we're off-packet now.
- I will adapt to you, debate in the way that is most comfortable to you.
*****
other things that you should also know :
- Don't steal prep, that means when the timer is up, your hands need to be off the device unless you're sending the doc.
- Stand facing me, not the other team when speaking, same during cx
- Speak clearly, your face should not be buried in your screen.
- PLEASE DO NOT GO FASTER THAN YOUR LIMIT. I know some novices like to go fast cause its cool, but no one will understand you, which means I won't either. If I cannot understand or hear you, I will not flow, meaning I will not vote on that arg cause you were unclear.
- Be nice. Yes, be competitive, but we're human.
- Don't make any offense jokes, comments, etc. I do not take homophobia, transphobia, racism etc. lightly and will lower your speaks to the ground.
(if you get me a black milk tea with boba -> +.3 speaks)
She/ her
Nt ‘24
Add me to the chain: sarazareadebate@gmail.com
Toplevel
If you are reading this and do not know how to send out an email chain, now would be a great time to learn
If you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Auto L + lowest possible speaks + contacting your coach
Flow! showing me flows after rounds = extra speaks
Try to make my flow as clean and organized as possible
Give a roadmap before your speech and signpost clearly
Time your own prep, Cx, and speeches
I <3 turns on both sides
Talk during all of your speech time, this is a great way to learn
coming up with your own arguments>>>reading your varsity's blocks
I <3 it when you frame my ballot for me and give overviews at the top of rebuttals
Pronouncing “hegemony” and/ or “democracy” correctly = +0.3 pts
Case:
I <3 case debating when it’s done well
I like it when you extrapolate warrants from your cards, compare them with the opponents’, and compare evidence
DAs:
Do clear line by line
I like impact calculus when it’s under 1 minute and impact turns. Tell me clearly why your impact outweighs and why you turn their impact
If you do ev comparison, tell me why UQ does or does not matter in the context of the round
If you’re neg and go for this, give me a clear internal link story in the rebuttals
Counterplans:
Explain why you're textually and functionally competitive, and why you solve all of case
If you're aff, impact the difference between the plan and the counterplan
Topicality:
Do standards debating comparatively, tell me why your standards outweigh the other teams'
Impact out why the aff specifically is bad or good for debate
Kritiks:
Make your link specific to the aff. reference author names and if you can, rehighlight cards
framework makes the game work
CX:
Tag team is fine
Don’t dominate your partner’s Cx and don’t be rude in general, otherwise I will actively deduct your speaker pts
I like it when you ask card-specific Qs and reference authors
—
Pls ask me if you have any questions or are confused about anything after I give my rfd! Debate is a game, so don't get too stressed; the most important thing is that you have fun and learn. policy debate is an activity to be proud of, win or lose :)
gbn 25
email chain: chloezdebate@gmail.com
tech > truth, anything goes besides obvious no’s (homophobia, racism, etc)
flow
if you’ve read this, say “real gs move in silence like lasagna” in any speech for +0.2 speaks