2023 — NSDA Campus, IA/US
Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
GFC update (9/22):
please go slow and explain <3 these are my first rounds since last spring and I’m pretty unfamiliar with the topic specs right now so over explain in front of me!
jw patterson update (10/21):
Things I'm going to start dropping your speaks for - 1. counting down before your speeches 2. calling me judge/ms. curry(misgendering me)/any formality - please just call me Ausha(Aw-shuh) or don't refer to me lmao (asking "judge ready?" is okay)
^if you do this i'll know either a. you didn't read my paradigm (bad) or b. did read my paradigm and just aren't respecting it (also bad)
Hi! I'm Ausha
I'm a current sophomore at American University majoring in a mix of poli sci/econ, probably going to do some form of debate here too. In high school I did 2 years of policy and 2 years of LD, running stock and critical args in both. I finished top 50 at NSDA Nats in 2021 and was the WA state LD champion.
Put me on the email chain if you make one : ausha.L.email@example.com
tldr -- Run whatever you want to run. I'll listen. I'll vote where you tell me to, that's your job in the rebuttals.
Don't do/say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamphobic, etc. It'll 100% result in an L20. If at any time during the debate you feel unsafe, feel free to email me and i'll end the round and deal with it accordingly
Policy/LARP - 1
Basic Ks - 1
T - 1
Uncommon Ks - 2
Phil - 3/4
Other Theory - 3/4
Tricks - strike
1. online - go maybe 80-90% max speed and definitely start a little bit slower in case the audio is shady. also plz locally record your speeches in case either of our internet cuts out !
2. disclosure - I won't vote on disclosure unless the violation is super egregious. i was literally the only circuit debater at my HS and i couldn't afford programs like debate drills, etc. so if you're in a similar boat i will def be empathetic towards you in these rounds. On the flip side if you're from a school that has a massive team and try to run the small school arg i won't buy it (interlake i am looking @ u)
3. tech > truth - please be super clear about signposting especially online. even if your opponent straight out concedes something, I still need extensions of a warrant and some weighing for me to vote on it
4. speed - speed is good, slow down on plan/cp texts, interps, etc. I'll yell clear or just ask for the doc post speech if I feel like I missed anything too significant (if it wasn't sent already). If your 1ar is entirely analytics please either slow down or send them in the doc
5. Ev ethics - if u suspect ur opponent is clipping cards, let me know after their most recent speech. it'll also require some sort of recording for proof. Yes stake the round on it, or you can run a theory violation on it and it'll be nicer for everyone
Argument Specific -
tricks - strike me. i won't go for any of the "neg doesn't get CPs" or "eval the debate after x speech". i think they're genuinely cheating, a bad model of debate, and incredibly exclusionary and i will die on that hill
t/theory - I love t, please run it. I spent a lot of my time in policy going for t in the 2nr so I'd say this is where I'm pretty comfy judging debates. I have a pretty high threshold for other theory, especially super friv theory like font size
LD specific: I didn't run a ton of grammatical stuff like Nebel in LD but if you run it well and explain the violation clearly, it's a pretty good shot I'll vote for it. i've come to the realization i don't particularly love theory 2ars if it's only introduced in the 1ar. I think it's made for some pretty shallow debates, but again, i will vote on it unhappily
Defaults: Competing interps, DTA, condo good, PICs good, yes RVIs (note: this doesn't mean i won't flip, you'll just have to debate it)
trad (LD) - will get through these rounds unhappily, but please spice it up a little bit. Make me not want to rip my ears off. Explain phil well, i've never ran one of these cases but i've won against them if that means anything to you. please do comparative work otherwise i will have no idea how to weigh. (Post GFC outrounds, please do not go top speed for kant I NEED you to slow down and explain how everything interacts with each other)
CPs - please make them competitive and have some sort of solvency evidence unless it's some a structural issue (ie taking an offensive word out of the plan text and replacing it). i use sufficiency framing for weighing the cp against the aff meaning you'll have to do more analysis than just "cp doesn't link to the net benefit" in the final rebuttal for me to vote on it. I think both internal and external net benefits are good.
DAs - I enjoy unique, nuanced das. I really like politics and i'll buy them pretty easily if there's a good link to the aff. Should have an overview in the final rebuttal and the block shouldn't be just reading new ev and not answering line by line.
ks - go for it! I like them if they're ran well but make sure you know that your own lit. I'm most familiar with generics (setcol, cap, security), Foucault, a little Edelman, and Baudrillard, any other high theory ones you should explain more though. open to pomo but never really ran it during high school and only hit it a couple times.
k affs - I like these, i ran more than a few. They don't have to be topical, but I think it's easier to win on t if they're in the direction of the topic. I mostly end up going for k v k against these affs but i also run fw in the 1nc, see the t section above if you have questions about that. tvas can be deadly so please blow it up if T/FW is your nr strat!
performance - never ran this, but always enjoyed watching these rounds. Tell me why the 1ac is important in the debate space and win T and it'll be a super easy aff ballot. negs be careful and please don't say anything offensive <3 but i feel like a different K or pik is always a better bet than fw against these
I think i tend to give relatively high speaks averaging between a 28-29. Things that'll boost your speaks: nice pics of aubrey plaza at the top of the speech doc, good organization, clear weighing, and strategic decisions
+.5 for flashing analytics
firstname.lastname@example.org for the email chain
I debated in college policy for three years at both Columbia and Dartmouth, winning a few regionals and clearing at majors. In high school, I debated primarily local LD with some national circuit experience my senior year, and I'm now the Director of LD at VBI and an Assistant Coach at Apple Valley and coach a few independent LDers.
Online debate: I flow on my computer so I won't be looking at the Zoom and don't care whether your camera is on or not. You should locally record all your speeches in case your WiFi cuts out in the middle.
Tech > truth. My goal is to intervene as little as possible - only exception is that I won't vote on args about out-of-round practices, including any personal disputes/callouts (except for disclosure theory with screenshots). I probably come across as more opinionated in this paradigm than I am when evaluating rounds since non-intervention supersedes all my other beliefs about debate. However, I still find it helpful to list them so you can get a better idea of how I think about debate (and knowing that it's impossible to be 100% tech > truth, so ideological leanings might influence close rounds).
Debates over evidence quality are great and re-highlighted ev is always a plus.
Evidence matters but spin > evidence - don’t want to evaluate debates on whose coaches cut better cards.
Extra-topical planks and intrinsicness tests are theoretically legit and an underutilized aff tool vs both DAs and process CPs.
I don't think a risk of extinction auto-outweighs under util and err towards placing more weight on the link level debate than on generic framing args unless instructed otherwise - this also means I place less weight on impact turns case args because they beg the question of whether the aff/neg is accessing that impact to begin with.
Soft left affs have a higher chance of winning when they challenge conventional risk assessment under util rather than util itself.
Zero risk exists but it's uncommon e.g. if the neg reads a politics DA about a bill that already passed.
Case debate is underrated - some aff scenarios are so bad they should lose to analytics.
Impact turns like warming good, spark, wipeout, etc. are fine - I'm unsympathetic to moralizing in place of actual argument engagement (also applies to many K practices).
Smart, analytic advantage counterplans based on 1AC evidence/internal links are underrated.
Immediacy and certainty are probably not legitimate grounds for competition, but debate it out.
Textual competition is irrelevant (any counterplan can be made textually competitive) and devolves to functional competition.
I'll judge kick unless the aff wins that I shouldn't (this arg can't be new in the 2AR though).
I like good T debates - lean towards overlimiting > underlimiting (hard for a topic to be too small) and competing interps > reasonability (no idea what reasonability is even supposed to mean) but everything is up for debate.
Generally think precision/semantics are a prior question to any pragmatic concerns - teams should invest more time in the definition debate than abstract limits/ground arguments that don't matter if they're unpredictable.
Plantext in a vacuum seems obviously true - this does not mean that the aff gets to redefine vague plantexts in the 2AC/1AR but rather that both sides should have a debate over the meaning of the words in the plan and their implications.
I care a lot about logic (and by extension predictability/arbitrariness impacts) - this means that competition should determine counterplan legitimacy and arguments that are not rooted in the resolutional wording or create post hoc exceptions for particular practices (like “new affs justify condo” or “process CPs are good if they have solvency advocates”) are unpersuasive to me. That said, I err against intervention - I dislike how judges tend to inject their ideological biases into T/theory debates more than substance debates.
I default to theory being a reason to reject the arg not the team, except for condo.
I don't see how condo can be anything but reject the team - sticking the neg with the CPs is functionally the same since they conceded perms when they kicked them. Infinite condo is the best neg interp and X condo should lose to arbitrariness on both sides - either condo is good or it’s not. I personally think infinite condo is good but don’t mind judging condo debates.
I think competition drives participation in debate and procedural fairness is a presupposition of the game - the strongest opinion in this paradigm.
While I’ve voted for Ks, I don’t think they negate - the best 2AR vs the K is 3 minutes on FW-neg must rejoin the plan with a robust defense of fairness preceding all neg impacts. Affs lose when they over-allocate on link defense and adopt a middle-of-the-road approach that makes too many concessions/is logically inconsistent.
Line by line >> long overviews for both sides.
Ks that become PIKs in the 2NR are new args that warrant new 2AR responses.
See above - while I think T-FW is just true, I'll vote for K affs/against FW if you out-tech the other team.
For the neg, turns case arguments are helpful in preventing these debates from becoming two ships passing in the night. TVAs are the equivalent of a CP (in that they're not offense) and you don't always need them to win. SSD shouldn't solve because most K affs do not negate the resolution.
For the aff, impact turning everything seems more strategic than defending a counter interp - it’s hard to win that C/Is solve the neg’s predictability offense and they probably link to your own offense.
Topic DAs vs K affs that are in the direction of the topic can also be good 2NRs, especially when turned into uniqueness CPs to hedge back against no link args.
K v K debates are a big question mark for me.
Tricks, phil, and frivolous theory are all fine, with the caveat that I have more policy than LD experience so err on the side of over-explanation. Phil that doesn't devolve into tricks is great. Some substantive tricks can be interesting but many are unwarranted, and I might apply a higher threshold for warrants than the average LD judge.
I’m a good judge for Nebel T - see the T section above.
1AR theory is overpowered but 1AR theory hedges are unpersuasive - 2NRs are better off with a robust defense of non-resolutional theory bad, RTA, etc. that take out most shells. RTA in particular is underutilized in LD theory debates.
There are too many buzzwords in LD theory that don’t mean anything absent explanation - like normsetting/norming (which debaters generally use to refer to predictability without explaining why their interp is more predictable), jurisdiction (which devolves to fairness because it begs the question of why judges don’t have the jurisdiction to vote for non-topical affs), resolvability (which applies to all arguments but never actually seems to make debates impossible to adjudicate), etc.
Presumption and permissibility are not the same and people should not be grouping them together. I default to permissibility negating and to presumption going to the side that advocates for the least change.
Conceding a phil FW and straight turning their (often underdeveloped) offense is strategic.
Speaks - these typically reflect a combination of technical skills and strategy, and depend on the tournament - a 29 at TOC is different than a 29 at a local novice tournament.
Hi all – I'm Connor. I did LD at West Des Moines Valley for three years (did alright on the national circuit, reached the semifinals at Iowa's state tournament). I haven't debated since 2021, so please assume I have no knowledge of common arguments on the current topic. Please put me on the email chain: email@example.com
I'm not the best at flowing, so please slow down on dense analytics and pause in-between short numbered arguments. I'll tell you to slow/clear a couple of times but if I miss an argument because I didn't hear it I will not vote on it.
Phil - 1
Pomo/cap K - 2
Identity K - 3
Theory - 2
Tricks - 3
LARP - 4
Phil: My favorite kind of debate. Don't assume I know what your author is saying (if it's obscure I probably don't). I really enjoy good phil debates especially strategic hijacks and turns. I'm familiar with Rawls, Kant, pragmatism, etc (whatever Valley is reading). I generally dislike hiding tricks in your framework since that usually comes off as a cheap shot but you do you.
Kritiks: I didn't read Ks until my sophomore year but since I've started I enjoy them. I'm most familiar with cap / semiocap but I'm open to other Ks as well. Please make sure to explain your theory of power and have a way to filter impacts under that theory of power. You don't always need to go for the alt - if you're winning your ROB and links as DAs that can sometimes be a better strategy than going for an alt as that can get really messy sometimes. K affs are fine - I'm quite receptive to T framework against these cases so maybe tangentially defending the topic would be a good move. Side note: I won't pick you up if you read a kritik that makes claims on behalf of a social group you're not a part of.
Tricks: When done well, tricks can be made interesting and fun to judge. When done poorly, I really dislike tricks debates. I will vote on a conceded claim but my threshold for responding to low-effort arguments is at the floor. If I pick you up on the resolved a priori you will not be happy with your speaks. If you read fun, interesting, or new tricks you and I will both be much happier.
Theory: I like theory. I don't like 5 shells in the 1N. Frivolous theory is fine but my threshold for responses is very low. Please go slower when reading your shells, especially if they're dense. Please weight between voters, standards, etc. Often, theory seems to be two ships passing in the night so please explain why your shell outweighs, comes first, etc.
LARP: To be honest, this is my least favorite type of debate to judge. I don't have a lot of experience LARPing and even less experience judging these rounds. I enjoy LARP v Phil rounds, especially when there are dense interactions between util and whatever the other framework is. I generally dislike LARP v LARP rounds. I will still evaluate the round to the best of my abilities but please do something fun with util or have a unique CP.
PLEASE COME ON TIME AND START THE ROUND ON TIME - we are all busy and don't want to wait 15 minutes for an email chain, speaks will directly reflect this preference, you will also get better speaks if you can end early or take less prep but please don't do so at the expense of speech quality
Mandatory things about debate so you know I'm somewhat qualified to judge
Debated for Lexington HS from 2018- 2022
Competed on nat circuit from 2019-2022, got 15 career bids, qualled to TOC junior + senior year, won a couple tournaments, deep elims of a handful of others (not that any of this actually affects how good judges are but I get why it's useful to know).
TLDR; run whatever you want, I'll evaluate it as best as I can, I wont refuse to evaluate anything and I will try my best to evaluate everything, below is mostly a list of familiarity with arguments and rants about debate
Trix - 2 (if you read actual warrants you are fine but I'm not gonna make the argument for you)
Phil - 2/3 (good if you want to actually debate, if you use it as an excuse to do trix debate but with less warranting I will be unhappy) please acc explain your phil some of it is dense
K- 2/3 (Becoming more comfortable but still have less experience)
I have run most arguments from Deleuze K, to skep NC's, friv theory, Policy, and also debated at several local tournaments. That being said I mostly read theory as my A strat, tricks occasionally when I could, and policy and phil in other rounds
Please add me to the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
I will flow any speed, but I reserve the right to say clear or slow 3x, after that point if I don't catch something I consider it to be on you. I am generally not great at flowing, I am fine for most things, but if you are spreading at 500wpm and extempt 'evaluate the theory debate after the 1AR' or some other blippy 1 liner that you expect to win off of, if I didn't flow it then I will not vote off of it.
Statements do not have to be true, but they do have to have a warrant, the warrant does not have to be true, but it does have to exist. I will vote off blatantly false statements if there is an extended warrant and impact. Truth and tech trade off which each other, the more true you are the less tech you need to be and vice versa.
Attacks on other people are not arguments and thus don't belong in the space
I default no judge kick CP's
I am not voting on evidence ethics. Stop being scared of debating. Run it as a shell or get me to reject the arg, if you stake the round you will lose.
I will not evaluate 'give me 30 speaks', I will give you what you deserve. I will probably just drop your speaks for this
Call-out affs are not real arguments. I will not vote on call out affs, even if you can prove that the debater is bad in some way, it's not my job to evaluate if a debater is a bad person and I won't do it
I will time prep if I remember which I will try to, please don't steal prep, its not fair or allowed
if you post round, do it respectfully, ask questions, I mess up sometimes, if you get your coach to come and yell at me, I will just get up and leave
I won't read evidence unless you ask me to do so, and if you ask me to do so, please say what I am looking for i.e. 'their impact card has no evidence that global warming is reverse causal' is good but 'their evidence is bad' will not cause me to go back
I will sometimes close my eyes while I'm flowing, I'm not asleep, just helps me concentrate
Presumption goes to the side of least change (very easy to change), permissibillity negates (harder to change just bc most arguments as to why it affirms don't actually justify it)
Theory is CI, DTD, no RVI
All of these can be changed very very easily but just making some type of argument about it, please dont make me use these defaults
Go for it, have well researched positions that you can understand well, just please don't be boring. If it's the same generic Aff that 100 other people have on this topic, and there is nothing about yours that makes it unique, I will be sad. I will still pick you up even if it's not interesting but I will probably give you worse speaks as a result of my not being invested in the debate.
I don't understand why people don't make more analytical turns on case, just because it's a Policy debate doesn't mean that you need a card that takes 30 seconds to read when you can say the same thing without a card in 10.
CP's: go for it, I like all CP's
I think analytical CP's that intuitively solve for all of the Aff's offense are underused, solvency advocates are probably not needed to make a CP legitimate
I like cheaty memey CP's and they are underused as well e.g. space elevators
If you insert evidence, you should read it, if you are pulling specific lines I think its your burden to read it, if you want me to read their evidence, tell me what specific things to look for, I am not going to read every single line of the article before making my decision. I.e. 'read their evidence - it doesn't isolate Russian aggression as the IL to war, it says bear attacks cause war' is good whereas 'read their evidence it's bad' is not something I am going to do.
Condo is prolly good unless you use it in a way that is explicitly to take advantage of condo, solvency advocates probably aren't needed, Pics are pretty neutral, process + agent CPs r probably bad. (Change my mind through debate, these are very light defaults)
Go for it, I am familiar with the rough ideas of most K literature, but I will not use prior knowledge to evaluate your K
The further out of debate I get the more I enjoy these BUT you should know your lit, good K debate is teaching me about models of the world and explaining why and how violence occurs, if I leave the round feeling as though I have learned something your speaks will be accordingly boosted
I personally never read that many K's, but I have hit most of them, and now have experience teaching or being taught a majority, so feel pretty good evaluating them
HOWEVER, if you read some new K that is 99% incoherent, and your explanation of the K in the last speech is not sufficient for me to understand the K then I will not vote on it.
Please don't give a 4 minute 2NR overview to the K that does a bunch of implicit work everywhere, I would much prefer a brief overview then LBL, I am unlikely to give implicit clash on either side, but this will hurt you more if your work is OV heavy and relatively light on the LBL
I don't like death good, I will vote on it but I just don't find myself very convinced by it and I think ethically debaters probably shouldn't read it.
I would prefer if you have framing mechanism and that you weigh it against theory or the aff framing mechanism. However if your ROB is something that is basically just a trick, you know what this means, I don't understand how its good for debate. Your ROB should not be 'I auto win' because this would seem to rely on you winning debate bad or ontology to justify the ROB at which point you have already won.
If you are going to go for the alt as a floating PIK, indicate it in the 1NC please
I love it, I think it's very strategic, rhese are the most entertaining debates to judge a lot of the time
Friv theory is good, however the more frivolous the shell is the more frivolous of a response I will accept on the shell
Read unique shells that I haven't seen before or old shells with new standards and you will make me happy and probably get better speaks, it can be a frivolous shell, friv shells that are new are often hard to respond to which is good for you
I will vote off a RVI on pretty much any theory shell, even if it's just an I meet on theory as long as you justify it
Disclosure is probably good, disclosure theory is also probably good
If you read reasonability please give some sort of way for me to know what you think is reasonable 'good is good enough' is not sufficient to justify reasonability
That being said, theory debates with 5 shells and 2 RVI's floating around get messy quickly, weigh between aff theory and neg theory, fairness and education, theory and RVI's, etc.
Go for it but please read this whole section, don't just assume I want to sit through this. People are not reading this and getting bad speaks lol, debate tricks well or don't do it, don't be messy
I ran these positions and generally find them either interesting and entertaining or completely a waste of everyones time. At their best it causes tons of critical thinking, line by line arguments, and interesting weighing interactions. At its worst its two people grasping at complex positions reduced to 1 line blips which are both fully conceded and I have to intervene or flip a coin
Yes Tricks are stupid and usually bad arguments but that means it should be fairly easy to answer them and I don't get why people don't just answer them. IMO if you can't do lbl and so drop a trick that would be on you.
Don't say 'whats an a priori' in cx, I will drop your speaks, you know what it is
If you read tricks but you don't understand them then it's probably not strategic to just bombard them with tricks
If you cannot explain the paradoxes that you read, I will not rely on prior knowledge to evaluate them
If you read evaluate x after x speech I will wait until after the 2AR to see if I ought to evaluate after x speech and if you have won the argument at that point I will backtrack and evaluate the round as needed.
Like with all things- the blippier the trick is, the less you need to respond to it in order to disprove it
Tricks need warrants, otherwise you can just say 'no warrant' and move on
This 'no 2N I meets thing' lacks the warrant for an argument, you still need a violation for the theory shell and if you don't have it you will lose idrc if the 2N isn't allowed to make I meets. Also it seems like you could do this and read a very questionable shell that they probably don't violate which would possibly be a strategic way to read this argument.
If you read something without a warrant I will not vote on it, full stop.
The worst arguments I have ever seen in debate are probably trix, if you read these types of argument VERY REAL CHANCE YOUR SPEAKS ARE TANKED. I consider this fair warning to be harsh.
T vs. K affs
I lean for T in these debates due to my experiences as a debater and the side I was usually on, but I have nothing against K affs, have and would continue to vote for them
I think that when done well K affs can be strategic and good for the space, but that if you read a K aff and are unprepared for T that you will probably lose
If your K aff or Frwk block is just OV generic stuff from 2012, I will be very unhappy
Your T 2NR should respond to case, if you don't it's very likely that you will lose the case debate and then lose the framework debate
I start at a 28.5 and move from there, below 26 is reserved for fully offensive things. The speaks you receive are relative to the pool you are in, e.g. a 29.5 at a local is different than a 29.5 at TOC.
Speaks are a reflection of not only how good you are but how happy you make me, if I am happy then you will be happy with your speaks, if I am sad than you will not be happy. Resolving good debates that are close is very very different than judging bad debates that are messy and hopefully you can draw that distinction.
If you sit down early or take less prep I'll give you higher speaks :)
If you read something that excludes a novice or lay debater from engaging, and it is clear that you knew they could not engage and yet you still continue with this strategy, you will get a L 20. For example, if your opponent reads a case at a conversational speed and then you spread a skep and Baudrillard NC and it is clear they don't know what is happening during CX and their 1AR, then you will lose. I don't care if you are ahead on the flow, you should not have to read arguments they can't engage with in order to win. You should try to speak at a max roughly 50% faster than them. I will not drop you unless it is a case of blatant abuse, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If you read a tech AC without realizing they can't engage, you should 1) help them understand in cx and 2) dont go for the tricky parts of the T
Debate what you feel comfortable with if you are a lay debater or novice, I think these debates are good and definitely an important part of learning to debate
Don't have justice vs. morality debates, they are the same thing and picking one over the other makes ultimately no difference
University of Central Florida Alumnus
Four years of LD for Fort Lauderdale HS and former policy debater for UCF.
***Avoid graphic explanations of gratuitous anti-black violence and refrain from reading radical Black positions if you are not Black.***
If you're rushing to do prefs here's a rough cheat sheet:
1- K and performance debates
2- framework debates, general topical debates
3- LARP debates and util debates
4- Theory/ Tricks debates
I will evaluate any argument so long as they are not morally repugnant, actively violent, or deeply rooted in foolishness. I can handle speed but due to the online setting, please go slower than you usually do. Also, be sure to properly extend and implicate your arguments in the debate as well, saying "extend X" and moving on doesn't really do much. In short, tell me why your arguments matter and why I should vote on/evaluate them. At the end of the day do what you do best—unless it's tricks and/or frivolous interps— and have fun doing it.
Hey y'all! I'm Shreya and I did L.D for five years from Valley High School in Iowa. I qualified to the TOC and NSDA nationals multiple times and am able to judge both circuit and traditional debate. As a debater, I primarily went for phil or K's, but also went for theory a decent amount too.
As a heads up, I don't flow off the doc. For the initial speeches, I'll give you a bit more leeway but if in the rebuttal speeches, you're flying through blips, don't send the analytics, and I don't catch an argument on my flow I won't vote on it. If for example, the 1AR makes a new eval after the 1AR claim and the 2AR collapses on it, even if was conceded, I won't vote there.
This is a quick paradigm for the NSD camp tournament
I like to think that I am a pretty tab judge. I can evaluate phil, K's, theory, T, tricks (not all tricks but most), and LARP (to a lesser degree).
If you have me for a performance v performance debate or a LARP v LARP debate, I may not be your best bet. If by the end of the debate, I have to read the evidence and intervene to do weighing, something went wrong.
If an argument is conceded, but I can't articulate what it means, what the warrant is, or how it affirms/negates, I will not vote on it.
Other things that I will not vote on
1. Eval after the 1AC or 1N
- Disclosure against novice labs
- More than 2 off against novice labs (util framing does not count as an off)
Things that will make me sad (and potentially you sad as well)
- Being mean/sketchy in CX to novice labs
- Reading skep or determinism or frivolous shells against novice labs
- Going only for the resolved a-priori in the 2ar when there is a substantive route to the ballot too
- Not weighing or going for new arguments in the rebuttal speeches
Please collapse in rebuttal speeches and tell me how to vote. Judge instruction makes life easier for everyone. Your rebuttals should sound a lot like my ballot! Also, lowkey check out the novice paradigm as well, all of it applies
This paradigm is for Junior High Nationals
I'm willing to vote on any argument insofar as it is warranted and not offensive. Here's the best explanation of how I'll judge junior high.
First, I'll look to who's winning the value/criterion debate. If one debater is winning an entire contention and its impact (ex; nuclear war) but isn't winning that consequences matter than I won't look to that offense.
Second, I'll look to who's extending their contentions or arguments throughout the round. If the 1AR drops a really good argument and then brings it back up in the 2AR I won't vote on it.
Third, I won't evaluate new arguments made in the 2AR or completely new arguments in the 2NR because that isn't fair to your opponent, they don't have a full opportunity to respond.
Fourth, I know at nationals that persuasiveness and rhetorical choices are given great importance and while those will definitely help if you have me as a judge, know that I ultimately vote based off the flow.
Finally, be nice! Debate can already be an exclusionary space and its important that as opponents (and judges) we work to actively make it better and that starts with being kind to your opponents.
I look forward to your debate, feel free to ask me any questions!
Hello, my name is Caedmon Kline and my email is email@example.com
My debate experience is as a varsity ld debater.
For preference I would go K > Phil > Tricks > Larp > Theory
Spread all you want within reason
As far as argument preferences go I don’t really have any, as long as you warrant it clearly and explain why it matters to the round I will vote on it.
Tech over truth
I default to a 28 for average speaks, you will drop to a 26 for poor argumentation or if you show little effort, you will raise to 29 if you exhibit skill and 30 for exemplary performance, this will be relative to the division you are in, not based on overall debate. I will not mark anyone below 26 unless they are offensive or super rude.
I will disclose and give full rfd after the round and will share speaks if both debaters agree.
Affiliations: downtown magnets high school & Cal debate
For the most part I decide the debate through tech over truth. The baseline for speaker points is 28.5. Please don’t say anything racism, sexist, homophobic, ect…
Kaffs: I tend to think that having a strong link to the topic is better and more persuasive. If you want to run a kaff that doesn’t have a link then it would be best to give me reason for why that is important. Especially for the theory of power it is important to me that you explain the warrants behind the claims that you make.
Framework: You should definitely run it and I tend to think that whoever has a better articulation of their impacts tends to win the framework debate. I default that procedural fairness is an internal link to education but can be convinced otherwise. Giving examples when it comes to debating limits and grounds is especially key for me and for my emulation if the aff does explode limits. You should spend time and flush out your arguments beyond light extensions of the 1nc.
T: I tend to default to which interpretation creates better resolutional debates however can be convinced otherwise. An important note here is that a lot of teams should spend more time comparing impacts and giving me reasons why their model of debate is better than only focusing on standards.
DA/CP: Having great evidence is cool but you should spend more time impacting out why it matters. Oftentimes I think that there should be more work done on the internal links of your scenarios or explaining the process of the CP.
Have fun and do what you do best! :)
Conflicts (ghill, memorial, Marlborough, )
Memorial '19 SMU '23 (don’t know why you’d care but some people do)
Yeah, I want the docs --Misrap354@gmail.com I’ll say clear once.
TLDR: Twice as good as your average local judge, half as good as your favorite circuit judge (prove me other wise and you get a cookie)
Judged wayyy to much in college 1year post college now. Take that as u will; no I haven’t kept up with the topic lit or what this years new fad is in debate.
If you have any questions about what’ I like to see: look at my past judging, but please don’t read dense phil. I do not care for it and will not make an effort to understand it.
Any memorial debater, Acadmey of classical Christian Studies JM, or any debater that larps or pretends to larp with hidden tricks describe the style of debate im okay w judging w/ zero topic knowledge
Pretty hard to get below a 28.9 infront of me, esp if u ask for high speaks.
Important Stuff is Bolded
My name is Andrew Shea (he/him). You can call me Judge Shea, Andrew, Fire Lord O’Shea, whatever floats your boat.
I am pursuing a major in history and a minor in international relations at the University of Iowa. I am working towards a phd in transnational labor history and relations.
I have a cat named Haywood after Harry Haywood. He is amazing and cool. Ask and I am happy to show pictures.
My email for contact is: firstname.lastname@example.org
I competed at John F Kennedy High School in CR IA. I was coached by Jesse Meyer who remains a large influence on me today.
I judge mainly LD and PF. I was mostly a K debater and did okay throughout my career. I generally understand most arguments. My paradigm breaks down into prefs/speech paradigm, in-round debate behavior, and in-depth LD/PF prefs. Please ask questions if you have any. I am always looking to improve.
LD Cheat Sheet
3 Trad* or Policy/LARP
5 Tricks/Strike (don’t know enough to competently judge)
*I think trad is a good debate format and can be competitive/clash with circuit debate. I put it higher up to tell trad debaters they can pref me without concern.
**I won’t vote you down because you run theory. I just have a lower threshold for response to theory. For example I don’t think you need to run a counter interp or RVIs to respond but if you do, you should do it well.
Two things of note:
- I am ok with spreading if you ask your opponent before round. Please do this in front of me in-round. If you did not ask and your opponent runs theory/disability arg on why spreading is bad I am more liable to drop you. That said if no objections are raised from 1ac/NC-1NR/1ar I will assume there is no issue and be less liable to vote down spreading
- I am pro Flex Prep but you have to ask before round. I prefer this to avoid someone being denied the opportunity to use it in round. In elims I go with the majority judge view on flex prep.
PF Cheat Sheet
1 Trad PF
2 Critical Args
I am basically fine with anything in PF but theory annoys me. I really prefer normal PF but I won’t mentally check out if you don’t.
See above LD prefs for spreading/flex prep
I am by no means an experienced speech judge but I have coached the very basics and I did exempt and spontaneous in high school. I like to see confidence, good use of the space in a room, rehearsed body movements (don’t just keep your hands in one position unless that is your character's thing for something such as a HI), and just do your best.
Unless explicitly prohibited by tournament rules let me know if you want to give hand signals for time. I would be happy to do them.
Ask and Advocate: Debate should be a friendly and welcoming space. To that end, ask and advocate for yourself. If you have an issue or a question please ask. If you feel harmed in some way or see something that bothers you, advocate for yourself. I am happy to facilitate in any way I can to make debate a better space for all. In no way should gender, disability, or class make you feel unsafe in this space.
Assertive and Polite: It is ok to be determined and assertive in a debate round but never belittle your opponent or be snarky to them. Everyone here is a person first and foremost along with being a student. Debate is a game and I find it vastly more useful to educate rather than to belittle someone for not understanding or for making a "bad argument" that said you should absolutely seek to control a round and narrative. Raised and passionate voices are ok but avoid yelling or taking a dismissive. arrogant tone. Be very cognizant of that difference when debating women/non men debaters, sexism is all too prevalent and unacceptable in the debate space and such dynamics do influence my judging particularly in the way I give speaks.
On Spreading: I am not anti-spreading. While I don't think it is a good norm for debate I do understand that it is the default and if everyone is ok with it I will be too. I prefer that people ask before round because I have met several debaters who have had disabilities that prevented them from spreading. I would like debate to realize spreading should be moved away from but because I don't run a camp or have money I at least want to make the space more accessible to different debaters in lieu of some larger change.
As a judge I will: provide you with in-depth feedback and always explain to you why I interpreted something the way I did. I will not always be right and make mistakes but I will do my best to explain my reasoning.
Do everything I can to answer questions or redirect you towards resources who can do it better
Provide a safe environment for debaters as someone in the community who cares and who will listen.
LD Prefs in-depth
Since I mainly judge LD here is more in depth thoughts for those who care to read them:
K debate: I love K debate. My political beliefs lead me to love hearing Parenti, Gramsci, Lenin, Mao, Marx, Losurdo, Fanon, and many others along the communist and decolonial based lines. As such I will be happy when I hear cap bad, china isn’t the devil, palestine will be free, etc. That said I familiar with many other authors and I am generally friendly towards hearing any new arguments and I am happy to learn about anything new.
Phil: I know some but not alot. I would love to learn more and therefore feel free to run anything just explain it well.
Trad: I think it can and should endeavor to be more competitive with circuit debate.
Policy/Larp: I don’t necessarily have a problem with it, sometimes I just find it boring. Honestly I have grown to like it more because I actually do enjoy hearing about the resolution.
Theory: I won’t vote someone down because they run theory but I firmly believe that theory is often used in a way that makes debate poor and ruins the quality of argumentation. I think it harms accessibility and as a result my threshold for response is lower. While I feel like I have a decent grasp on theory debate there is a greater risk of me not fully comprehending your argument as I haven't attempted to immerse myself in the mechanics due to my dislike.
What I look for in a good LD round
Overview: Like a real overview which represents the interactions that happened in the round with a narrative. Challenge yourself to have it be more than a summary of what your case is.
Weighing: Like actual weighing. Extending your impact is great but you need to explain why your impact should be valued more compared to your opponents
1nr Card Drop: I see people spread as fast as possible through their speech and then just extend whatever their opponent did not respond too and think they won the round. I need some weight and explanation of the warrant from arguments to vote on them. When there isn't, my threshold for responding or weighing them is lower than the arguments you developed. Developing arguments is good and makes me value them more than your 17th apriori which has “big” implications in the round because your opponent conceded it.
Truth vs Tech: I'm more tech. Basically that's it.
Tabula Rasa: I'm not. I will not tolerate racist, sexist, ableist, classist behavior. I also have strongly held beliefs of what debate should be to get better. That said if I think such behavior has occured I am more likely to stop the round and refer the issue to tab. What I won't do is vote someone down because your K says they are literally the devil for not being topical. I am more receptive to the argument that the argument is some "-ism" not the person. We are learners here and should educate and build people up.
Teach me something: Honestly this goes for debaters, coaches, and other judges. I want to learn and improve and be a positive force in the debate space. I love learning about new theories and concepts. As such it may be helpful to take the time to explain the mechanics of an argument without the internal jargon to maximize education.
PF in-depth prefs
Trad pf vs Circuit pf: It's weird that there is now a difference between trad and circuit/prog PF debate and I am not exactly a fan that its come to this. That said I prefer normal PF rounds over critical arguments as I don't think the format lends itself to progressive.
Theory: See LD prefs for opinions on theory.
Evidence: My evidence standards are a bit higher in PF due to frequent bad paraphrasing. I will likely review cards which are deemed critical in round during prep time. If I find that the card itself is misconstrued I will be annoyed and have a lower threshold for response to the arguments that rely on the card. That said I think there is a difference in making an argument which misconstrues the card rather than the card itself being misconstrued. That's just debate.
That's all folks.
Do whatever you want, talk as fast as you want. For novices, remember to extend and weigh.
doop doop doop
Put me on the email chain if you're gonna do it. Email: email@example.com
I'm a senior at Valley. I do LD.
I prefer novices to read lay/traditional cases. I get that winning rounds based on varsity arguments your teammates gave you looks good to your parents, but if you don't understand what you read, then you don't gain anything from it. Instead, I think novices should focus on the basics of debate: good argumentation, being able to think on your feet, doing your own research. If you can actually understand your really technical Berardi case and it's something you actually want to read, then go for it. Otherwise, maybe don't.
If you're going to spread, try to spread well. Don't garble your words, speak clearly. If you can't do that, don't spread. Only spread if your opponent is cool with it.
All novices get 29+ unless they do something bad and by bad i mean defend racism or smth
I don't do pf so I will not know the topic literature. I have judged it a few times but I'm gonna judge it like an LD round because that's easier for me
You can call me a progressive judge, do theory and have an opposing framework and stuff (why do y'all not do framework debate? it's weird).
I'll vote on analytics, not everything needs to be carded.
This only happened once but if there's no impact weighing I will default to lives saved and look for who saves the most lives. *NOTE: I WILL NOT DO THIS IN LD*
I don't care if you dress up or not, it won't affect my decision
Tech > truth. exception is if it's a racist/sexist/homophobic/etc argument.
Run what you want, but understand your cases before you read them, else i will be annoyed.
I won't flow cross-x unless you ask me to.
I'll say clear thrice. After that, I will stop flowing and just stare at you and let the judgment flow. if I say slow, it's not because you were unclear but rather that I am bad at flowing.
Things I like:
clear extensions with weighing. Specifically, I like hearing "extend this argument, here's the warrant"
k's that my small brain can understand without learning
Things I like less:
k's with really big words that I won't understand without reading 13 doctoral theses in the subject unless you can explain SUCCINCTLY and CLEARLY
disclosure theory if it's not contact info
Time yourself, please, I'm lazy. I'm fine with you going a little over time to finish your sentence, but don't make it insane.
Use all your speech time. I see people not using all their time when judging novice debates. You can't get this time back, you might as well use it all. exception is if you're dominating/hitting a novice, in which case it's fine to sit down once you've hit all the important points.
Ask me questions after round, it'll help both you to become a better debater and me to become a better judge. I'll disclose speaks if you ask
I'll try to be lenient with speaks (especially for novices). Speaks will be decided based on how i feel
If you say anything racist/sexist/homophobic etc., I will drop you and give you a L20.
If you can tell me your favorite Tech N9ne song, I will give you +0.2 speaks (no saying face off or -0.2 speaks)
if you tastefully roast the following people you get +0.3 speaks (no generics and nothing actually mean): michael meng, nate weimar, ashley seo, caedmon kline, shreya joshi, ria tomar
if you praise grant engelbert you get +0.4 speaks
call me what you want, especially if it's funny like "joe mama, third in his line, conqueror of Brennan in smash ultimate" (you are forbidden from using this specific name)
Just have fun and try to learn something.
Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn
[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp
To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 4 if you like Ks and LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).
Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).
Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:
1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.
2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.
3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.
4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.
"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell. Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.
Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I
of course won't on face not vote on them , but please reconsider reading them.
Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.
5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.
Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.
6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).
7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.
Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.
8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.
9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.
10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.
11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)
12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.
For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)
*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.
**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.
Hello! My name is Ria, and I've been doing LD debate for the past four years, graduating this year.
I prefer that you extend your arguments and explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. I think it's strategic to explain both how you are winning offense under your framework, as well as your opponents'.
If you have any questions about my judging preferences, please feel free to ask before the round. Good luck, and have fun!
2023 update: I have not judged in a couple years, so going a bit slower is best for me as well as explaining any jargon relevant to the topic.
I do not need to be on the email chain if it's an LD round, I would like to be on the email chain if it's a policy round. I have no preferences on standing/sitting.
Background: I debated for four years of policy debate (Norfolk, NE), debated NFA-LD for the University of Nebraska (2 years), and previously the policy coach at Lincoln High (NE).
Affirmative: Do what you want, I am not fundamentally opposed to nontraditional affirmatives.
Negative: Run what you feel comfortable with. I think playing to your strengths makes for a better and more exciting round. I am a sucker for theory debates but ultimately want to see what debate you enjoy.
Kritiks: The only particular I have is that the alternative needs to be explained well. If I don't understand your alternative, I'm going to have a hard time voting off it.
General: I try my best to vote based off of what I hear in round. I have particular opinions about debate, but I will do my best to judge based off the round rather than my own preferences. I prefer analysis over card dumping. The more contextualized analysis is usually the more compelling to me. In general, I like it when you're genuine with your arguments. I want you to like them and I want to be able to like them. You spent a lot of time cutting these positions, do them justice.
One thing I particularly don't like (and will have a hard time voting on) are quick and dirty theory shots to win the round. An example might be an observation that says you, by definition, win the round or something. If that's what you want me to vote on, a clean extension is not sufficient. You need to invest time into arguments that you want me to vote on, these observations/theory points included. I will not vote on a theory pot-shot that you put a combined 45 seconds into. I need analysis as to why you want me to vote on that thing.
Hi I'm Jalyn (she/her/hers), I go to UCLA and debated for WDM Valley in LD for ~7 years. I have experience on both the nat and trad circuits. I've dabbled in pf and policy but don't consider myself adept at judging those.
UPDATES FOR TOC: My conflicts are: WDM Valley, Millburn
If there's an email chain, put me on it: firstname.lastname@example.org. In constructives, I don't flow off the doc.
TLDR - LD
Please note first and foremost that I am not that great with postrounding. To clarify, please ask questions about my decision after the round--I want to incentivize good educational practices and defend my decision. However, I really do not respond well to aggression mentally, so please don't yell at me/please treat me and everyone else in the round with basic respect and we should be good!
quick prefs (but please read the rest of the TLDR at least)
2- theory, id pol k/performance, stock k
3- pomo k, LARP
for traditional/novice/jv debate: I'm good with anything!
i honestly do not care what you read as long as the arguments are well justified. less well justified arguments have a lower threshold for response.
I am fine with speed. At online tournaments, please have local recordings of your speeches ready in case there's audio issues/someone disconnects. Depending on tournament rules, I probably can't let you regive your speech if it cuts out, so be prepared. I will say clear/slow.
I rate my flowing ability a 6/10 in that messy and monotonous debates are difficult for me to flow but as long as you're clear in signposting, numbering, and collapsing, we shouldn't have any problems.
I view evaluating rounds as evaluating the highest framing layer of the round as established by the debaters, then evaluating the application of offense to it. In messy debates, i write two RFDs (one for each side) and take the path of least intervention.
i assign speaks based on strategic vision and in round presence (were you an enjoyable person to watch debate?). However, if you make arguments that are blatantly problematic, L20.
Many judges say they don't tolerate racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc, but know that I take the responsibility of creating a safe debate space seriously. If something within a round makes you feel unsafe, whether it be my behavior, your opponent's behavior, or the behavior of anyone else present in that round, email me or otherwise contact me. I'll do my best to work with you to address these problems together.
LONG VERSION - LD
- If a debater stops the round and says "I will stake the round on this evidence ethics challenge" I will follow tournament/NSDA rules and evaluate accordingly (generally resulting in an auto win/loss situation). However, I usually prefer ev ethics challenges are debated out like a theory debate, and I will evaluate it like I evaluate any other shell.
- I really am not a fan of debates over marginal evidence ethics violations. like i really do not care if a single period is missing from a citation.
- I don't hold strong opinions on disclosure norms. Disclosure to some extent is probably good, but I don't really care whether it's open sourced with green highlighting or full text with citations after the card.
- reasonability probably makes sense on a lot of interps
- I strongly dislike being sketchy about disclosure on both sides. Reading disclosure against a less experienced debater without a wiki seems suss. Misdisclosing and lying about the aff is also suss.
- disclosure functions at the same layer as other shells until proven otherwise
- I strongly dislike defaulting. If no paradigm issues or voters are read by either debater in a theory debate, this means I will literally not vote on theory. I don't think this is an unfair threshold to meet, because for any argument to be considered valid, there needs to be a claim, warrant, and impact.
- You can read frivolous stuff in front of me and I will evaluate it as I would any other shell, but more frivolous shells have a lower threshold for response. For more elaboration, see my musings on the tech/truth distinction below.
- Paragraph theory is fine, just make sure that it's clearly labeled (i flow these on separate sheets)
- Combo shells need to have unique abuse stories to the interp. generally speaking, the more planks in a combo shell, the less persuasive the abuse story, and the more persuasive the counterinterp/ i meet.
- "converse of the interp" has never made much sense to me/seems like a cop out, if you say "converse of the interp" please clarify the specific stance that you're taking because otherwise it's difficult to hold you to the text of the CI
- overemphasize the text of the interp and names of standards so i don't miss anything
- you can make implicit weighing claims in the shell, but extend explicit weighing PLEASE
- RVIs make less sense on T than they do on other shells, so an uphill battle
- T and theory generally function on the same layer for me but I can be persuaded otherwise
- Good/unique TVAs are underutilized, so make them. best type of terminal defense on T IMO
- altho I read a ton of K affs my jr year, I fall in the middle of the K aff/TFW divide.
- if you're going to collapse on T, please actually collapse. don't reread the shell back at me for 2 minutes.
- see above for my takes on defaults
- I am more familiar with asian american, fem, and cap (dean, marx, berardi), but have a decent understanding of wilderson, wynter, tuck and yang, deleuze, anthro, mollow, edelman, i'm sure theres more im forgetting, but chances are I've heard of the author you're reading. I don't vote on arguments I couldn't explain back at the end of the round. if the 1ar/2nr doesn't start off with a coherent explanation of the theory of power, I can't promise you'll like my decision.
- buzzwords in excess are filler words. they're fine, but if you can't explain your theory of power without them, I'm a lot less convinced you actually know what the K says.
- some combination of topical and generic links is probably the best
- i find material examples of the alt/method more persuasive than buzzwordy mindsets. give instances of how your theory of power explains subjectivity/violence/etc in the real world.
- floating piks need to be at least hinted at in the 1n
- idc if the k aff is topical. if it isn't, i need a good reason why it's not/a reason why your advocacy is good.
- you should understand how your lit reads in the following broad categories: theory of the subject, theory of knowledge, theory of violence, ideal/nonideal theory, whether consequences matter, and be able to interact these ideas with your opponent
- the type of debate I grew up on. NC/AC debates are criminally underrated, call me old school
- I'm probably familiar with every common phil author on the circuit, but don't assume that makes me more amenable to voting on it. if anything i have a higher threshold for well explained phil
- i default epistemic confidence and truth testing (but again. hate defaulting. don't make me do it.)
- that being said, I think that winning framework is not solely sufficient to win you the round. You need to win some offense under that framework.
- i like smart arguments like hijacks, fallacies, metaethical args, permissibility/skep, etc.
- sometimes fw arguments devolve into "my fw is a prereq because life" and "my fw is a prereq because liberty" and those debates are really boring. please avoid circular and underwarranted debates and err on the side of implicating these arguments out further/doing weighing
- Rarely did LARP in LD, but I did do policy for like a year (in 8th/9th grade, and I was really bad, so take this with a grain of salt)
- All CPs are valid, but I think process/agent ones are probably more suss
- yes you need to win a util framework to get access to your impacts
- always make perms on CPs and please isolate net benefits
- please weigh strength of link/internal links
- TLDR I'm comfortable evaluating a LARP debate/I actually enjoy judging them, just please err on overexplaining more technical terms (like I didn't know what functional/textual competition was until halfway through my senior year)
- well explained logical syllogisms (condo logic, trivialism, indexicals, etc) (emphasis on WELL EXPLAINED AND WARRANTED) > blippy hidden aprioris and irrelevant paradoxes
- i dont like sketchiness about tricks. if you have them, delineate them clearly, and be straightforward about it in CX/when asked.
- Most tricks require winning truth testing to win. Don't assume that because i default TT, that i'll auto vote for you on the resolved apriori--I'm not doing that level of work for you.
- warrants need to be coherently explained in the speech that the trick is read. If I don't understand an argument/its implication in the 1ac, then I view the argument (if extended) as new in the 1ar and require a strong development of its claim/warrant/impact
TLDR - CX
I have a basic understanding of policy, as I dabbled in it in high school. Err on the side of overexplanation of more technical terms, and don't assume I know the topic lit (bc I don't!)
Misc. thoughts (that probably won't directly affect how I evaluate a specific round, but just explains how I view debate as a whole)
- tech/truth distinction is arbitrary. I vote on the flow, but truer arguments have a lower threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is round) and less true arguments have a higher threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is flat)
- I think ROB/standard function on the same layer (and I also don't think theres a distinction between ROB and ROJ), and therefore, also think that the distinctions between K and phil NCs only differ in the alternative section and the type of philosophy that generally is associated with both
- I highly highly value adapting to less experienced debaters, and will boost your speaks generously if you do. This includes speaking clearly, reading positions and explaining them well, attempting to be educational, and being generally kind in the round. To clarify, I don't think that you have to completely change your strategy against a novice or lay debater, but just that if you were planning on reading 4 shells, read 2 and explain them well. It's infinitely more impressive to me to watch a debater be flex and still win the round than to make the round exclusionary for others.
- docbots are boring to me. I just don't like flowing monotonous spreading for 6 minutes of a 2n on Nebel, and it's not educational for anyone in the round to hear the same 2n every other round. lower speaks for docbots.
- I will not evaluate arguments that ask me to vote for/against someone because they are of a certain identity group or because of their out of round performances. I feel that oversteps the authority of a judge to make decisions ad hominem about students in the activity
- pet peeve when people group permissibility/presumption warrants together. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.
- this list will keep expanding as I continue to muse on my debate takes