Sofia Audet-AbdulNour, She/her

Umich debate/engineering-- class of '28

Groves HS Debate -- '22-'24

Please add me to your email chains -- s.audet2024@gmail.com

---Policy----

CLIFF NOTES:

** Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be true. Ideally, truth is 0%, but I'm human so it's probably 10%. Arguments also must not be morally repugnant (death good, oppression good, suicide good)

** Speed: Pretty good here, zoom gets iffy so focus on articulation. Rebuttals should be slower than constructives. Lmk if you need "clears"

** IPR Topic: This all new to me. Explain niche concepts, legal jargon, and acronyms. There should be overviews throughout the debate. Also means going more in-depth on T interps and violations.

** Organization: I like organization. Please, please have headings on ur docs. don't bury/hide things. pls use word and verbatim.

** Offs: I like to see at least a few policy generics in every debate. Ideal 2NR starts: DA + Case, DA + CP solves, Topic generic K, impact turn the whole aff. Cheap shots like burying aspec in 1NC are rarely going to get me to vote

** Policy>>>> Ks > K v T

OFF CASE SPECIFICS

**Topicality: Not my fav for a 2NR, but I'm willing to vote on it. Line-by-line on violations and standards should be very organized. Pls, weigh standards. (V. K affs) A good fw block should have a good TVA.

**CPs: 100 Planks? I'd prefer not. Plan inclusive with internal nb? Sure. I love strong perm work. I'll vote on a creative perm if it's explained well.

**DA's: I love disads. The most important part of a disad is the link, that said, I don't mind vague links, but there should be good link comparison. I don't mind cards in the overview, but line-by-line is still important. Don't mix them too much. 2NR should have clear storytelling and impact weighing. This is where the best clash should be.

**Kritiks: Not great here expierence wise. Most experience is with identity K's. Links should be clear and extended into the 2NR. What is the alt? Does it solve the aff? What does the alt look like? I'm most likely to throw away the K on the perm. I don't like "high theory nonsense" (-Brad)... don't drop names and expect me to be familiar with the lit. I'm always willing to vote on the alt/advocacy.

------> FW: Please don't, thanks. I don't like these debates. IF FOR SOME REASON, this is your only option, isolate it to the top and explain which reps come first and their warrants. Impact comparison comes first in the overview. I like real-world, realistic impacts. Labeling everything a DA on fw is fine in moderation, but gets annoying really fast.

Theory: Sure. "Conditionality is good, and all other theory is a reason to reject the argument. Conditionality ends after the 2NR if there is equal debating on judge kick or everyone is silent on the issue." (-Piper) No direct comparison = default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Case Debate: I'll vote for 2NR that's just case. Impact turns, alt causes, rehighlights, no solvency arguments are great.

OTHER

**ONLINE: "Paperless Debate: I do not take prep time for emailing your documents, but please do not steal prep. I also try to be understanding when tech issues occur but will honor any tech time rules established and enforced by the tournament. I will have my camera on during the round. If my camera is off, please assume that I am not there. Please don't start without me." (-Ryan)

VOTERS: I will vote you down for: cheating (violating packet restrictions, clipping cards, tourney rules), racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, or other forms of discrimination, directly encouraging self-harm/suicide. I have to be a first-hand witness.

WIKI: "Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs." (-JL)

*Don't be rude/mean/crude to the other team. Follow social bounds of appropriateness.

*open cxc is fine as long as you're not cutting off you're partner

-----------------------------------------------------------

--- PF ---

Some preferences:

• Speed - clarity is the most importantI don't mind spreading

• Please flow and signpost - make it easy for me to flow your arguments

• Your summary and final focus should clearly and concisely explain to me why you won: emphasize your most important arguments and extend any arguments you want me to consider.Please include impact framing (magnitude/probability/timeframe/turns-case)!!

• I think crossfire concessions are awesome but you have to bring it up in the speeches.

I come from a theater background of over twenty years as a professional actor so I enjoy lively and energetic competitions. I've had the pleasure of judging in 9 tournaments in Forensics and Public Forum Debates. On the forensics side, mastery of your piece and presentation is important. In debate, evidence is important to me and all arguments should be based on data and analysis of that data. I generally make my decisions on how well the arguments are developed and responded to. Articulation and delivery are critical in forensics and debate. Please take your time and enjoy the experience. Finally, I place great value on how performers and debaters treat each other during the tournament in the spirit of sportsmanship. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Be kind, stay passionate, slow down, and enjoy the journey!!!

Special Section, NSDA Nationals

Welcome! If you’re reading this, then we are definitely going to be meeting each other. I wish you all the best: congratulations on being at Nationals. Below are the Public Forum paradigm, and an expansion of my normal National paradigm (building on the NSDA document you already have).

Public Forum

A lot of what I have in my Policy paradigm (below) applies here. Here’s what to keep in mind:

Audience. Unlike the more technical Policy, I understand Public Forum as Outward Facing whose intended audience is someone reasonably informed. Terms and ideas are expected to be accessible. Rhetoric (diction, vocal presentation) are important factors.

Spread. Keep it rapid and conversational (roughly 150 w.p.m.). Excessive speed violates Outward Facing. Further, with spread, clarity about tags and structure is critical, as is enunciation.

Comparative Advantage. I will compare the two sides relative to advantages and how they meet their Framework (below). I expect both sides to make affirmative cases as to why I should prefer their reasoning. You will not win by solely attacking the other side; your case matters. Be clear about your impacts.

Framework. Show how your case fulfills or meets your framework (this is the core of Comparative Advantage for me). If given time you should explain why your framework is to be preferred.

Policy

In formal terms I follow an open policy paradigm. I'm a realist; I come from politics and extemp. For me, debate deals with the questions and discussions we (community/society) deal with in the public, decision-making space. Of course, all discussions have social locations and thus can be profitably interrogated by critical theory or explored through CPs; just show me why it matters or how it connects to our decision-making.

Leave academic or debate theory arguments outside. I will find them interesting, even entertaining, but not decisive.

Some practical details:

• Impacts do not have to go to catastrophe to be persuasive (especially the N-war move). Plausibility counts.

• I pay attention to how links are made, how the internal logic works. If you call attention to a dropped argument, show me why it matters, otherwise, I will defer to the points of clash.

• Where the argument turns on a key piece of evidence, I may examine to determine how much weight to give it (i.e. reliable, authoritative etc.) I am open to voting on T.

• And last, as a practical matter, I have old ears, so make tags clear. Preferred delivery rate tops out at 180 wpm.

Now for some additional Nationals Specifics/extensions

Off-case: Kritiks
As noted above I am open to arguments that illumine where an argument is (culturally) situated. I tend to treat Ks as a relative of the DA or perhaps a CP

Ks that I am comfortable with:
structural racism, Afro-pessimism
Neo-liberalism , colonialisms
the Foucaldian suite of approaches, including biopower

Other critical theory approaches: be cautious. I will not be able to track you as fast. Practically this means I will lean into the card re: authority.

Meta theory, debate theory — no. I find these involve a host of tacit assumptions that I may or may not be willing to accede to.

Off-Case: CPs
On a continuum of the very focused or limited to the very broad, I lean to the focused side.

as CPs expand, I tend to defer to the Aff

Extensive CPs carry similar burden as the 1AC.

Conditionality — there are strategic reasons to drop a CP, I will accept this within reason. (NOTE on the NSDA paradigm I’m a bit more conservative)

PICs — Use with caution. I hear these as a stepping stone, a way to interrogate the AFF case. The idea of testing the case with a “what about” that isolates an issue… good. When it is a broader form, I want to know how you avoid the DAs of the AFF case

Bright Lines or what’s out of bounds

Abusive behavior in the round (language; overly aggressive CX).

Refuse polarization. Extending abusive behavior to culture. I realize this is a challenge in our polarized culture; stay clear of the easy ad hom attack on “them”.

Cases that advocate violence in order to work.

Arguments that advocate non-democratic solutions. This can crop up in Ks: how does Power not end up in oppressing the many?

Hello, I'm Kate, a senior at Eastern Michigan University. I have been out of the debate for awhile now, and my paradigm might be a little outdated. With that, this is what I know and what will help you understand how to best win me over as a judge :)

In short, my paradigm depends on what event you are competing in, so I will break all that down below. For the most part, please be kind. Do not be rude or condescending in the round. My speaker points usually range from 25-30. If you are rude during a round, I will drop you. I am considerate of all tech issues that may arise, as I am not that tech-savvy myself. Please be mindful and do not take advantage of this.

I do not disclose in rounds, no matter the event. I have never seen the education or advantage of disclosure, so I tend to favor not disclosing unless I have to.

For world schools

Worlds Schools Debate relies on style and strategy. I believe this to be a conversational debate where rhetoric and argumentation can come into play. As a third speaker, this should not be another rebuttal. I want to see the breakdown of arguments through either questions or key areas of analysis. You should be answering at least three questions each speech, and I am okay with multiple people asking points at the same time. With that, please be respectful and mindful of the speaker. Points of clarification are also fine but keep them brief: these are not rebuttals. There are no follow-ups in Points of Information, so be concise with your wording when asking a question.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please ask before the round. I will not go over my entire paradigm with you. Please do not ask me what my paradigm is, as I will be very angry with you :(

For LD

If you are in LD, do not look at my policy paradigm, they are separate for a reason. I was a traditional debater all through high school, but I was also successful on the national circuit, so I know my way around progressive LD. I am okay with speed but not spreading: there is a time and place for spreading, and it is not in LD. also, for most of my debates, I would say I am truth>tech.

YOU MUST HAVE A VALUE AND A VALUE CRITERION. There is no plan text in LD, there is no solvency on the aff. If you plan to run a counterplan, don't. If you do not have these or plan to run these, you do not want me as a judge. I believe this is a philosophical debate, and thus you should focus on the framework heavily throughout. I really hate theory and would not like to see it, often times it gets very abusive and I cannot follow it.

Cross-examination is always my favorite, and I like it when used wisely, so take advantage of that without being rude. I have to see the clash to find a winner. Clash on whose evidence was better or more recent doesn't cut it. I want to know who had the better impacts, value, weighing mechanism- this should also show up in your KVIs in the last speech.

For PF

I would rather see clash on arguments than cards. pf is an on-balance debate which means that at the end of the round, you should be telling me what you are winning and how you out-weigh on impacts, solvency, framework, etc. every speech should essentially be different and have its own reasons for being there, so I don't want constant rebuttals throughout the whole round. I appreciate the whole picture of what the pro and con worlds look like.

speed is okay, but don't spread, and please sign-post throughout the round and the speeches. I want to know what I am putting on my flow and where it needs to go. line-by-lines are also cool in pf. If you are calling for cards you should have a pretty good reason to call the card I think more time is simply wasted on calling for every single piece of evidence when you aren't even making an attack on the evidence you do call.

For Policy

I am a tech>truth for policy so please make sure that if you are running arguments you are not running them to waste time but to win them. I am okay with speed and spreading as long as I have the doc and you slow the tags down for me. I am more familiar with stock issues within the debate, but I am a tabula rasa when it comes down to it. I really don't like affKs so be aware and try to avoid them around me as much as possible. If you want to win with me as a judge, tell me what you have won and how you have won it in the 2NR and 2AR, and if you are running something you know I don't particularly like, spend more time on it.

topicality- only run this if you plan to keep it in the 2NR, but if not then don't run it just to waste time. I am all too familiar with running T on a random word just to waste your opponent's time, but I would rather see fewer arguments and more impacts.

Ks- I really don't like Ks all too much unless it is a really fleshed-out K that not only makes sense but also creates a valuable debate. I think there are a ton of really good Ks that you can find, I am more familiar with: Cap K, Neolib, Hauntology, psychoanalysis K, and afropes K. I know some of these can be a little older but if you know of Ks that might be similar then it would be best to try that then something that is like way off. YOU MUST HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE. I have seen too many Ks run without alts which kind of defeats their purpose.

theory- not gonna lie I never ran theory as a policy nor LD debater, but I have seen it and I don't like it. often theory can get really abusive and if it comes to that within a round I will drop you for it. if you need to run theory then make it good and simple or I will not be able to follow it and thus I cannot vote on what I do not know.

CPs- they're great, I've always loved a good CP debate and would vote on these easily as long they are good and you have won it.

tag team CX is fine with me as long as it doesn't get too abusive and the person who is supposed to be asking and answering questions is the one mainly talking. I don't use prep when flashing evidence just don't abuse that or I will start timing it if I need to. if you have any questions or if I have missed anything pls ask any questions but pls read the paradigm. I will drop you for things that are not followed on the paradigm.