Tabroom.com

JCHS Practice 5

2023 — Johns Creek, GA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Dorothy Agbame Hire None

Dominik Anderson Hire

Sapna Annambhotla Hire None

alex Athanasiades Hire None

Manasi Avdhani Hire

Aanya Baddela Hire

Last changed on Fri March 15, 2024 at 3:19 PM EDT

Add me to the email chain: aanya2cool@gmail.com

I debate at Ivy Bridge Academy, mainly Public Forum but I've watched Congr, Parli, and Policy

History: Went deep in a couple national tournaments

NOTE: If you're novice or jv the only thing that applies to you is general prefs, ignore everything else

General Prefs:

1) Come pre-flowed unless we're flipping right before round

2) Keep off-time roadmaps simple (don't say "first we're talking about their case, then we're talking about why our case still stands, and finally we'll weigh" - a simple "their case, our case, weighing" will do fine)

3) Signpost - flowing becomes 10x as hard when you don't signpost - have mercy

4) Be prepared for me to call for cards after round - DO NOT cite something you don't have a card for

5) If you spread for any of your speeches please send speech doc or else I won't be able to evaluate the things I didn't hear

6) I'll keep time, for both speeches and prep, but I'll give however long you take to pull up a card as prep time for the other team

Case:

1) As long as you have good warranting and DID NOT misrepresent evidence, I can evaluate almost every arg

2) I absolutely love framework debates, but don't run them if you don't know how

Rebuttal:

1) Implicate everything, don't just read a non unique or de link, tell me why it matters

2) I only evaluate turns under two conditions: a - you have to extend a clear warrant for why it's a turn and b - you have to tell me why that helps you in the round by weighing the turn

3) Second rebuttal MUST frontline every argument, or at least turns, or else I'll consider the dropped responses conceded

Summary:

1) Collapse - It helps you extend and weigh your arg better

2) If you're second summary respond to the other teams weighing (if they said they won on pre-req, explain why they don't, or why you win pre-req more cleanly)

3) Weigh with comparison - don't be like "we win on magnitude" be like "we win on magnitude because while they only impact 1 life and we impact 100"

Final Focus:

1) I won't evaluate anything new in final focus

2) Collapse the debate down to the voters - final focus didn't become a speech just to become a mirrored version of summary, it became a speech so that it could be the final word to the judge, on why you win - if you do choose to mirror summary that's fine, I won't count it against you, but I'll boost your speaks if you collapse down to the key issues and why you win

Speaking Philosophy:

I start everyone at 28, and I increase/decrease based on how you did in the round

You'll get +0.5 Speaks if you:

1) were funny

2) did a line by line

3) used final focus to tell me why you won, not just repeat summary

4) had a good amount of topic knowledge in cross

You'll get -0.5 Speaks if you:

1) spread without sending doc

2) were rude in cross, spoke over the other team or interrupted them a lot

3) brought new things up in 2nd summary/1st and 2nd final focus (if you only brought up a couple new things, it won't be flowed, but I won't dock your speaks - that said, if you bring up a LOT of new things I will dock speaks)

You'll get -100000 speaks and possibly and L if you:

1) were openly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

2) misrepresented evidence, let's encourage better evidence norms guys

Nirvi Baddela Hire

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 2:17 PM EDT

Heyy, I'm Nirvi Baddela. I have judged 1 tournament so far and have judged MANY practice debates. I've been doing debate for 2-3 ish years and I'm in varsity. If u have any questions, ask me before the round pls. Also what’s ur favorite song? :)

My preferences:

General - Make sure that you are winning more or better arguments in the end than your opponents by turning their case, responding to ALL turns, mitigating their case, etc. The response speech is really important for me bc it builds a foundation for the summary and final focus.

Cards - If you say you have a card with certain evidence but the other team calls for it and you don't have what you say, I will keep track of that. Also, if you are sending cards, add me to the email chain nirvi5star@gmail.com

Time - I will be keeping track of time and prep time but you should also keep track for time management purposes.

Crossfire - Don’t be rude or interrupt bc that’s -1 speaks or more depending on how rude u are. If someone interrupts u, feel free to ask them to let u finish ur question and tell me to add how ever many seconds seconds we’re wasted back onto the timer. Also if anything important happens, I expect u to extend or explain it.

Constructive - Don’t give faulty, bias, or outdated evidence bc that WILL contribute to my ballot. Read however fast u want, but if it’s too fast, imma need ur case file or speech doc. Pls read impacts and make sure u have enough time for it, bc if u don’t, the other team could just say u can’t quantify and mitigate ur whole contention.

Rebuttal - If you’re 2nd, PLEASE front line. If you do, frontline as much as u can with still enough time left for responding to their case. If you don’t, you automatically concede and if they read a turn, your case is theirs. Drop a contention or 2 if u need to and take as much prep as u need. Also don’t just read an offense and not implicate it, I will not make your evaluations for u.

Summary - MAKE SURE TO FRONTLINE. Above all else, please do. Extend all offense that you need to win case and extend any defense like that too. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH! I won't do evaluations for you. Also extend your best responses that were, preferably, not responded to or you defended.

Final Focus - Keep your weighing consistent unless it’s just absolutely terrible. PLEASE extend the points that you want me to weigh on and any offense or defense as well. FF is the most important speech of the round, but I might be the taddest bit bias cuz I’m 2nd speaker

Speaker Points - Don’t even worry too much if u get low speaks. They are judge based and could be rly wrong. But here’s my guide anyway :

Be clear and confident in your material. Just know ur stuff, and you’ll probably be good at speaking, ya know?
Im okay with spreading but if you don’t send me ur speech doc then -1
Don’t be monotone. Just don’t. That’s -1
-1 if u say something is common sense but I don’t know it.
If u make me laugh, at any point, that’s +1 cuz i need entertainment fr
Signposting just makes my life easier and if you don't do it at all, -1 or -2
Auto loss if u say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or anything like that

Cynthia Bai Hire

Jack Bruey Hire

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2024 at 4:39 AM EDT

TL:DR PF tech judge, I debate PF, DON'T SPREAD, don't worry about cross, keep the flow neat: number responses and give a roadmap, frontline in 2nd rebuttal, collapse in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary, WEIGH, and have fun!

Also, I won't strike you down if you don't do everything in my paradigm. It's just a bunch of things I like or find important, but if you win the flow you win the round.

Put me on the email chain jackbruey@gmail.com

About me:

I'm a varsity public forum debater at Lambert High school and Ivy Bridge. I've debated PF for almost three years. I'd consider myself a tech/flow judge. I love interesting arguments that I don't usually hear and always try and run something interesting when I debate. I'm into theory and progressive arguments that stretch the limits of debate, but I'm also cool with keeping the debate grounded to the topic and think both styles have merit. I like the more out-there cases and love hearing unique arguments. I also like weighing and warranting more than card spamming.

How I judge:

I'm tech>truth, I will try to not bring any outside thoughts into the round and judge purely off the flow. I'll vote on what wins the flow even if I don't agree with it. With that said, I don't like listening to spreading. Even as a debater, it's not fun to try and decipher what you say and I'd appreciate speaking at a normal pace to make my life as a judge a lot easier. I also really value a clean flow. If you're jumping around your offense and defense I'm going to miss things and won't be able to make the best decision on the round if I can't get all your arguments.

CROSS DOESN'T MATTER TO ME. Don't stress about it, I'd only ever deduct points for it if you fumble heavily (eg. you don't know your own case) or say something offensive.

How you should debate:

For novices: No need to stand or look at me, do whatever is most comfortable. Use ALL your speech time, even if you're just rambling. Make use of your prep time.

For EVERYONE:

1) SIGNPOST!!! As said before, please don't spread and keep the flow clean. I like off-time roadmaps (telling me what order you're going to speak in before your speech), clear taglines, and I love it when debaters number their responses, even though it can be hard in-round.

2) If you're running an argument that might upset some people or be triggering, I'll be okay with anything you run, but it's important to make sure the other team is too. No one should have to talk about things they find uncomfortable to participate in a debate.

3) Clash: Interact with your opponent's arguments. Don't ignore them or reread what you've already said. I want warrants & implications on why you win.

4) I think argument implications are neccesary. Don't just read a card that someone else probably cut, tell me WHY it matters to the debate and how the card interacts with their and your arguments.

5) It's important that the 2nd speaking team frontlines (defends their case against responses) in their rebuttal. It messes up the flow of the debate if you don't and I'm going to buy arguments your opponent might make about you dropping your case.

6) I also think it's important to collapse (drop the contentions you don't think you're winning on) in either the 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary speech. If you're trying to frontline three or more contentions on top of everything else you do in the summaries then you're doing something wrong. Make sure to address the turns before you drop a case because the turns stay on the flow when you do. When in doubt, grant the delink to drop the turn.

7) I also generally value good warrants above just reading cards. Make sure to weigh, it's underused and really important in the debate.

8) It won't affect the round but I do love a good cross instead of just asking "can you quantify that?" also if something important is said bring it up in your next speech

Finally, make sure to and be good to your partners and opponents. Education and fairness are the core values of debate (but feel free to argue against that) so make sure you adhere to those. Above all else, enjoy yourself, be good people, and have fun!

Ella Camacho Hire None

Matt Cekanor Hire

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 6:02 AM CDT

Experience-This will be my fifth year as the head coach at Northview High School. Before moving to Georgia, I coached for 7 years at Marquette High in Milwaukee, WI.

Yes, add me to the email chain. My email is mcekanordebate@gmail.com

*As I have gained more coaching and judging experience, I find that I highly value teams who respect their opponents who might not have the same experience as them. This includes watching how you come across in CX, prep time, and your general comportment towards your opponent. In some local circuits, circuit-style policy debate is dwindling and we all have a responsibility to be respectful of the experience of everyone trying to be involved in policy debate.*

I recommend that you go to the bathroom and fill your water bottles before the debate rather than before a speech.

LD Folks please read the addendum at the end of my paradigm.

Meta-Level Strike Sheet Concerns

1. Debates are rarely won or lost on technical concessions or truth claims alone. In other words, I think the “tech vs. truth” distinction is a little silly. Technical concessions make it more complicated to win a debate, but rarely do they make wins impossible. Keeping your arguments closer to “truer” forms of an argument make it easier to overcome technical concessions because your arguments are easier to identify, and they’re more explicitly supported by your evidence (or at least should be). That being said, using truth alone as a metric of which of y’all to pick up incentivizes intervention and is not how I will evaluate the debate.

2. Evidence quality matters a bunch to me- it’s evidence that you have spent time and effort on your positions, it’s a way to determine the relative truth level of your claims, and it helps overcome some of the time constraints of the activity in a way that allows you to raise the level of complexity of your position in a shorter amount of time. I will read your evidence throughout the debate, especially if it is on a position with which I’m less familiar. I won’t vote on evidence comparison claims unless it becomes a question of the debate raised by either team, but I will think about how your evidence could have been used more effectively by the end of the debate. I enjoy rewarding teams for evidence quality.

3. Every debate could benefit from more comparative work particularly in terms of the relative quality of arguments/the interactions between arguments by the end of the round. Teams should ask "Why?", such as "If I win this argument, WHY is this important?", "If I lose this argument WHY does this matter?". Strategically explaining the implications of winning or losing an argument is the difference between being a middle of the road team and a team advancing to elims.

4. Some expectations for what should be present in arguments that seem to have disappeared in the last few years-

-For me to vote on a single argument, it must have a claim, warrant, impact, and impact comparison.

-A DA is not a full DA until a uniqueness, link, internal link and impact argument is presented.Too many teams are getting away with 2 card DA shells in the 1NC and then reading uniqueness walls in the block. I will generally allow for new 1AR answers.

Similarly, CP's should have a solvency advocate read in the 1NC. I'll be flexible on allowing 1AR arguments in a world where the aff makes an argument about the lack of a solvency advocate.

-Yes, terminal defense exists, however, I do not think that teams take enough advantage of this kind of argument in front of me. I will not always evaluate the round through a lens of offense-defense, but you still need to make arguments as to why I shouldn’t by at least explaining why your argument functions as terminal defense. Again this plays into evidence questions and the relative impacts of arguments claims made above.

Specifics

Case-Debates are won or lost in the case debate. By this, I mean that proving whether or not the aff successfully accesses all, some or none of the case advantages has implications on every flow of the debate and should be a fundamental question of most 2NRs and 2ARs. I think that blocks that are heavy in case defense or impact turns are incredibly advantageous for the neg because they enable you to win any CP (by proving the case defense as a response to the solvency deficit), K (see below) or DA (pretty obvious). I'm also more likely than others to write a presumption ballot or vote neg on inherency arguments. If the status quo solves your aff or you're not a big enough divergence, then you probably need to reconsider your approach to the topic.

Most affs can be divided into two categories: affs with a lot of impacts but poor internal links and affs with very solid internal links but questionable impacts. Acknowledging in which of these two categories the aff you are debating falls should shape how you approach the case debate. I find myself growing increasingly disappointed by negative teams that do not test weak affirmatives. Where's your internal link defense?? I also miss judging impact turn debates, but don't think that spark or wipeout are persuasive arguments. A high level de-dev debate or heg debate, on the other hand, love it.

DA-DAs are questions of probability. Your job as the aff team when debating a DA is to use your defensive arguments to question the probability of the internal links to the DA. Affirmative teams should take more advantage of terminal defense against disads. I'll probably also have a lower threshold for your theory arguments on the disad. Likewise, the neg should use turns case arguments as a reason why your DA calls into question the probability of the aff's internal links. Don't usually find "____ controls the direction of the link" arguments very persuasive. You need to warrant out that claim more if you're going to go for it. Make more rollback-style turns case arguments or more creative turns case arguments to lower the threshold for winning the debate on the disad alone.

CP-CP debates are about the relative weight of a solvency deficit versus the relative weight of the net benefit. The team that is more comparative when discussing the solvency level of these debates usually wins the debate. While, when it is a focus of the debate, I tend to err affirmative on questions of counterplan competiton, I have grown to be more persuaded by a well-executed counterplan strategy even if the counterplan is a process counterplan. The best counterplans have a solvency advocate who is, at least, specific to the topic, and, best, specific to the affirmative. I do not default to judge kicking the counterplan and will be easily persuaded by an affirmative argument about why I should not default to that kind of in-round conditionality. Not a huge fan of the NGA CP and I've voted three out of four times on intrinsic permutations against this counterplan so just be warned. Aff teams should take advantage of presumption arguments against the CP.

K-Used to have a bunch of thoughts spammed here that weren't too easy to navigate pre-round. I've left that section at the bottom of the paradigm for the historical record, but here's the cleaned up version:

What does the ballot do? What is the ballot absolutely incapable of doing? What does the ballot justify? No matter if you are on the aff or the neg, defending the topic or not, these are the kinds of questions that you need to answer by the end of the debate. As so much of K debating has become framework debates on the aff and the neg, I often find myself with a lot of floating pieces of offense that are not attached to a clear explanation of what a vote in either direction can/can't do.

T-Sitting through a bunch of framework debates has made me a better judge for topicality than I used to be. Comparative impact calculus alongside the use of strategic defensive arguments will make it easier for me to vote in a particular direction. Certain interps have a stronger internal link to limits claims and certain affs have better arguments for overlimiting. Being specific about what kind of offense you access, how it comes first, and the relative strength of your internal links in these debates will make it more likely that you win my ballot. I’m not a huge fan of tickytacky topicality claims but, if there’s substantial contestation in the literature, these can be good debates.

Theory- I debated on a team that engaged in a lot of theory debates in high school. There were multiple tournaments where most of our debates boiled down to theory questions, so I would like to think that I am a good judge for theory debates. I think that teams forget that theory debates are structured like a disadvantage. Again, comparative impact calculus is important to win my ballots in these debates. I will say that I tend to err aff on most theory questions. For example, I think that it is probably problematic for there to be more than one conditional advocacy in a round (and that it is equally problematic for your counter interpretation to be dispositionality) and I think that counterplans that compete off of certainty are bad for education and unfair to the aff. The biggest killer in a theory debate is when you just read down your blocks and don’t make specific claims. Debate like your

Notes for the Blue Key RR/Other LD Judging Obligations

Biggest shift for me in judging LD debates is the following: No tricks or intuitively false arguments. I'll vote on dropped arguments, but those arguments need a claim, data, warrant and an impact for me to vote on them. If I can't explain the argument back to you and the implications of that argument on the rest of the debate, I'm not voting for you.

I guess this wasn't clear enough the first time around- I don't flow off the document and your walls of framework and theory analytics are really hard to flow when you don't put any breaks in between them.

Similarly, phil debates are always difficult for me to analyze. I tend to think affirmative's should defend implementation particularly when the resolution specifies an actor. Outside of my general desire to see some debates about implementation, I don't have any kind of background in the phil literature bases and so will have a harder time picturing the implications of you winning specific arguments. If you want me to understand how your argumets interact, you will have to do a lot of explanation.

Theory debates- Yes, I said that I enjoy theory debates in my paradigm above and that is largely still true, but CX theory debates are a lot less technical than LD debates. I also think there are a lot of silly theory arguments in LD and I tend to have a higher threshold for those sorts of arguments. I also don't have much of a reference for norm setting in LD or what the norms actually are. Take that into account if you choose to go for theory and probably don't because I won't award you with high enough speaks for your liking.

K debates- Yes, I enjoy K debates but I tend to think that their LD variant is very shallow. You need to do more specific work in linking to the affirmative and developing the implications of your theory of power claims. While I enjoy good LD debates on the K, I always feel like I have to do a lot of work to justify a ballot in either direction. This is magnified by the limited amount of time that you have to develop your positions.

Old K Paradigm (2020-2022)

After y’all saw the school that I coach, I’m sure this is where you scrolled to first which is fair enough given how long it takes to fill out pref sheets. I will say, if you told me 10 years ago when I began coaching that I’d be coaching a team that primarily reads the K on the aff and on the neg, I probably would have found that absurd because that wasn’t my entry point into the activity so keep that in mind as you work with some of the thoughts below. That being said, I’ve now coached the K at a high level for the past two years which means that I have some semblance of a feeling for a good K debate. If the K is not something that you traditionally go for, you’re better off going for what you’re best at.

The best debates on the K are debates over the explanatory power of the negative’s theory of power relative to the affirmative’s specific example of liberalism, realism, etc. Put another way, the best K debaters are familiar enough with their theory of power AND the affirmative’s specific impact scenarios that they use their theory to explain the dangers of the aff. By the end of the 2NR I should have a very clear idea of what the affirmative does and how your theory explains why doing the affirmative won’t resolve the aff’s impacts or results in a bad thing. This does not necessarily mean that you need to have links to the affirmative’s mechanism (that’s probably a bit high of a research burden), but your link explanations need to be specific to the aff and should be bolstered by specific quotes from 1AC evidence or CX. The specificity of your link explanation should be sufficient to overcome questions of link-uniqueness or I’ll be comfortable voting on “your links only link to the status quo.”

On the flipside, aff teams need to explain why their contingency or specific example of policy action cannot be explained by the negative’s theory of power or that, even if some aspects can be, that the specificity of the aff’s claims justifies voting aff anyway because there’s some offense against the alternative or to the FW ballot. Affirmative teams that use the specificity of the affirmative to generate offense or push back against general link claims will win more debates than those that just default to generic “extinction is irreversible” ballots.

Case Page when going for the K- My biggest pet peeve with the current meta on the K is the role of the case page. Neither the affirmative nor the negative take enough advantage of this page to really stretch out their opponents on this question. For the negative, you need to be challenging the affirmative’s internal links with defense that can bolster some of your thesis level claims. Remember, you are trying to DISPROVE the affirmative’s contingent/specific policy which means that the more specificity you have the better off you will be. This means that just throwing your generic K links onto the case page probably isn’t the move. 9/10 the alternative doesn’t resolve them and you don’t have an explanation of how voting neg resolves the offense. K teams so frequently let policy affs get away with some really poor evidence quality and weak internal links. Please help the community and deter policy teams from reading one bad internal link to their heg aff against your [INSERT THEORY HERE] K. On that note, policy teams, why are you removing your best internal links when debating the K? Your generic framework cards are giving the neg more things to impact turn and your explanation of the internal link level of the aff is lowered when you do that. Read your normal aff against the K and just square up.

Framework debates (with the K on the neg) For better or worse, so much of contemporary K debate is resolved in the framework debate. The contemporary dependence on framework ballots means a couple of things:

1.) Both teams need to do more work here- treat this like a DA and a CP. Compare the relative strength of internal link claims and impact out the terminal impacts. Why does procedural fairness matter? What is the terminal impact to clash? How do we access your skills claims? What does/does not the ballot resolve? To what extent does the ballot resolve those things? The team that usually answers more of these questions usually wins these debates. K teams need to do more to push back against “ballot can solve procedural fairness” claims and aff teams need to do more than just “schools, family, culture, etc.” outweigh subject formation. Many of you all spend more time at debate tournaments or doing debate work than you do at school or doing schoolwork.

2.) I do think it’s possible for the aff to win education claims, but you need to do more comparative impact calculus. What does scenario planning do for subject formation that is more ethical than whatever the impact scenario is to the K? If you can’t explain your education claims at that level, just go for fairness and explain why the ballot can resolve it.

3.) Risk of the link- Explain what winning framework does for how much of a risk of a link that I need to justify a ballot either way. Usually, neg teams will want to say that winning framework means they get a very narrow risk of a link to outweigh. I don’t usually like defaulting to this but affirmative teams very rarely push back on this risk calculus in a world where they lose framework. If you don’t win that you can weigh the aff against the K, aff teams need to think about how they can use their scenarios as offense against the educational claims of the K. This can be done as answers to the link arguments as well, though you’ll probably need to win more pieces of defense elsewhere on the flow to make this viable.

Do I go for the alternative?

I don’t think that you need to go for the alternative if you have a solid enough framework push in the 2NR. However, few things to keep in mind here:

1.) I won’t judge kick the alternative for you unless you explicitly tell me to do it and include a theoretical justification for why that’s possible.

2.) The framework debate should include some arguments about how voting negative resolves the links- i.e. what is the kind of ethical subject position endorsed on the framework page that pushes us towards research projects that avoid the links to the critique? How does this position resolve those links?

3.) Depending on the alternative and the framework interpretation, some of your disads to the alternative will still link to the framework ballot. Smart teams will cross apply these arguments and explain why that complicates voting negative.

K affs (Generic)

Yes, I’m comfortable evaluating debates involving the K on the aff and think that I’ve reached a point where I’m pretty good for either side of this debate. Affirmative teams need to justify an affirmative ballot that beats presumption, especially if you’re defending status quo movements as examples of the aff’s method. Both teams benefit from clarifying early in the round whether or not the affirmative team spills up, whether or not in-round performances specific to this debate resolve any of the affirmative offense, and whatever the accumulation of ballots does or does not do for the aff. Affirmative teams that are not the Louisville project often get away with way too much by just reading a DSRB card and claiming their ballots function the same way. Aff teams should differentiate their ballot claims and negatives should make arguments about the aff’s homogenizing ballot claims. All that being said, like I discussed above, these debates are won and lost on the case page like any other debate. As the K becomes more normalized and standardized to a few specific schools of thought, I have a harder and harder time separating the case and framework pages on generic “we couldn’t truth test your arguments” because I think that shifts a bit too strongly to the negative. That said, I can be persuaded to separate the two if there’s decent time spent in the final rebuttals on this question.

Framework vs. the K Aff

Framework debates are best when both teams spend time comparing the realities of debate in the status quo and the idealized form of debate proposed in model v. model rounds. In that light, both teams need to be thinking about what proposing framework in a status quo where the K is probably going to stick around means for those teams that currently read the K and for those teams that prefer to directly engage the resolution. In a world where the affirmative defends the counter interpretation, the affirmative should have an explanation of what happens when team don’t read an affirmative that meets their model. Most of the counter interpretations are arbitrary or equivalent to “no counter interpretation”, but an interp being arbitrary is just defense that you can still outweigh depending on the offense you’re winning.

In impact turn debates, both teams need to be much clearer about the terminal impacts to their offense while providing an explanation as to why voting in either direction resolves them. After sitting in so many of these debates, I tend to think that the ballot doesn’t do much for either team but that means that teams who have a better explanation of what it means to win the ballot will usually pick up my decision. You can’t just assert that voting negative resolves procedural fairness without warranting that out just like you can’t assert that the aff resolves all forms of violence in debate through a single debate. Both teams need to grapple with how the competitive incentives for debate establish offense for either side. The competitive incentive to read the K is strong and might counteract some of the aff’s access to offense, but the competitive incentives towards framework also have their same issues. Neither sides hands are clean on that question and those that are willing to admit it are usually better off. I have a hard time setting aside clash as an external impact due to the fact that I’m just not sure what the terminal impact is. I like teams that go for clash and think that it usually is an important part of negative strategy vs. the K, but I think this strategy is best when the clash warrants are explained as internal link turns to the aff’s education claims. Some of this has to due with the competitive incentives arguments that I’ve explained above. Both teams need to do more work explaining whether or not fairness or education claims come first. It’s introductory-level impact analysis I find lacking in many of these debates.

Other things to think about-

1.) These debates are at their worst when either team is dependent on blocks. Framework teams should be particularly cautious about this because they’ve had less of these debates over the course of the season, however, K teams are just as bad at just reading their blocks through the 1AR. I will try to draw a clean line between the 1AR and the 2AR and will hold a pretty strict one in debates where the 1AR is just screaming through blocks. Live debating contextualized to this round far outweighs robots with pre-written everything.

2.) I have a hard time pulling the trigger on arguments with “quitting the activity” as a terminal impact. Any evidence on either side of this question is usually anecdotal and that’s not enough to justify a ballot in either direction. There are also a bunch of alternative causes to numbers decline like the lack of coaches, the increased technical rigor of high-level policy debate, budgets, the pandemic, etc. that I think thump most of these impacts for either side. More often than not, the people that are going to stick with debate are already here but that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences to the kinds of harms to the activity/teams as teams on either side of the clash question learn to coexist.

K vs. K Debates (Overview)

I’ll be perfectly honest, unless this is a K vs. Cap debate, these are the debates that I’m least comfortable evaluating because I feel like they end up being some of the messiest and “gooiest” debates possible. That being said, I think that high level K vs. K debates can be some of the most interesting to evaluate if both teams have a clear understanding of the distinctions between their positions, are able to base their theoretical distinctions in specific, grounded examples that demonstrate potential tradeoffs between each position, and can demonstrate mutual exclusivity outside of the artificial boundary of “no permutations in a method debate.” At their best, these debates require teams to meet a high research burden which is something that I like to reward so if your strat is specific or you can explain it in a nuanced way, go for it. That said, I’m not the greatest for teams whose generic position in these debates are to read “post-truth”/pomo arguments against identity positions and I feel uncomfortable resolving competing ontology claims in debates around identity unless they are specific and grounded. I feel like most debates are too time constrained to meaningfully resolve these positions. Similarly, teams that read framework should be cautious about reading conditional critiques with ontology claims- i.e. conditional pessimism with framework. I’m persuaded by theoretical arguments about conditional ontology claims regarding social death and cross apps to framework in these debates.

I won’t default to “no perms in a methods debate”, though I am sympathetic to the theoretical arguments about why affs not grounded in the resolution are too shifty if they are allowed to defend the permutation. What gets me in these debates is that I think that the affirmative will make the “test of competition”-style permutation arguments anyway like “no link” or the aff is a disad/prereq to the alt regardless of whether or not there’s a permutation. I can’t just magically wave a theory wand here and make those kinds of distinctions go away. It lowers the burden way too much for the negative and creates shallow debates. Let’s have a fleshed out theory argument and you can persuade me otherwise. The aff still needs to win access to the permutation, but if you lose the theory argument still make the same kinds of arguments if you had the permutation. Just do the defensive work to thump the links.

Cap vs. K- I get the strategic utility of these debates, but this debate is becoming pretty stale for me. Teams that go for state-good style capitalism arguments need to explain the process of organization, accountability measures, the kind of party leadership, etc. Aff teams should generate offense off of these questions. Teams that defend Dean should have to defend psychoanalysis answers. Teams that defend Escalante should have specific historical examples of dual power working or not in 1917 or in post-Bolshevik organization elsewhere. Aff teams should force Dean teams to defend psycho and force Escalante teams to defend historical examples of dual power. State crackdown arguments should be specific. I fear that state crackdown arguments will apply to both the alternative and the aff and the team that does a better job describing the comparative risk of crackdown ends up winning my argument. Either team should make more of a push about what it means to shift our research practices towards or away from communist organizing. There are so many debates where we have come to the conclusion that the arguments we make in debate don’t spill out or up and, yet, I find debates where we are talking about politically organizing communist parties are still stuck in some universe where we are doing the actual organizing in a debate round. Tell me what a step towards the party means for our research praxis or provide disads to shifting the resource praxis. All the thoughts on the permutation debate are above. I’m less likely to say no permutation in these debates because there is plenty of clash in the literature between, at least, anti-capitalism and postcapitalism that there can be a robust debate even if you don’t have specifics. That being said, the more you can make ground your theory in specific examples the better off you’ll be.

Alyssa Chen Hire

Last changed on Sat April 27, 2024 at 12:56 PM EDT

add me to the email chain- alyssacdebate@gmail.com

Please call me "Queen of Sheba" instead of "judge"

tech > truth. that being said i am not a fan of dumping 4+ of blippy and unwarranted contentions that are being spread at the speed of light. if you do, however, decide to dump that on me, please send a speech doc. i'm not a huge fan of flowing off docs but i will if you want me to.

i vote off of the contents of a round, there are too many judges who give an rfd to the scope of "i didn't like your case" which is really stupid because it massively tanks the educational and regular value of prep that went into that round which often ends up being a screw. in other words, i will never intervene because interventionists are bad.

note- i mostly will give oral rfd, it's simpler than typing everything out. That being said, feel free to record my rfd and all its amazing pearls of wisdom because i likely won't type it all out on tab.

Singposting makes me very happy. pls pls signpost, otherwise there will likely be content that i did not flow because i didn't know where to flow it that you think should have won you the round.

i won't vote for a turn that isn't implicated or weighed.

feel free to skip grand cross for a minute of prep.

time your own prep. also stop asking me to take prep just do it pls.

defense is never sticky. extend it, always.

General

win the weighing debate to win the ballot, but win your case first. second rebuttal is expected to frontline all turn, preferably collapse or at least drop a contention. if you can frontline your entire case in second rebuttal efficeintly, expect high speaks. I have a high threshold for extensions- i will not to any work for you, you need to cleanly extend the uniqueness, link and impact of any offense you want me to evaluate- otherwise it makes it hard for me to do so. implicate and clearly flesh out all turns. collapse in summary- otherwise it makes the round super messy.

Weighing

meta weigh for the love of god please it makes everything easier, meaning compare the weighing and actually interact with their weighing and your own weighing, don't just spew off fancy mechanisms and buzzwords to me because i will have no idea how to evaluate it.
start weighing in summary, or rebuttal if you really want to
please call your opps out if any probability weighing just ends up being new defense, which it does most of the time

Ev Ethics

im generally a little skeptical of paraphrasing but if you can provide me with cut card as long as it fits my flow then we're good.

Any card called for must be fully cut, meaning not googled mid round and then pasted with a URL as the citation.

Serius ev ethic violations- ie unhighlighting the word "not" or atrocious highlighting that skews ev, card clipping, or just total bsing ev will result in highly tanked speaks. If the violation goes above and beyond, an L is a real possibility.

any card called for must also be provided within 1 min, otherwise the opposing team can take prep, excluding potential tech issues

theory

before you read this know that if you're reading shells on novices or teams who clearly don't know what's happening just to grab a W, the L is a big and real possibility, also please shape shells around actual violations of real rules and actual abuses. I am highly opposed to friv theory and i think it's stupid because it does nothing to actually set good norms. Otherwise:

i def lean towards disclo good and slightly towards para bad, but it isn't impossible to win my ballot. pretty neutral on other shells.
that being said i also an way less experienced in theory rounds in compared to substance so flesh out and articulate things really clearly for me
pls direct me throughout the theory debate
i dont have a preference on rvi's
justify your voters

K's

run to your discretion- i'm less familiar with k's but get the general idea. if you do run one, and i look confused, it's because i am. I will try my best to evaluate k's but don't trust me to do so. i'm generally not a fan of k's read in PF so think carefully before you read one.

feel free to postround me, i think its educational but do not expect my decision to change

Speaks

I'll almost always give above 28 as long as you don't completely screw up. order me bubble tea +1, guess my order right and order me bubble tea +1.5

Any questions, ask before round.

Other paradigms I agree with- Patrick Smith, Olivia Tye

Lay Paradigm

Hello

I have 24 years of experience in dolphin communications and interpersonal molecular forces.

I am best persuaded by sound logic and compelling, crystallized evidence and statistics.

Please time your speeches.

I am also persuaded by brown sugar milk tea [half sugar less ice]

Isabel Chen Hire

Vivian Chen Hire

Jianni Cheng Hire

Brian Choi Hire

Charlotte Clement Hire None

Sean Collins Hire None

Dylan Cory Hire None

Tejus Dantuluri Hire

Ayanna Das Hire

Blake Deng Hire

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 12:31 PM EDT

Procedural Stuff

Call me Blake or BD instead of Judge, I don't like feeling old

Email chain: blako925@gmail.com

Please also add: jchsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Add both emails, title the chain Tournament Rd # Your Team vs. Other Team ex) Harvard Round 4 Johns Creek XY vs. Northview AM.

1AC should be sent at round start or if I'm late (sorry in advance), as soon as I walk in the room

If you go to the bathroom or fill your waterbottle before your own speech, I'll dock 1 speaker point

Stealing prep = heavily docked speaks. If you want to engage your partner in small talk, just speak normally so everyone knows you're not stealing prep, don't whisper. Eyes should not be wandering on your laptop and hands should not be typing/writing. You can be on your phone.

Clipping is auto-loss and I assign lowest possible speaks. Ethics violation claims = round stoppage, I will decide round on the spot using provided evidence of said violation

Topic Knowledge

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE.

I HAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDGE

I debated in high school, didn’t debate in college, have never worked at any camp. I currently work an office job. Any and all acronyms should be explained to me. Specific solvency mechanisms should be explained to me. Tricky process CPs should be explained to me. Many K jargon words that I have heard such as ressentiment, fugitivity, or subjectivity should be explained to me.

Spreading

I WRITE SLOW AND MY HAND CRAMPS EASILY. PLEASE SLOW DOWN DURING REBUTTALS

My ears have become un-attuned to debate spreading. Please go 50% speed at the start of your speech before ramping up. I don’t care how fast or unclear you are on the body of cards b/c it is my belief that you will extend that body text in an intelligent manner later on. However, if you spread tags as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If you read analytics as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If I do not flow an argument, you’re not going to win on it. If you are in novice this probably doesn't apply to you.

While judges must do their best to flow debates and adjudicate in an objective matter that rewards the better debater, there is a certain level of debater responsibility to spread at a reasonable speed and clear manner. Judge adaptation is an inevitable skill debaters must learn.

In front of me, adaption should be spreading speed. If you are saying words faster than how fast I can move my pen, I will say SLOW DOWN. If you do not comply, it is your prerogative, and you can roll the dice on whether or not I will write your argument down. I get that your current speed may be OK with NDT finalists or coaches with 20+ years of experience, but I am not those people. Adapt or lose.

No Plan Text & Framework

I am OK with any affirmative whether it be policy, critical, or performance. The problem is that the 2AC often has huge case overviews that are sped through that do not explain to me very well what the aff harms are and how the advocacy statement (or whatever mechanism) solves them. Furthermore, here are some facts about my experience in framework:

I was the 1N in high school, so I never had to take framework other than reading the 1NC shell since my partner took in the 2NC and 2NR.
I can count the number of times I debated plan-less affs on one hand.
As of me updating this paradigm on 01/28/2023 I have judged roughly 15 framework rounds (maybe less).

All the above make framework functionally a coin toss for either side. My understanding of framework is predicated off of what standards you access and if the terminal impacts to those standards prove if your model of debate is better for the world. If you win impact turns against the neg FW interpretation, then you don't need a C/I, but you have to win that the debate is about potential ballot solvency or some other evaluation method. If the neg wins that the round is about proving a better model of debate, then an inherent lack of a C/I means I vote for the better interp no matter how terrible it is. The comparison in my mind is that a teacher asked to choose the better essay submitted by two students must choose Student A if Student B doesn't turn in anything no matter how terrible or offensive Student A's essay is.

Tech vs. Truth

I used to like arguments such as “F & G in federal government aren't capitalized T” or “Period at the end of the plan text or the sentence keeps going T” b/c I felt like these arguments were objectively true. As I continue to judge I think I have moved into a state where I will allow pretty much any argument no matter how much “truth” there is backing it especially since some truth arguments such as the aforementioned ones are pretty troll themselves. There is still my job to provide a safe space for the activity which means I am obligated to vote down morally offensive arguments such as racism good or sexism good. However, I am now more inclined to vote on things like “Warming isn’t real” or “The Earth is flat” with enough warrants. After all, who am I to say that status quo warming isn’t just attributable to heating and cooling cycles of the Earth, and that all satellite imagery of the Earth is faked and that strong gravitational pulls cause us to be redirected back onto flat Earth when we attempt to circle the “globe”. If these arguments are so terrible and untrue, then it really shouldn’t take much effort to disprove them.

Reading Evidence

I err on the side of intervening as little as possible, so I don’t read usually read evidence. Don't ask me for a doc or send me anything afterwards. The only time I ever look at ev is if I am prompted to do so during speech time.

This will reward teams that do the better technical debating on dropped/poorly answered scenarios even if they are substantiated by terrible evidence. So if you read a poorly written federalism DA that has no real uniqueness or even specific link to the aff, but is dropped and extended competently, yes, I will vote for without even glancing at your ev.

That being said, this will also reward teams that realize your ADV/DA/Whatever ev is terrible and point it out. If your T interp is from No Quals Alex, blog writer for ChristianMingle.com, and the other team points it out, you're probably not winning the bigger internal link to legal precision.

Case

I love case debate. Negatives who actually read all of the aff evidence in order to create a heavy case press with rehighlightings, indicts, CX applications, and well backed UQ/Link/Impact frontlines are always refreshing watch. Do this well in front of me and you will for sure be rewarded.

By the 2AR I should know what exactly the plan does and how it can solve the advantages. This obviously doesn't have to be a major component of the 1AR given time constraint, but I think there should at least some explanation in the 2AR. If I don't have at least some idea of what the plan text does and what it does to access the 1AC impacts, then I honestly have no problem voting on presumption that doing nothing is better than doing the aff.

Disads

Similar to above, I think that DA's have to be fully explained with uniqueness, link, and impact. Absent any of these things I will often have serious doubts regarding the cohesive stance that the DA is taking.

Topicality

Don't make debate meta-arguments like "Peninsula XY read this at Glenbrooks so obviously its core of the topic" or "every camp put out this aff so it's predictable". These types of arguments mean nothing to me since I don't know any teams, any camp activities, any tournaments, any coaches, performance of teams at X tournament, etc.

One small annoyance I have at teams that debate in front of me is that they don't debate T like a DA. You need to win what standards you access, how they link into your terminal impacts like education or fairness, and why your chosen impact outweighs the opposing teams.

Counterplan

I have no inherent bias against any counterplan. If a CP has a mechanism that is potentially abusive (international fiat, 50 state fiat, PICs bad) then I just see this as offense for the aff, not an inherent reason why the team or CP should immediately be voted down.

I heavily detest this new meta of "perm shotgunning" at the top of each CP in the 2AC. It is basically unflowable. See "Spreading" above. Do this and I will unironically give you a 28 maximum. Spread the perms between cards or other longer analytical arguments. That or actually include substance behind the perm such as an explanation of the function of the permutation, how it dodges the net benefit, if it has any additional NB, etc.

I think 2NR explanation of what exactly the CP does is important. A good 2N will explain why their CP accesses the internal links or solvency mechanisms of the 1AC, or if you don't, why the CP is able to access the advantages better than the original 1AC methods. Absent that I am highly skeptical of broad "CP solves 100% of case" claims and the aff should punish with specific solvency deficits.

A problem I have been seeing is that affirmatives will read solvency deficits against CP's but not impacting the solvency deficits vs. the net benefit. If the CP doesn't solve ADV 1 then you need to win that ADV 1 outweighs the net benefit.

Judge kick is not my default mindset, neg has say I have to judge kick and also justify why this is OK.

Kritiks

I don't know any K literature other than maybe some security or capitalism stuff. I feel a lot of K overviews include fancy schmancy words that mean nothing to me. If you're gonna go for a K with some nuance, then you're going to need to spend the effort explaining it to me like I am 10 years old.

Theory

If the neg reads more than 1 CP + 1 K you should consider pulling the trigger on conditionality.

I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise told.

Define dispositionality for me if this is going to be part of the interp.

Extra Points

To promote flowing, you can show me your flows at the end of a round and earn up to 1.0 speaker points if they are good. To discourage everyone bombarding me with flows, you can also lose up to a full speaker point if your flows suck.

Xiwen Deng Hire

Alex Etingof Hire None

Katherine Forero-Rodriguez Hire None

Guliana Freitas Hire

Jayson Ty Gonzalez Hire None

Yoseop Han Hire None

Nitya Jaswani Hire None

Heidi (Hayeon) Jeong Hire None

Miya Ji Hire None

Kesar Jindal Hire None

Eshkar Kaidar-Heafetz Hire

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 10:24 AM EDT

Eshkar Kaidar-Heafetz – He/They

Chattahoochee ’23 – Wenatchee Independent KK – UWG ’27

Email chain – esh5.atl.debate@gmail.com

213 Rounds debated, 67 Judged, 2X TOC Qual, 1X NDT Qual

Affiliations – Chattahoochee, Johns Creek, Brookfield East SM, Alpharetta

“K debaters cheat, Policy debaters lie. If you believe both, you should pref me highly. If you believe one of the two, you should pref me in the middle percentile. If you don’t believe either, go do PF” – Josh Harrington

_____

No one in debate should have to interact with their abuser. If a round is unsafe, please let me know before the round, I will go to tabroom and fight for whatever potential solution I can. This is something that should be taken up with tabroom, your coach, etc. and is not something I would want to have to adjudicate in the middle of a round. If you are someone who treats others like trash, is implicated negatively in a title IX investigation, etc., I should be at the very bottom of your pref sheet.

_____

Most important notes

Clarity is massive for me. I have a memory loss disorder along with minor hearing problems. This does not mean that I am unable to hear or process the spreading of any given round, but that your persuasive ability majorly goes down when I have to spend more of my time processing figuring our what you’re saying rather than focusing on the quality of your arguments and instruction. I don’t care how fast you’re going; I care how clear you are when going at that speed.

Highlighting in debate right now is maybe one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever seen. Your evidence should still be highlighted to be, generally, grammatically correct and highlighted warrants.

Everything about basic decency that you’ve seen in every other paradigm I believe in. Racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. is unacceptable and will be given a L25, likely combined with an incredibly serious email to your coach.

Evidence ethics – clipping, miscites, cards cut with sentences omitted, cards cut that don’t begin and end at the start and end of paragraphs, changes to words in a card altering the meaning of the evidence are also an L25.

Also, I think highlighting words from the name of the article or book is ridiculous. Don't highlight cites...

_____

Arguments –

I wholeheartedly believe that I’m good for any argument. My high-school career included a lot of policy debates and even more K debates. My senior year, I exclusively went for disability on the affirmative, and our negative strategy included anything from conditions counterplans to kritiks to impact turns. I was both the 2A and 2N for four years. My college career has just started, but I primarily read queerness on the AFF when 2Aing and on the NEG when 2Ning, but when I was the 1A read a policy aff and when I was the 1N extended almost exclusively topicality or a PIK.

The only major threshold for evaluating if an argument should be read in front of me is if you’re willing to go for it, I dislike throw-away strategies.

Wipeout, spark, death good, whatever are all fine positions. I believe there is a difference between a post-fiat argument that centers around death being good, and a real world threat of violence (i.e., telling a debater to inflict harm upon themselves, threatening harm upon someone, etc.).

Specific arguments –

Disadvantages – I love seeing creative disadvantages or just ones that are articulated very well. My main issue with DA debates nowadays is I tend to see ones where, by the 2NR, many parts of the debate feel incredibly isolated rather than a cohesive story that I can sit down and say I understand. Debaters that are able to clearly articulate and define the link debate beyond just shallow extensions do much better in front of me when they fit that link explanation into the broader story of the AFF/DA.

Counterplans – Some of my favorite debates when the counterplan actually competes. I went for conditions and pics a lot of the time my senior year (probably at least 1/2 of my 2NRs), the sorts of debates for counterplans that I dislike are ones that get incredibly muddled in solvency/impact questions, ESPECIALLY if your evidence is not specific and you’re trying to write a plan text around generic evidence to make it work. I am not the world’s best judge for intense counterplan competition debates, but don’t let that deter you from going for what you want. I think delay is a silly cp.

Topicality – I honestly went through most of high-school HATING topicality debates but have now grown incredibly fond of them. As of my freshman year in college, topicality usually makes up nearly two-thirds of my 1NRs. What I think deters most debaters is a numbers game for interpretations, but I genuinely believe that an incredibly high quality interpretation is far better than a ton of short cards that barely say anything. Give me a solid caselist and view of what would happen for debate under the AFF’s counter-interpretation and do in depth evidence comparison and warrant comparison, because a LOT of topicality debates seem to lack these. Storytelling is so critical and underrated in T debates, I want to clearly imagine the world of the interp/counter interp.

Kritiks – My bread and butter, went for Ks a ton throughout all of high school. I’m familiar with most branches of literature, my weak spots are Baudrillard, Deleuze, Guattari and Derrida, but I am very well versed in nearly every other branch of lit. I think kritiks probably need aff-specific links (at least articulated/contextualized in the 2NC) and have no particular thought on if I should weigh the consequences of the plan or not. I hold Kritik debates to a much higher standard, because I know what a good K debate should look like and expect you to produce a good K debate.

Kritik Affirmatives – Love them, ran them exclusively both my senior year of H.S. and (as of writing this) freshman year of college. However, I am incredibly skeptical of most K-AFF’s ability to solve their impacts or solve/do anything at all. I am a judge who is completely willing to vote on a 5 minutes of presumption 2NR, because often times these AFFs don’t have a topic link, don’t do anything, etc. My favorite affirmatives are ones that defend actual material strategies, methods, etc. or at least are able to have a position that I feel is sufficient to beat back on SSD/TVA and presumption. I am not going to do the work for you. Last note – most of your authors probably hate each other and I think a lot of affirmatives fail to reconcile that, if you’re going to be reading an affirmative in front of me, the evidence/narrative should be cohesive. I like anything from more traditional K-AFFs to poetry to songs to completely uncarded ones, but understand I have a reasonably high threshold for solvency. For the negative, I love a well-executed KvK debate and will reward a high-quality one, but I am similarly amenable to framework.

Framework – Go for it, I don’t really care what impact you go for. I hate seeing teams over-rely on generic blocks and miss the actual content of AFF offense, so if you want to go for framework, I expect to see you spend time engaging the affirmative’s arguments, actually responding to the content of them, etc. Otherwise, you can see me checking out on something like a counter interp + risk of a DA more easily than I’d like to. I am very skeptical of a lot of KAFF's offense versus framework, you should maximize that.

__________

Miscellaneous

I am a small-school debater who handled running their program since 2021. If you need any help with your own, reach out to me.

Favs -

Kelly Lin, Allison Lee, Charles Sanderson, Patrick Fox, Avery Wilson, Srikar Satish, Sophia Dal Pra, Rose Larson, Astrid Clough, Jordan Keller, Robin Forsyth, Ash Koh, Geoff and Sarah Lundeen, Lauren Ivey, Kevin Bancroft, Grey Parfenoff, Blaine Montford, Austin Davis

Savanna Kaufmann Hire None

Theodore Kim Hire

Ananya Kommuri Hire

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 3:54 AM EDT

Hi! My name is Ananya Kommuri and I'm a varsity debater at IBA. I usually give generous speaks, and the only things that will tank your speaks are …

1: Spreading: please read at a clear speed. I am okay with you reading fast unless you are stuttering on your own words - that's not okay.

2: Be respectful: If you are sexist, racist, or homophobic you WILL get below a 26 (Yes, that is possible). Also be respectful to your opponents guys - otherwise you just look annoying.

3: Crossfire: Please don't scream over each other - let the other person talk. Don't cut them off unless they've been talking for a long time. (Anything above 20 or 30 seconds)

I would like to be included in the email chain for sharing cards - you don't even have to ask me. My email is: ananyakommuri@gmail.com

Ways to win a debate:

Weighing: please, please, PLEASE weigh in summary and final focus. This is probably the MOST important thing in a debate - if you don't tell me why your impact matters more than the other person's, than I really don't care about your argument and you're more likely to lose the round. Do NOT give me an hypothetical impact like nuclear war without sufficient evidence and sufficient weighing. Also, COMPARATIVE WEIGHING. Don't tell me you weigh on magnitude because you affect more people and then move onto something else - EXPLAIN your weighing. I would rather you explain your weighing instead of saying three random weighing mechanisms and not explaining it at all.

Frontline: I don't think this happens much in Novice, but if you frontline in second rebuttal and first summary I will be more impressed. If you have no idea what that is, don't worry about it.

Collapsing: This is not as important, because it doesn't happen much in Novice. Just tell me the biggest reason I should vote for you - one argument that you think is the most important. It's easier for me to vote as judge instead of trying to see which of your contentions is more important than the other. Again, not as important as weighing. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, don't worry about it.

Lastly, PLEASE SIGNPOST. I have NO IDEA what you're talking about if you move all over the place. Tell me what part of their argument you're responding too - it makes flowing as judge SO MUCH EASIER.

Isaiah Lartey Hire

Harrison Shaun Lee Hire

Allen Liu Hire

Hughes Liu Hire

Grace Manning Hire None

Anmol Matharu Hire None

Rajveer Nadkar Hire

Ethan Nam Hire

Neha Narute Hire None

Keva Nimgaonkar Hire

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 4:27 AM EDT

My email is iheartbooks137@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

I am not currently debating, but I have done policy debate for the past 2 years and I have decent topic knowledge for this year. I also have experience judging rookie & novice policy, as well as novice, JV, & varsity public forum.

Top Level: I am open to most arguments, impact calc is key, truth over tech, do line by line, be nice

What to do:

The most important thing in debating for me is DON’T DROP ARGUMENTS because it’s hard to flow.
If you want to go for a specific argument, make sure to extend it all the way into the last speech so that I can clearly outline arguments on the flow. If you don’t, that is considered dropping. And if the other team points it out, I may vote on that, so be careful.
Always provide a roadmap so that I can line up the flows in order.
In general, introduce new arguments in the 1AC and 1NC, then respond to answers in the 2AC and 2NC, extend and explain in the 1NR and 1AR, and then finally do impact calc, framework, summarizing, etc. in the 2NR and 2AR. Again, I’d like to emphasize extending and explaining.
If you’re going to run any Theory argument, it must be well explained throughout the entirety of the debate that you are extending it for. If you are neg, you should spend about 5 minutes of the 2NC or even the entire 1NR on theory arguments (such as condo, framework, etc).
Send speech docs as quickly as possible. I understand if you're taking prep time, but if there are some unexpected tech issues, try to get that resolved immediately.
Speak as clearly as possible for you.
Be nice to everybody. It doesn't matter if the other team is your sworn enemy or if your partner did something wrong. You should treat every person in the room with respect. If you fail to do so, expect low speaker points.

Argument specifics:

DA: Make sure that the uniqueness still applies for Politics DAs and that your DA actually links to the aff (the more specific, the better).
CP: HAVE A NET BENEFIT! I can’t stress this enough, you MUST have either an external net benefit like a DA or an internal one (it may be embedded within the counterplan text or in a separate card). If you’re unsure whether there’s an INB, it's better to read a DA that fits and kick it later rather than having to defend a CP with no NB. Also, decide on the status of the CP with your partner (condo, dispo or unconditional).
K: I am most definitely not a K debater. I dislike running them, going against them, or deciding on them. That being said, if you extend the K well and answer EVERYTHING, especially on framework, then I don’t necessarily mind voting on it. I will also allow essentially any K that you want to run, as long as your coach is okay with it. K affs are a whole other topic and I don’t like those either. However, if you’re going to run one, remember the rules for answering both the K stuff (like framework, alt fails, condo, etc.) and regular case defense/offense.
T: Make sure you have both a clear violation (I strongly suggest that you have carded evidence for this, but it can technically just be an analytic) and standards for your topicality arg. Also, try not to run more than 3 Ts because at that point, you’re just trying to create a time skew for the aff. I may decide not to vote on topicality just because of that.
Affs: Don’t drop solvency, and answer/extend the aff using a line-by-line (LBL) strategy. Try to have 2 or 3 advantages with a couple of impacts for each. Generally, try to have less impacts (maybe three max) and more internal links (really double down on these). For the 2AC specifically, short extensions of the 1AC cards are all that are necessary.
Case negs: These MUST be aff-specific. That means actually reading through the cards and checking whether they respond to the aff, and creating analytics for arguments that don’t have carded responses.

Things to know:

If you want to introduce a claim about recent events that negates something the other side has said, with or without evidence, that is fine. However, it must be either generally common knowledge or at least able to be easily Googled.
I like voting on CPs, DAs and impact-based arguments.
I LOVE a good impact calc debate, and I enjoy seeing clash.
Truth over tech (for the most part), clarity over speed, quality over quantity of arguments
I WILL NOT tolerate any type of discrimination whatsoever. In addition, there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to, including but not limited to: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t.
If my RFD doesn’t make sense or something isn’t explained clearly, I will do my best to clarify.
You can call me Judge or Keva. My pronouns are she/her.
Please don’t hold any hard feelings about the results. The point of debating in tournaments is to improve your speaking and debating skills, and it’s impossible to do that if you win all the time. In my experience, the rounds I’ve lost are the ones where I’ve learned the most.

Speaker point scale (for rookie/novice)

Below 27.0: Being blatantly rude, aggressive, or showing any "ism" (being sexist, racist, etc.) on purpose and outside the scope of debate arguments
27.0 to 28.4: Good foundation but additional prep is probably needed
28.5 to 29.0: Solid but you still have room for improvement (average range)
29.1 to 29.4: Great debating, keep up the good work
29.5 to 29.9: Really smart debating, amazing job
30: Literally perfect, nothing could be better (I have never given a 30 and don't plan on doing so)

If you get me a caramel frappuccino before the round, I'll bump speaks by 0.4.

If you tell me a good joke (it actually has to be funny), I'll increase speaks by 0.2.

Good luck!

Siri Nuthalapati Hire

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 6:20 AM EDT

add me to the email chain/speech doc - siri.nuthalapati@gmail.com

NOVICE -

if you're in ES or Novice, i'm not going to look into any specific technicalities of the debate too much, just focus on getting your point across in speeches, be strong in crossfire, and make sure to stay confident in your speaking. i know debating at young age can be hard, and it's normal to mess up when you're talking but don't let it fluster you, and just keep going. ur main goal should just be to try your best and learn as much as you can - win or lose. good luck!

JV/OPEN -

substance>progressive always.(if u dont know what that is dw ab it)

case: good warranting > bigger impact. i don't care about speed but if you plan on spreading then send a speech doc cuz i can't evaluate what i don't understand. i'm tech>truth always and PLEASE no blippy link chains

rebuttal: go down their case, and signpost, it makes it easier for everybody. frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is expected, you must frontline turns, but i don't consider defensive responses "dropped" in second rebuttal, esp if you're not going for that arg, but you are still expected to frontline.

summary:most important speech in the round for me, and it's very simple, frontline case, extend response, and weigh. summary is important bc it sets you up for final focus, anything in final focus must be read in summary. comparative analysis and impact weighing is how you can make the round clearer for me. meta-weighing is great as well, but make sure you have warrants behind it and not just "we out weigh on mag, scope and probability." spamming mechanisms does not equal winning, weighing should be warranted. link argument is also important to me. weighing without a strong access to your impact is not recommended. collapsing is always great because it sets you up for a clear narrative for final focus.

ff: don't bring up anything new- i won't evaluate it. clear voters and weighing is important to me. having a clear narrative and focusing on the big picture is important, as well as answering extended responses. this is also your last chance to win key responses against your opponent's case. write my RFD for me here.

cx: i'm not gonna vote off of cx, if something really important happens, bring it up in the next speech. be nice.

ev: paraphrasing is ok, but don't misrepresent and have good evidence. be prepared to send a card if called for it. my email is at the top of the paradigm.

time: i'll do my best to time y'all, but both teams should be timing themselves. i'll let you finish your sentence if time runs out but i stop flowing 10 seconds over time.

speaking: if your passionate and i can tell you have good topic knowledge and done your research you'll get higher speaks. Also ,esp for in-person, please PROJECT your voice so I can hear you bc im lowk deaf.

ethics: I know pf can get pretty heated but please be polite and respectful to your opponents, any of the -isms and discrimination will NOT be tolerated and I'll give you 0 speaks (idc if its not possible I'll do it anyway).

i have a couple years of pf experience so pls don't hesitate to reach out and ask questions after round/email me after if u think of anything. the best way to get better is to learn from judge feedback and understand why your judge voted the way they did bc public forum debate is centered around the judge and judge adaptation.

happy debating!

Kanav Puri Hire

Fiona Qi Hire

Last changed on Sat May 6, 2023 at 11:56 AM EDT

-I have been doing pf debate for 4 years and around 1 year of policy before that (not that I remember anything)(so don't you dare lay adapt me, I know what im doing. most of the time)

bribe me with food and you will probably win because food=life (bring me boba for more speaks)

-don't give me bs cards and take 5748 years to fine them

OVERALL: Don't be stupid, dumb, drop cases, racist, homophobic, etc. I hate abusive ppl, dont be abusive!!!!

Case- Don't make crazy stupid arguments, stock contentions are better than arguments I don't understand. But if your running stock cases don't make it too boring or i'll fall asleep and you will not win. Also, try to run more than 1 contention. Extend your case throughout summary and ff or else I will consider it dropped.

Rebuttal- Frontline in 2nd Response. Go down the flow, and please signpost or I'll be sad. If reading a turn spend time on it and give me an impact, not some wishy-washy "we turn their case bc turkey actually supports terrorism. the end" You need to spend at least 15 sec on it if you are going to extend it. DON'T HAVE TIME LEFT OVER. This goes for all speeches but if you have like a minute left just weigh or do analytics, time is money in debate.

Summary- Don't bring up anything new. Just extend responses, defense, and offense. Summary is extremely important don't drop stuff. Dropping= Bad. In summary heres what I need to see:

1. Case extensions (your case) if you don't extend then i will say you dropped your case. Here you can concede on one contention, link, subpoint, etc. This is a good tactic but make sure to extend responses completely.

2. Frontlines. Yeah just frontline your case please, if you don't frontline in 2nd response then it this dosen't matter SO FRONTLINE IN 2ND RESPONSE.

3. Extend offense. yup do that please!

4. Weighing. YOU BETTER WEIGH. And please weigh more, don't just weigh on magnitude that's stupid. Also, make sure to give me warrants and quantification. Don't just be like: We win on magnitude because we save lives, We win on timeframe because our impacts come first. Please don't do that. see weighing section for more info)(also see charlie zhangs paradigm where he took the time to write a paragraph about it)

FF- Just basically say what you said in summary but don't make it boring. Make sure to weigh or else I won't count your impacts. Try your best to gimme voters.

Cross- It's useless unless you bring it up later

Weighing- Don't be ✨basic ✨. don't just weigh on magnitude or probability or timeframe. Also weigh on prereq, short circuit, etc. I'm fine with meta weighing Don't just weigh on 1 thing. When you got same impacts but dif mechanisms META WEIGH. WEIGHING IS IMPORTANT. Found this on someone paradigm i forgot who-

K/Theory: I HATE K'S WITH A DEEP PASSION, IF YOU USE ONE I WILL DROP YOU. THEY ARE STUPID AND USELESS. IF YOU DARE READ A THEORY IM GONNA FIND A WAY TO GIVE YOU NEGATIVE SPEAKS OR JUST GIVE YOU A 10 I DONT CARE IF TABROOM DOESN'T ALLOW IT. I WILL FIND A WAY.

Speed: I fine with talking fast, but don't spread. If I can't hear you I can't flow you. If you read faster than 300 wpm send me your speech doc.

Time: Keep your own time. Finishing your sentence is fine but I won't flow any other points after time. Also keep your own prep, im to lazy to sit there with a stopwatch. If you go over prep I will dock speaks. Please don't abuse time. I had teams go "im just finishing my flow" 20 seconds after a speech or making ff 4 min and making us interrupt them twice. Don't be like leaping learners please!

Other things:

Turns: If you want me to evaluate one you must extend it clearly with an impact. Dont just be like "they dropped this turn, vote aff."

Defense isn't sticky

disads bad

Speaks (speaker points):~~~~~~~~

I start you at 28

-speaks to fast= -1

-funny contention names= +1

-be rude= -3

-interesting to listen to= +1

-be not boring=+.5

30- rare

29- I will usually give out these if you are a great speaker.

28- Ig my average if your 28 and over you are great in my opinion

27- Still good don't feel too bad

26- get better lol

VOTING:

how i vote-

have a strong case, read turns please, don't drop things, don't randomly point out the other team dropped things. And if you read a turn about nuclear extinction wiping west Africa off the map you will instantly win.

more paradigms

Eshawnvie Kallu, Charlie Zhang, Aditi Kothari, Spoorthi Kakarla, Ella Liu, Aanya Baddela and Paheli Patel. On second thought don't read Ella's paradigm. aka a bunch of ppl who raged after harvard

follow my ig (real)

@uheartfdiona

Sneha Ramineni Hire

Ender Robertson Hire None

Juliette Salah Hire

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 9:10 AM EDT

Northview IS, MS

Assistant Coach - Northview High School

Assistant Coach - Suffolk University

23.penguino@gmail.com

Top

**If I look confused, I am confused, please make me not confused.

**Yes you can read the K in front of me HOWEVER reading the K in front of me on either side IS NOT a guaranteed ballot. Quite frankly I've grown frustrated with the K especially when it's poorly debated.

**Novices: "I’m a firm believer in flowing and I don’t see enough people doing it. Since I do think it makes you a better debater, I want to incentivize it.So if you do flow the round, feel free to show me your flows at the end of the debate, and I’ll award up to an extra .3 points for good flows.I reserve the right not to give any points (and if I get shown too many garbage flows maybe I’ll start taking away points for bad ones just so people don’t show me horrible flows, though I’m assuming that won’t happen much), but if you’ve got the round flowed and want to earn extra points, please do!By the way you can’t just show one good flow on, lets say, the argument you were going to take in the 2nc/2nr – I need to see the round mostly taken down to give extra points" - Ben Schultz

**LD folks scroll to the bottom for specific LD stuff

General

1—Please don't call me judge. Makes me feel hella old. Just call me Juliette.

2—Tech over truth to its logical extent. Debate is not about solely the truth level of your arguments but your ability to substantially defeat the other team’s claims with your technical ability.

3—When debating ask the question of Why? Technical debating is not just realizing WHAT was dropped but WHY what was dropped matters and how important it is in the context of the rest of the debate. “If you start thinking in these terms and can explain each level of this analysis to me, then you will get closer to winning the round. In general, the more often this happens and the earlier this happens it will be easier for me to understand where you are going with certain arguments. This type of analysis definitely warrants higher speaker points from me and it helps you as a debater eliminate my predispositions from the debate."- Matt Cekanor

4—For those curious, I mainly debated the K in high school (on both sides). I'm usually good with most Ks, even so, you still have the burden of explaining it to me well as I vote off the flow and won't do additional work for you even if I read the lit. (Excuse the rant but...) I think most POMO arguments in debate are stupid and for some reason every POMO debate I've judged the team has double turned themselves (lowk probably cuz most (if not all) POMO is ridiculous to read in this activity). Then again, debate it well and yes I will vote on whatever POMO stuff you throw my way.

K-Affs

Yes, I read a K aff. Yes, I will vote on them. No, I don't think a majority of these affs solve any of the impacts they claim to solve. I think a key thing that most of these affs lack is proper solvency. If you're going to convince me that you solve things, I need a good reason to either why your method is good (i.e. give me concrete examples of what your aff looks like) and/or tell me why an aff ballot in this debate solves. That being said, for the negative, I often find a good presumption push to be a solid strat.

Framework

1. No preference on what impact you go for (but come on, clash is not an impact... alas, if you debate it well I will vote on it). Some impacts require more case debating than others. For example, if going for fairness, you need to spend more time winning the ballot portion of your offense and defense against the other team’s theory of how debate operates. If going for clash, you need to spend more time winning how your model over a year’s worth of debates can solve their offense and spend more time with defense to the affirmative.

2. I have spent a large part of my high school career thinking about arguments for the negative and the affirmative in these debates. To put it into perspective, almost 90% of my debates over a given season are framework debates, on the neg and the aff. For a large amount of framework debates, the better-practiced team always wins.

3. Use defense to your advantage. Nebulous claims of inserting the affirmative can be read on the negative with no specific internal link or impact debating will largely not factor in my decision. However, there are fantastic ways to use defense like switch side debate and the TVA.

4. Very specific TVA’s can work against very specific types of framework arguments. If the affirmative has forwarded a critique of debating the topic then TVA’s can mitigate the affirmative’s DAs. However, if the affirmative team has forwarded an impact turn to the imposition of framework in the round, they are less useful.

5. Impact turning topicality - Do it. Do it well and you'll be rewarded.

6. Often times when starting out, 2AR's go for too much in the 2AR. If you are impact turning T, go for one DA's and do sufficient impact comparison. Your 2AR should answer the questions of how T is particularly violent or links to your theory of power and most importantly HOW MY BALLOT CAN RESOLVE THOSE THINGS. Your impact only matters as much as its scope of solvency. You must also do risk comparison. Most neg framework teams are better at this. The way the aff loses these debates is when there's a DA with substantive impact turn and there's a negative impact that is explained less but is paired with substantively more internal link work and solvency comparison.

If going for a CI, focus on one impact turn and focus on how the CI solves it and how the DA links to their interp. Think of it like CP, your CI should include some aspects of their interpretation but avoids the risk of your DAs.

K v Policy AFF

Two types of 2NRs. Ones that go for in round implications and ones that go for out of round implications.

A)In Round—In round route requires a larger push on framework and a higher level of technical debating on the level of the standards but is usually much easier if you’re a practiced K 2NR. 2NC will usually have like 10 arguments on framework, 1AR extends their standards and answers like 2 arguments. 2NR just goes for the DA and all conceded defense, GGs. In addition, the best K 2NRs going for the in round version will have a link to the “plan or the effects of the plan”. What this means in this sense is that they will tie affirmative implementation to a link that proves their ethic mobilizes bad subjects IN DEBATE.

B)Out of Round—Out of round requires like close to 0 time on framework. Most policy 2As now just grant the K links but just say affirmative vs the alternative. Thus, if you are going for the alternative with links to the plan, just spend time winning the link debate, explaining why the affirmative doesn’t happen in the way they think. Most times these Ks will have a substantial impact turn debate so winning that is essential.

K v K Debates

1. Technical Debating is often lost in these debates but this necessarily happens due to the nature of K v K debates as theory of power debating is often the most important part. That being said, vague link debating will mitigate you winning your theory of power.

2. You need to pick something and defend it. The neg team will ask about the affirmative in 1AC CX, that explanation should stay consistent throughout the round. Lack of a consistent explanation will lower my threshold for buying a risk of a link and higher the burden for you to win the permutation.

3. Use links to implicate solvency. Often times its hard to make a K aff stick to in round or out of round solvency. Use links in the 2NC and 2NR to mitigate parts of both so even if the 2AR consolidates to one, you still have defensive arguments.

4. K affs have built in theory of power and solvency that's inherently offensive. I'll be grumpy if you jettison the aff but will not if you provide extrapolated offensive explanations in the 2AR using your affirmative and pieces of offense that they dropped. 2AR's that do this will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality (Policy v Policy)

1. Fine judge for these debates. T can lower your burden of prepping out some affirmatives that are inherently untopical and it's a good strat to have in your back pocket. However, for this topic the caselists and violations are pretty overlimiting.

2. Caselists are always useful for understanding these arguments.

3. Impact debating doesn't matter much in these debates but internal link debating does. Make sure to indict and compare interps and both sides. Predictability is the IL to all impacts.

4. The best 2AR's in these debates are ones that pick through negative evidence and identify no intent to define, arbitrariness, and combine that with reasonability

Counterplans

1. Probably err negative on theory concerns but if there's a technical crush I will certainly vote affirmative.

2. My predisposition toward counterplans is that they must be both textually and functionally competitive but always up to interpretation by the theory debate in round.

3. The best counterplans are PICs and other counterplans that are cut to beat specific affs. That being said, I do find some PICs to be extremely abusive so I will be sympathetic towards the aff on a PICs bad theory debate.

4. Presumption flips aff when you read a CP.

5. Affirmatives always freak out when they hit a CP they don't have blocks to but your advantages are there for a reason, its not hard to write specific deficits during the 1NC.

Theory

I dislike generic theory debates. I do not think anything but condo/extremely abusive PICs is a reason to reject the team but I can be persuaded otherwise if there is extreme in-round abuse or the other team straight-up drops it.

It will take a lot to convice me to vote aff on condo in a one/two conditional off debate. Three conditional off can start getting more legit in novice. Four and plus and sure I'll listen.

1. Risk matters most when evaluating a DA. The affirmative arguments are made to give me skepticism in the internal links and the negatives job is to mitigate that by link work and turns case debating implicating affirmative solvency.

2. DA is not a full DA until a uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact arguments are presented. If not present in the block, the 1AR will get new answers. I also need a full scenario in the 2NR for me to vote on.

3. When the DA is the best utilized is the 1NR. Very hard for the 1AR when 1NR gets 5 minutes to read a slew of cards answering all 2AC claims.

Case

1. Yes you can win on a straight-up presumption ballot. This type of ballot is not popular anymore but it should be. Too many teams get away with reading an affirmative with no specific evidence or internal links. This was especially prevalent on the criminal justice reform topic but it is still a problem on the water topic too. Teams will highlight evidence terribly and act like the solve it even though it makes no sense, especially against the K. K teams should take advantage of this. Ex. aff that talks about financing technologies- solvency advocates will mention one type of technology but the advantage area will be about a different kind. Neg teams call this out and go for presumption.

2. Affirmative teams must answer all case arguments not merely by extending their impact again but by answering the warrants in the card. Most policy teams just say "doesn't assume our x" without refuting the warrants in the card.

Argument Preferences

1. Don't really care what you read in front of me. Though I've spent the vast majority of my high school career in the K realm, and probably because of that, I've thought about most policy answers to the K so either side can make sense to me. However, it is your job as debaters to ensure a technical win, and ensure my job is to solely evaluate the flow.

2. If you are going to read the K in front of me, please do it well. Because I've seen the K debated at some of the highest levels, it's annoying to see it butchered.

3. I'm fine for policy v policy throw-downs. These debates are often much easier to resolve as one team almost always clearly wins on the flow and are much easier to understand.

Speaker Points

I find myself giving speaks on the higher end. Ways to improve your speaks include:

Being funny, making smart arguments, having fun, being clear, not saying your opponent conceded/dropped something when they didn't, talking about penguins, make fun of anyone I know.

Cross-ex can be a great way to improve speaks, however, there's a thin line between being competetive and just being rude and I have no shame in docking speaks if you choose to be a jerk.

It irks me when debaters claim their opponents "dropped" something when I have it on my flow. I understand that sometimes mistakes happen and you don't flow an argument or something similar. However (comma) if it becomes a recurring problem in a speech I will dock speaks each time it happens.

Also, I will yell "clear" three times, if you choose not to slow down or be clear I will start docking speaks. If you are speaking faster than I can move my pen or type then don't complain when I didn't catch something on my flow. "I don’t care how fast or unclear you are on the body of cards b/c it is my belief that you will extend that body text in an intelligent manner later on. However, if you spread tags as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If you read analytics as if you are spreading the body of a card, I will not flow them. If I do not flow an argument, you’re not going to win on it." - Blake Deng

I’m not an LD person, so keep things as simple and direct as possible.

I sorta know what a value criterion is.

You gotta do more weighing in phil debates.

Now on a technicality I’m probably best for the K, however, because policy speech times are longer, I tend to look for more warranted comparisons by the end of the debate. Also, I just have high standards for explanations.

I refuse to vote on something I don’t comfortably understand.

Important thing to remember is I was a policy debater NOT and LD debater. Lucky for you, my face says it all, if I look confused, I am confused, please just make me not confused. Also, NO TRICKS.

Charles Sanderson Hire

Last changed on Thu April 11, 2024 at 5:02 PM EDT

Add me to the chain: ctsanderson10@gmail.com

PF blurb

I currently coach PF at Ivy Bridge Academy, where a lot of my work revolves around evidence production. Therefore, I'm fairly familiar in both the topic and the general conventions of public forum debate. That being said, my background in policy debate means that sometimes understand these debates very differently than many lay judges might. Thus:

Tech>Truth
Speed is good, so long as you are clear
Document sharing is good so long as both teams agree to it
Evidence ethics violations are a voter.

1. I flow on multiple sheets of paper, one for each of your contentions. Therefore, I find off-time roadmaps to be incredibly important but often, unfortunately, lacking. Please structure your off-time road map by contention to help me be the best judge that I can.

2. Please make sure that you time your speeches, even if I'm also already timing them. Double-timing is a great competitive norm and helps make debates more fair!

3. I prioritize argumentative nuance over your speaking ability. I believe that debates are ultimately decided by debaters who are able to 'write my ballot' through solid impact calculus (weighing) and in-depth case analysis (explaining your contentions and why I should vote on them).

4. Extend your evidence! Extend their warrants! Compare evidence and don't be afraid of argumentative clash. Debaters are only as good as their evidence and the way that they use it!

T/L -- Policy

Experience --

4 years of policy debate at Chattahoochee high school. Qualled to the TOC on the NATO topic. I genuinely love this activity and (most of) the people in it. I'm currently a 2A/2N, but have debated as every position for a prolonged amount of time.

About Me --

Hey-O! I'm Charles and I love debate.

----Influences: Kevin Bancroft, Astrid Clough, Jordan Keller, Eshkar Kaidar-Heafetz (I sing his praise), and Sarah Lundeen. (UWG debate supremacy)

First and foremost, I want this to be a space for you. I genuinely believe that my job as a judge is twofold. The first is to deliver fair, well-thought, educational decisions and feedback. The second is to ensure that this is a debate that you can participate in. If you, at any time, feel unsafe in a round that I am present in, I will fight tooth and nail for you. In a community that is increasingly divided by and has traditionally been defined by oppression, my tolerance for violence is nonexistent. Don't be an abuser. Don't reproduce the violence that has become intrinsic to so many aspects of this activity and community. Don't be the problem. Don't be the reason the queer kid quits. I ask that you, as a debater, actively work to make this space one that can be genuinely valuable for everyone, not just your Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V, straight, white, MBA policy bro. To the queer kids, the trans kids, the people of color, the disabled kids, the kid who carries unspeakable violence with them every day, I will protect you.

Strike me if you were involved (were the aggressor) in a Title IX violation at camp. Do not ever speak to me.

I am a disabled debater. I have ADHD, PTSD, PNES (seizure disorder), a slew of mental health problems, and some other stuff that I'd rather not get into. I may ask for certain accommodations, this does not mean that I cannot judge your round, just that I need you to help me so that I can help you.

I'll be the first to say it, I'm a hack for the K. There is very little that I spend more of my time thinking about. If you're a novice and want to try out kritikal arguments, I'm your judge. However, if the K isn't your thing, don't sweat it. I'll still vote on your disad about how the plan trades off with the ability of the USFG to sell Ukraine papayas, which could cause Bosnian instability that spills over into intergalactic rubber-duckie warfare. Or your PIC. Or your 5-minute T 2NR (although I'll never forgive you for it if its bad). Tech>Truth. First and foremost, I am a blank slate when casting my ballot. Most of the time...

I will not vote on arguments that I find morally repugnant. That means --

White debaters reading Afro-Pess

Malthus

Genocide good

Racism good

Eugenics good

Obviously racist/sexist/queerphobic arguments

Trigger Warnings Bad

8 OFF or higher

Roko's

Spark/Death Good is the exception here, as I feel that they have genuine value as things to be debated.

Novice O/V --

If its packet debate, dw about it. Read your args. Have fun. Try to learn. Losing doesn't mean you're stupid and winning doesn't mean you're debate-jesus.

If it isn't packet debate, dw about it. Explore the wider world of argumentation. Read whatever you want. Have fun. Try to learn. Reading my paradigm is probably a bit more important here. Losing doesn't mean you're stupid and winning doesn't mean you're debate-jesus.

General Thoughts --

I think that...

Debate is good as an activity, but is not intrinsically valuable. Debate is as good or bad as those who participate in the activity make it. Make of that what you will.
Tech>Truth is the best "default" position for a judge to take.
Clarity>Speed, any time. I don't care how fast you are. Your ability to do spreading drills for 5 hours every day does not affect your actual ability to debate outside of being able to say more. One good, clear argument is worth an infinite amount of speedy bad ones. I'm fine with speed, but only go as fast as you are clear. If your strat is solely reliant upon out-speeding the other team while being atrociously unclear, then you are bad at debate. Its a skill issue.
Judge instruction is incredibly valuable for teams that want to really win rounds, not to just beat the other team. There's a difference.
Case debate is a lost art.
Fairness is an internal link.
Condo/broader theory debates are really only valuable insofar as both teams get off their blocks. If one of your impacts/reasons you think that I should prefer your model in a theory debate is education, then reading noncontextual blocks straight down is not only silly, but is also a performative doubleturn. My thoughts on whether condo is good or bad don't matter here. Tell me how to think about it in your round.
"Reject the arg, not the team" is not an escape rope that I will give you. Tell me why.
You should tell me what your favorite song is. I'll surprise you with good speaks for reading my paradigm.
Big schools saying "_____ hurts small schools!!!" is absurd and is almost never an argument that will be won in front of me. Lookin' at you, MBA.
Well-thought-out author indicts that are supported by good warranting and actually have a tangible impact will not only make me very happy, but will drastically boost your speaker points. I will not object to them becoming a voter.
Clipping is a L+25. I have a threshold for how this is decided. I will not disclose it unless it becomes an issue.
"Lying 2A" strats will suffer in front of me. If you have to resort to this, it's a skill issue.
Shouting at your partner is ridiculous and, if severe enough, will earn you the worst speaks that I can give you.
CX and rebuttles will set the basis for your speaks.
Reading paradigms is probably a good idea.
Cowardice is bad.

Judging Philosophy --

I'm a blank slate unless told otherwise. My role is whatever you can win it is. The clearer the ROTJ is, the more likely that you are to win it. If not given a specific role of the judge, I will default to serving as an abstract, 4th dimensional entity, observing and weighing all aspects of every argument that makes it into the final 2 speeches to construct my decision.

To quote Jordan Keller, "...I want to see debaters who play with the bounds of the activity, so do what makes you the most satisfied: play your music, I'll dance with you... as long as you can pull it off. I am a depressed, tired, and impatient [high school] student - make me laugh."

Argument Specific --

Aff (Policy)

I'll hear it. High-quality evidence is something policy teams have struggled with SO MUCH recently. Same thing with powertagging. You should consider the fact that your solvency advocate and solvency evidence are literally the lifeblood of your affirmative. If you can convince me that you can solve for the harms that you present, you will be in a very strong position in these debates. Judge instruction is a powerful, often underutilized tool in these debates. Policy hacks, take a page out of your K debater friends' playbooks and start telling me how to think. God knows, I've barely figured it out on my own in the first place.

Aff (Kritikal)

I LOVE YOUR (good.) IDENTITY KAFF. These are the debates that I am the most familiar with. Don't get it twisted though, my standard for kritikal affirmatives is high. I am familiar with a wide range of lit bases and there's a good chance that I've read yours. If I haven't, I've probably read the literature that your authors based their works on. If I'm not familiar with it at all, GREAT!! I LOVE learning about new forms of critical literature. I feel that there is real, genuine ground for these affirmatives in debate and I think that they can provide real, genuine change for those both in and outside of the activity.

However...

Reading a Kaff, identity-based or not, is not an auto-aff ballot. Framework is a metric that you are required to beat. A good kaff is a kaff that pushes this activity and the people in it to change for the better. If you can't convince me that your kaff can do that, good luck.

T (Policy)

Objectively speaking, T is a spectacular argument with more utility than most other off-case positions in debate. However, T is often horrifically underutilized by negative teams when debating against policy affirmatives to the extent that I often find myself questioning why its even in the 1NC. This has led me to have an icky taste in my mouth when it comes to topicality. Affs, believe it or not, are bad. Affs, believe it or not, are very frequently not topical. When debating as the negative, understand that my opinions about this argument are situated on the very furthest ends of the spectrum from each other. Either you will debate T beautifully and meaningfully and I will reward you, or you will text-to-speech bot straight down the same recycled topicality blocks from 3 years ago, then kick it in the block, and I will be very sad. Do not put T in the 1NC unless you are prepared for 5 minutes of T in the 2NR. I am tired of wasting flow paper on T arguments that get conceded in the 1NR. If this is your current strategy, its a skill issue. Be better.

T - USFG

FW walks a fine line between two extremes. T - USFG has its roots in exclusion. It is important to recognize this for both the kritikal teams that are responding to it and the negative teams who are reading it. However, by no means do I think that T - USFG is evil. I think that it can be used in evil, exclusionary ways, and when it is, then affirmatives should utterly crush it in front of me. I also think that T - USFG is one of the best arguments which exists within debate for testing things like the ability of the aff to shape subjectivities, to alter the state of the academy, and to ensure that relevant, transformative kaffs are able to succeed in shaping the debate space. In contrast, ridiculous, abusive, or otherwise non-transformative kaffs will be filtered out by consistently losing to FW. How this argument is used in your round will decide how I view it. Better yet, don't make me decide at all, just tell me! Judge instruction, people!

DA -

I have literally no opinion on these and literally have only seen 2 good ones all year. mfw no disad ground outside of IPol.

CP -

Oh god. Ok, well lets start with this one. The CP and I have a love-hate relationship. As in, I love to debate the PIC but hate how massively abusive they often are. But who knows, maybe that's why I love it in the first place? Anyways, my unhealthy love-life aside, I feel like aff teams let the neg get away with way too much here. Vice versa, I think that neg teams lack so much ground on this topic, that there's maybe some room here for abuse as a form of counterbalancing. I lean aff on theory and neg on content. Thus, I feel that I'm fairly neutral here due to that fact. Reading 4 conditional counterplans is probably a bad idea in front of me.

K -

(Much of this can be C/A'ed to the KAFF section)

At this point, this is my life. For better or for worse, practically every thought or action that I engage in anymore draws some connection back to K debate. (Yes, believe me, it's just as depressing as it sounds.) I WILL know what you're talking about. I WILL read all of the cards read on this flow. If "judge adaption" is something that your coaches tell you that you need to get better at, you will read a kritik in front of me, and it will make me smile when you do. Because this is the kind of debate that I enjoy the most, (KvK, Policy v K), I plan to invest a bit more time getting into the meat and substance of what a good K debate should look like.

Links

Benefit from being specific to the aff, not just the res (we have kaffs for that, silly)
Are disads unless proven otherwise
Should occupy a large section of the block if you plan to go for the K in the 2NR
Should have good warrants
Should tell me a story about what you think the world looks like
Should probably not be cut from the anarchist library
Are offense against FW

Impacts

Should be resolvable by the alternative
Don't have to be existential to outweigh the impacts of the plan, you just have to be good with the K
Should not have a mile-long K tag

Alternatives

SHOULD NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE KICKED IN FRONT OF ME OR SO HELP YOU GOD
Probably shouldn't be fiated

Outside of subpoint 1., my opinions here are much more elaborate.

What does your alt advocate for? If you can't tell me in clear terms, good luck.

If you advocate for some form of anarchism, you will need to overcome a very high threshold for victory. Do this by giving me a clear line of material praxis for overcoming the state, a coherent theory of power, as well as specific indicts to the state itself. Anarchist theories of power are extremely weak, immature, and genuinely just silly 99% of the time. Ultimately, if your K relies on reverting to anarchism to solve for your impacts, then it's definitely utopian and also most certainly could not solve for your impacts in the real world.

Speaker Points --

Guide Scale

0-27.4 -- You messed up big-time. Never do whatever I told you not to do again.

27.5-27.8 -- You had a rough round. If this is you, I would seriously think about the feedback that I gave. Ask questions. It doesn't mean you should quit the activity, but it does mean that you need to go back and do some work with your coaches.

27.9 -- You had a just-below-bare-minimum round. You're getting there though. Numbers like these are ones that will come up with practice. Believe me, mine did.

28.0-28.2 -- You did decently, perhaps not to my standard, but its not something to cry in the back seat of the car about. You showed up, read blocks straight down, had a probably sub-par cross, and probably just had an average debate.

28.3-28.4 -- You had a debate. This is true neutral for me. 60% of debaters that I see will fall in this range. You probably aren't going to get a speaker award at this tournament, but you've got potential, and I definitely think you should stick to it. I look forward to seeing you progress.

28.5-28.7 -- You did pretty good. I see a world where you could possibly get a middle-range speaker ranking at this tournament. I think you could probably move on to break-rounds. All in all, good job. Ask questions. The answers that you'll get will determine between a 28.7 or a 29 in your next round. Save my email, hit me up, keep in contact with me after the tournament. Go eat some chocolate or something. I assume that all debaters who read my paradigm will be in this section or above.

28.8 -- You had a solid round. I'm impressed. I think you'll probably be in the top 12 speakers at this tournament. You should definitely be proud of yourself. Shoot for that 29 next round though, there's probably one or two mistakes that you made that locked you out of that upper tier.

28.9-29 -- You did GREAT. If you got a 28.9, its probably because your partner got the 29 and the tournament didn't let me give you both the same speaks. Very very solid job here. I think that you probably know your stuff. I think that you've probably got really solid skills as a young debater. I think that if you were to quit, the community would genuinely lose someone who could advance or shape it. I think you'll probably be in the top 7-10 speakers at this tournament. Good stuff!

29.1-29.3 -- You knocked my socks off. You have changed my standards for novice debate forever and I will never forget your round. Spectacular. I think that you'll probably be in the top 6 speakers at this tournament.

29.4 or higher -- You have probably done something amazing. I've never seen it in action. If you do it, I'll update my paradigm and just, like, write a description of you and your round or something. If you get a 29.4 or higher from me, I genuinely think that you should be winning both top speaker as well as the tournament.

Boosters

+0.1 for any of the following

Beating me to the round room
Bringing me caffeine
Kindness to your fellow debaters
Good post/pre-round banter
Asking for each other's pronouns

Ben Schultz Hire

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 11:16 AM EDT

Debated 4 years Marquette University HS (2001-2004)

Assistant Coach – Marquette University HS (2005-2010)

Head Coach – Marquette University HS (2011-2012)

Assistant Coach – Johns Creek HS (2012-2014)

Head Coach – Johns Creek HS (2014-Current)

Yes, put me on the chain: bencharlesschultz@gmail.com

No, I don’t want a card doc.

Its been a long time since I updated this – this weekend I was talking to a friend of mine and he mentioned that I have "made it clear I wasn’t interested in voting for the K”. Since I actually love voting for the K, I figured that I had been doing a pretty bad job of getting my truth out there. I’m not sure anyone reads these religiously, or that any paradigm could ever combat word of mouth (good or bad), but when I read through what I had it was clear I needed an update (more so than for the criticism misconception than for the fact that my old paradigm said I thought conditionality was bad – yeesh, not sure what I was thinking when I wrote THAT….)

Four top top shelf things that can effect the entire debate for you, with the most important at the top:

11) Before I’m a debate judge, I’m a teacher and a mandatory reporter. I say this because for years I’ve been more preferred as a critical judge, and I’ve gotten a lot of clash rounds, many of which include personal narratives, some of which contain personal narratives of abuse. If such a narrative is read, I’ll stop the round and bring in the tournament director and they will figure out the way forward.

22) I won’t decide the debate on anything that has happened outside of the round, no matter the quality of evidence entered into the debate space about those events. The round starts when the 1AC begins.

33) If you are going to the bathroom before your speech in the earlier speeches (constructives through 1nr, generally) just make sure the doc is sent before you go. Later speeches where there's no doc if you have prep time I can run that, or I'll take off .4 speaks and allow you to go (probably a weird thing, I know, but I just think its stealing prep even though you don't get to take flows or anything, just that ability to settle yourself and think on the positions is huge)

44) No you definitely cannot use extra cross-ex time as prep, that’s not a thing.

55) Finally, some fun. I’m a firm believer in flowing and I don’t see enough people doing it. Since I do think it makes you a better debater, I want to incentivize it. So if you do flow the round, feel free to show me your flows at the end of the debate, and I’ll award up to an extra .3 points for good flows. I reserve the right not to give any points (and if I get shown too many garbage flows maybe I’ll start taking away points for bad ones just so people don’t show me horrible flows, though I’m assuming that won’t happen much), but if you’ve got the round flowed and want to earn extra points, please do! By the way you can’t just show one good flow on, lets say, the argument you were going to take in the 2nc/2nr – I need to see the round mostly taken down to give extra points

Top Shelf:

This is stuff that I think you probably want to know if you’re seeing me in the back

· I am liable probably more than most judges to yell “clear” during speeches – I won’t do it SUPER early in speeches because I think it takes a little while for debaters to settle into their natural speed, and a lot of times I think adrenaline makes people try and go faster and be a little less clear at the start of their speeches than they are later. So I wait a bit, but I will yell it. If it doesn’t get better I’ll yell one more time, then whatever happens is on you in terms of arguments I don’t get and speaker points you don’t get. I’m not going to stop flowing (or at least, I never have before), but I also am not yelling clear frivolously – if I can’t understand you I can’t flow you.

· I don’t flow with the doc open. Generally, I don’t open the doc until later in the round – 2nc prep is pretty generally when I start reading, and I try to only read cards that either are already at the center of the debate, or cards that I can tell based on what happens through the 2ac and the block will become the choke points of the round. The truth of the debate for me is on the flow, and what is said by the debaters, not what is said in their evidence and then not emphasized in the speeches, and I don’t want to let one team reading significantly better evidence than the other on questions that don’t arise in the debate influence the way I see the round in any way, and opening the doc open is more likely than not to predispose me towards one team than another, in addition to, if I’m reading as you go, I’m less likely to dock you points for being comically unclear than if the only way I can get down what I get down is to hear you say it.

Argumentative Stuff

Listen at the end of the day, I will vote for anything. But these are arguments that I have a built in preference against. Please do not change up your entire strategy for me. But if the crux of your strategy is either of these things know that 1 – I probably shouldn’t be at the top of your pref card, and 2 – you can absolutely win, but a tie is more likely to go to the other side. I try and keep an open mind as much as possible (heck I’ve voted for death good multiple times! Though that is an arg that may have more relevance as you approach 15 full years as a public school DoD….) but these args don’t do it for me. I’ll try and give a short explanation of why.

1. I’m not a good judge for theory, most specifically cheap shots, but also stuff seen as more “serious” like conditionality. Its been a long long time since anyone has gone for theory in front of me – the nature of the rounds that I get means there’s not usually a ton of negative positions – which is good because I’m not very sympathetic to it. I generally think that the negative offense, both from the standpoint of fairness and education, is pretty weak in all but the most egregious rounds when it comes to basic stuff like conditionality. Other counterplan theory like no solvency advocate, no international fiat, etc I’m pretty sympathetic to reject the argument not the team. In general, if you’re looking at something like conditionality where the link is linear and each instance increases the possibility of fairness/education impacts, for me you’ve got to be probably very near to, or even within, double digits for me to think the possible harm is insurmountable in round. This has come up before so I want to be really clear here – if its dropped, GO FOR IT, whether alone or (preferably) as an extension in a final rebuttal followed by substance. I for sure will vote for it in a varsity round (in novice rounds, depending on the rest of the round, I may or may not vote on it). Again – this is a bias against an argument that will probably effect the decision in very close rounds.

2. Psychoanalysis based critical literature – I like the criticism, as I mentioned above, just because I think the cards are more fun to read and more likely to make me think about things in a new way than a piece of counterplan solvency or a politics internal link card or whatever. But I have an aversion to psychoanalysis based stuff. The tech vs truth paragraph sums up my feelings on arguments that seem really stupid. Generally when I see critical literature I think there’s at least some truth to it, especially link evidence. But

3. Cheap Shots – same as above – just in general not true, and at variance with what its fun to see in a debate round. There’s nothing better than good smart back and forth with good evidence on both sides. Cheap shots (I’m thinking of truly random stuff like Ontology Spec, Timecube – stuff like that) obviously are none of those things.

4. Finally this one isn’t a hard and fast thing I’m necessarily bad for, but something I’ve noticed over the years that I think teams should know that will effect their argumentative choices in round – I tend to find I’m less good than a lot of judges for fairness as a standalone impact to T-USFG. I feel like even though its never changed that critical teams will contend that they impact turn fairness, or will at least discuss why the specific type of education they provide (or their critique of the type of education debate in the past has provided), it has become more in vogue for judges to kind of set aside that and put sort of a silo around the fairness impact of the topicality debate and look at that in a vacuum. I’ve just never been good at doing that, or understanding why that happens – I’m a pretty good judge still for framework, I think, but youre less likely to win if you go for a fairness impact only on topicality and expect that to carry the day

Specific Round Types:

K Affs vs Framework

Clash rounds are the rounds I’ve gotten by far the most in the last 5-8 years or so, and generally I like them a lot and they consistently keep me interested. For a long time during the first generation of critical affirmatives that critique debate/the resolution I was a pretty reliable vote for the affirmative. Since the negative side of the no plan debate has caught up, I’ve been much more evenly split, and in general I like hearing a good framework press on a critical aff and adjudicating those rounds. I think I like clash rounds because they have what I would consider the perfect balance between amount of evidence (and specificity of evidence) and amount of analysis of said evidence. I think a good clash round is preferable than almost any round because there’s usually good clash on the evidentiary issues and there’s still a decent amount of ev read, but from the block on its usually pure debate with minimal card dumpage. Aside from the preference discussed above for topicality based framework presses to engage the fairness claims of the affirmative more, I do think that I’m more apt than others to vote negative on presumption, or barring that, to conclude that the affirmative just gets no risk of its advantages (shoutout Juliette Salah!). One other warning for affirmatives – one of the advantages that the K affords is that the evidence is usually sufficiently general that cards which are explained one way (or meant to be used one way) earlier in the round can become exactly what the negative doesn’t need/cant have them be in the 2ar. I think in general judges, especially younger judges, are a little biased against holding the line against arguments that are clearly new or cards that are explained in a clearly different way than they were originally explained. Now that I’m old, I have no such hang ups, and so more than a lot of other judges I’ve seen I’m willing to say “this argument that is in the 2ar attached to (X) evidence is not what was in the 1ar, and so it is disallowed”. (As an aside, I think the WORST thing that has happened to, and can happen to, no plan teams is an overreliance on 1ar blocks. I would encourage any teams that have long 1ar blocks to toss them in the trash – if you need to keep some explanations of card warrants close, please do, but ditch the prewritten blocks, commit yourself to the flow, and listen to the flow of the round, and the actual words of the block. The teams that have the most issue with shifting argumentation between the 1ar and the 2ar are the teams that are so obsessed with winning the prep time battle in the final 2 rebuttals that they become over dependent on blocks and aren’t remotely responsive to the nuance of a 13 minute block that is these days more and more frequently 13 minutes of framework in some way shape or form)

K vs K

Seems like its more likely these days to see clash rounds for me, and next up would be policy rounds. I’d actually like to see more K v K rounds (though considering that every K team needs to face framework enough that they know exactly how to debate it, and its probably more likely/easier to win a clash round than a K v K round on the negative, it may be more strategic to just go for framework on the neg if you don’t defend the USFG on the aff), and I’d especially love to see more well-argued race v high theory rounds. Obviously contextualization of very general evidence that likely isn’t going to be totally on point is the name of the game in these rounds, as well as starting storytelling early for both sides – I’d venture to say the team that can start telling the simple, coherent story (using evidence that can generally be a tad prolix so the degree of difficulty for this is high) early will be the team that generally will get the ballot. The same advice about heavy block use, especially being blocked out into the 1ar, given above counts here as well.

Policy v policy Rounds

I love them. A good specific policy round is a thing of beauty. Even a non-specific counterplan/DA round with a good strong block is always great. As the season goes on its comparatively less likely, just based on the rounds I usually get, that I’ll know about specific terminology, especially deeply nuanced counterplan terminology. I honestly believe good debaters, no matter their argumentative preference or what side of the (mostly spurious) right/left divide in debate you’re on, are good CASE debaters. If you are negative and you really want to back up the speaker point Brinks truck, a 5+ minute case press is probably the easiest way to make that happen.

Individual argument preferences

I’ll give two numbers here – THE LEFT ONE about how good I think I am for an argument based on how often I actually have to adjudicate it, and THE RIGHT ONE will be how much I personally enjoy an argument. Again – I’ll vote for anything you say. But more information about a judge is good, and you may as well know exactly what I enjoy hearing before you decide where to rank me. 1 being the highest, 10 being the lowest.

T (classic) --------------------------------------- 5/4

T (USFG/Framework) ------------------------ 1/1

DA ------------------------------------------------ 3/2

CP ------------------------------------------------- 4/2

Criticism ----------------------------------------- 1/2

Policy Aff --------------------------------------- 2/2

K Aff ---------------------------------------------- 1/3

Theory ------------------------------------------- 8/9

Cheap Shots ------------------------------------ 10/10

Post Round:

I feel like I’ve gotten more requests lately to listen to redos people send me. I’m happy to do that and give commentary if folks want – considering I saw the original speech and know the context behind it, it only makes sense that I would know best whether the redo fixes the deficiencies of the original. Shoot me an email and I’m happy to help out!

Any other questions – just ask!

Jiya Shah Hire None

Yuhan Shao Hire

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 6:45 PM EDT

tech > truth

go as fast as you want, but send me your speech doc

email chain: yuhannshao@gmail.com

give me an explicit extension of your link, internal link, and impact in BOTH your summary and ff; otherwise, I probably won't vote on that argument

if you want me to vote on a turn, weigh it like any offensive evidence

pls weigh and weigh comparatively or else i will be very sad

i will not flow cx. if you want me to consider the content said, bring it into ur speeches

just nuke ur opponent on the flow and u will have my ballot

what i look for in a debate:

- weigh and implicate turns as soon as you can. meta weighing is awesome!! link weighing is even better
-NOTE: link-weigh ESPECIALLY when u and ur opponent's impacts r the same. gimme a link comparison (strength of link, historical precedent, uniqueness, probability, etc.)
- in summary and ff, you need to extend warrants for the links, defense, and turns you go for. if you just extend a tagline, then I won't include it in my flow

other stuff:

- keep track of your prep time; I won't stop you if you go over your prep, but i might tank your speaks
- signpost, go line-by-line, make it easy for me pls
- i'll call for cards if i just can’t make a decision without seeing it, or your representation of the card changes as the round progresses. BUT PLEASE DONT PURPOSEFULLY MISINTERPRET A CARD!!
- ik that debate can sometimes get heated, but it's not that deep so just chill and have fun
- you can paraphrase ur evidence. HOWEVER, when the other team calls for a piece of ev or I call for one, it better be carded. this includes having a tagline, citation, and the actual highlighted part of the card

on theory:

- substance over theory, forever and always. if you use theory, you better have a GOOD reason and address a real issue, because it will not impress me as a default strategy. theory was designed to keep debate fair...so don't use it abusively
- the shell needs to be extended in every speech
- education and fairness aren't voters until you tell me why. can be as simple as "only portable skill of debate" or "sways the evaluation of the ballot" etc.
- also since theory is not a common argument, i default reasonability so that teams that are new to theory can respond to it like a regular argument. i will not drop a team if they responded to the shell adequately, but didn't know exactly what a "counterinterp" was.

most of all, have fun and be nice to each other <3

most IMPORTANT of all, special thanks to my good friend Tessica Selvaganesan for providing me with her paradigm as reference <33

thank you for reading. if you do a kpop dance during your speech i will give +1 speaks :) (+1.1 if its a BTS song)

Kamilah Smith Hire None

Patrick Smith Hire

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 12:49 PM EDT

I have been a PF debate coach at Ivy Bridge Academy for the past 7 years and I also did policy debate at Chattahoochee High School and UGA. Here are things that are important to me in debates and will influence my decision:

1. Debate is fundamentally about winning arguments, so make good arguments. I will do my best to evaluate your argument as objectively as possible but make sure contentions are well-developed with clear warrants, evidence, and impacts. The more unrealistic the argument, the less likely I’ll vote for it, but I do also believe it is the burden of your opponent to clearly articulate why the argument is wrong.

2. Frontlining - while not doing this isn’t technically against the rules, I highly encourage it and will reward teams that do it effectively with better speaker points. I don’t consider something dropped in the 2nd rebuttal, but I do expect teams to cover everything you plan on extending. I also like teams condensing to one contention in the second rebuttal if it makes strategic sense.

3. Summary - condensing down to a few key voting issues is important to me. If you don’t do weighing in rebuttal, then it should start here. Anything, including defense, must be in the summary if you want me to evaluate it. Don’t drop responses or contentions in these speeches. I will reward summary speakers who make good strategic decisions and manage their time well.

4. Final Focus - Clear voting issues and weighing are important to me. I will only evaluate arguments extended in the summary here. Having a clear narrative and focusing on the big picture is important, as well as answering extended responses. This is also your last chance to win key responses against your opponent's case. Make sure to not just extend them, but explain them, answer the summary, and what the implications are if you win x response.

5. Paraphrasing - I’m fine with it, but you need to be able to produce either a card or the website if asked. If you can’t produce it in time or deliberately misrepresent the evidence, then I will ignore the argument, and in extreme cases, vote the guilty team down.

6. Weighing - this is important to me, but I think debaters overvalue it a bit. The link debate is more important in my opinion and realistic impacts are as well. Try and start the weighing in the rebuttal or summary speeches. Comparison is key to good weighing in front of me.

7. Crossfire - any argument established in crossfire must be brought up in the subsequent speech for me to evaluate it. I will reward creative and well thought out questions. Please don’t be rude or aggressive in the crossfire. That will definitely hurt your speaker points. Civility is very important to proper debate in my humble opinion. You can sit or stand for the grand cross.

8. Speaking - I will give higher speaks to passionate speakers who are good public speakers. I did policy, so I’m fine with speed, but I don’t like spreading unless you absolutely have to cover. Please clearly signpost which argument you are responding to and when you are moving to the other side of the flow or weighing.

9. Prep - I will do my best to keep track of it, but please, both teams should also be tracking the time.

10. References - any well-executed Biggy, Kendrick, J. Cole, Drake, or Childish Gambino reference will be rewarded. Don’t overdo it though and I reserve the right to decrease points if it’s way off point.

11. Speech docs - if you share your case with me, then it will help me flow, understand your arguments, and I won't have to call for ev, so I will give both speakers 2 extra points if they do so.

Ishita Sukul Hire None

Edwin Tang Hire

Charvi Thanakanti Hire None

Orelia Thottam Hire None

Alex Yizhou Wang Hire

Last changed on Tue September 26, 2023 at 4:31 AM EDT

add me to the email chain - alexwanggoku@gmail.com

pf debater at ivy bridge for like 3 years

tech > truth

I am ok with going fast - if you think it may be a problem, read everyone in the room something random at your normal pace before the round starts to make sure we can understand you

racism, sexism, homophobia, and anything along those lines is an instant L and -219840392820935 speaks

General Info:

1 - I will evaluate anything

2 - have warrants - if you extend a contention with no warrant but your opponent doesn't point it out, I will have to vote off that contention. However, if they do point it out, I most likely am obligated to drop that contention off my flow

3 - i'm fine with tag team CX, I don't really care about cross anyways

4 - CROSS IS NOT A SPEECH. You must extend something said in cross or I will not evaluate it

5 - YOU MUST EXTEND WARRANT AND CARD FOR EVERY CARDED ARGUMENT YOU MAKE THROUGH THE ENTIRE BACK HALF OF THE DEBATE FOR ME TO EVALUATE IT

6 - weighing is incredibly important to me, but don't just tell me a mechanism and say you win on it, you need to give me comparative analysis of specifically why you win said weighing debate, and also preferably meta-weigh

7 - I get that sometimes you have lots of content and it may take a few extra seconds, but I'm 100% not going to evaluate anything that is 10+ seconds over time

8 - K's and theory and stuff like that is cool, just make sure it's believable (don't make it too wild tho im literally 12)

9 - frontline clearly, especially if you're going to spam blocks in rebuttal

Rebuttal

not much for me to say here

Summary

frontline, weigh, extend responses and extend cases

Final Focus

don't extend through ink - tell me what I should judge the debate on and clearly write the ballot for me.

Speaks and stuff

ngl I just copy pasted the speaks stuff from what everyone at IBA writes cuz I was too lazy to actually make my own and I weigh on the same scale anyway sooo

26-26.9- You dropped your entire case, fell short on allocated time, and overall did not present debater skills.

27-28 I couldn't fully understand you (clarity) or your case. You dropped some points and may not have shown synergy with your partner.

28.1-29 You spoke clearly and barely dropped anything.

29.1-30 Had no notable flaws, and I don't have any speaking feedback to give.

immediate + 0.5 speaks if you hit an emote at the end of your final focus

I am also open to bribing and will give you a high boost in speaks if you get me free food

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask

Hayden Won Hire

Ruoning Zhao Hire

Login to Tabroom

JCHS Practice 5

2023 — Johns Creek, GA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges