Eloquence Academy Summer Intramural
2023 — Online, US
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show Hidethomas jefferson/darty boys for 3 years on natcirc
my paradigm is identical to Arjun Chimata's
I presume neg unless told otherwise
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18ZNFqc86wlvZ6DUCT4GJQw-4dG35Gnku-XkjCb7A8AM/edit
My name is Paari and I go to Lovejoy Highschool 25'
I do Policy and have done PF, LD, and Congress
Tech > Truth
You can run any argument in front of me, but you'll have to explain it well
Feel free to ask any questions
hi i'm emily! i've debated for a few years on the natcirc and am the president of horace mann debate
TLDR:
debate is a game play to win
make the round clean and easy to evaluate
if you're not a decent person, i'll stop the round, drop you, and give you the worst possible speaks
How I evaluate:
i'll look at weighing/framing first, then evaluate the best link into said weighing. if you are winning the weighing and have a risk of offense, i'll almost certainly vote for you:
- if team A is winning the weighing, i look to their side first. if they're winning their link into the weighing, the ballot is signed.
- if team A isn't winning the link into the weighing, i'll then look to team B's case. if there's offense on team B's case, the ballot is signed.
- if there's no offense in the round, i'll presume neg (this happens pretty rarely tho!)
General Stuff:
- speed is chill but if you're going over 250 wpm send a doc. slow down on implications, analytics, and tags, but you can speed up on the evidence. that being said, i would rather judge a well warranted narrative debate than the dumping of 30 different blippy responses in rebuttal, but debate how you want to debate.
- metaweighing is key. if both teams are reading different weighing mechanisms, tell me which one i should evaluate first, otherwise i am forced to intervene on the weighing debate, and that's not fun. generally, i evaluate prereqs > link ins > probability (if it's not link defense) > mag/scope > timeframe > SOL. that's how i'll evaluate weighing absent metaweighing - so please metaweigh!
- summary and ff have to write my ballot. i have a pretty low threshold for extensions, but i want good warrants extended in the back half speeches for all offense. defense is NOT sticky - if you want me to evaluate defense it must be extended in the back half speeches. i will NOT grant offense on turns if there is no weighing on the turns extended.
- collapsing is a given - if you don't your speaks are capped at a 28. the number of rounds i've judged where people don't collapse is ridiculously high, so please do. please also be smart about your collapse strategy in the back half, your speaks will thank you.
- 2nd rbtl must frontline terminal defense or it's conceded
Prog:
go for it, but i am not a fan. i would MUCH rather judge a substance round :(. no trix though
Speaks:
- speaks will be based on content, strategy, and speaking
- automatic 30s if: you pay me $5+ (per person) before the round starts or buy me bubble tea/a strawberry acai from starbucks.
Pls put me on the email chain - imad.shaikh037@gmail.com
I currently do LD at Clements High School but have done PF
I am a tech/flow judge, but Im fine w wtv but ill prefer it not to be boring.
General Stuff:
1] Tech>Truth -> As a judge, im not going to create any scenario where i will showcase judge intervention. A solid claim, warrant, and impact will automatically be eval true unless refuted.
2] Even with docs, I will be flowing. If you are unclear and I miss an argument, it will be ur fault. But im overall fine w wtv speed u want
LD :
You can read wtv u want but for my specific knowledge/judging capability:
Policy - 1
Trad - 1
Theory - 2
Phil - 1
K - 2
Trix - 4
Debates a game, so read wtv it takes to win the game.
Speaks:
I'm a speaks fairy, but pls try to be coherent/clear as it'll make it sm easier to evaluate the round. Spreading is chill. If you are abusive, racist, sexist, etc. I will give auto L25
she/her
UPDATED FOR SURVEILLANCE
This topic sucks. I am extremely conducive to voting on an IVI / shell about how your opponents have securitized or dehumanized immigrants. I am also very conducive to voting on a K on this topic. Running substance is fine, and I would never ever punish a team for being on a certain side, but please be mindful of the language you use in round and how you talk about immigrants and issues at the border. Debate needs to be a safe space before it can be a truly competitive and educational one. Here's a pretty helpful resource that talks about language that is respectful and true to people's experiences.
Language Surrounding Immigration
"topshelf"
I debated on the NatCirc every year in HS under Canyon Crest with various partners
Post-rounding is encouraged -- I love yapping but understand that's not for everyone
Include me in email chains: michisynn@gmail.com
Any racist / homophobic / sexist, etc etc argument will earn you a loss and the lowest speaks I can possibly give at the tournament. This should go without saying.
TLDR
- I vote on what's in summary and FF
- I'm fine with speed but PLEASE keep things organized or else I will miss things aka SIGNPOST
- winning your offense + winning weighing = winning the round ????
- warrant all of your arguments ESPECIALLY your internal links well
- I generally give high speaks (28.0 +)
- I am bad at judging prog but will if I have to
- All of the suggestions below are based on my personal debate style. I would never punish a debater for not reading my paradigm or debating exactly like me. Just please have fun and learn something!
ROUND LOGISTICS
- Keep evidence exchanges quick. Set up an email chain before round. Yes, I want to be included.
- No skipping Grand Cross for prep because a) you should be budgeting your prep wisely and b) grand cross is funny
- For online debate, I am generally very sympathetic towards technical difficulties, so PLEASE do not take advantage of the format to steal prep / generally commit abuses
- Send docs if reading 250 WPM + (normally I judge MS so I will be confused if you do this LOL)
CONSTRUCTIVE
- Make your internal links crystal clear, especially if you are terminalizing to nuke war or extinction
- Send a doc if you are speaking 250+ WPM
- I am completely fine with paraphrasing, as long as you can provide the cut card to check back for abuse
REBUTTAL
- Signpost clearly
- Number responses if possible
- Implicate responses well rather than just reading debate jargon
- 2nd rebuttal must frontline (respond to the 1st rebuttal's attacks on your case)
- Let me know when you're going to their case if you are a 2nd rebuttal speaker
SUMMARY
- You must cover in some way, shape, or form: offense, defense, frontlining, weighing. I don't care in what order you do this, but these components must be in summary.
- High level weighing with good warranting is very strategic
- Please extend your entire link, internal link, impact (and uniqueness if that's important to the topic)
- On their case, 2 implicated responses >>> 4 unimplicated responses. Also, defense is not sticky.
FINAL FOCUS
- Collapse in this speech if you haven't done so already
- In my opinion, this speech should be heavy on big picture analysis and weighing, but as long as you cover their case, your case, and weighing you should be good.
PROG
- My opinions on this are very brief because I have limited experience with prog.
- Framing --> Run it well. Provide well researched and well thought out warranting as to why your impacts are more important, not just "education," "we brought it up first," "discourse"
- Theory --> No friv theory PLEASE. Logical analytical responses >>>> brain dead circuit responses (like the theory baiting response). Theory comes before substance b/c it's prefiat so I would suggest narrowing the debate to theory after the constructives (or whenever it's brought up)
- Ks --> I strongly dislike topical Ks because the alts are vague, but feel free to run one and I will up you if you win on the flow. I don't have strong feelings one way or another about nontopical Ks. Again, I will up you if you win on the flow.
- Regardless of what kind of K you are reading, please make the lit accessible during the round. If someone asks you about any of the "isms" in cross, please provide a basic explanation rather than spouting off buzz words. Debate is ultimately an educational activity.
- Also, please provide TWs if you are reading graphic depictions of violence and give the opposing team a document with the offensive / violent language blurred out. Warning people ahead of time is in my opinion never a bad thing and allows people in round to mentally prepare for what they are about to hear. You can still read your advocacy -- I would not want to limit or censor debaters.
- Tricks / High Theory / Friv Theory / anything strange and peculiar --> I am not the judge to run this on. Read this on Justin Wang and Derek Song :3
Ask me any questions before the round and please reach out if there were issues in the round / at the tournament! This activity is really important to me, and it's critical that debaters feel safe and confident.