Tabroom.com

Jesuit Ranger Scrimmage

2023 — Dallas, TX/US

Policy Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Ashia Agarwal Coppell 9th None

Neha Bachu Greenhill School

Gautam Chamarthy Greenhill School

Leo Cherif Coppell 9th

Last changed on Tue January 30, 2024 at 3:00 AM CDT

Hi my name is Leo (he/him), you can call me judge or by my name idc. I mainly do LD but I have also gone into Policy, plus I went to policy camp last summer. My email is ewitsleo@gmail.com, let me know if I can do anything to make you more comfortable, and if you have any concerns please talk to me.

I think debate should be a space for people to freely express ideas no matter how unconventional. So long as it's justified with evidence or proper argumentation (and reasonable) I am willing to evaluate any argument, theory, Ks, CP, etc, but T always goes first. HOWEVER you MUST explain your arguments for me to do so. I understand MOST Ks that are common, however if they're more nuanced explain to me what it means to you, the debate, and why this comes first. Feel free to spread, just know I expect at least some clarity, but I'll be looking at the doc. PLEASE slow down on analytics, and give me the offtime roadmap.

If you want my ballot I expect weighing to be clear, and for you to tell me why I'm going to be voting for you, sign posting is the way to my heart. Explain to me why they're wrong or why they're bad, don't just say they are and expect me to know why. Pick apart their arguments by warranting them out and try to clearly tell me what you win on, and why it's important. Don't expect me to understand your argument by myself, I need you to explain it just as much as you defend it to make your win clear.

Now for speaker points, don't pause, do your best to just keep talking. I'd rather you say whatever comes to mind and risk looking "dumb" to yourself instead of just going "uhh" and then going silent, that will doc your speaks however regardless I will not judge you for that, everybody that debates does or has done that. I start speaks at 28, and am not super stubborn when it comes to raising that.

Great speaks to me are driven off of emotion, and consistency (speaking wise) a combination of the 2 will likely get you a 30. I want YOU to make me feel like a horrible person/ an idiot for not voting for you. Among this, clarity is a big one. I don't mind spreading in the realm of argumentation, again, but clarity's important for good speaks. I want you to seem like you're having fun and sound like you're doing something meaningful. I think being aggressive is good but don’t be an opp LOL, you should still be respectful.

Okay well, on an ending note and after rereading this I’d like to add that often times people forget how hard it is to follow through with everybody’s preferences and to debate in general. Just know this is a maximum, not a minimum of what I expect. At minimum you should be having fun and learning, that is enough, please try not to feel super nervous and have a good time.

Sua Cho Coppell 9th

Caden Cutchall Jesuit College Prep

Austin Dunbar St. Mark's School of Texas

Lillian Goetz Dallas Highland Park High School

Noah Grant St. Mark's School of Texas

Last changed on Tue February 6, 2024 at 2:22 AM CDT

Add me to the email chain: timetravelcounterplan@gmail.com (if you get the reference, you're awesome), and also add smdebatedocs@gmail.com as well please

Class of '25 @ St. Mark's

If you have any questions about my paradigm or you don't understand my thought processes, shoot me an email.

General Information

Tech <-------o---------> Truth

I tend to be willing to vote on almost any argument, but it has to be explained very well. That said, don't be abusive. I don't want to judge a 20-minute speech because "it's more fair that way." Adhere to the rules of debate and I'll do my best to judge the round objectively.

Be clear. I'm fine with spreading, but if your speech is incoherent I won't be happy. If I say "clear," it means that you are being unclear and should not just slow down by 1%. Make it coherent- not just tags. If I have to say "clear" more than twice, I will probably stop flowing and your speaker points will get docked.

Reason your arguments well. I don't want to here "perm do both because it solves." Back up your arguments with evidence or reasoning. Lack of both doesn't mean that I won't consider your argument, but it does mean that I will be less likely to vote on it.
This is an extension of that, but give good judge instruction! Debate is mainly concerned with "logos" but appealing to emotion is just as important. Let me know why I should vote for you, and you probably have a higher chance of winning.

Obvious (but nonetheless important) notes:

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. It will make me very sad and I will probably call the round there if it was especially apparent/intentional. If you accidentally say something that you didn't mean (i.e. you unintentionally misgender someone), I probably won't see it as an ethics violation. If what you said truly upset the other team, I will likely dock your speaks. Apologizing makes all the difference; if the opponents get angry and you double-down on what you said, I will most likely call the round for ethics.
Be respectful. Don't yell at your opponents and tell them that they are stinky. Debate should be civilized, so keep it that way. It's okay to poke fun at an argument if it isn't good, but don't attack the people behind the arguments or else I might dock speaks.
Don't clip. If you are reading a card and you want to stop halfway through, clearly enunciate "mark card at the word X." Otherwise, I will probably be sad. If you do this consistently and egregiously, theres probably an ethics problem present. Similar with ev quality. Don't misrepresent your arguments or change the wording of the cited evidence.
Have fun! Debate is about having fun, and yes, fun is an impact.

CPs

Counterplans are pretty fun, so make them pretty fun.

Have a solvency advocate for your counterplan. As long as you prove that it's possible, then you can debate it. Don't just "world peace counterplan" absent you having the (inevitably impossible) solvency advocate that it is both feasible and reasonable. Have good clash vs the aff; compare the two--impact calc + link debate is very convincing and it feels rarer each year.

Explain the net benefits. I don't like debates where the net benefits aren't clearly defined and the neg ends up changing the net benefit halfway through the round because it is more strategic.

Process CPs and PICs can be abusive, so I am open to consider theory for those. I don't think agent CPs are as bad, but I would consider theory for that as well. I'm very on-the-fence about whether I appreciate states CPs or not.

Planks are fine. If you kick them, you run the risk of opening up the can of worms that is a conditionality debate. More on that near the bottom.

Perms are important, but make sure you explain what the world of the perm looks like. How do the advocacies coexist?? Intrinsic perms are normally at least a little justified (as long as they aren't completely functionally intrinsic).

DAs

Disads are probably the most important offcase that the neg has access to. That said, more and more disads have very generic links. Have aff-specific links - it makes me significantly more likely to weigh the disad against the aff.

Politics is always a decent argument, but there is a good discussion to be had about whether fiat resolves the link. Econ DAs are very relevant on this topic, but that doesn't mean they automatically win the round- the aff has a lot of tricks out there to hide up their sleeves vs econ DAs.

Make sure to explain the thesis behind your DA in the block and the 2nr. I don't want to hear "the aff links. that causes global extinction. we win." I want to see specific reasons why and how the DA links/turns/outweighs the aff. Something like "Right now, X bill in congress will pass, BUT the AFF completely disrupts this because Y. X is key to prevent Z impact, and if that impact occurs, then the plan is rendered useless and leaves us in a worse state than the status quo." is a good example of what I'm looking for.

Topicality

I'm going to preface this section by saying that I think that "fiscal redistribution" is "taxes or transfers." That doesn't mean I'm not going to consider the "and" violation, but it does mean it will be an uphill battle for the neg if they read that.

I think topicality is a strong argument, but the bias of the topic normally shapes my opinion on this. I think that this topic is probably slightly neg-biased, so I'm more willing to give the aff some leniency on their affirmative. That being said, I still think topicality is valuable for the neg to read in most circumstances. If topicality goes conceded, it's pretty much over for the aff, so be careful.

For K affs, I think T-USFG is an extremely good argument. This is "policy" debate, so we should be debating policies. Especially on this topic- there is an enormous amount of lit on FJGs, UBIs, and Social Security expansions being necessary for resolving structural issues in debate and our society as a whole. TVAs are very convincing.

For all topicality violations, make sure you explain your impacts, why they are relevant, and why this aff is uniquely good/bad for these impacts. Giving caselists for counter-interps is highly appreciated.

Kritik

I'm a very policy-leaning person, but that does not mean I won't consider a good K. The most important thing when running a K is to explain it well. Don't just spam buzzwords and expect me to vote you because you flustered the opponents. I'm normally fine with high theory Ks but its especially important you explain those well. I'm most comfortable with Ks around biopower (Foucault)-level in terms of theory.

Framework-

I love framework debates and I think its an extremely good and likely necessary response to any kritik. The aff probably should be able to weigh their aff vs the alt, and I generally don't support "you link you lose." Basically, debate the K like any other argument in debate. Putting it on a pedestal as some type of panacea argument that instantly wins you the round is a bad view for both the aff and the neg.

Links-

I don't love reps links unless they are really specific to the aff. Saying that a certain branch of academia is inherently corrupt is probably a bad view. Links of omission are similarly not great. If the SQUO and the aff look the exact same, your links probably need some fixing. If your links are aff-specific, I will be significantly more likely to vote on the K.

Impacts-

Weigh your impacts against the aff. Just because your alternative circumvents structural violence, that doesn't mean it automatically outweighs the affirmative- maybe the aff solves it too, maybe the aff will argue for extinction o/w, etc...
Unless you specifically say that it's an extinction-causing impact, I don't think that inequality/racism/bigotry/structural violence/etc is automatically at the same level as a terminal impact. Value to life impacts and extinction impacts are two separate categories- weigh them against each other.

Alternatives-

I don't love kritiks that kick the alternative and go for the K as a disad. If it was really a disad you could have framed it that way. SQUO is always an option. Explain the alternative and why it solves- a lot of modern kritiks seem to have alternatives that either don't solve or are completely abusive. Weigh the alt vs the aff and I'll be happy. For the aff, I think that utopian fiat, international fiat, mindset shift, etc. are probably abusive in most cases, so theory could help you for sure.
Perms are normally good (and I think perm double bind is a little too good),but you absolutely need to let me know what the world of the perm looks like. Explain it! How do both the aff and the alt coexist?

(Floating) PIKs-

PIKs are normally unfair in my eyes. Floating PIKs even more so. That said, the aff needs to preface that argument- if you didn't say something was abusive, don't change your mind in the 1AR unless it was particularly egregious.

Theory/Procedurals

Condo-

For conditionality, I tend to prefer the aff. That doesn't mean I will automatically vote the aff, and if the neg has good reasoning behind their actions, it's a pretty even debate. Dispo is a pretty good interpretation for condo and normally solves. Don't have some goofy interpretation like "3 conditional counterplans and 2 conditional alternatives" unless you have real reasoning there.

Most modern voters are kinda bad, but I can get behind some. I have literally seen things like "permutations are a voter for fairness." Don't be that person. Please. I will consider most voting issues, but that is not one of them.

Things like PIC/PIKs bad, process CPs bad, utopian fiat, etc. are all decent arguments.

If you are going to go for theory or a procedural, know how to go for it. Explain your impacts- fairness and education are obvious, "fun" is cool but a little uncommon, and "humility" is another very fringe but interesting argument. Clash is an internal to fairness and education, not an impact on its own.
Explain why the opponents' arguments are specifically bad. If their argument is in 75% of 1NCs, and it doesn't have a 75% win rate, then it's probably not super abusive (that doesn't mean that its normalization is good though). Contextualize it to the round.

Speaks/other comments:

Speaks start at 28.5. If you are unclear and your arguments don't make much sense, your speaks will slowly fall. Speed ≠ speaks. If you give good, well-researched arguments that you clearly understand, speaks go up. If you give a speech that blows me away, you will get high speaks.

If you are clearly enjoying the round and having fun, I will give you higher speaks. If you make funny remarks or strong analogies in round, speaks go up. Sarcastic humor is funny and persuasive, but you need to make sure you attack the arguments, not the debaters.

For cross-ex-

Open cross is fine, but don't take it over from your teammate. Speak to the judge, not to the opponent or your teammates. Cross-ex is just as persuasive as any other speech, especially if you provide evidence of your knowledge on the subject at hand.

Don't 'concede the rest of cross as prep.' That's lame. Spend time poking at your opponents' arguments! If you don't understand something, ask for clarity!

CX is very much binding. Don't be a moving target.

Don't be rude. That means a few things-
1. Do not attack the debaters, only the arguments
2. Don't interrupt responses disrespectfully. If they just started giving an answer or are trying to think of how to phrase a response, don't immediately interrupt and say "oh you don't know. i see. next question!"
3. If an opponent is taking way too long to give their answer to your question, they are probably in the wrong for respect. At that point, feel free to interrupt them.
4. This is important: a lot of CXes seem to end up with one side asking a tactical question, the other side giving a response, and the asking side going "okay, so you link to our disad. next question." or something similar. Don't do that. It cuts off your opponent and makes the argument seem in your favor even if it isn't necessarily. Don't say something in cross unless you expect a response to it. It doesn't help me understand the argument and it just makes the opponents feel bad.

Overall, make sure you have fun in the round and are respectful to your fellow debaters. This is a game where we should all collectively benefit from in-round education, so make the best of it!

Jack Griffiths Jesuit College Prep

Last changed on Mon March 4, 2024 at 2:01 AM CDT

Jack Griffiths

Assistant Coach and Alumni Service Corps at Jesuit Dallas

jack9riff at gmail dot com

Updated Before TFA State

About Me:
- Debated at Jesuit from 2015-2019 (2A)
- Have experience with all sorts of arguments, from mostly big-stick arguments my first few years to mostly K-oriented strategies my senior year
- Judged, coached, and cut cards part-time for Jesuit during the pandemic years
- Have been serving as assistant coach during my ASC year at Jesuit (2023-2024) and judging at local, regional, and national tournaments (about 40 rounds total so far this year)

**I have made some updates throughout the paradigm to give a better sense of how I have decided these different kinds of debates during this season.

I believe that my responsibility as a judge is to adapt to the debaters' arguments rather than the other way around. There are arguments I'm more familiar with than others, but as long as your explanations are well-warranted and digestible, you should feel free running what you want to run (with the exception of arguments that are discriminatory or advocate for self-harm).

For me, doing proper clash and line-by-line is absolutely essential. Debates become the most enjoyable when they feature lots of organized back-and-forth and detailed comparisons between arguments. The most crucial elements of line by line include keeping an accurate flow, proper signposting (“2AC 1—they say x, we say y”), and using your own voice to initiate comparisons (rather than simply reading walls of cards). To elaborate more on that last item, I find myself more persuaded by debaters who acknowledge the areas where they’re behind and explain why they still win (i.e. “even if they win x, we still win because y”) than by debaters who assert that they’re winning on absolutely every level (which is almost never true).

Note: to incentivize clash, if you show me your flows after the debate, and I believe that your flows truly served as the basis of your argumentation during your speeches, I will give you +0.2 speaker points.

Because of everything stated above, I find myself disappointed by debates in which teams either don’t directly clash or in which teams intentionally avoid the need to clash by throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. This isn’t to say that you can’t initiate a high volume of arguments in front of me, but if it comes at the expense of direct engagement with the other team’s arguments, I’m less likely to enjoy the round.

Things that increase speaker points: active flowing, direct clashing, strategic use of CX, effective use of framing moments in the final rebuttals

Things that limit speaker points: not flowing (and struggling to do effective line-by-line as a result), being overly aggressive/snarky, over-reliance on tag-team CX

Theory

Although I've generally unlikely to reject the team, I have pulled the trigger in the past. More often, theory is best used to give yourself more leeway when answering a sketchy argument. Conditionality is generally good but can become less good with multiple conditional contradictory worlds, an absence of solvency advocates, an abundance of conditional CP planks, etc. SPEC arguments are usually uncompelling to me. News affs are good—I wouldn’t burn 10 seconds in the 1NC by reading your shell.

Be sure to slow down a bit when reading all your compressed analytics. Finding in-round examples of abuse isn't intrinsically necessary but does help you out quite a bit.

Topicality

Topic-specific thoughts: While many debaters have asserted that tax-and-transfer is intrinsically the core of the topic, I'm not quite as convinced, as it often seems like affs with taxes sideline discussions of the 3 areas in favor of whole advantages predicated off of whatever taxes they choose to defend. I also am likely to be more skeptical of tax-and-transfer affs that don't have a solvency advocate that advocates for both the tax AND the transfer as a complete package. I can definitely still vote for such affs, but I’m open to listen to teams that can speak to the trends I've been witnessing, and teams that are in favor of tax-and-transfer as their view of the topic should have a more warranted explanation for why that view is good.

General thoughts:When deciding these rounds, I first decide whether to evaluate the debate through competing interpretations or reasonability (based on which framework I have been persuaded is best based on the debating) before looking deeper into the flow. I default to competing interpretations if not given an alternative (which generally means I end up deciding the debate based on the comparative risks of the two team's standards). I personally find reasonability at its most compelling/least arbitrary when contextualized to a counter-interpretation (i.e. as long as our counter-interpretation is reasonable enough, you should vote affirmative) rather than when presented in an aff-specific way (i.e. we’re a camp aff so we’re topical). If after the debate I decide to evaluate the round through the lens of reasonability, that usually means I should vote aff unless their interp is evidently bad for debate.

I think debaters tend to spend too much time reading cards in these debates that could instead be spent on giving concrete examples for their standards to help me visualize the limits explosion, loss in ground, etc. Teams also should be doing a better job at explaining the terminal impact to these standards (i.e. what does "precision" actually mean and how much does it matter?). Not articulating your impacts will force me to intervene more than I'm usually comfortable with.

K Aff vs T/Framework

I’ve judged a few of these, and my decisions in them have generally come down to which side gives me a better sense of what their model of debate produces relative to the other team’s. Negative teams are most compelling when they articulate how iterative debates with a resolutional focus produce research skills, engagement through clashing perspectives, and topic-specific knowledge. Affirmative teams are persuasive when they successfully point out limitations of the negative’s model of debate and/or when they argue that the values the negative espouses will be used for detrimental ends absent the affirmative’s method. “Procedural fairness” could be an impact but most teams that have centralized their strategy around it have sounded too tautological to me, so if going for it is your preference then make sure to articulate why fairness is important beyond just saying “debate is a game so fairness must be important.” A K Aff should still have some connection to the resolution/topic area as well as a clearly-signposted advocacy statement. Affirmatives also need to have robust answers to TVAs and switch side debate.

K vs. K

Although I’ve never judged this form of debate, I had a few rounds like these as a debater from the negative side. I think it’s an open discussion whether the affirmative should be able to have a permutation in these debates—the more vague the affirmative’s method is, the more likely I am to defer negative.

Policy Aff vs K

I have three asks for affirmative teams. First, leverage the 1AC, whether in the form of “case outweighs” argument, a disad to the alt, or as an example of why whatever thing the negative criticizes can be good. Second, choose a strategy that synergizes well with the type of affirmative you’re reading. If your 1AC is 8 minutes of heg good, impact turn. If you’re a soft-left aff, link turn by explaining how the solvency of the aff can challenge structures of oppression. Third, prioritize offensive arguments. I’ve seen too many debates where the 2AR spends almost all their time going for the “perm double bind” and overly defensive strategies. Instead, center the debate about why your method is good and makes things better and why the alternative makes things worse.

Negatives should be able to explain their kritiks without heavily reliance on jargon, especially when reading high theory (given my relative unfamiliarity with it). I like it when negatives present detailed link narratives that are specific to the aff, explain how the alternative addresses the proximate causes of the affirmative impacts, and leverage on-case arguments to supplement the kritiks. I like it less when negatives rely on “tricks” (e.g. framework landmines, ontology without impacting it out) or enthymemes (i.e. establishing only part of an argument/dropping a buzzword while expecting me to fill in the blanks for you simply because prevalent K teams make the same argument).

A note on framework: I am personally uncomfortable voting on overly-exclusionary framework interpretations (e.g. "no Ks allowed" or "aff doesn't get to weigh the plan) unless one team is dropping the ball, and so I'm more compelled by nuanced interpretations that leave some room for the other side (e.g. "the aff can weigh their plan but we should still be able to problematize their assumptions"). For similar reasons, I'm not the biggest fan of pure fiat Ks (but if you win them then you do you, I suppose).

Counterplan Debates

I've progressively grown more and more frustrated by the proliferation of random, old process CPs that steal the aff this year. Not to say you can't read them, but I'll be more sympathetic to smart aff permutation arguments, and you should make sure your theory defenses are sufficient.

Counterplans should have solvency advocates—and if you manage to find a hyper-specific solvency advocate related to the aff, that can make me more open to counterplans that I might otherwise deem sketchy (process, conditions, etc.). Topic/aff-specific PICs are valuable because they reward targeted research, but word/language-related PICs are likely less legitimate unless you have a very compelling reason why they make sense in a given debate. I’m ambivalent about multiplank counterplans, but if you claim planks are independently conditional and/or you lack a unified solvency advocate for all the planks, I’m more likely to side with the aff. I won’t judge kick unless you tell me in the 2NR.

Disadvantage Debates

Disad debates are fun as long as they’re presented with qualified evidence that can reduce the need for too much “spin.” Controlling uniqueness is important. Turns case is most valuable when contextualized specifically to the aff scenarios and when it isn’t reliant on the negative winning full risk of their terminal impact. Risk can be reduced to zero with smart defensive arguments and if the quality of the disad is just that bad, but generally you’ll be in a better spot if you find a source of offense (which can be even something as simple as “case outweighs”).

Case

Although case answers are (sadly) generally underutilized by the negative, they have influenced quite a few of my recent decisions, so negative teams should feel compelled to make case debating a more crucial part of their strategy in front of me. Internal link and solvency takeouts (both evidenced and analytical) are much more persuasive to me than reading generic impact defense.

Chris Han St. Mark's School of Texas

Ania Jalori Coppell 9th

Andrew Jin St. Mark's School of Texas

Sirini Karunadasa Coppell 9th

Last changed on Sat April 27, 2024 at 1:22 AM CDT

jnats note: please use speech drop https://speechdrop.net/

Hi! I go by sorin! Senior at Coppell High School.

add me to the email chain :)

s8rink@gmail.com

Email format: ( “aff name” vs “neg name” - “tournament name” - rd #) - or something that has all of that

TLDR:

I'm okay with speed
I flow
off time roadmaps please
I like impact calc and judge instruction
don't be disrespectful
have fun :)

things to keep in mind:

*Please do impact calc! if i'm judging you you're probably a novice so all that means is tell me why ur impact matters more (under ur fw) or using things like magnitude, probability, timeframe, scope

*argumentation is great but weighing makes my job so much easier and i'm way more likely to vote for you

*please signpost! as novices yall can get really messy so it would mean alot to tell me what you're answering and what flow you're on!!

*wont flow new arguments in 2nr/2ar

*keep your own time, incase i forget

*send me a email or tell me if you ever feel unsafe during/after round, and lmk if theres anything i can do :)

*will disclose (if both teams want it) unless tournament rules say otherwise

LD/CX

Evaluation stuff:

Policy args: yes please! I understand this, go for it!, make sure to weigh

DAs: I understand this, go for it!

CPs: I understand this go for it! make sure to explain net benefits, and net benefits of perm if you're aff

Theory: within reason pls

theory for in round abuse and high chance ill vote on it

please make sure the shell is understandable, and clear warranted voters, if i dont get it or don’t know what to do with it, I cant evaluate it properly :(

Default to competing interps, drop the debater, fairness is an i/l to education, etc.

friv theory: if its frivolous ill be highly persuaded by reasonability + low threshold for response , there’s also a time to be “funny” and not funny like don’t read some wild debaters must play Fortnite shell on a identity position

IVIs:something like misgendering or like a jargon ivi i’d prob vote on if won, but for things like author indicts— sure this old white guy is problematic, and I most likely agree with you, but it needs to have like a impact, tell me what reading this author really does yk (and in relation to your position if applicable).

Ks: at your own risk

I am a k debater but that doesn’t mean I know every lit base. (especially if high theory, err on over explanation, talk to me like I’m 5 i don’t mind getting lectured for a bit) Just tell and explain to me what your scholarship says: I wont do the work for u but don’t expect a lot either, just make it so it’s understandable and please tell a story!

If you’re a novice only run if you actually understand the literature and all, butchered ks are painful

I'm not well versed with every literature but doesn’t mean I wont evaluate it

LD Specific:

Framework:most important, tell me clearly why I should evaluate the round w your framing, and induct your opponents

Phil:not preferred

chances are high that im not familiar unless maybe like Kant or Rawls as purely framing mech, so you would have to do alot of work "dumbing it down" for me

again if its basic value criterion sure but dense phil fws i am probably not the best for it, i have trouble understanding it but if u go for it, pls crystalize it in the 1ar and 2nr

I'm not a phil debater, so wont be the best for like specific feedback

Trad: same thing as policy :), just weigh fw for sure

trix/spikes: no bruh, i won’t vote of extrapolations of a non warranted 1 line blip in the 1ac

PF and WSD

Treat me like a lay parent judge that knows how to flow basically

see LD for what i like if it’s applicable

* go at a reasonable speed, signpost, write the ballot for me

for worlds just literally treat me like you would a parent

Speaks

im generous

27 and below: you did something bad (check things that lower)

28-28.9: good job

29-30: good job x2

put a cute dog pic or a funny meme on the doc and ill give you a L 29.8 or W 29.9

Things that lower speaks:

* Any isms (racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc) will be a L w low speaks

* Being disrespectful to your opponent (be nice)

* Misgendering, respect peoples pronouns, if not listed, default to "my opponent" and they/them

speed: idc, just slow-er on tags, send me the docs, spread analytics at your own risk because i might not catch them

(wont effect speaks, unless I like absolutely cannot understand you)

have fun and good luck!

note for middle school NATS:

congrats on being here!!

ill keep track of all arguments:) If I'm typing on my phone I promise I'm paying attention my computer probably just died and I need to type feedback somewhere lol
if you forget speech times don’t be afraid to ask me I got you
I can time for y’all :) (my alarm is like a duck quacking though so let me know if that bothers you)
don’t stress if you’re a few mins late this place is confusing to navigate
if your event is flighted- flt 1 means you start at the time listed, flt 2 means you’re right after the flt1 round but the time should be listed as well
it’s always good to try to use all your speaking time in speeches, but don’t stress too much about it — it won’t evaluate my judging :)
don’t worry about the stuff below unless you understand it, most of it’s not applicable
ask questions if you need anything at all or if you’re confused!

- relax, you did the hard work to get here already, enjoy yourself:)

Luke Lastelick Jesuit College Prep

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 10:22 AM CDT

Luke Lastelick '25

I am a current junior debating policy at Jesuit College Prep

please add me the email chain: lastelickdebate@gmail.com

Please do these things:

-tech vs truth - truth probably comes first. Tech does matter insofar as it pertains to argumentation and clash but some things are fact. If the neg says “the sky is red” and the aff drops it, the sky does not become red for the rest of the duration of the debate. Just please implicate dropped arguments, even if I think they're terrible. There are limits to your tech.

Also you don't need cards to win every argument - current event awareness = very good, especially when manifested in smart and strategic arguments

- Clash

- Be confident and use cx to make good ethos moments. Don't cede cx for prep, it's a speech. This is cx debate.

- Write me my ballot - frame your arguments in the final speeches

Here are some specific thoughts:

Disadvantages:

I like a good DA debate, especially one with a unique and well explained story.

DA turns case and Case turns the DA are sound paths to victory. Collapse the debate in the rebuttals and develop your internal link chain

You can win 0 risk of a DA

Topicality:

I'm a big T guy. I need a coherent violation and standards with a terminal impact that is explained if you intend to go for it. Plan text is a vacuum is probably bad but I don't ever know what the alternative is. If the aff makes that argument, the neg needs to also explain what a better standard for determining topicality is (hint: pull lines from their solvency advocates)

Counterplans:

Big cp guy, especially if they are innovative and make sense. I will unhappily observe nonsense "ban the plan" counterplans and the like. Also, if its a cheat-y process cp, I will vote on aff theory if debated right.

Kritiks:

Big fan. Love Cap K. Other k's are fine too. High theory requires some explanation and probably cx moments.

you don't need to fiat the alt to get "utopian" solvency

"Fairness is not an impact. I'll vote on it but I won't be happy about it." - me

K Affs:

K affs with a tie to the topic are awesome.

Explain your theory of power.

T-Framework - Cross-apply my thoughts about fairness here.

These preferences shouldn't matter if you debate what you're comfortable with and have fun doing it.

misc:

Run the coercion k if you're cool. Run the coercion da if you ain't. Run the cap k if you know what's up.

Thank you for caring enough to look at my paradigm

Peter Loh Jesuit College Prep

Kyle Ma Jesuit College Prep

Last changed on Fri February 2, 2024 at 11:48 AM EDT

Hi, I'm Kyle (he/him)

Jesuit '24 (currently a 2a/1n but was a 2n/1a for the past 3 years if that matters)

please add me to the email chain: jesuitcm@gmail.com

General Info (in no particular order)

• tech > truth (generally) but every argument needs a warrant- saying as many claims as possible and hoping your opponent drops it is not persuasive.

•the two exceptions to this are saying racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. are good- it is not tolerated- and reading ev that is objectively wrong (ie. Trump is still president).

•line by line and clash are good- please interact and clash with your opponents' arguments

•frame the debate- every 2NR/2AR should start with lines that will be said in my RFD. Tell me what you are winning and why it wins you the debate-- if I can't explain an argument at the end of the debate I won't vote on it

• be respectful! there is a line between being confident and arrogant- do not cross it

• clarity > speed

• open cx is fine but do not talk over the person who is supposed to be asking/answering questions- it damages your ethos too

CPs

• external net benefits are much better than artificially competitive internal net benefits

• if you're going for the perm make sure that you're either making shields the link args or you are winning a solvency deficit to the CP

• theory args can be reasons to reject the team but specificity is good (ie going for multiple conditional contradictory process CPs without a solvency advocate bad vs condo bad)

• sufficiency framing arguments are good

• have solvency advocates for your CPs- aff specific ones are best but at least have ones in the context of the rez

Disads

• it is possible to win 0% risk of a disad- but its better to go for offense and defense together

• case turns the disad and disad turns case are compelling arguments- as long as they are well warranted. do comparative analysis on your case outweighs arguments

• recent uniqueness is good (even more so when you're going for a link turn) but a few hours is not going to win or lose you the debate. if you want to make a recency argument make sure to impact out why recency is good in that specific instance

• if you're going to go for a link turn its easier to win if you also win defense against their links and other parts of the disad

• line by line >>>>>>> 7 minute overviews

• go for link/impact turns

• FW interps about kicking Ks out of debate arent persuasive- and the aff should probably get to weigh the aff

• links of omission aren't links

• links specific to the aff > generic FJG/UBI/SS links > fiscal redistribution links > government bad links

• if you're neg make sure to explain how the alt resolves the link- if you're aff explain how the perm solves the link OR explain why the impact turn outweighs

T/procedurals

• T debates can get really messy- stick to the order of the 2ac

• interps that have intent to define AND intent to exclude > interps that have intent to define OR intent to exclude > interps that have neither (they aren't interps)

• ASPEC isn't a voter

• case lists / and TVAs are great ways of proving why your opponent's interpretation of the rez is bad

• I'll default to competing interps but if you want to go for reasonability explaining what does being reasonable mean

• make sure to do impact comparison between your standards and your opponents' standards

Last but not least, feel free to ask or email me any questions you have after the round!

Levy Mendoza Jesuit College Prep

Ella Ou-Yang Greenhill School

Rohan Raman Coppell 9th None

Rafael Sanchez Coppell 9th

Toby Whisenhunt Dallas Highland Park High School

Login to Tabroom

Jesuit Ranger Scrimmage

2023 — Dallas, TX/US

Policy Debate Paradigm List

Judges