Midwest Middle School Debate League Tournament 2
2023 — NSDA Campus, IL/US
Policy Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideEmail Jororynyc@gmail.com
Perry Hs
CSUF
Assistant coach at Peninsula, 2023-Present
Cleared at the Toc.
A significant part of how I think is influenced by Amber Kelsie, Jared Burke, Tay Brough, and Raunak Dua, along with Elmer Yang and Gordon Krauss.
Condense the debate to as few arguments as possible and have good topic knowledge.
Mostly read K arguments - Some policy arguments on the neg. Some Affs had plans.
I am bad for Phil or Trix.
FW: Fairness is an impact,
I also have an increasingly higher threshold for K debate because most of it done in LD is bad.
I wont flow until 1NC case so I can read evidence. If I don't know what you're saying by the last speech, my rfd coherence will reflect.
Hiii, ♥
Email: Jaec.debate@gmail.com
if you can debate w/ your camera on - I would appreciate that greatly
A bit about myself and my rules:
My name is Jaelynn or Jae (she/her) and I currently debate at Lane Tech
I am a K-debater but I understand policy very well
I really like music, art and do (Mexican) folkloric dancing.
I will stop the round if I see any offensive language that does not pertain to the argument (k's and such)
- round stops - you lose
- will report to tab
- will be talking to your coach
On debate:
General:
Point out dropped arguments and extend !!!
okay with the tag team but I should have an idea of whose CX it is. (not for t2- not allowed)
Topicality:
I think its really good for this topic and understand it well
- I will only vote on it if you can tell me why it matters for this round not just debate in general.
DA's:
impact calc >>>>>
CP:
- i think they are highly effective just try not to be too abusive
K's
- I LOVEEEE K's -
- Please explain your jargon - I understand a fair amount but it may be difficult for high-theory arguments
- Explain well!!
HAVE FUN PLEASE and SHOW YOUR PERSONALITY!!
If you make a Childish Gambino reference at any point I will give you +.1 speaks
OR figure out when to play the song comically and get +.3
Thankkkk youu for reading,
- Josh (he/him)
I'm a former national circuit high school debater from the mid-1990's, but since that time I have not had much in-round debate experience until the 2020-2021 season.
My general approach is to assess the round based solely on the arguments presented by the debaters, with as little intervention by me as possible, and where tech dominates truth. The remainder of this paradigm should be viewed in that light -- that is, it's a heads up on my general perspectives on debate that may or may not be helpful to you, but if we're all doing our jobs well, my perspectives shouldn't really matter and shouldn't enter into the RFD.
The specifics below are really intended to highlight a handful of areas where my own views or capabilities may differ from other judges.
********
Flowing / speed / clarity: I flow on paper. Please don't start your speech until you've given a roadmap, and until it's clear that I'm ready.
If you're an experienced high school debater, please know that my ear for speed is not quite what it used to be. I would suggest going a little bit slower everywhere except the body of cards. (That said, I do pay attention to what is read in the body of cards, and only consider a card to be evidenced to the extent that it is actually read in the round.) You certainly don't need to be at normal-person conversational speed, but taking 20-30% of your speed off would probably be helpful to you.
Please include some sort of unambiguous verbal indicator at the end of a card and before the following tag. A very brief pause is a start. A simple and clear "Next" is better. While it may be old-school, and very slightly inefficient, I'm still partial to some sort of number or letter in early constructives, particularly because numbers and letters allow for easier signposting in the line-by-line in later speeches. (Though, I also tend to hate 1-a-b-c, 2-a-b-c, etc., unless the sub-structure is highly related to itself, e.g., CP theory.)
There's an extent to which line-by-line seems to be a lost art, as does flowing. To an extent, I'll try to do the work for you and see if a given argument has in fact been dropped, but the best way to ensure that my flow has you covering everything is to signpost everything, and respond / extend in the order of the original line-by-line, i.e., the 1NC on-case and the 2AC off-case.
Please send speech docs. Ideally, we should be using share.tabroom.com or similar. If for some reason that is not possible, I will provide my email address before the round. In middle school and high school novice, my standard policy is to *not* follow along in the file, and I won't read cards unless I need to do so at the end of the round in order to assess some question of evidence. At the high school JV and Varsity levels, I'm more willing to follow along in the speech doc in order to do my part to adapt to you. But, I still expect clarity, signposting, and modulating speed on tags and cites.
Also, particularly at the high school JV / Varsity levels, I would strongly advise against reeling off multiple blippy analytics in the course of several seconds. If you do so, then if you're lucky, I will get one out of every four arguments on my flow, and it may not be the one you want the most. If there's a round-winning argument that you need me to understand, best to explain it thoroughly rather than assume I will understand the argument based on just a handful of words. This is all the more true if your delivery relies excessively on debate jargon, the more modern forms of which I may not yet be familiar. Please trust that I'm doing my level best, and that I'll be able to follow you when you're explaining things reasonably well.
In the end, if it's not on my flow, I can't assess it as part of the round, even if it's in your doc.
Kritiks: I have no principled opposition to voting on kritiks. This includes kritiks on the Aff. I do think Aff has the burden of proof to win definitively that they do not or should not need to have a topical plan. That is a burden that I have seen overcome, though the more of these rounds I see, the tougher this sell becomes for me. Regardless, in the end this is a question that I'll resolve based on the flow.
I'm arguably not clever enough to understand many kritiks -- I dropped the philosophy major because I couldn't hack it, and became a physics/math major instead -- so persuading me to vote on the basis of a kritik may require a fair bit more explanation than you would typically offer. I will take no shame in telling you that I straight up didn't understand your argument and couldn't vote on it as a result. This most likely occurs if you overly rely on philosophical jargon. If anything, my lack of experience relative to other judges in this particular debate subspace probably provides a natural check on teams reading arguments that they don't understand themselves. I'll posit that if you can't explain your argument in reasonably simple terms, then you probably don't understand it, and shouldn't win on it.
I'll say as well that I've judged a number of K teams that seem to rely heavily on blocks that have been prepared fully in advance, or maybe very slightly tweaked from what's been prepared in advance, with little attempt to actually engage with the other side. First, I find these speeches pretty tough to flow, since they're often extremely dense in content with little attempt to engage with their audience. Second, I happen to think this over-reliance on advance-prepared speeches is rather horrible for the educational value of the activity. It pretty severely undermines the "K debates are better for education" argument, and it also acts as a fairly real-time demonstration of the "link" on "K debates are bad for clash". I'm likely to be highly sympathetic to an opposing side that has any reasonable degree of superior technical execution when K teams engage in this practice.
It might be worth you knowing that K's were not really a thing yet back when I was debating. Or rather, they were just in their infancy (particularly in high school), rarely run, and/or they were uniformly terrible arguments that I don't think are run much anymore (e.g., Normativity, Objectivism, Foucault, Heidegger). Teams argued the theoretical legitimacy of the Kritik, and whether or not they should be evaluated as part of the ballot, but these arguments weren't unified under a notion of "Framework". Alt's definitely weren't a thing, nor were Kritiks on the Aff at the high school level.
Disads: I've quickly grown wary of Neg's erroneously claiming that their disad "turns case". There's a crucial difference between a disad "turning case" (i.e., your disad somehow results in the Aff no longer accessing their own impact, and in fact, causing their own impact) and "outweighing case" (i.e., your disad simply has a shorter timeframe, higher probability, or greater magnitude than the case). I've become increasingly convinced that Neg's are simply asserting -- unwarranted both in fact and in claim -- that their disad "turns case" in the hopes of duping the judge into essentially making the disad a litmus test for the ballot. If your disad legitimately turns the case, then that's awesome -- make the argument. However I think bona fide claims of "turning case" occur far less often than Neg's want us to believe. In the end, this is not much more than a pet peeve, but a pet peeve nonetheless.
CP's: Counterplans need a solvency claim/warrant, but not necessarily a solvency advocate, per se. That is, if the CP's solvency is a logical extension of the Aff's solvency mechanism, no solvency evidence should be required.
Rehighlightings: I am perfectly fine with you summarizing why the other side's evidence doesn't say what they say it says. I do not see a need for rehighlightings to be explicitly "read into the round". Why not? Well, if Side A is reading evidence that is mishighlighted, taken out of context, etc., Side B should have to do as little in-speech work as possible to make the argument. Side B shouldn't need to waste their speech time reading the correct parts of Side A's poorly highlighted evidence. Side B still needs to explain what Side A's evidence actually says, and tell me what I should be looking for in reading the card. In other words, it's insufficient to simply state "their card is mistagged". But, "their card is mistagged; the author is actually saying X,Y,Z; here's why that matters" is generally sufficient. Of course, if Side B is the one who's actually misunderstanding the evidence, or worse, intentionally mischaracterizing it, that's not a great look and is likely to result in lower speaks.
Theory / Ethics / General Behavior: I tend to be more sympathetic to teams launching legitimate, well-reasoned, and thoroughly-explained theory arguments than it seems many more modern judges may be, up to and including "reject the team, not the argument".
When it comes to ethics and general in-round behavior, it seems that many paradigms contain a whole host of info on what judges think debate “should” be, how debaters “should” act, and/or the judge’s perceived level of fairness of certain tactics.
My own paradigm used to contain similar info, but I’ve since removed it. Why? Because I think including such info creates a moral hazard of sorts. Debaters that are predisposed to behave in certain ways or deploy certain tactics will simply not do those things in front of judges that call them out in their paradigms, and then go right back to engaging in those behaviors or deploying those tactics in front of judges that don’t. To the extent that judges view themselves at least in part as guardrails on acceptable behavior and/or tactics, it seems to me that a better approach to rooting out negativity might be to put the onus on debaters to be considerate, ethical, and reasonable in deployment of their strategies and tactics – and then, if they aren’t, to mete out appropriate consequences. I do not feel obligated to state ex-ante that “X behavior is an auto-loss” if reasonable judges would conclude similarly and respond accordingly.
Don't worry: I'm not looking to be arbitrary and unreasonable in exercising judicial discretion, nor am I looking to insert my own opinions when teams engage in behavior that's debatably unfair, but goes uncontested by the other side. Just be thoughtful. It’s great to play hard. But if your tactics are questionably fair or bad for debate, be prepared to defend them, or reconsider their use. If the other side is deploying tactics that are questionably fair or bad for debate, make the argument, up to and including “reject the team”. I will evaluate such arguments and their implications based on the flow.
******
With all of that said, I consider myself to be in the midst of getting back up to speed in the modern norms and conventions of our activity, particularly at the high school Varsity level. I'm more than willing to be convinced that I should rethink any and all of the above, whether as part of an in-round debate or out-of-round conversation.
Of course I want to be on the email chain – chwangdebate@gmail.com
HS Debate: Walter Payton (2019-2023)
College Debate: University of Michigan (2023-present)
Debate Coach: Walter Payton (2023-present), Mamaroneck (2024-present).
IP Specific Thoughts:
It seems like this topic is worse for the negative, with no unifying negative ground. I think that patents bad is false on a truth level, but is strong in debate because "ban patents" is probably competitive and the AFF needs to do a lot of work to overcome it. Monopolies are not as bad for innovation as a lot of people think.
Top Level:
I think that my judging record provides more realistic information than what is typed in my paradigm. Judging Record
Tech over truth. I will judge the round with the minimum amount of intervention that is needed to judge the debate round. Everything in my paradigm is easily overcome by uttering one word on the flow. I do not share beliefs of many versions of “tech over truth” where I carve out caveats for death good or wipeout, and I will not immediately disregard something because it is “stupid” or “offensive,” although the stupider and more offensive it is the easier that it should be to answer.
If I need cards after a round I will ask for them.
As a debater, I have done both policy and kritikal strategies as both a 2A and a 2N. I have debated a variety of strategies, with big stick, soft-left, and kritikal affs, as well as 9-off 1NCs and 1-off K 1NCs. However, my current style of debate is much more rooted in policy rather than kritik. The vast majority of work is argument coaching, and the majority of the research that I do and cards that I cut are based in the policy side, although I coach both K and policy teams.
I do not care if you post-round me, nor do I share in sentiments about post-rounding being bad; I am a firm believer that debaters have a right to justify why you think that you have won the round. Debaters invests a lot of time into winning debate rounds, and I think that to deny them the opportunity to justify why they think that the time that they invested should result in a win. If you think that part of my decision is wrong, feel free to express so; I actively welcome it and will not hold it against you in any way.
I flow on my computer because I am significantly faster on computer than on paper. The only time that I will not be on tabroom, docs, or my flow is during prep.
Things that I like:
Clear framing of my ballot.
Smart technical debating, including tricks and concessions.
When debaters time their own speeches (happens surprising number of times).
Things that I don’t like:
Calling me anything other than my first name. You all are just a year or two younger than me there is no reason to refer to me with these honorifics. If you call me judge it won’t hurt your speaks it is just weird.
Being a jerk to your partner to seem cool (again, happens a surprising number of times).
When it is start time and I am still waiting for teams to create an email chain or setting up their stands.
I would prefer it if both people did not leave the round after the round ends. If I need cards after the round, it is significantly easier for me to ask you to send it rather than me going searching through several speech docs looking for a singular card.
AFFs
Do whatever you want. I think that I am comparatively better for evaluating framing debates.
In my experience, 2ACs on the case page are making arguments that lack warrants, and that negative teams are letting them get away with it.
K-AFFs
While these are some of my favorite debates to watch, I will vote for the team that is winning the flow; if you read a planless aff and believe that you can out-tech your opponent, you should pref me. If you are unable to, but instead rely on vague assertions with minimal application to the arguments in the round, I am probably not the best judge for you.
It’s my belief that fairness is the best impact, but I can be persuaded that it is an internal link.
I think for me it makes more sense to go for impact turns to the negative model of debate rather than a counter-interpretation.
Teams are not willing to go for presumption in the 2NR even if it is the right 2NR. I am more than willing to pull the trigger on presumption should the 2NR be winning on it technically, varying inconsistencies between affirmative speeches makes me all the more willing to pull the trigger on presumption.
I have little experience with KvK debates. In a perfectly even debate I would likely conclude that the aff gets perms but shiftiness about the advocacies makes it easier for either side to win.
My understanding of post-modern/post-social theory is lacking, so you should err on the side of over-explaining.
Kritiks
Similarly to above, I am good if you are able to out-tech your opponent, and comparatively worse if you fail to do so.
Fine for the fiat K, floating PIK,, whatever strategy you are deploying.
I am best for kritiks that defend a model of debate that moots the 1AC. I find that the vast majority of times winning "we meet" is, by design, incredibly difficult, and requires you to win that alternative model of debate. I like creative framework interpretations that attempt to do this in creative ways that deviate from "weigh the 1AC as an object of research." I think that middle ground interpretations are strategically worse.
Topicality
Probably better for these debates than most. There exists a strange paradox where judges assert their technical prowess in judging yet display strong preconceptions towards topicality that would signal that it is all but unwinnable for the negative. I have no such preconceptions.
I go both ways on plan text in a vacuum, but I think that the negative needs to present an alternative interpretation other than the aff's model being bad.
I have no preference for one standard over another, and am fine for either side of the “predictability/precision outweighs limits” or “limits outweigh predictability/precision” debate.
Reasonability is winnable but requires significant investment to overcome the debatability push.
I am almost certainly more open to evaluating a T - subsets than most judges are. That does not mean that I lean neg, but rather that I do not hold T - subsets to a different, more arbitrary standard of evaluation that precludes T - subsets from being the 2NR. This is all just to say that if you are winning it, you should go for it.
Theory
Similarly to topicality, there are people that assert they are tech over truth but instead maintain caveats and preconceptions on theory that signal that it is unwinnable. I am incredibly receptive to good theory debates. That being said, most theory arguments are better used as competition rather than reasons to reject the team.
Perfectly debated, I think arbitrariness is a difficult standard for most affirmative interpretations to grasp with, but it still conquerable with proper debating.
I default to unlimited condo. While I think particularly egregious CPs like 2NC CPs out of a straight turn can be potentially illegitimate, I probably default neg in a perfectly even debate. People automatically assume that new AFFs justify infinite condo. While I understand the justification, I don't think it to be as strong as most believe.
Counterplans
Better for process and competition debates than some, but I am admittedly not the best. I’d advise slowing down a little and explaining your warrants to concepts like "textual topicality."
“Textual” alone is hard to debate and am significantly better for “text and function” or “function only.” In a vacuum I think that function only is the best, but am easily persuaded otherwise.
I generally think that Word PICs are unpersuasive, but I judge it like every other type of argument.
Disads
I think that zero risk is real, and I have not heard a convincing reason for why it is not. That being said, I think that it is very hard to obtain zero risk.
There is not much else that can, or should be said. There is a strange dilemma surrounding politics and “generic” DAs which I really don’t get. A disad is just a negative implication to the plan, there realistically shouldn’t be this much hemming and hawing to what that means. Read the disads you think will win.
Impact Turn
I love these debates. While some impact turns are quite stupid, they allow for the opportunity to research and deploy arguments that defy conventional wisdom, and are thus fun to evaluate.
I have no strong preconceptions on either side of any impact turn. Obviously there are some sides that are truthfully correct, but I won't carve out a caveat for or against your favorite impact turn like wipeout, russia war good, warming good, etc.
Online Debate
While I believe that online debates are a nuisance, I think that they make it significantly easier for teams (especially smaller ones) to attend tournaments.
I don't care if you have your cameras on or off, it provides minimal value. My camera will be on for the entire debate, including if I am not currently at my computer.
It would be wise to noticeably slow down. If you are spreading at full speed I will pick up less of your arguments. This is especially true if you are not clear in-person.
Speaks
Theoretically the mean speaks should be 28.5, and I try will give speaks around there. The chance that (unless something went terribly astray) you get a 27 or a 30 is basically 0. I have and will give substantially different speaker points between partners if it is fitting, and I think low point wins are more common than documented.
I will not give increased speaks for things like "make me laugh" or "mention x debater,” which I think is dumb. I also think that taking away speaker points for doing things like calling me judge is really dumb. If you are a funny debater that probably already affected the speaks I am giving you positively, so adding more just artificially inflates speaks.
Prefs short---high school debater, down for process and meh for Ks. Super tech>truth except for hypertrolly args. The less of the 1NC that could be read last year the better I am for you.
geographyandnewsnerd@gmail.com
ntpolicydebate@gmail.com for high school rounds.
June Jack (She/They/Zhe). New Trier '25
LD + PF at the bottom.
Yes put me on the chain. I would prefer an email but SpeechDrop is fine. If your docs are verbatimized word, I will probably not get a headache. The farther your email content gets from that, the greater the chance of a headache.
Please email me after the debate for clarification - I'm always happy to explain.
Anything bolded is not up for debate. Anything unbolded can be changed by better technical debating.
I view debate as a competitive research activity. I will reward strategies that involve topic and aff specific research. This can look like topic CP and Econ DA, but also politics with very specific links, a cap K with turns case and aff specific links, or a process CP with an aff-specific solvency advocate.
---------------------------------
I will never vote on ableism / transphobia / homophobia / racism / sexism. I will stop the round if you do something that makes the debate space unsafe.
Ad-Homs or use of slurs / bigotry / misgendering will lead to instant loss, extremely low speaks and I'll email your coach.
Do not read Death Good/Wipeout in front of me UNLESS both teams agree to it beforehand. If the 2NR is 5 minutes of wipeout, the 2AR can spend 5 minutes talking about their favorite tea and I'll vote aff. For every speaker that extends a wipeout/death good arg without permission from their opponent, -2.5 speaks.
Berating your teammate will shred your speaks.
Disclosure is a must. This means verbal aff (unless new) and past 2NRs OR updated wikis. This also means being on time to your room for disclosure. +0.1 speaks for full, working citations, +0.3 for OpenSource that is highlighted (tell me after the debate). Exception for lay / MS debate.
CX is binding. Make sure you are asking questions in your CX. Tag-team CX is fine, as is using it for prep - you don't have to ask me for permission. I don't consider prep time cross to be binding.
PLEASE give me a roadmap
If the other team has dropped something like T and there's no theory extended, you can stop the round an tell me why. Other team can explain why there's a way out, any way out, they win. Otherwise you win. If you do this and are right, I will give you much higher speaks (29+), and can dedicate the rest of the time to helping the other team. If the other team is right, double 25s for you. If the 2NR drops condo, the 2AR can be 5 seconds of "dropped condo bad because its unfair---dispo solves---vote aff".
Assume I want a card doc unless it's like a condo debate.
--------
Love an impact turn, read lots of cards.
Topicality -
PTV is very good.
Reasonability is best framed as a substance crowd-out DA.
ground > predictability > cult of limits.
A T violation that cannot explain why that specific aff is bad for ground should lose to C/I only our aff. Unlike most judges, I think that this is a viable 2AR C/I.
An aff that says "one or more of the following" should lose to aff condo is bad.
Theory
If you can kick Adv CP planks, each plank (n) counts for 2^n advocacies. I won't make the argument for you but 2As should.....
Love process but give me pen time. Probably better for the other issues perm than PDCP.
Ks -
Impact turn / DA to the alt if you can.
The more the K turns the case, has material link and has an alt that solves or outweighs the case, the better I am for you. Similarly, the more aff-specific the better. 2NRs that kick the alt are fiiiinnnneeee but you probbaly lose if the 1AR doesn't drop a DA and defense.
Counterplans:
Adv CPs and PICs>>>>>>>
Do process ever solve their own net benefit?
I default to judgekick - aff debate against should start in the 1AR at latest.
DAs
PTX DAs - PC DAs are mid. Horsetrading DAs make me happy. Riders make me sad. Floor time makes my eyes sparkle with joy.
Please have turns case in the 1NR. If the 1AR drops turns case, I will protect the 2NR.
5+ 1AR cards usually make a good debate
Do impact calc in the 1NR
K Affs - i'll vote for them if they win the flow. I'd like but don't need both teams to have a vision for debate, how arguments evolve and get evaluated over the season, etc.
2AC K aff w/m means the 2NC can and should read states and politics
I'd prefer clash as with "debate solves the aff better" as a straight turn, but if you want to go for fairness I'm chill with that. Sometimes this is called "Michigan's FW 2.0", for an example see DML's 2024 UMich FW lecture.
revive jurisdiction!!!!
Dogma and advocacy skills turn the aff / fairness is why their impacts are bad = yay!
Fairness is good. What's a warrant? = not yay.
I am not a good judge for the aff on condo. Few things I think the aff needs to do to win condo:
1. Win side bias---the argument should startin the 1AR at latest
2. Define dispoin the 2ac
3. Say more than 3 words on each standard in the 2ac
4. Say more than "dispo solves" on the C/I in the 2ac
5. Explain why "dispo solves"each 2NC argument
6. Have a reason to reject the teamin the 1AR.
I am not the best for big explosions from the 1AR to the 2AR.
I will generally vote neg is there is a somewhat competent extension any of the following:
1. Neg flex and side bias
2. Dispo is condo because planks force perms
3. Cross apply reasonability from 2AC on T
4. No in round abuse to Strat skew + defense to research + time skew is whining
5. Hard 2ACs are good 2ACs
insert rehighligtings--x-----------read them
condo good---x------------condo bad
cap / security -x----------Bataille
clarity + pen time-x---------------------------speed
presumption = less change---x------------presumption goes auto-aff when there's a neg advocacy
read all the cards---x---------------------slow down on the cards
evidence comparison--x----more cards
silly args-----x--win with style, especially if you're heavily favoured
People who've influenced my thoughts on debate:
Nick Lepp, Tim Freehan, Rockwell Shapiro, Margaret Jones, David Weston, Aaron Vinson, Jeff Buntin, Rafael Pierry, Tim Ellis, Gabe Jankovsky, Arvind Shankar, Will Soper.
Postround me.
Policy Voting Record:
IP:
Round 1 Case vs DA.
Round 2 Case vs DA.
Econ:
5-6 Policy v Policy
0-1 Policy v K (it was cap)
-----------------------------
LD - I consider this pretty close to one person policy, with perhaps some slightly sillier arguments. Rest of paradigm still applies.
Public Lands
Policy vs Policy --- 0-1
Tricks aff vs Trad --- 1-0
Trad vs Trad --- 0-1
Policy vs Policy + K --- 1-0
I don't know or care that much about LD norms.
Send ev in a document. Before the speech.
Please do LBL.
Probably more open to affs that defend a plan.
Performances affs are also fine, T against them is often true.
make the roadmap off-time
spreading good
yes I do flow cross
disclosure is good. lack of it may even be worth a ballot based on the flow.
silly args--x--win with style
silly args mean phil and paradoxes, not "vote after the 1NC" or "formal clothes theory". Clash is good. I have a higher bar for things like a warrant that y'all probably expect.
PICs---7/10
phil - proud util hack but tech over truth. Util > Rawls > Hobbes > Skep > Virtue > Kant > Rand > dead French guys who use "the Other" that you cannot explain. Only thing LD does better than policy.
PF - I come from policy. I'm chill with whatever, including prog stuff / Ks / spreading.
0 PRO - 1 CON Trad on the HSR topic.
Misc things:
Any use of AI to generate prompted text and use the text as "evidence" is deemed a fabrication of evidence and is a reason for an ethics challenge.
If the 1AC clips, I won't stop the round unless the 1NC points it out. I will however, vote against the clipping team. I just want y'all to get an educational debate and I will give a full substance RFD.
If an argument says extinction is good because the alternative is worse, it is wipeout.
University of Texas at Dallas ‘25
Email: arikarch@gmail.com
I am neither the best nor the worst judge you will have this year
I look favorably speaks wise on teams that have the email chain set up when we all get to the room, and unfavorably on teams that take forever (clearly stealing prep) to send the doc
I try to be as tab as possible, so you can read whatever you'd like, with a few exceptions
Im going to flow
Things I won't vote for
- Stuff that happened outside the round
- Death good
- Frivolous theory
- Aliens
tough sell for word PIKs, and willing to vote aff on pdcp for a lot of counterplans.
tough sell for condo
My thoughts
Overall, you do you. I'm fine with pretty much anything except the stuff I listed right above. I'm comfortable with a variety of different things and I want students to go for what they like not what I like
Slow down, its better to read one less card than to be unclear. I am probably not reading your cards unless there is a dispute about what they say and I am specifically directed to. I flow based on what I can hear, not on what you have in the doc
I don't like overviews, most of your speech should be on the line by line, especially with the k, really long overviews are going to make you lose speaks
Clipping is an automatic L
Being exceedingly rude will make me not like you, and your speaks will suffer badly. Just chill. If you're making this space unsafe for others, L 20 automatically
Tabula rasa
Skinner North '23, Walter Payton '27.
I did MS varsity cx for one yr. Sorry if that raises red flags. I was a semifinalist at state + if it helps, I think I only ever lost 2 rounds.
PLEASE ADD ME TO THE CHAIN (vliang2@cps.edu). ((Email chain = just send your speech documents to me through email. People usually cut analytics (non-carded arguments) out. That probably means don't send anything after the 1ar.))
Notes:
he/him. This should go without saying, but please don't purposefully misgender me! I'll nuke your speaker points.
Signpost. May be the deciding factor. Seriously. I don't care if it's 1 2 3 or next, next, next...just signpost. "They say...we say..." is fine. Separate your arguments and tell me what you're responding to. Fun Fact: I hate guesswork! Don't make me go "this card could respond to this card...but it's also applicable to..." no. Just no. When you don't signpost, you force me to guess and rely on my biases. Hanging me 50 feet from the roof of an underground spring while asking me to prove Riemann's hypothesis would probably be easier.
AND, NOTE: respond to each other's arguments. Have clash. Do not just repeat your argument in the last speech (unless the other team didn't respond- that's called extending) because then I legit have no idea what to evaluate you on.
Time your speeches. I'm not joking. Time your opponents, time your prep, time their prep...while I will try to time y'all, I have time blindness- so unless you want your opponent to have 50 instead of 5 min of prep, start timing.
Tech > Truth. Do I think organic fruits actually cure cancer? Nah. But if you drop it, and they extend it (properly, and explain to me why it wins) then I'll vote on it. I'm probably a little less skewed than most judges though.
On that note, you'll win so many more rounds if you make my job as easy as possible. Crystalize. Tell me by...at least the 1AR what issues I should prioritize, how this argument shapes the round, and how the argument impacts the world. Why are you winning?
On that note, aff--- case first, then off. Same for neg, it's typically off first, than case.
In the 2NR/2AR/whatever, do your impact calculus at the top of the speech. Not the bottom. Go back to magnitude/probability/timeframe if you want. Sucker for more advanced stuff though like scope/severity/disjunction vs conjunction/etc. Go for one thing. Do not waste your time trying to cover everything. Pick and encompass/outweigh/etc.
Also, I'd like to think that I can tell when you read something that's prewritten and when you read stuff that's your own. I'm here to tell you that I love analysis. Do analysis! Especially the 2AC--- for extensions, don't tell me "extend this" and then read a semi-related card...put in the work and tell me why this card is relevant in the debate. I know how limited prep time is in MS, so I won't care if you make stuff off the fly. Assuming that you don't go off the rails and start linking to aliens or something. If you at least try, I'll probably give you like +0.1 speaker points if you do that, obviously more if it's actually good.
Spreading...is....okay. I think it's usually unnecessary for MS, and if you're spreading I would obviously prefer an email chain. If you've competed in the HS circuit, it might be best to reduce speed by like 20% just in case. Signpost and slow down on analytics. Oh my god, do not spread through analytics.
edit: I also consider tags as analytics. Do not spread through the tag and then slow down on the card. You essentially force me to create a tag for your card in the middle of the round. This leads to messy and confused debates.
SECOND EDIT: DO NOT BE SEXIST, RACIST, ETC. I usually won't outright stop the round, but it'll reflect in your speaks.
Oh, and ask me questions about the rfd. It's helpful for you, and it's helpful for me.
Case v DAs/Case Turns:
Do this. I love this. That being said, do it if you're confident. Don't overadapt.
DAs:
Uh, they're okay. Don't really have anything for or against them. I think the link chain for most MS DAs is unstable and wobbly, but I ran them a lot. It's fine. Just overexplain how it works, how x causes y, and how z is bad...etc etc.
T:
Look, I've been there. I've been the person reading a shell so garbage it takes itself out. But I will almost always lean Aff on this one. Sorry. T is inherently an argument about the division of ground--- the division of ground in core leagues is usually fine. Like, 90% of the time it's just being used as a time skew for the negative bc of the procedural.
edit: supposedly T is actually about accuracy--- probably best summed up as "framer's intent." fine, I'll vote on that. PROVIDED you criticize the ground interp correctly + don't drop everything in the constructives, god.
That being said, if you actually spend time on T...if you devote the 1nr/2nr to it and really go for it...maybe. Argue against my paradigm and explain why T isn't abusive in this case. For the Aff, you'll need to win that you are predictable and are within reason of the topic + link to core generics. For the Neg, you'll have to win that the Aff has completely exploded research burdens/is so specific that it kills edu.
CPs:
One thing: net benefit (which is what we would gain from doing the CP instead of the plan). You need that. You really need that. I'll probably vote aff on that one if not. Oh, and I really like DACPs- that's when you pair a DA with a CP together so the DA can act as the net benefit.
Agent CPs are fine. No real debate there. Do a little more work for Advantage CPs. Process CPs are borderline abusive and I totally support them.
PICs...I've only ever really interacted with abusive ones, but if it's solid and it doesn't pick out of something small, sure, fine. Prove that what you're picking out of is significant.
Judge kick-- I'll do this automatically for novices, but for JV+, the neg needs to tell me that they want me to consider the status quo, ESPECIALLY if you crystalize on the CP.
Condo:
Why are you kicking stuff? It's MS! What are you going to kick? From memory, there was like 5 off, max. I mean...I guess if you run every off you can think of and contradict yourself 10 times over...if you manage to not contradict yourself into the 4th dimension, sure. Neg lean. I think the core case negs (last year, at least) really, really suck and so you really do need to rely on your offcase to generate good offense. I'm willing to hear out the Aff though.
I think of DAs as dispo--- I don't care if you kick DAs, but stop kicking them once the aff has already turned them. "Conditional DAs" don't exist.
Ks: [MS, STOP HERE]
EDIT: When in K debates, I will always default to the flow. This K section is also not applicable to you if you're just running a basic framework argument.
I'm almost 90% sure I'll never have to judge a K round, but just in case: running a K and expecting me to automatically give you the ballot is probably not the way to go. Obviously I'm open to voting on it, but lean towards overexplaining. Please explain like your life depends on it. Go through the warrants & the links and explain the story.
K v K debates are nightmarishly difficult for me to parse. Overexplaining probably would be your saving grace. I cannot stress how much you do not want me in a K v K debate.
K affs:
If you've run a K aff and I'm judging you...you're brave? I'll obviously try my best.
I think that K affs present some pretty decent arguments, but I also think FW/T-USFG wins half the time. If you can impact turn FW, win TVA, SSD, and role of the ballot, you'll probably get my vote. Unfortunately, I am probably prone to more nitpicky and weird decisions here, so take the risk if you can handle the risk.
Have fun! Debate's supposed to be fun. Again, feel free to ask about the stuff in my paradigm.
First, I need to understand what you are saying. The best debater isn't always the FASTEST.
Secondly, I want to see strong class and line by line refutation. The better you are at listening and flowing, the better you'll do at speaking. Especially for rebuttals.
Finally, as a judge for Middle School debate, I rarely judge on topicality in a case file league. but I am willing to if it played properly.
My Paradigm is extremely simple.
Firstly, I need to be able to understand the things that you say. The best debater isn't ALWAYS the fastest.
Secondly, I want to see strong clash and line-by-line refutation. The better you are at listening and flowing, the better you'll do at speaking. Especially for rebuttals.
As a middle school debate coach and judge, I rarely vote on Topicality in a case file league, but I'm willing to if its played properly.
do not be racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc
Online: please do not sacrifice clarity for speed I will have a significantly harder time hearing you especially if you are not reading a card.
Tech>truth
Condo is good
DA:
Know what you're talking about
CP:
Process CPs: Im probably siding aff on the theory part especially if there is not a specific solvency advocate for your process CP, but I also think good explanation of the CP can remedy this issue.
ADV CP: read one
It would make my ballot easier if you read a CP along with a DA
K:
Anything that isn't cap or security I am less familiar with so explain well and don't shift
Hi friends:) plz add me to the email chain if there is one @drpham1126@gmail.com
My name is Doanh Pham, but I go by Rita (she/her). Currently debating policy at University of Kansas as a 2nd year. I'm currently a double major in Political Science and East Asian Studies with a concentration in Chinese. Highschool history wise, I debated PF and did IX at Lee's Summit West Highschool for 4 years there. Was decent, was state champ and did the NSDA jazz, you can look me up at Rita Pham on NSDA. PF is my first love!
Don't be a-holes to each other. I'm a firm believer that debate is about education and pedagogy.
No matter what event, framing then tech into truth plz. Judge direction is important, you should tell me from the beginning how I should evaluate the round/on what framework. FRAMING IS TOP LEVEL. Identity politics and structural violence works well with me over extinction/econ impacts. Also evidence quality is so important to me, I will read it if you highlight its important. Below you can see events spec thoughts:
Policy: I love high theory and critical things. any flavors of Ks are welcomed and if I don't know then I'll try to keep up actively. Some of my fav is Set Col, Cap, Asian Identity/Orentialism, Academy.... I think alt is important but if you don't have one, prove to me why your link makes their aff net worse. Im very good judge for identity politics.
Stuff like wipe out and pess/death good, eh idk how I feel about it but I don't particularly love.
K aff are cool, I'm running one for the 2023-2024 season myself - but try to have it tie the resolution somehow. I'm pretty good on the FW debate, impacts like education is more convincing then fairness for the sake of fairness. This means that I'm pretty ok with seeing how the T flow interacts with K affs if that's your thing!
I am ok at policy stuff (don't run more then 4 off as a policy strat, I will be very annoyed and the args start to lose quality), T-subsets and etcs arent my thing but I will still flow. A good DA with a strong link story is always good. Extinction impacts are overrated but I will always vote on what you tell me to vote on.
Don't love PIX/PICS and stuff that steals opponents' args but justify yourself.
I usually don't cancel teams for certain args and will give them grace since I view debate as a game but you can convince me otherwise!
PF: I am very well versed in this area, and a stern believer that PF should remain like PF. Please don't try to be high theory on your opponents, otherwise go try policy.
Since rounds are only 45 min, I think CX should be binding so you can build args. Be organized, I don't care how many contention or subpoints you have, I'll keep up. I flow most things, make sure you signpost. I think since there are less arguments in PF, you should have quality evidence. Logistics are always welcomed, but if most of the round is false logic then I will decide based on evidence quality even if you did well at framing. Just because the nature of PF is more evidence based.
LD: I never did this event but I understand its about morals/ethics and a mix of pf and policy. Especially in LD, you should center around your value criteria. Ref puff stuff to know more about me but I will judge you base on how you want me to.
New Trier Class of 2025
She/Her/Hers
Top Level:
- Be respectful of me, your opponents, and your teammates
- Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic
You're all novices - be nice and supportive because this is a year to learn, not to crush (and because being nice is generally good). I am here to support you and help you improve but also to make debate fun so if you feel unsafe or you're being hurt by someone else, I will help you resolve it.
I have 0 opinions on what arguments you run other than the caveats above so just do your thing!
If you need help with technical stuff, feel free to ask! On more debating stuff, try your best and ask me after the round. I'll be glad to help you with anything then!!!
Have fun and good luck!!!!
20250944@student.nths.net - New Trier ‘25 - they/she/he - Skye, not judge, I’m not that old
This paradigm used to be a lot longer. that has been rectified.
First and foremost:
I will not vote on sexist, racist, homophobic, or death good arguments, and reading them will lead to an L + 25 + e-mail to your coach. Y’all are novs or high schoolers- please don’t make the debate space unsafe before you’ve even learned how to debate.
tldr/what i’d want to know asap:
- prep time cx is not binding
- tell me to judgekick
- #team1%risk
- biased against ptv
- you can send cards in the body
- biased against condo bad
Theory:
In round abuse always helps, and I’m the least tech>truth here. Don’t make me listen to whining about facing a team that’s better than you for 5 minutes.
If you're doing a condo 2AR when the neg didn't drop condo, I probably already mentally voted neg.
case:
Is presumption ever a viable ballot in 2024?
K aff:
Strike me.
K:
I default to the judge is a policymaker, the aff can weigh the plan, and the neg gets whatever fiat they want, but can be convinced otherwise with good debating and warrants. I'm more familiar with cap and security, so other Ks need more explanation.
read me if you’re actually considering running a K: I come from a hyper-policy school. While I don’t think that this biases me against K arguments, I cannot stress enough how much I will not vote on an argument that I don’t understand. I will appreciate it and spend extra time to try to understand it during decision time if you’re clearly trying your best to explain a K to me. but at the end of the day, you should strike me if you’re running high theory K arguments.
CPs:
For process CPs(what is a process CP anyway?), I’m aff-leaning on perms, and neg-leaning on theory. For all other CPs, I’m neg-leaning on theory and perms, and aff-leaning on solvency or offense.
Speaks:
Arguing with your partner will shred your speaks- especially if they're giving the final speech. I don't care if they dropped condo, took 1NR/1AC/1NC(especially 1NC prep can be quite useful, if used well) prep, or went for the thing you think will lose you the debate. You're not helping them nor yourself.
It is very, very, very easy to make me laugh, and this is under the speaks header. Do with that what you will.
I will give high speaks, to encourage further participation in this activity and because why not? My baseline is 29, and if you ask post-round I’ll tell you what you got
current bias(IP topic):
Policy v policy: 3-2 aff
current bias(econ topic):
Policy v policy: 11-9 neg
Policy v K: 1-1
K v policy:
K v K: 1-0 neg
Hi everyone who is reading my paradigm,
My email is eyoungquist@averycoonley.org for the email chains.
I’ve been coaching policy debate for seven years at the Avery Coonley School in Downers Grove, IL (it's a middle school). I’ve also judged a few rounds of high school Public Forum and am starting to judge Congressional this year. I kind of fell into the job as a debate coach- I didn’t have any debate experience in high school or college. I've taught Literacy for 16 years, and social studies for the last four.
That being said, please treat the debate room like a classroom in terms of behavior and decorum. If the way you are acting would not fly at your school, don't do it in front of me. Debate can get heated, the cross-ex can get pointed, but outright rudeness, swearing, etc. will come with penalties.
In terns of judging-I always view debate through the lens of a solid analytical argument, just like I would in my classroom. I need a cohesive argument, solid support, analytics, and a breakdown of why your argument is superior to your opponents’ argument. An “A” debate should look like an “A” paper.
Congressional:
Outside of the sponsor speech, you are not getting a 5 or 6 unless your speech is DIRECTLY RESPONSIVE to the arguments already raised. I want to hear you call them out and directly compare your points against theirs. If you are the fifth speaker on a point and don't even mention the arguments raised before you, you are going to get a 3. And no, just mentioning their names doesn't count as being responsive...This is debate, not speech. I should hear some actual debate being done.
I'd also like to see some passion in the speeches- please work on being expressive (and loud enough I can hear you in the back of the room). Use the hands, the facial expressions, etc. Eye contact is good too.
Public Forum:
Please make sure you lay out your contentions clearly, add some emphasis on your claims, and make sure you are doing the work to analyze your sources. Much like my policy statement below, I'm evaluating you on your ability to clash with your opponents. Make sure you are matching them argument for argument in your rebuttals. I'm going to be convinced by your weighing of the evidence, not just reading the evidence to me (or just repeating your points... I took notes, I know what you said in the first speech...)
Policy
Two things I don’t like to hear are extremely fast talking and cards that don’t support their tags. It’s great that you got through a lot of evidence and tried to put a lot of things on the flow sheet, but if you are only reading a sentence or two from each card and it doesn’t add up, it’s not a real argument. I need depth. I need CLASH.
I am really against fast reading. If you words are jumbling together and I can't make it out, it's not going on my flow. If I can't make out what you are saying, I am going to give you a "clear." If it continues, I'll give you a second one. Beyond that, I will disregard it if I can't make it out.
The round is going to go to the group that clearly lays out their argument (love signposting) and advances their ideas clearly while pointing out the flaws in their opponents’ presentation. If you are running a "K," I want an overview of the theory before you launch into it. This is especially true if I haven't seen it before. I'm not going to get what I need from your light speed reading without some background.
I’ll take T’s and K attacks that are on topic and make a valid point, but don't try to shoehorn something in just because it's what you always do. If their case is barely hanging on to being topical, go for it. Can you make a legit critique with some SOLID links? Go for it. Just don't get too esoteric on me, and MAKE SURE THE LINK IS SOLID (yes, I said it again)!!! Blocks of jargon with no real tie to the case will not work.
Please don't run a cheaty "K" Aff on me. I'm not big on the "K" Affs to begin with, so this had better be solid. If I feel like you are running a K so that you can not engage with the topic and deliver the same same thing every round (or possibly every year you have debated), I'm not going to be inclined to vote for you. You better prove that you did more than switch out a link card before the start of the match.
I am new to debate judging, and new to debate altogether. This is my first time judging a debate.
I care what the debate teams have to say so please speak clearly and slowly enough to be understood. Especially with the online format. If a debate team is speaking too fast for me to understand, I will wave my hand.
I value courtesy and logic in a debate.
I perused the core files BRIEFLY, so please no acronyms.