Viking Rumble
2023 — Skokie, IL/US
NJDG Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideLuis Aburto-Hernandez
he/him/his
Solorio 2024
Please add me to the email chain: leaburto-her@cps.edu
Evelyn Alsop, she/her
Northwestern '28
Maine East '24
Add me to the email chain: evelyn.a.alsop@gmail.com and mehsdebate@gmail.com
General philosophy: Contextualizing evidence in round is the most convincing way to win a debate. Please don't make me say "two ships passing in the night" in my RFD.
DAs:
I really like them...as long as they're well thought out. I tend to prefer DAs with strong links, otherwise there's no way for your impacts to happen. That being said, please make sure you tell a story with a DA and contextualize your evidence to the round.
Counterplans:
I tend to lean against perf con, do with that what you will. However, I will need a team to point it out within a round in order for me to vote on it. ALWAYS PERM A COUNTERPLAN!!! Please show me how the perm solves for the counterplan, but as neg tell me why your counterplan avoids an impact and how it solves for the aff. I lean neg on counterplan theory unless it's condo against more than 8 off.
Kritiks:
I debated policy affs and neg strategies throughout high school, which means I need you to have quite a strong alt and I find it hard to vote for a team without an alt. Please contextualize your links to this specific aff, especially if the other team points out that it's generic. Please make sure there is an impact to your K and that you extend it, otherwise there's no reason to vote for it.
Topicality:
I'm very familiar with T and think it's an underused strategy, but that means that you still need to do it well in front of me. Please make sure that you're showing why your standards matter, and contextualize them into this round. Caselists and TVAs are super persuasive. Please also show why fairness or education matters and how that plays into a specific round.
Theory:
I'm open to theory debates as long as both teams point to specific in-round abuses and have proper interps/counterinterps. If you're going for theory, please make sure you have strong arguments on standards.
kailey --- they/she
strongpowerfulmenwhocandebate@gmail.com
tech>truth
--------speaks--------
---be respectful to your PARTNER, OPPONENTS, ME, COACHES, and importantly: YOURSELF.
---do line by line and signpost when you're moving from argument to argument
---make funny jokes about: will sterbenc, saad khan, vivi webb, reagan subeck, raman mazhankou, or any niles north folk
--------don't do these things--------
---stealing prep [preparing for speeches without running prep time]
---any of the isms: racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, yk all the phobias. that's ground for me giving you the lowest speaks i can, auto L + emailing your coach
--------the actual debate--------
T/L
---roadmaps: give them! "i am just going to respond to what my opponents said" is not a real order.
---i will vote on things that are straightup not true if they are warranted out correctly/dropped
AFF
---i am a 2a with an extremely high aff elo- MY RECORD DOESNT LOOK LIKE IT BUT I AM A GOOD JUDGE FOR THE AFF!
---k affs shouldn't be read by novices. if you read one in front of me, you better entertain me, because i will be sad
NEG
---please condense in the 2NR.....go for one thing!!!
---topicality: i love these debates...as for this topic, RAHHHH it's s2 and there are still no limits on the topic...i feel bad for u 2ns, the closest we get to limits is t strengthen or subsets. i am sympathetic to thse debates
---counterplans: judge kick if you tell me to, i <3 cheaty process cps, i normally go like 9 off in my own debates but i'm also p good for condo on the aff
---kritiks: i'm bad for these esp like less techy stuff (like even the cap k in front of me is pushing it)
---disads: underrated asf. innovation or patents bad cracked on this topic. if you're going for the squo you should probably mitigate the case
---impact turns: mwah but no death good in my rounds please
1/15/2025 update...please read - i am now several years removed from the point when i was actively involved in debate and kept up with the topic. i judge a combined total of around 20 policy/ld debates per season. i only coach a handful of times per season, with my coaching usually being for our first/second year teams. my exposure to the topic starts and ends with each debate that i judge. my knowledge of the topic on any given season is essentially nonexistent, and my knowledge of post-2018 debate in general is probably diminishing with time (especially online debates since that wasn't a thing at the time. i took a hiatus from judging during the height of covid). i wouldn't call myself a lay judge by any means, but a few steps above. the safest way to win a debate in front of me is to slow down (not to the point where you aren’t spreading at all, but still a bit more slow than you’d normally speak), and focus on the quality of arguments over quantity. pick a few arguments to explain in depth as opposed to having lots that aren't explained well. line-by-line in the style of "they say...but we say..." will also get you a long way with me...overviews/"embedded clash"...not so much...you can feel free to scrap your pre-written overviews entirely with me. also answer the other side's arguments in the order that they're made. if you want the decision in a debate to come down to the quality of evidence, please make that clear in your speeches because i won't do that on my own (i usually don't open the speech docs anymore, nor do i ever flow author names/card dates. keeping that in mind, statements like “extend the chikko evidence” with little to no elaboration are meaningless to me, as i won’t have any idea what that specific evidence says without an explanation). i won't vote on arguments that i don't understand, miss because of speed/lack of clarity, and so on. i have voted against teams in the past because they went for arguments that i either couldn’t flow or couldn’t understand, even if they may have “won” those arguments if i’d had them on my flows. attached below is my old paradigm, last updated around january 2019. it is all still applicable…
my old paradigm from january 2019:
Happy new year.
Add me to the email chain: dylanchikko@gmail.com
I don't time anything. Not prep time, not speeches, nothing. If no one is timing your speech and I notice in the middle of it, I'll make you stop whenever I think the right amount of time has passed. The same is true for prep time.
I have no opinions on arguments. I know nothing about the topic whatsoever outside of the rounds I judge. I don't do research and don't cut cards. I'll vote for anything as long as it's grounded in basic reality and not blatantly offensive. Speak slightly less quick with me than you usually would. I'm 60/40 better for policy-oriented debating (just because of my background knowledge, not ideological preference). But I'll vote for anything if it's done well. My biggest pet peeve is inefficiency/wasting time. Please direct all complaints to nathanglancy124@gmail.com. I’m sure he’d love to hear them. Have fun and be nice to your opponents/partner/me.
I'm an Assyrian. A big portion of my life/career as an educator consists of addressing and supporting Assyrian student needs. That influences my thoughts on a lot of real-life topics that regularly end up in debates. That's especially true for debates about foreign policy and equity. So do your research and be mindful of that.
Don't say/do anything in front of me that you wouldn't say/do in front of your teacher.
Feel free to ask me before the round if you have questions about anything.
Prefer you use the tabroom docshare thingy if it's set up at the tournament. If not, use shrutikde93@gmail.com and direct complaints to WayneTang@aol.com and kaylanfdebate@gmail.com
If the tournament has no rules on the usage of generative AI, I consider it fair game as long as the resource is accessible by both teams.
- All except one of my partner and I's 2NRs my senior year was the Cap K (the one being a process CP and disclosure theory). The amount of policy-kritikal Affs I debated was split roughly 60-40 respectively.
- Every affirmative I read was topical. Aside from novice year, every impact I've tried to win a round on has been based on extinction being bad. I've argued everything from small-scale nuclear war to death-star rays exploding the universe (this wasn't a one-off thing a lot of 2ARs were on this).
- I'm studying Statistics and Computer Science, not IP law. I know nothing about existing rules and regulations about IP. Explain to me the acronyms of IP acts and laws; if you don't I'll try and figure it out myself and you will likely despise my decision.
- I think life has value and don't really want to hear arguments contrary to it. If you think your argument is more nuanced than a vanilla nihilist perspective, make sure it's clear by at least the second time the argument is debated. If you really feel passionate about winning this argument and feel I've evaluated it unfairly after the round, I'd be happy to discuss my perspective with you afterward.
- I don't keep up with debate rankings/new meta strategies anymore, so I'm probably out of the loop on whatever Michigan's hivemind thought up this summer.
- I'm not here to judge debaters as people; if you think someone presents an active harm to this community, I'm not the person who's likely to be able to do anything about it. Please talk to the coaches, speak with the person if you feel comfortable, or find an alternative. Ad hominem arguments don't disprove the arguments introduced (if you think they do, please explain). Many of these things (at least in high school) stray far, far, away from keeping the community safe and devolve into debate gossip/rumors for the sake of it.
Non-RFD/Ballot Stuff:
- Debate is very stressful and time-consuming; remember to be happy you're even here. I took this activity too seriously until it was too late, so don't make the same mistake.
- No one's born a great debater; it's just exposure. I'd suggest spending less time comparing your statistics to those on the coaches poll or whoever Reddit decides is this century's newest great debater.
- Resource disparities are huge in debate; don't ignore your privilege.
I have ******judged ONE varsity-level tournament.****** I do not keep up with high school meta-strategies or the ridiculous amount of ways the community has found to rank one another. I am majoring in International Studies and Chinese, and thus my knowledge of this year’s topic is very limited—keep that in mind when using acronyms/highly specific jargon otherwise you will probably not like my decision.
Put me on the email chain—kaylanfdebate@gmail.com and northsidedebatedocs@gmail.com—you should send the 1AC the moment you get the pairing unless you’re breaking new, even if I’m not physically in the room. Always be ready to give the 1AC by start time if possible. My name is pronounced "K-lyn," please don't call me "judge"
TL;DR: I will flow and evaluate all arguments except out-of-round conduct accusations and actions that constitute a team officially seeking to stop the round and involve tab. I am heavily biased against arguments that eschew line-by-line debating and/or clash. I have never read a planless aff and have not read de-ontology since 2020; I have read extinction impacts (ranging from likely to nearly impossible in probability) every year since then. 100% of my (non-theory) 2NRs my senior year were the Cap K.
DAs
Despite spending much of my senior year reading critical arguments, I spent a significant amount of time researching the nuances of various DAs (econ, rate hikes, international modeling/fragmentation, etc). ~50% of my 2NRs on the 2022-23 NATO topic were going for Turkish Politics, which I extensively researched throughout the year. I appreciate teams that leverage evidence quality & warrants to win/beat back various aspects of DAs—teams that can not only explain a cohesive story, but also contextualize scenarios, links, and UQ to affirmative answers will earn my ballot.
CPs
I enjoy counterplans with crafty texts or functions specific to the affirmative. I generally find little reason to consider most counterplans outright abusive & most theoretical reasons to reject types of counterplans (PICs, process, etc. etc.) are personally not too convincing to me (dropped/mishandled theory, of course, is still an easy path to a ballot). Theory, however, is a great tool to justify sneaky permutations or affirmative terror against counterplans.
NOTE: Please DO NOT read all of your permutations at once at the top of your 2AC. This is impossible to flow and I will not be afraid to vote negative on “I did not hear the permutation in the 2AC.” I will judge kick unless told otherwise.
Kritiks
100% of my 2NRs my senior year were the cap K. I also did a lot of research/lab work on IR and identity Ks. These work best with coherent links to the function, consequences, or the core assumptions of the aff. If you can read your 1NC against a completely different aff or if the 2NR is going to be 4m30s of framework and 30s on the link, I’m much more amenable to voting aff. A surprising number of “K teams” cannot answer core objections to their theory such as “realism true/progress possible/stopping extinction good” which you should try and exploit. There is also an inverse correlation between the arrogance/rudeness of a team and their skill level which particularly applies to K teams and especially to high-theory/pomo goop teams.
Planless Affs
Not the best judge though about 40% of my negative rounds were against them. The affs that make the most sense to me are the ones that aren’t random atopical assertions (i.e. postmodern nonsense) but anti-topical arguments–i.e. a reason why debates over the resolution/the resolution itself is violent. My senior year, I went exclusively 1-off cap against these affs, and often found that most affs lack a good defense to impact turns regarding political engagement. That being said, I have shown up to tournaments after two hours on the city bus to face opponents with three monitors and $27k+ invested into workshops so I’m not unsympathetic to arguments about the inequality inherent to the activity.
Misc.
- I don’t time prep & I do not care about teams going a couple seconds over/having trouble sending out documents. There’s no need to stress because you’re combing through your files to attach the doc to the chain–it’s very clear when someone is being genuine.
- That being said, I will call out teams who are stealing prep (it’s obvious) and their speaks will reflect that. Also, please do not make the debate longer than need be. This mitigates the amount of time I have to give written feedback and makes judging very frustrating.
- There is no such thing as “inserting” a card unless you have already read every highlighted word verbatim. Debate is a communicative activity and inserting a card does not communicate anything.
- I think research is debate’s largest portable skill–I love to read evidence and reward debaters who have clearly done their homework on their arguments.
- Unlike some judges on the Illinois circuit—many of whom are adults/grad students who should know better—I am genuinely interested to hear debaters give their best arguments and will not make fun of you mid-round about prep/cross-x/your debating. Everyone in the room has put in countless hours pouring over journals that most other high school students wouldn’t—I’m here to evaluate the round with as little bias as possible and not devalue the work that y’all have done.
- Belittling your opponents (different from being sassy/assertive), randomly swearing, calling cross-x "cross," and starting your speeches at max speed are all things to avoid.
- Do yourself a favor and ignore the Coaches Poll, debate ranking websites, and arguments about the "best debater/2N/team." You're better than that.
Isa Harrison (she/her), I debated for NT 4 yr, now freshman on Macalester team
Please add me to the email chain: Isabellaharrison@gmail.com ntpolicydebate@gmail.com
don't do or say anything racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, or problematic, if you do you will lose and I will tell your coach
Tech>truth
I have not looked into the arguments on the highschool policy debate topic I have very little experience judging the IPR topic please don't assume I know what you are saying.
To get high speaks:
1. At the top of the 2nr and 2ar you should give me an overview of why you win the debate
2. Organize your speech by argument
3. In the rebuttals do impact calc (tell me why your impact is better/worse than theirs)
4. Be funny, but not too funny (very small margin for error)
Ask me any questions about the round after!
All the stuff below is just my thoughts on debate which I will ignore if you are winning on a technical level
CPs:
I'll assume judge kick unless argued otherwise, Condo is probably good. If you kick it theory goes away unless it’s condo.
(Process cps)
I don’t love process cps but I will vote for you if you win lol
I love intrinsic perms, I think the neg's best defense is proving their cp is germane to the aff (the process is a key consideration needed for the success of the aff, cards that say the aff needs to be done through the process to specifically promote the process)
I think the lie perm is underutilized against consult type process cps, nobody actually has cards about "genuinity."
I think process cps bad makes sense especially if you point out how the neg is avoiding the case debate and explain how that’s a bad model for debate. But the intrinsic perm is much better.
(pics)
I love pics, they probably aren’t bad. Affs should have offense or key warrents off of every aspect of the plan.
(adv cps)
I love adv cps, new 2ac addons justify new 2nc planks. Explain your planks well, sufficiency framing, and the link to the nb and you’ve got a goated neg strat
T:
Precision determines the predictability, predictable limits > fair limits
I love plan text in a vacuum on the aff, the neg needs a counter interp or I assume the worst. I think more neg teams should go for presumption against ptv when applicable; if their solvency ev says the untopical thing then ptv flows neg.
T comes before theory
Ks:
I ran a few ks (cap, fem ir, biopolitics) but I was never that good at it. I will not vote on something I can’t understand at all but I will try my best to read your stuff and evaluate fairly. I want both teams to instruct me to explain how I should evaluate the debate if they win framework in the context of the neg's links, the perm, and the alt.
K affs:
I don’t like kaffs, especially when it is not obvious what argument the neg could make that would actually negate the aff on a case level.
T-USFG is a true argument so the aff has got to be extremely technical to win. If I don’t know what voting aff means I will vote neg.
I am very convinced by switch side debate, a TVA, or presumption to vote neg.
Email: nheftman@gmail.com
New Trier 25', Northwestern 29’
He/him
I will try to be as tech over truth as possible, and I will evaluate the round as such. Exceptions are listed below.
Please do not be mean in the round, don’t physically attack your opponents, don’t use slurs against your opponents, don't clip, generally be friendly people. I will not vote on Racism Good or Death Good, and reading them will result in minimum speaks and an automatic loss, as will doing any of the other actions listed previously in this paragraph.
Topic Thoughts: This topic is pretty complex and if I am judging you on it, that means you're a novice. In that case, pls just do your best, take time to understand the arguments, and pay attention to the internal links you're reading.
Policy:
Case: On the aff, please know your aff. Especially for the 2AC and 1AR, being able to quickly know what arguments and cards you can field against miscellaneous case arguments both improves your ethos and your time efficiency. Ideally, every part of your affirmative has a strategic use later on in the debate, and knowing how to use your affirmative can be hugely helpful. On the negative, if you know your opponent’s aff better than they do, good on you, you’ll probably be getting good speaks this round if you can translate that into success. Aff specific strategies and arguments are very snazzy too.
Counterplans: All good. For competition make sure to keep your standards clear, I will be more sympathetic to a partially intrinsic perm if the counterplan isn't specific to the aff.
Disadvantages: There isn’t much to say. I like them. They’re pretty cool. Explain your links, explain your internal links. Do impact calculus. The more specific your links/the DA as a whole is to the affirmative, the better.
Kritiks: I default to the judge weighing the desirability of the aff or a permutation vs a competitive alternative, but I am open to any other framework that’s debated well. I have done a good deal of debating with the Capitalism K, some with the Psychoanalysis K and Security K, and I probably have a half decent grasp of most other things as well like SetCol, Biopolitics, etc. If you want to read high theory/pull a snazzy K trick, please articulate it well. Floating PIK’s are fine, but will make me sad and probably lead to low speaks.
Kritikal Aff’s: I’m not a “no plan you lose” judge, but I’m probably not the best person to have in the back if you’re reading a K Aff. I’m fairly amenable to most K’s but I have done a lot more policy than K debating. If you get me as your judge, please explain things clearly for both sides, especially if it’s K vs K. Check the section about kritiks for my knowledge of the literature. I’m definitely not the best person to pref if you’ve got a tournament that’s good for K’s, but I for sure like to think I’m not the worst.
Topicality: You need to explain and compare your standards and impact for topicality as you would for impact calculus. Plan Text in a Vacuum is not a magic wand you can wave at the negative to make their topicality argument go away, it’s a real argument. I will vote on it, but you actually need to warrant it out like you would any other interp.
Theory: I will vote on any theory that is debated well enough (Something dumb like A-Z Spec has a very high threshold for being debated well, if you want to go for it, have fun, but know what you’re doing.) If the theory argument IS something silly like Neg Fiat Bad, I’m much more likely to be ok with short responses and new answers if it is blown up later. Standards shouldn’t just be whining, you should articulate your theory standards very clearly, along with all other parts of your argument, as you would with any other. I will give you the ballot on these arguments but unless I genuinely believe the other team has done something abusive, you will probably be getting very low speaks. I default to weighing topicality/neg theory over aff theory, a word from the neg on this will probably cement that point if it comes down to it. For conditionality, infinite condo is good unless debated otherwise.
Cross: Please be chill in cross, it’s totally alright to be intense and a little combative, especially in an activity like debate, but it reflects bad on everyone when there’s unnecessary conflict in cross. If you ask your opponent a question, don’t immediately interrupt them, and conversely, don’t keep talking if your opponent wants to ask another question. I will lower speaks for both of these actions. Asking “what cards did you read” and the like will count as cross time, and I will start the timer if you ask a question of this variety. Sending out a marked copy before cross is alright, but you better be using the benefits you get from those and talking about their ev.
Novice Policy:
Note: Check policy for my opinions on arguments, this is really more for a couple specific things for novice debate.
To begin, great job checking the paradigm, that’s an excellent habit to get into, and will put you in a better spot for debating, especially against opponents who don’t.
Remember to debate well and be friendly, your opponents are most likely just starting out in high school debate, as are you, so try and build a good relationship. Everyone around you is part of a community, and it's not one any judge takes lightly.
Also, if your varsity gave you this big scary theory folder with things like ASPEC in them and told you to read it, you can, but you sure as heck be able to explain it or I am going to be very very annoyed, and the round will reflect as such.
Middle School:
If you are in middle school, the most important thing you ought to take away from the round is better speaking skills, and a big part of that is being able to respond to opponents arguments with your own. You can read arguments that just pass by without clashing, but arguments that prove a point while disproving opponents are going to be better. As new debaters, I don't expect you all to speak fast or make spectacular analytical arguments, so if you speak well, make arguments that counter your opponents, and use your cross-examination time to the fullest, you will get good speaker points. I really encourage you to write down your opponents arguments (flowing), so you can make arguments that clash against your opponents, and know what to extend into later speeches if you're opponents don't respond to your arguments. Next, concerning background knowledge, if you have an argument that you know but isn't in the packet, you need to explain it very well. If you use so much jargon that your opponents cannot engage you on this point, I'm not going to look favorably on the argument, and if you use so much jargon that I cannot understand it, I literally cannot weigh the argument at all, because I don't know what it means. Lastly, please just be nice people. No judge I know likes to vote for someone who is rude or aggressive during debate, especially cross examination. If you clearly won the debate, you will get my ballot, but if you are rude, don't expect high speaker points. You all are entering the activity, you will be debating with those around if you stick with the activity, and most likely, you will be going to the same school as them as well. Building friendly competition is much better than aggressive rivalry.
P.S. If you tell me a good joke when the debate is over, you'll get an extra .1 speaker point. If you find a typo in this paradigm, that’s another .1 speaker pt. (I don’t think there are any but want to make sure.)
geographyandnewsnerd@gmail.com
ntpolicydebate@gmail.com for high school rounds.
June Jack (She/They/Zhe). New Trier '25.
LD + PF at the bottom.
--------
I'm on team 1% risk.
Only time I will strike something for newness if not pointed out is the 2AR.
Will vote on most things but probably lean towards the side with better topic specificity.
Compared to some older judges, I can often be persuaded more by "spin" and judge instruction compared to evidence.
Improve your points by line-by-line and judge instruction.
--------
!Ts -
Love an impact turn, read lots of cards. 2AC probably needs cards to answer.
If your strategy relies on wipeout you should not pref me. I am extremely sympathetic to arguments on why "death good" is not something that should be read in this activity. The same is true for ad-homs.
T -
Better for T than the average judge. The 1AR often does not develop enough warrants to justify the 2AR they give.
Better for PTV than the average judge.
Reasonability is best framed as a substance crowd-out DA.
Cards about limits explosion/ground loss are underutilized.
Good for examples. Not great for vaguely gesturing to ‘a more limited topic’.
Ks -
I generally find the aff persuasive on FW/K tricks as long as the 1AR doesn't drop something. Usually they do though.....
Please give me warrants and pen time if blasting through analytics on framework.
Go for framework. Unless it is the cap K. This applies to both sides.
Counterplans:
Love a good PIC or Adv CP.
Process CPs are fine.
I default to judgekick under condo - aff debate against should start in the 1AR at latest.
DAs
Please have turns case in the 1NR. If the 1AR drops turns case, I will protect the 2NR.
Link is probably more important because uniqueness is probabilistic.
I like 1AR cards.
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.
Fine for either fairness or clash. Revive jurisdiction!!!!
Neg does best when they have inroads to aff offense. (TVA/SSD/our impact turns)
Best aff DAs are about the reading of framework. I'm probably better for the impact turn than the counter-interp.
Would prefer but do not require a role for the neg and an advocacy at least somewhat tied to the resolution.
Theory
Most theory either has no brightline or is better expressed through competition.
Condo is almost certainly good and also probably the only reason to reject the team unless something else is dropped.
I am not the best for big explosions from the 2AC to the 1AR to the 2AR.
insert rehighligtings--x-----------read them
presumption = less change---x------------presumption goes auto-aff when there's a neg advocacy
read all the cards---x---------------------less cards
evidence comparison--x----more cards
Postround me.
-----------------------------
PF - I come from policy. I'm chill with whatever. I will flow.
LD - I consider this pretty close to one person policy, with perhaps some slightly sillier arguments. Rest of paradigm still applies.
I don't know or care that much about LD norms.
Send ev in a document. Before the speech.
Please do line-by-line.
Probably more open to affs that defend a specific plan rather than the rez than most LD judges.
make the roadmap off-time
spreading good
Clash is good. I have a higher bar for things like a warrant and a lower bar for a response that y'all probably expect.
Misc things:
Any use of AI to generate prompted text and use the text as "evidence" is 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. Please have a recording if you want to accuse the other team of clipping. 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.
General
Contact Information:
I was a 2A @ New Trier for four years (Class of 2019).
Also a Northwestern grad (go Cats!), didn't debate and studied computer science.
I don't know much about the topic -- don't assume I know the in-and-outs of some topic-specific acronym, disadvantage, etc.
If you don't read a plan (or view debate as anything other than a competitive activity where the positive/negative consequences of the affirmative are the focus of your debating) I am not the best judge.
My philosophy is probably a linear combination of: Jack Altman's and Roland Kim's.
NILES NORTH HIGH SCHOOL
!!!VERY IMPORTANT!!!
---i will NOT be called anything but "Bucko"
will vote on literally anything
pls flow
tech>>>>>truth
defer to Raman Mazhankou's paradigm if you don't like mine ;(
Glenbrook South 24'
Email: won23lee@gmail.com
Tech>Truth
Flow
You don't have to be kind, but if you do choose to be aggressive, do it tastefully.
+.1 speaks if you add me to the email chain without asking me
Clarity>>>speed
If I say clear, change what you are doing, and be clear
+.1 speaks if you refer to me by name, not "judge", and pronounce it right, say it like the number.
I'm good with whatever you throw at me
I understand that you all are probably novices, but try your best to generate clash. Don't just read down the evidence, respond and elaborate on each other by actually line by lining.
Let's rumble
Santiago Leyva
santiagoleyva41@gmail.com
he/him/his
Washington University in St. Louis '28
Solorio Academy HS '24
TLDR:
- I'll do my best to evaluate arguments as made. Biases are inevitable for any judge. This paradigm is meant to explain the preferences that most often make me less than impartial.
- Warrants win debates.
- Mainly a policy oriented judge, not to say that I won't vote for kritiks, just that I'm not as knowledgeable in that style of debate.
- Prefer topic-oriented strategies, but do what you have to do.
- Will evaluate the debate through an offense-defense model.
- Tech over truth in almost every instance.
- Love a good impact turn debate.
- Interesting debates => higher speaks
- Not great with evaluating theory debates.
Topicality:
- Will always be less knowledgeable than the people in the debate about the topic so going for T probably isn't the best idea unless you're winning by a sufficient margin.
- In order to be T, the aff theoretically only needs to prove that they are within the predictable limits of research and present a plan that offers enough ground on which to run generic arguments.
- Limits and Fairness without an explanation are not themselves an impact. Take it to the next level.
Counterplans:
- Solvency advocates solve neg problems.
- Okay with a fair amount of condo(5-6).
- I err neg on theory.
- More okay with cheaty process CPs than most even though I wouldn't prefer it being the 2NR if you have another case specific strategy.
- As a former 2A, the 2A should fill the 2AC with theory as a time waster for the neg.
Negative Kritiks:
- Best way to win with kritiks is with clear arguments that can be stated in plain language instead of buzzwords.
- CX is extremely important therefore I will listen closely.
- Will vote for kritiks. Probably best with Cap, Security, and other standard kritiks. Extra explanation will be appreciated and rewarded with speaker points.
- FW is extremely important(am I evaluating whether the advocacy’s consequences are good, the 1AC’s reps are good, aff’s vs neg’s, etc)
- Will usually vote for the team that accesses education impacts the best.
- Not a fan of calling people directly racist/sexist/etc. just for making policy arguments unless they're legitmately acting this way.
K AFFs vs. FW:
- I lean negative. Don't judge a huge amounts of these debates but I'm obviously willing to vote aff. The aff team will probably benefit from slowing down, speaking clearly, and over-explaining (depth, not repetition).
- Topic relevance is important for me.
- Don't find arguments like "debate is bad" and "small schools" particularly persuasive.
- If you can effectively impact turn framework, beat back a TVA and Switch Side Debate, you can almost certainly get my ballot.
Disadvantages:
- Enjoyed nuanced defense and case turns. Conversely, I enjoy link and impact turns. Most teams don't benefit from these in my opinion.
- Will probably vote for the team that wins probability. The more coherent and plausible the internal link chain is, the better.
- Even if the NB is substantially unpersuasive, if the aff cannot generate a solvency deficit against the CP, and the aff has no offense against the DA, I am highly likely to vote negative.
- Don't believe solvency deficits have to be carded.
Hailey Lorence, she/her
Maine East '24
Add me to the email chain: hlorence78@gmail.com
CX is a speech please stand up and face the judge :)
Calling me judge or Hailey is fine
I won't take time out of your prep if a team asks for a marked version of the doc, u should give it to them. however, if u need to ask the other team clarification questions after the cross, you do need to take prep for that. If a debater needs to use the restroom that is completely fine, but unless there is a timer running there is absolutely no prepping. I try my best to time speeches, cx, and prep but I am human and do make mistakes, so you are still responsible for timing your own speeches, do not expect me to do so or rely on that.
Do not steal prep, if there is not a speech or prep timer running you should not be prepping, this includes going over strategies with your partner, at this point in the season y'all should already know better, but I'll only start docking points if I have to remind you more than once.
-
General philosophy: I tend to lean more policy in my argumentation, but that doesn't mean you can't read Ks in front of me. Please just make sure you explain it extra well because I'm likely not that familiar with the literature.
DAs:
I like them as long as they're well thought out. I tend to prefer DAs with strong links, otherwise there's no way for your impacts to happen. That being said, please make sure you tell a story with a DA and contextualize your evidence to the round.
Counterplans:
I tend to lean against perf con, do with that what you will. However, I will need a team to point it out within a round in order for me to vote on it. ALWAYS PERM A COUNTERPLAN!!! Please show me how the perm solves for the counterplan, but as neg tell me why your counterplan avoids an impact and how it solves for the aff. I lean neg on counterplan theory unless it's condo against more than 8 off.
Kritiks:
As a more policy leaning person, I need you to have quite a strong alt and I find it hard to vote for a team without an alt. Please contextualize your links to this specific aff, especially if the other team points out that it's generic. Please make sure there is an impact to your K and that you extend it, otherwise there's no reason to vote for it.
Topicality:
I'm pretty familiar with T and think it's an underused strategy, but that means that you still need to do it well in front of me. Please make sure that you're showing why your standards matter, and contextualize them into this round. Caselists and TVAs are super persuasive. Please also show why fairness or education matters and how that plays into a specific round.
Please be respectful, I will not tolerate anything homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.
—Speaker Points—
Below 26.4: you did something wrong (cheaty/offensive)
26.5-27.5: Below average
27.5-27.9: Average
28-29: Above average
29+: Very good
T/L:
Raman Mazhankou---NNHS '25, UChicago '29
Call me whatever---honestly I would kinda prefer it if you just stuck with judge
Put me on the chain: nilesnorthmk@gmail.com. Please title it appropriate to the round
Feel free to ask any questions, learning is what’s important
Debate however you want---my role is to fairly adjudicate the arguments in the round (unless otherwise stated) and I will try my best to do that regardless of their argumentative substance. I will decide the debate based off the flow and nothing else (see top of things not to do section for exception).
Yes tag team CX is fine, I do not care.
Things for novices to do
Flow (very important---probably one of if not the top skill for novices to learn).
Do line by line---it is hard to judge when none of your arguments are responding to the other team
Judge instruction in the 2[]R---I want to do as little intervention as possible and telling me what I should vote on will help a lot with that.
Time your own speeches---do not tell me "take 2 minutes", take the amount you need and end prep. Record how much prep you have left in case I forget.
Put me on the email chain.
Starting the round on time.
Sound confident.
Have fun.
Things not to do
Stealing prep egregiously.
Reading straight down blocks you didn’t write.
Being unfunny.
Give up on the line by line.
Not give a roadmap.
I used to have more detailed thoughts, but honestly, its great for a novice to show up and debate in the first place. Good luck and have fun!
Email: ejmelero@cps.edu
Emma Mitic, she/her
Maine East '25
Add me to the email chain: emitic@s207.org (or if u have questions afterwards abt the round)
CX is a speech-- please stand up and face the judge :)
Calling me Judge or Emma is fine
General philosophy: I tend to lean more toward Policy in my argumentation, but that doesn't mean you can't read Ks in front of me just make sure to explain it extremely well and don’t drop case unless u have proper framework.
Obvious rules: Cheating or racist, homophobic, or sexist comments will result in an L and low speaks.
Don't clip cards please!
extra notes: I won't take time out of your prep if a team asks for a marked version of the doc, you should give it to them; however, if you need to ask the other team clarification questions after cross, you will need to take prep for that. Stealing prep will make you lose speaks. Also, don't prep after the doc is sent out. If a debater needs to use the bathroom during a round that is totally fine; I will, however, most likely ask you to close your computers if nobody in the room is taking prep time while someone is out. I will do my best to time every speech along with you and keep track of everybody's prep, but I'm human and have made mistakes before so keeping track is never a bad idea.
Generally, my RDFs are short and don't include a lot of debate tips and tricks because I understand that people want to go to their next round or to lunch or whatever, but I do like it when debaters ask me questions after the round, and I'm happy to answer them. If I'm answering another team's questions, you don't need to wait if you do not have any additional questions after the RDF.
DA's:
I really like them...as long as they're well thought out. I tend to prefer DAs with strong links, otherwise, there's no way for your impacts to happen. That being said, please make sure you tell a story with a DA and contextualize your evidence to the round.
Counterplans:
I tend to lean against perf con, do with that what you will. However, I will need a team to point it out within a round in order for me to vote on it. ALWAYS PERM A COUNTERPLAN!! Please show me how the perm solves for the counterplan, but as neg tell me why your counterplan avoids an impact and how it solves for the aff. I lean neg on counterplan theory unless it's condo against more than 3-4 off.
Kritiks:
As a more policy-leaning person, I need you to have quite a strong alt and I find it hard to vote for a team without an alt. Please contextualize your links to this specific aff, especially if the other team points out that it's generic. Please make sure there is an impact on your K and that you extend it, otherwise there's no reason to vote for it.
don't run death good k please. . .
Topicality:
Please make sure that you're showing why your standards matter, and contextualize them into this round. Extend your impact throughout. Please also show why fairness or education matters and how that plays into a specific round. I'm not 100% familiar w the topic and all its terms yet so explaining terms or interps is never a bad idea.
T/L:
Niles North
Evan
Add both: nilesnorthsp@gmail.com(please name the email chains and documents appropriately)
I will give you +.1 or +.2 speaks for making a joke about someone from NN if it’s funny
+.1 speaks if you show me your flows
Most important thing in novice year: Ask questions. Novice year is all about learning and having fun.
Tech > Truth
Ultimately I don’t think I am a very biased judge and I will vote on literally anything if it is debated well(not as familiar with Ks so explain them a lot more).
Open cross is fine with me but don't take over your partner's cx completely.
Try your best to use all your speech time. I know debate can be stressful but just try your best to give a full speech instead of giving up.
Read Ariel Gabay or Hana Bisevac’s paradigm. I agree with almost all of the things on there and I haven’t judged enough times to have concrete opinions or a good paradigm so take a look at those for a better paradigm from great debaters.
Do these:
Time everything(your speech, other team’s speeches, prep, cx)
Flow—it’s one of the best things you can do
Line by line. It makes flowing and following the debate a lot easier for everyone.
Signpost (tell me what argument you are responding to) and give roadmaps
Put me on email chain without me having to ask and get started on time
Try and tell me what to do (judge instruction) in the last rebuttals so I can minimize judge intervention.
Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Will result in L and lowest speaks possible. Debate should be a positive activity so be respectful to everyone.
Don’t steal prep—some judges freak out if you do this so don’t do it. Only prep when the timer is running.
Give an impact to your arguments in the debate round (like not extinction but more like if we win this argument, they have no solvency, no link, etc.). For example: give me an impact on a solvency deficit. (Why does it matter if other countries say no or if it takes longer to do a plan)
Also do impact calc (probability, magnitude, timeframe)
You shouldn’t be reading many cards in the rebuttals. Instead, explain what the cards you read in your earlier speeches say. Look in the evidence and find the warrants of your evidence. Also try and avoid just reading blocks your coaches gave you. It won’t impact my decision or speaks but it will help you learn. Do storytelling and explain your argument in detail.
Be clear. I don’t want to have to clear you but I will have to for your own good because I need to be able to hear the arguments.
Most theory is a reason to reject the argument (except condo) but spend 5 minutes on theory in the 2ar/2nr if you are going for it and I could be swayed.
Everything else is mostly up to you. Have fun and be confident!
cperez134@cps.edu
Email: 20250051@student.nths.net
Please keep track of your speech and prep times.
I’m not too familiar with the IPR topic so complex substance arguments will require more explanation to be persuasive.
I can understand spreading to a moderate degree, but if I don’t flow/hear/otherwise see your arguments I can’t evaluate them. I will typically visibly indicate if I understand/like your argument. Nodding means I get it, frowning means I don’t. Use that. If I find something interesting, I will look it up, usually to understand an acronym or concept. Short explanations appreciated.
Ks/K affs-you'll have to win case and prove that the other team’s impacts are impossible. This is policy debate, proposing to not do policy automatically puts you at a disadvantage. That being said, I like philosophy and think Ks are an integral part of debate.
T-most Ts have education as an impact, so explain why their violation makes education impossible. Same goes for all theory, just saying condo bad isn't a voting issue.
tabula rasa (clean slate)
email: rashidmarnin@gmail.com
T/L:
Varsity debater at Niles North (2021-2025)
Dev—he/him
Add both: nilesnorthsp@gmail.com and nilesnorthdocs@gmail.com(please name the email chains and documents appropriately)
(Novices only) +.1 speaks if you show me your flows
Most important thing in novice year: Ask questions. Novice year is all about learning and having fun. Try your best to use all your speech time. I know debate can be stressful but just try your best to give a full speech instead of giving up.
Tech > Truth
Ultimately I don’t think I am a very biased judge and I will vote on literally anything if it is debated well
Open cross is fine with me but don't take over your partner's cx completely.
Do these:
Time everything(your speech, other team’s speeches, prep, cx)
Flow—it’s one of the best things you can do
Line by line. It makes flowing and following the debate a lot easier for everyone.
Signpost(tell me what argument you are responding to) and give roadmaps
Put me on email chain without me having to ask and get started on time
Try and tell me what to do(judge instruction) in the last rebuttals so I can minimize judge intervention.
Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Will result in L and lowest speaks possible. Debate should be a positive activity so be respectful to everyone.
Don’t steal prep.Only prep when the timer is running.
Storytelling
Give an impact to your arguments in the debate round(like not extinction but more like if we win this argument, they have no solvency, no link, etc.). For example: give me an impact on a solvency deficit. Why does it matter if other countries say no or if it takes longer to do a plan)
Also do impact calc(probability, magnitude, timeframe)
Clash---if you aren't engaging with your opponents arguments, it's hard to win
Be clear. I will only clear each speech up to two times, after that, it's the responsibility of the debater to be clear. If the evidence continues to be unflowable and the other team tells me to treat all your evidence as analytics, I will do so.
Everything else is mostly up to you. Have fun and be confident!
Email: danielasilvio2007@gmail.com
Please include me in the email chain, thanks. Please make sure the tournament name, round number, and both team codes are in the subject of the email chain. Or with this new speech drop thing, the aff should make the speech drop and share the code with everyone in the room.
I've been on the Maine East Debate Team for the past four years and have judged for the past year. I am a hard-core flower when it comes to judging.
When deciding the round, please don't leave the room or start talking obnoxiously loud - I unfortunately have to think.
General/Personal Things -
I am a policy leaning judge, I understand Ks to a certain degree, but I don't understand them in deep way. I definitely understand general K's more than Identity K's. With that being said, still run whatever you want to run, but at the end of the day, keep in mind what judge is in front of you. People can't vote on things they don't understand -- especially if the team is messy with it/doesn't explain why I should vote on it.
Along those lines, please run things that you are comfortable with, don't try to bite off more than you can chew - you will get too ahead of yourself. Run what you know best - whatever that may be.
- I am fine with tag teaming, but at the end of the day, it is still one person's cross-x, so your partner shouldn't be overpowering you. Know what you are doing and show me that you know that you know what your doing, or in worst case scenario, fake it till you make it.
- Please stand up during your cross-x, I don't flow cross-x, so I need to be able to hear you.
- If the other team is not answering your questions - they either have no clue, or your not asking good questions.
- Please face the judge when you are spreading, or when you are in cross-x - just a personal thing.
- A marked version of the doc, excluding a big MARK or a bunch of enters where they cut a card, is prep time.
- Don't steal prep, it becomes evident. Will doc speaks.
- Feel free to call me judge, or Daniela/Dani, I am fine with either.
- Make sure that you are timing your own speeches, and prep time, of course I will be also timing your prep, but at the end of the day, it is still your responsibility
- I am not ok with extensive swearing. A few swear words is ok, and here and there, I don't mind. If it is becoming apparent in every speech - it will tank your speaks. A swear word should not be in every sentence.
- I am not ok with sexism, racism, don't say anything transphobic or homophobic. I will end the round, I simply won't hear it, and I won't subject myself or anyone in round to hear it. If you have any questions regarding this, feel free to ask me pre-round.
- Make sure that the email chain, with everyone included on it is sent out before the round.
- If I say clear, make sure that you clear.
CASE -
If you are AFF, you need to be able defend your AFF in it's entirely, you need to have answers to your cross-x questions, and you need to be able to defend it, and properly extend your impacts, and your advantages across your speeches. Though, with that being said, don't overly cover case, and make sure that you are responding and talking time during your speeches to hit on off case.
CP -
Please say 'Counterplan' - not "Cee-Pee" it's kind of annoying, and it's really just a me thing. If you Perm a CP, please make sure to throughoutly explain how the perm solves better than the actual CP, make sure to flush out the impacts and the Net benefit. If you drop the net benefit, you are losing the CP. Make sure that your CP also links to the aff, if you drop the link, the CP doesn't become a reason for my decision.
If there are multiple perms, make sure that you respond to each one, and clearly state when you are responding to each one.
DA -
Prove how the DA links. If you can't prove that, you just wasted time.
I think DA and Case debates are good as long as the DA scenario makes sense and the line by line is properly executed.
Please don't go for a bad ptx scenario that has no internal link.
Condo/Theory/T -
I am just going to put this all together. They don't all need to be run together - I don't expect them too, but I am going to write about them together. I know that they are all separate arguments. (My paradigm didn't save the first time, and I really don't feel like writing this in full detail all over again. If you are deathly concerned about my thoughts on this deeply, and this goes for any of my stances on any argument, I don't mind to take a minute before the round to answer the questions.)
Don't run condo good/bad unless the neg team exceeds more than 3 CONDITIONAL off case. That is my line of discretion. If you drop one of these three things, whatever that may be in round, it becomes ammo for the other team to point out and use against you.
If you hit T - make sure you have a C/I, preferably with a card. I'm not too picky. No C/I by the time of the 2AC - assume that you probably lost on it if the Neg team goes for it. To win on T you have to prove that the Aff is not topical and explain why being topical matters. Don't only say "Fairness and Education" those are just words, you need to explain what that means and why it's important to debate.
T is a voter for me!
In the end what really matters is how you extend and frame the theory debate. I will most likely vote for the team that better contextualizes their theory arg.
I'll vote on a dropped theory arg as long as it's properly extended.
Ks/K AFFs -
Like I said before, I understand Ks to a certain degree, but at the end of the day, more unique Ks are not my strong suite. I have run and judged and looked into CAP, and Security. I have hit a bunch of K affs while debating, so yes, I am not stupid when it comes to this topic, don't assume that I am. Everyone has a strong suit, and this is not mine.
Make sure that there is FW, a link and an alt. Make sure that this is all defended and not dropped by either team. I will actually cry if neither team reads a FW card. Especially if that's the only thing to evaluate at the end of the round.
Have fun, especially your novice year -- it's your time to learn and grow, if you don't like my comments on my RFD take it with a grain of salt, but I say useful things.
If you made it this fair - and most usually don't, but I will raise you're speaks if you make a Taylor Swift/dress to impress Reference or complement me on any of my stickers.
Will Sterbenc (pronounced like 'disturbance' but without the di)
sterbencdebate@gmail.com
he/him
Niles North '25
I'll vote on anything. As the most talented debater of all time (kailey cabrera) once said, "tech>truth"
Speaker points will be generously rewarded to novices who:
---go off the flow
---do line by line
---are nice
Speaks are capped at 28.5 for novices who:
---rely on cheap shots to win (if you're wondering if something is a cheap shot, it is)
---read straight down their varsity's blocks
---are mean
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!!!!
they/them - call me Skye, not judge
I will not vote on sexist, racist, homophobic, or death good arguments.
Tech>truth.
Arguments need a claim and a warrant. Rounds where arguments don’t have both of those things will end up being very difficult for me to decide.
Disclose or take the speak hit and high preference for the other team on theory/side bias(exception of new affs). I sincerely believe disclosure is good, regardless of one's race, and that the community is better for it.
almost none of the below has actually been relevant in my rounds.
T:
PTV is bad. Very bad. I’m not as anti-ptv as Whitmore, but I do not understand how it doesn’t justify massive effects T.
Personal preference for ground, but I’ll vote for limits any day.
I hate this topic with a burning passion. As such, if you’re aff, you have a better shot going for w/m and reasonability with me.
when i’m a hired(not NT) judge, I’ve been instructed to have a higher bar to vote for the negative on topicality. This means that I will vote on it when dropped or when explained at a natcirc JV or higher level.
^ sorry.
K:
Explain your K, win framework, and have a link that is something more specific than ‘ip bad’ or ‘state bad’, and I’m okay with voting for you.
That being said, please don’t get too technical. The team that starts their 2R with ‘here’s your ballot if you have no idea what’s going on’ is far more likely to get my vote.
Aff teams: no preference for fairness or clash.
CP:
Process CPs: aff leaning on perms, neg leaning on theory or solvency.
All other CPs: really depends on aff construction. If your 1AC has three or more solvency cards, I err aff on solvency. If it has two or less, I err neg. Very neg leaning on perms. States CP and agent CPs are part of our game.
If not otherwise instructed in the 1AR at latest, I’ll judgekick the CP. You don’t need to say sufficiency framing- genuinely don’t know what else I would use.
DA:
Why are people reading perms on DAs without uq cps? Your link doesn’t have to be specific to the plan, it just has to be to the plan.
That being said, I’m coming around on perms to DAs with CPs. I don’t love it, but the innovation DA really might not be competitive against certain affs.
Timeframe. Timeframe timeframe timeframe. Please.
I will dock your speaks(i give high speaks) by 0.1 if you say the words ‘our impact outweighs on magnitude because it’s extinction’ or any version of that. I’m still pretty sure I’ll hear it at least five times in this five round tournament, though.
Theory:
Will vote neg on condo/process cps/neg fiat/etc in basically all instances.
If your ASPEC shell is hidden and something like ‘aspec - they didn’t - that’s a voter for fairness and clash’, the 1A gets new answers.
Disclose your 1AC and past 2NRs- you don’t need to disclose the 1NC.
when I’m judging ms: I have no idea what is going on with theory when I’m judging middle school- y’all have weird disclo and new arg rules. 99% of the time, I will strike the argument off my flow instead of rejecting the team. If someone would like to stop the round and ask their coach, please do, but I also prioritize, you know, letting y’all debate rather than actually stopping a round.
Relax. Have fun.
novices:
IF YOU ARE READING THIS BEFORE THE ROUND, SET UP THE EMAIL CHAIN NOW AND MAKE SURE THE 1AC IS SENT BEFORE START TIME :)
add me to the chain - vwdebate@gmail.com, gbsdebate2024@gmail.com
vivi webb (pronounced vee-vee, not vih-vee), she/her, gbs 25
things you cannot do:
- be racist, misogynistic, or a bad person
- be mean to your partner - you are all novices, you are all learning, you are all trying to win. choose kindness
- say death good
- use christianity (or any religion, probably) for the purposes of a debate argument - christian wipeout, k affs about God's will, etc. = no-gos. if you make arguments about God's will in relation to the aff/neg/ballot/round/topic at all, i will stop you and vote you down. religion is not something to be deployed in a strategic context. the exception to this may be identity-based k affs, but idk how relevant that will be for the divisions i'm judging.
prep ends when you're done editing the doc. do not prep when the timer's not running. send out the 1nc during 1ac cx.
for jv/non-novices:
i'm a 2n who goes for mostly policy stuff, but i go for the k occasionally. i'm probably familiar with most of your arguments at some level and i'm most familar with the cap, fem, security, and ir-esque lit bases. i would like to judge either policy throwdowns or nuanced k v policy aff debates.
stuff from the novice section applies.
specific thoughts that will probably be irrelevant given that tech > truth no matter what:
policy affs
- 2acs on case - make full arguments. please. you need warrants, not just tagline extensions of 1ac ev. answer what their cards say. if the 2ac on case is bad i will not let the 1ar make new arguments to fix it.
- 2acs on other stuff - why do we put seven perms at the very top of our 2ac blocks. put a card or smth at the top instead for flowability's sake - or, at the very least, give me pen time.
- when evaluating new 2ar arguments, extrapolations, or cross-apps, i will ask myself 'could the 2nr have predicted this argument?' if the answer is no, i'll disregard the argument. i'll obviously evaluate the line by line, but as a 2n my sympathies lie with the neg. hedge against this by having a strong 2ar justification for your new arg or cross-app.
- 2ar impact calc is often underutilized. the 2ar overview should frame the entire debate for me, which should include comparative impact calc if the 2nr is a disad or the way i should evaluate the deficit(s) if the 2nr is a counterplan.
cps
- i like them, especially given that the neg has basically no ground on this topic. case-specific ones are best (as is true for any argument), but i'm happy to judge a process cp debate too. personally i would rather judge pdcp than perm other issues, but do what you gotta do
- condo's probably good. feel free to try to convince me otherwise in the 2ar tho
- deficits need impacts, not just at the level of 'if they don't solve this scenario then we all go extinct' but at the level of 'this deficit means they can't access x internal link which triggers our scenario because...'. the more specific the impact, the better the deficit.
t
- i think predictability is the best angle for both teams. if you have a more predictable interp (either in terms of legal precision or community consensus) you should emphasize that. the way i think about predictability is: what did both teams probably base their prep around? this year, i would say mandel is the most predictable definition in that sense. last year, it was hicks. this means predictability operates both on the level of research and the standards that the community has generally adopted. this is the best way to explain the impact AND link to predictability imo.
- that being said - debatability is still winnable, but you need a very strong at: predictability push. there's also something to be said about predictability being a floor and not a ceiling.
disads
- love them. not much to say here, especially because they're basically nonexistent now. rip econ da.
- most turns case arguments are weak either because they operate at the impact level or because they don't assume aff solvency. the best turns case arguments are ones that interact with the aff's internal links or solvency mechanism and operate at the link level of the disad (i.e. 'the link alone turns case'.)
ks
-i like them whenthey are at least somewhat aff-specific and both sides do more than read down framework blocks. the debate i would most like to judge is one where the neg goes for a well-thought-out ir k with a good turns case or impact angle and the aff impact turns the k by saying heg, deterrence, or 1ac reps are good. i'm fine for 'generic' ks too tho. the only thing i rlly dont want to judge are high theory/pommo debates. if you don't go for those args, you're golden!
- know what the alt does...please...
- the best link extensions involve 2nc rehighlights and IMPACTS. you cannot go for 'links are disads to the perm' without an impact to the link. if you're going for the cap k and your only answer to pdb (especially the double bind) is 'the aff is capitalist and thus bad' without explaining why the inclusion of the aff materially implicates alt solvency, it will be very hard for me to vote neg if the 2ar is the perm (if the aff points out your mistake).
k affs & framework
- i've had so many 't is a microaggression' debates on the neg that i am insanely bored by them now. however, i do think it's the most strategic angle for most k affs to take as long as you have the strategy down. do with that what you will.
- predictability matters to me, especially when the 2nr is going for clash or the 2ar is going for a countermodel/counterinterp. how can a model be enforced if no one knows what the model is/we don't know that we need to prep for it in advance? imo you need a very strong defense of the predictability/enforceability of your model, a strong push on the unpredictability of your opponents' model, OR a strong explanation of what the ballot does to make your model a reality in order to go for these arguments. see the t section for my thoughts on what 'predictability' actually means.
- i have no preference as to whether you go for fairness or clash. i've gone for both many times. just make sure you know the 'tricks' for both and can deploy/explain whatever impact you're going for as strategically as possible.
- i have like zero experience with kvk debates. be techy, do lbl, explain your args and i'll be fine - but don't expect me to piece things together for you. if these are the debates you think you'll be having the most then i prob wouldn't pref me.
stock issues (?)
- if the aff is not inherent, go for inherency. go old-school. go kansas. i'm so here for it. you might want additional offense in the 2nr tho
Glenbrook South 25'
xe/they (they/them is fine)
Call me by my name please, not judge.
email chain -> junioryongdebate@gmail.com
*****
the stuff you really want to know :
- Clash is good, responding to the other teams args is better, doing both earns you a double thumbs up
- Impact calc is appreciated, tell me why you should win, why does your argument matter more than the other teams
- Arguments that you can explain and understand well >>> strange "(not) funny" blocks that your Varsity wrote for you
- Fine judging most arguments, as long as YOU can explain them. This gets a little weird if you're reading something no one knows. It needs to be explained thoroughly only if you want me to vote on it, do not assume I know what you're talking about, especially since we're off-packet now.
- I will adapt to you, debate in the way that is most comfortable to you.
*****
other things that you should also know :
- Don't steal prep, that means when the timer is up, your hands need to be off the device unless you're sending the doc.
- Stand facing me, not the other team when speaking, same during cx
- Speak clearly, your face should not be buried in your screen.
- PLEASE DO NOT GO FASTER THAN YOUR LIMIT. I know some novices like to go fast cause its cool, but no one will understand you, which means I won't either. If I cannot understand or hear you, I will not flow, meaning I will not vote on that arg cause you were unclear.
- Be nice. Yes, be competitive, but we're human.
- Don't make any offense jokes, comments, etc. I do not take homophobia, transphobia, racism etc. lightly and will lower your speaks to the ground.
(if you get me a black milk tea with boba -> +.3 speaks)
She/ her
Nt ‘24
Add me to the chain: sarazareadebate@gmail.com
Toplevel
If you are reading this and do not know how to send out an email chain, now would be a great time to learn
If you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Auto L + lowest possible speaks + contacting your coach
Flow! showing me flows after rounds = extra speaks
Try to make my flow as clean and organized as possible
Give a roadmap before your speech and signpost clearly
Time your own prep, Cx, and speeches
I <3 turns on both sides
Talk during all of your speech time, this is a great way to learn
coming up with your own arguments>>>reading your varsity's blocks
I <3 it when you frame my ballot for me and give overviews at the top of rebuttals
Pronouncing “hegemony” and/ or “democracy” correctly = +0.3 pts
Case:
I <3 case debating when it’s done well
I like it when you extrapolate warrants from your cards, compare them with the opponents’, and compare evidence
DAs:
Do clear line by line
I like impact calculus when it’s under 1 minute and impact turns. Tell me clearly why your impact outweighs and why you turn their impact
If you do ev comparison, tell me why UQ does or does not matter in the context of the round
If you’re neg and go for this, give me a clear internal link story in the rebuttals
Counterplans:
Explain why you're textually and functionally competitive, and why you solve all of case
If you're aff, impact the difference between the plan and the counterplan
Topicality:
Do standards debating comparatively, tell me why your standards outweigh the other teams'
Impact out why the aff specifically is bad or good for debate
Kritiks:
Make your link specific to the aff. reference author names and if you can, rehighlight cards
framework makes the game work
CX:
Tag team is fine
Don’t dominate your partner’s Cx and don’t be rude in general, otherwise I will actively deduct your speaker pts
I like it when you ask card-specific Qs and reference authors
—
Pls ask me if you have any questions or are confused about anything after I give my rfd! Debate is a game, so don't get too stressed; the most important thing is that you have fun and learn. policy debate is an activity to be proud of, win or lose :)