Homestead Highlander Debate Tournament
2023 — Mequon, WI/US
NCX Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideEvan Baines (he/they) 12/2024
Please include me in email chains bainesevan1227@gmail.com
About me:
-High School Policy Debate at La Crosse Central High School from 2017-2021 on the topics of education, immigration reform, arms sales, and criminal justice reform.
-I ran soft-left affs and k affs throughout most of hs. I am familiar with the K lit on Set Col, Cap, Gender/Fem Ir, and Anti-Blackness.
-I have judged debate since 2021.
General:
I am not picky about specific arguments. run what you're comfortable with and what you can win a debate with.
truth > tech to some extent. Arguments such as "climate change is not real" will be difficult to win a debate with, and in my mind, there is a significantly lower threshold for proving climate change is real than proving it is fake. I view debate as a primarily educational activity and thus find it difficult but not impossible to endorse such claims if warranted effectively and the other team completely drops the ball.
I like to see lots of clash on the flow! Your evidence and warrants are very important particularly on the solvency flow and disads.
I prefer speeches that are flowable just by listening, particularly in the rebuttals when your analytics are not included in a shared speech doc. I will not necessarily dock speaker points for unclear speeches if the analysis is good, but if I cannot even hear the arguments that are being read it is likely I will just not have that argument on my flow and might lose because of that. If you or your opponent has to ask primarily clarifying questions about what arguments were read during cross x, it is likely I did not hear them either.
When debating in an online format, please include analytics in the speech doc as the microphone/internet quality significantly hinders the clarity of the speeches.
T:
I am not a big fan of t arguments, but I will certainly still vote for them. Due to the fact that I view debate as primarily an educational activity, the most persuasive voter to me is education. I am not necessarily convinced by fairness arguments unless there is clear evidence of in-round abuse that is specifically pointed out by the negative. I do quite enjoy the debates about semantics and definitions, and when evaluating interpretations and counter interpretations author's credibility and specificity to the topic are the most important.
K:
Alt explanation and Solvency is key to winning the k flow for me. if you don't have adequate solvency or explanation, I am left with a non-unique da to the case which makes it hard for me to vote on the K flow. I could still vote on presumption if the k impact and links are adequately explained, and the K is reframed as a non-uq DA.
in-round decorum:
please refrain from personal attacks on the other team, talking over each other, or other rude behavior. please remember that the people you are debating against are human beings and treat them with kindness and respect :)
About me
Class of 2023 of University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, with a major Sociology & Pre-law, and a minor in Political Science.
I've debated in policy all four years for Ronald Reagan High School (2016-2020). Since my high school debate days came to end, I have been judging debate in both policy, PF and LD. I also have been an assistant debate coach to my former high school. In summer 2023, I also obtained a fellowship working with National Association for Urban Debate Leagues (NAUDL), furthering my knowledge in debate!
Yes, put me on the email chain zapidalia@gmail.com :)
Debate Stuff
I am a TABS judge, which stands tabula rasa, latin for "clean slate". Basically, this means you have to show and explain to me why arguments should be voted on. Clean slate means that I come in a round with no prior assumptions on what to vote on. In essence, I will vote on anything as long as it is properly explained and elaborated.
I do not tolerate any racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. arguments.
Specifics
Speed: I think debate is about how well you argue, not how fast you can read. I am okay with spreading and speed, as long as you are clear.
Cross ex: Open cross ex always okay, just be mindful of individual speaker points
Framework: I LOVE framework, I will evaluate rounds on framing if you present one to me. As I do have a background in policy debate, I am familiar and very fond of framing that ranges anywhere from util, deontology, to consequentialism and categorical imperative.
Value Criterion: I like comparative analysis and direct clash against your opponent's framing. Please be sure to it pull through the round! If your value criterion is identical, I will leave it up to you to make those distinctions to me and/or outweighing your position on the resolution.
Karishma Santebennur (she/they)
Hello!
Add me to the email chain: santdebate@gmail.com
- Currently at Williams College
- debated policy for Brookfield East HS (2019 - 2023)
- tabula rasa, tech > truth– I will vote on nearly any argument (no blatant sexism, homophobia, etc.).
- I am not familiar with the topic areas for the season, so please explain your args thoroughly.
- I can handle speed but remember to be clear.
- Above all, have fun!
Email: jaime.zillmer@yahoo.com
I work for MPS - Rufus King High School
I did 4 years of policy debates in high school, what is now called "traditional debate".
I've judged mostly novice debate for a few years.
Speaking
How fast can students speak during speeches? Medium Speed
If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? Usually I will say slow/slow down or clear
List stylistic items you like debaters to do.
1. Debaters should start with a roadmap and include signposts during their speech.
2. Debaters should do a line by line refuting the opponents arguments
3. Debaters should include an impact calc in the final speeches
List stylistic items you do not like debaters to do.
1. I do not like rudeness
2. I do not like partners to talk to the speaker during their partners speech excessively
Arguments
List types of arguments you prefer to listen to/evaluate.
1. Disadvantages are important to the negative attack
2. I’m open to inherency and solvency attacks
3. I’m open to counter plans
List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.
1. I do not understand kritiks very well, it will probably be hard to get me to vote on this for you. I come from the more traditional debate mindset.
2. I rarely vote neg on topicality, it would need to be the full shell with voters that make sense. And the neg must give this sufficient time in the round but I will be swayed aff by them being reasonably topical.
Other Notes
I love clash, I love line by line. I really want debaters to take apart each other’s arguments. This is best accomplished by listening to each other.
I want the last speeches to include an impact analysis that shows why their position leads to be a better world.