Scholars of Speech Winter Rumble
2023 — Irvine, CA/US
Sunday - All Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHi, I’m Isabella
she/her
please add me to the email chain: isabellahuang2027@gmail.com
Policy Scrimmage
tech > truth. I will vote on anything if it is warranted out and has an impact.
spreading is fine, but clarity comes first
give me judge instruction on how to evaluate the round, tell me how to write the ballot.
I’m an LD debater, so I haven’t had any experience with the policy topic. Please explain your case well and don’t use too many topic-specific acronyms without explaining them first.
Be respectful and have fun!
Scholars of Speech
I am not experienced in judging for speech so if I'm doing something wrong in round feel free to correct me. Also feel free to ask me any clarification questions about my paradigm/the tournament in general.
大家好,我是Jason Huang
"Debate" - William Li -Justin Ding - Lucas Cao
he/him
I debate for Modernbrain in LD. I think I have a good understanding of the topics throughout the year but there's always more to learn!
Email>>>Speechdrop:jasonhuangdebate27@gmail.com
I wish I debated like Noah Christiansen, knew everything like Scott Wheeler, inspired people like Elmer Yang, as nice asLizzie Su, and chill like Alex Borgas.
TLDR: Spreading is fine, tech>truth, I'll vote on anything that has claim, warrant, and impact (bar the -isms).
For policy:
Everything below applies. I've never debated policy but I watched a lot and will treat it like a long LD round.
Things you might care about
Please call me Jason
Tech > Truth
Speed is fine but as always, Clarity >>>>>>>>>>> Speed. I will yell clear twice and stop flowing afterward.
Time yourself because sometimes I forget
Defaults: No rvis, drop the argument, competing interps, PnP negates, theory is highest layer
If you want me to vote on evidence ethics you must stake the round, if you're right then L25 for your opponent; if you're wrong then it's L25 for you :).
CX is binding, flex prep is fine
Substance is evaluated probabilistically, theory is a yes/no question. No 100% or 0% risk.
Don't steal prep, you can stop prep to send the email
Use CX for what it's for
It'd be great if the chain was set up before the round starts
Top
Debate is about the arguments within the rounds and their interactions, so I will do my best to not intervene.
I also think debate should be a space where both sides gets the most education and best experience out of. So feel free to read arguments that you feel most comfortable defending instead of stealing cases off the wiki or pulling up obscure positions from backfiles that you don't understand. Be yourself instead of tailoring the debate towards me.
That being said, I extremely dislike clash avoidance arguments. Though we always joke about hiding aspec or winning on hidden eval after the 1ac, but let's be real---these arguments are not designed for clash but to be a cheap-shot and an easy route to a ballot. These kinds of debates are not fun to judge because there isn't much "debating" going on. Please don't make me vote on presumption.
Argument Prefs
I don't have an explicit bias toward certain arguments(except the kind listed above), so run whatever you want as long as it's not morally repugnant(racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, et cetera).
1-K/K-affs/Fwk
2-Policy
3-Theory/other T/Phil
Strike-trix
Counterplans
Counterplan debates are fun, especially when they have specific solvency advocates and germane net-benefits.
I lean condo good on most condo debates(unless dropped) because the number of offs really doesn't matter. The 1NC reading 12 offs would have worse quality positions than one that reads only 3 or 4 because they are also constrained by time, and bad arguments are easy to answer with smart analytics and rehighlightings. A really good condo 2AR would be how the negative read an super abusive combination of positions that made engagement technically impossible.
You tell me why a counterplan is cheaty
I won't kick a counterplan unless you tell me to, it'll be better if you gave me some kind of warrant just so the 2AR doesn't destroy the one-liner.
Disadvantages
"If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link."---Scott
Give me a clear link story and why it turns/outweighs the case and you'll be good.
For politics, link controls uniqueness. If there's a new uniqueness card coming out every 2 hours, then I'm 100% convinced that not a single person on the planet knows who's winning.
Kritiks
"Link work not framework, K debating is case debating."---Scott
My favorite type of debate, and the one I spend most time reading and researching. I mostly read the cap K. I don't hack for Ks.
I love when links indict every/most part of the affirmative. You're in a good spot if your 2NR revolves mostly along the link and implicates it to the aff. The stronger the link, the less burden on the alternative, and the less likely I will vote on the perm.
I don't like Ks that try to use frameworks and ROTBs to make the aff irrelevant because the debate is not "you don't do this, you lose." The K critiques the aff's ideological commitments, and the aff should defend those commitments.
Generally, I give K tricks less weight. Things like "fiat is illusory", D-rule, and root cause(except K v K) don't really matter to me. Things I would care about are alt solves case, floating PIK, or K-prior.
DO YOUR RESEARCH!!! I like specific links and link walls in the 1NC that are hyperspecific to the aff, it shows that the neg is doing its job in showing why this aff is specifically bad and not some generic card that is just slapped on.
Pre- and post-fiat is meaningless.
Judge kick is the same for the alternative
Plan affs
"If the aff is a good idea then the aff wins."---Noah
Kritikal Affirmatives
I think K-affs are strategic and fun to judge when they: Explain why the ballot is key and what the aff does. There is functionally no difference between a plan-aff and a K-aff, both have impacts, solvency, inherency, and other stock issues, so explaining it as such would be very helpful and clean. I love listening to your theory and how your revolution would succeed but that's insufficient for why I should vote for you in this debate.
Framework
T debating is also case debating, especially for K-affs because the case itself is a massive DA to the traditional policy debate paradigm and the neg framework. Therefore, I think framework should interact with the case to some extent, if not completely.
Carded TVAs are best.
Phil
Calc indicts are not offense
Please err towards overexplaining things because I'm not extremely familiar with many lit other than util, kant, and hobbes.
T
Offense-defense. A clear abuse story is necessary for me to vote on T because most affs aren't EXTREMELY abusive to the point where clash is functionally impossible. If the aff is factual topical, I lean toward resonability.
Please impact out standards even if it's dropped, just like you would for a disadvantage.
Theory
Cross-apply the stuff from the T section.
I hold a very low bar for answering frivolous theory, especially ones that don't have a clear violation and impact. Reasonability should do the job if you give me decent warrant(s).
Speaker Points
Things I think boosts speaks:
-Smart strategic moves
-Non-obnoxious CX and zingers
-Non-offense humor
-Clean, packaged rebuttals
-Making an analytical K link to the aff and winning (auto 30)
Every Marx term/reference is +0.1 speaks(You get two at max if you're running an anti-cap argument)
I won't give you 30 speaks just because you told me to.
Thoughts:
Debate is more than just the W/L and speaks on Tabroom. The best memories rarely happened in the round but always at the lunch table or on the plane. I love this space because it's educational, enriches the mind, and taught me to be a better person and thinker overall. So while competing with the person sitting across the room or next to you, you can also be friends and have fun while you're at it.
"Make no enemies."---Elmer
Favorite quotes:
"Theory debate is just D1 whining"---Elmer
"First comes no tie, then comes Bataille."---Scott
"We say perm do both for funsies!"---Noah
"The aff should lose because it's bad."---Lizzie
"Drop the argument is very goated."---Alex
"The answer to neg terrorism is aff counterterrorism."---Pat
Hi yall
I'm a PF debater main who did 1 year of LD and policy, part-time 2 year MUN, did 1 year extemp and congress
gmail: yibidebate@gmail.com
General Stuff:
1. If you know you said something wrong, then its probably bad
2. Time yourself. I will also do it too, but it makes it way easier for me if you do it yourself
3. Do NOT sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand what you are saying I won't flow
If I CAN'T understand you, I cannot write it down.
EXCEPTION TO Policy
4. Tell me where you are on your flow when you give your speech. Signpost is very important
5. Use up all of your speech time. YOU SHOULD HAVE TIME YOURSELF. You know more than you think, and if all else fails, just explain your case d
6. I don’t flow cross UNLESS It bring up the following speech.
7. VOTING PREFERENCE: TECH => Truth.
8. BE confident: FAKE IT TILL YOU MAKE IT. IF it false I don't take off unless your opponent bring up.
9. Delievery is important, please be audible and prounicate correctly.
PF
Rebuttals
1. Quality > Quantity; I prefer responses that are explained, especially with how it interact with the case
2.WARRANT YOUR ARGUMENT, make me understand what are you tryna say. ex. non-unique, delink, Topicality, solven etc..,
3. NEG rebuttal needs to frontline response, brief, and clash evidence
Summary
1. COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE down on one or two arguments. Do not give me a summary of everything.
2. weigh. weigh. weigh. start early. I expect weighing in the summary and final focus. Tell me why I prefer your arguments and compare your arguments with your opponents.
3. No new arguments or evidence should be read AFTER the first summary unless you are responding to a new response in the first summary.
Focus
1. If it's not in summary, it can't be in the final focus.
2. Paint a narrative by the final focus speeches. EXTEND the full link chain and warrants and impact.
3.DON'T focus on your opponent's case, I want see why I should VOTE YOU not why I Shouldn't vote for them.
4. VOTER ISSUES,don't give all long yap,CONCISE REASONING WHY I SHOULDN'T vote your opponent
LD
1, I don't know about a lot of LD, but please please please give me WHY your argument matter. I can handle most of theory and Ks so run whatever you want. BUT PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE explain HOW you get there
2. Im good w any speed and any arguments. since ld is big on the value and criterion ill be considering that debate when making my final decision. so if you win the value and criterion debate that's an easy path to the win w me.
3. i weigh evidence pretty heavily so ill probs want to look at cards if they're getting brought up often in the debate.
4. PLS WEIGH IMPACTS!!! if idk how/why your argument matters or if it will make a difference why would I vote off of it. i don't think defense is sticky, so if there is an arg you want to extend all you need to say "extend this arg" and move on.
5. I weigh dropped args very heavily so point out if something is dropped. ill vote off of flow at the end of the day though.
Policy
1. I try not to get place in judging Policy, if I do. please spare me
2. Speed can be fast, but don't be like I cannot understand at all, if you going spread, please be audible and prounciate
3. I expect you to share the doc your are spreading. Uses signpost for where you at
4. policy is like mini pf. I’ll count the new arguments being made and count toward my final flow
5. Anything not read or shared WILL NOT be on my flow thus will not account for my final decision
1) I like watching debates that would inspire an average student who doesn't do debate to join the activity, or an average parent/guardian judge to urge their student to join.
2) Everybody in the round should be able to watch back a recording of the round and be able to understand what was going on. In other words, don't intentionally run arguments that your opponents won't understand.
3) While developing the skills to win the game on the circuit is certainly laudable--because of debate, I now listen to everything on x2 speed--I don't enjoy watching most circuit debates. I prefer debaters to hover around 200-250 words per minute. Choose quality arguments instead of gish galloping around the flow, and collapse on your one or two best pieces of offense. Weigh those key arguments against your opponent's, taking them at their highest ground.
3) Don't make claims that your evidence doesn't support. Powertagging is bad scholarship. If I call for a piece of evidence and see that it is powertagged, I will intervene.
4) I am more likely to intervene in a theory-level debate than a case-level debate. If you tell me that your opponents' practices are making the activity worse, I will consider their practices in the context of what I know about the activity. I am open to my mind being changed on these issues; my knowledge of the activity is limited. However, I am biased against evaluating what I see as frivolous theory arguments or tricks.
5) Tell me where I should be flowing at all times. If you don't tell me, I may mess up.
6) I don't find rudeness to be a persuasive rhetorical tool. You can be an incredibly effective debater and advocate while focusing on your opponent's arguments, not their personal deficiencies.
7) It's helpful to acknowledge where your opponents may be winning. Give me a permission structure to believe some of their arguments but still vote for you. "Even if..." "The tiebreaker is..."