Background:

Walter Payton '27

Kuh-vin, he/him

Add me to the chain: kbendre09@gmail.com

Also add paytondebatedocs@gmail.com

***Online***

If my camera is off, please do not start

Top Level:

Tech > truth

Time every speech, cx, and prep

I'll follow along the chain, but if you're unintelligible or mumbling, I won't flow it.

I try and minimize judge intervention as much as possible, but if both teams are giving tagline extensions with no clash, warranting, or crystallization, I'll be forced to intervene to some extent.

Post-rounding is good, as long as its done respectfully. If you disagree with part of my decision, feel free to argue with me about it, but know the decision will not be changed after the round.

I agree a lot with Calvin Hwang's paradigm.

T:

I'm a good judge for plan text in a vacuum.

If you go for a counter interpretation, make sure to warrant out your standards.

Predictability probably outweighs debateability, but I can be persuaded either way.

Disads:

Straight link or impact turning a disad is underutilized

Respond to the warrants of the other team's link/link turn instead of just saying "link outweighs link turn" or vice versa

Counterplans:

Advantage CPs are underutilized and pairing them with a good DA is a very solid strategy.

Most PICs aren't abusive. With that being said, I'll feel more comfortable voting on a PIC that is truly competitive compared to one that takes out a minimal part of the plan.

I lean Aff on questions of competition.

CPs should (probably) have a solvency claim and warrant, but don't necessarily mean a card.

Judge kick is a logical extension of condo. 1AR and 2AR needs to make an argument as to why judge kick is bad for me to not automatically consider the status quo.

Kritiks:

Very familiar with cap literature, somewhat familiar with antiblackness, heidegger, settler colonialism, and a few others, but for the most part not super comfortable with K lit. Below average for the Neg in these debates.

Most Ks spread long, confusing tags with large words that often misrepresent the actual content of cards. Make sure to explain the tags and slow down. Do more warrant-level explanation of your cards.

You link you lose is probably bad

K Aff v. Policy:

Neg leaning in these debates, but will obviously decide based on the flow

In order to win the round, Aff teams need to have a clear claim to the ballot - absent this claim, and with the Neg including at least some role of the ballot argument, I'm obligated to vote Neg

Most counter-interps on framework are garbage, I’m more likely to vote on an impact turn to fairness or clash

Ballot PIK + Presumption is underutilized

Debated equally by both sides, the Neg would always win on T, but obviously that rarely occurs

If you're a middle schooler or novice, you shouldn't read a K Aff.

K v. K:

I will have very little idea what I'm doing in this debates, but if you win you win.

Theory:

Nothing's a voter with the exception of condo. Anything else is (probably) reject the argument.

You probably need to win condo bad to win perf con, in which case just do condo

Number of conditional advocacies doesn't really matter, it's more about competing models. Dispo is more likely to convince me than uncondo, but needs to be able to resolve offense.

Not sure why the community norm is "new affs justify infinite condo".

Random Things:

Love rehighlightings, whether they are inserted or read is up to you. But if they are inserted, their overall implication must be explained, or I'm very unlikely to factor it into my decision.

Overall, I'm more likely to vote on small, technical concessions than most judges, but if you're spreading several blocks of analytics don't expect me to go back through the doc and find the argument if I don't hear it - if it's not on my flow, I can't evaluate it, even if it was dropped

Hot Takes:

Framework on a K outweighs theory - debated well, framework is about the role of the judge/ballot in debate, and fairness and education

Neg terror is great, but condo is also probably bad

Zero risk and presumption are real and reasons they are not are usually interventionist

Wipeout is easier to win than Process CPs

Try or die is intuitive

Speaker Points:

-0.2 for every argument you claim to be dropped when it was actually responded to

<26.5 - evidence violation

26.5-27.5 - lack of clarity, speed, depth, and understanding in arguments

27.5-28 - decent clarity, below average speed, decent depth of arguments, probably going 2-4 or 3-3

28-28.5 - my standard average for points, those at the upper end are probably clearing as a low seed while those at the lower end are going 3-3.

28.5-29 - one of the better speakers at the tournament, great clarity, decent speed, well-warranted arguments, clearing as a higher seed

29+ - top 5 speakers at the tournament, one of the top seeds

pls time ur own speeches and prep pls pls pls

she/they

niles north 25

ADD BOTH EMAILS PLEASE:

alebur3@nilesk12.org

nilesnorthnb@gmail.com

----

call me "alex", not "judge" pls!

tech>truth

clarity>speed

FOR ONLINE: i would strongly prefer if cameras were on, but no worries if not

DONT

• isms (racism/sexism/etc)
• steal prep
• take forever for the email chain (its j a pet peeve of mine pls i understand tech stuggles but pls try and be efficent when sending out stuff)

DO

• time your own speeches (i probs am not and it is the debater not judges responsibility anyway)
• FLOW.
• be respectful!
• give a roadmap/signpost ("i am going to be responding to what my opponents said" is NOT a real roadmap!)
• keep the debate intresting! debates are long, attention spans are short, have some ethos and confidence, it will go a long way! (esp for speaks...)
• impact calc. <3
• pretend im not flowing, if your opponent dropped something, tell me (but u should be flowin!)
• line by line in rebuttal speeches
• judge instruction in the 2NR/2AR goes a LONG way, it helps yall, helps me, tell me how i should write my ballot

MISC:

- i have learned i have very prominent facial reactions, if i look confused i probs am, etc

- be nice, have fun, novice year is all about learning feel free to ask questions after the round :)

- im cool with tag-teaming in CX, but please don't talk over/down to ur partner. if that happens, I will probs dock speaks. there is no reason to be rude in CX, it's obnoxious and embarrassing!

- please overexplain rather than underexplain args- assume i know nothing, overexplain everything

+ 0.1 speaks if you make me laugh or make a FUNNY joke about: anybody from Niles North, New Trier, Lane Tech, GBN, Maine East, or Cali Stoga

+ 0.1 speaks if you show me flows after the round

LASTLYYYY: have fun! debate is all about education and getting better, so don't get too stressed, it is truly never that serious and feel free to email any questions after the round :))))

I did high school policy debate all four years in the late 90s and early 2000s and then took a very long break. I'm getting up to speed on the "new" arguments. I've judged a few middle school tournaments this year- mostly varsity or JV and a few novice. I'm pretty well versed on most disads/arguments/topicality etc. and am willing to vote on most things as long as they are argued and explained well.

SPEED: No problems with speed but you must be CLEAR. If I can't understand you, your argument may be missed and go unflowed which means I won't be able to weigh it it come decision time. If I can't understand you during your speech, as a courtesy I will say "clear" a couple of times but if you continue to be unclear, I will stop flowing. I encourage you to slow down for the tag and author but it's fine to speed up in your cards. Try to make distinctions between each arguments with either numbers or a "next". Same with line-by-line.

TOPICALITY/THEORY/K: I think there are better arguments to vote on than topicality but if you have a compelling argument and the aff is clearly in violation, I will vote on it. Same with theory. I'm not super current on the new theory debate or K's but if its run well and is accurate, I will vote on it.

Language is fine, be nice to each other and remember that it's JUST a debate round so while your cards may all say "nuclear war" for everything, I can assure you that the world is not that dramatic :)

kailey --- she/they

nilesnorthcm@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: alex burkman, raman mazhankou, saad khan, or will sterbenc

--------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, i think courts affs prob arent t and i think that deficit spending is

---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 (only go for like...the cap k in front of me)

---disads: underrated asf. econ da is cracked on this topic

---impact turns: mwah but no death good in my rounds please

- 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 include me on the email chain -- I'll 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 or short-hand, some of which I can guarantee I'm not yet familiar with. (As an example, in a recent round, it took me a minute to infer that "a-spec", which I hadn't previously heard of, was just short-hand for "agent specification", with which I'm fairly 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 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.

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.

noahheftman@gmail.com

New Trier Class of 2027

Tech > Truth

Theory is GOOD on both sides

Cap Good

I will vote on T and am probably the best judge you will get if you are running T

I’m not a big fan of identity Ks and believe K affs are untopical

Ks MUST win alts and weigh them versus the AFF, I will be convinced of this easily in round but will still consider K equally if alt is more than just fiating the problem solved or blind revolution

I will vote on anything however if convinced well enough, this is just to tell you where by biases may stand before you choose your arguments

Dropped = True BUT you have to tell me it’s important so I won’t evaluate a dropped argument if the team who ran it didn’t extend it

Don’t yell in cross, be nice

Have camera on if online

Judge instruction in your final speeches in the most important thing in the round, write my ballot for me

I think case turns are great and should be utilized but be sure that you are winning if you go for it and that you understand it fully

Speaks:

+0.1 Speaks if you bring me Lemon Juice (In person)

I will do my best to give speaks only based on in round performance

I believe that Theory and T are legitimate arguments, and if you win them your speaks will be akin to a round won on generally strong debating substance arguments

I will not give below a 27 if you do not do anything that is rude

27 is the baseline

28 is good

29 is great

30 is perfect

Avery Coonley Middle School State:

AFF:

GND: I understand the arguments in this, I don’t need too much explanation but you need to win ALL parts. This is probably the best aff to run with me as your judge as I have ran it and understand the arguments already, however I also understand the flaws so I’ll understand the NEGs arguments on it too.

UBI: I’m much less familiar with this aff but I understand the poverty advantage much more than the gender harm advantage. I’ll require some solid explanations of the arguments in gender harm to vote on it.

Social Security: I have never debated or watched a round in which this has been read and do not know anything about it, I need heavy judge instruction.

NEG:

T:

Regressive: I have minimal experience with this argument but will vote on it if you can prove that regressive taxes are unfair. I will probably only vote on this if it’s dropped though.

Training: I am extremely familiar with this T and actually won on this argument 4 times. However, you MUST convince me that it is a voter and I don’t really want to vote on it unless it’s dropped.

Pensions: I have never seen this argument before and need an explanation, I don’t know enough to provide insight on it so I am a blank canvas to convince. I still will probably not vote on it unless it’s dropped.

DA:

Econ: I am familiar with this argument and understand it well, I don’t need too much explanation for this but you still need to win ALL parts of the argument.

IRS: I am less familiar with this argument but it is critical that you win the link on this argument and remember that it only works if the AFF taxes.

Middle East Relations: I have never seen this disadvantage before, however I have seen many other politics disadvantages and feel I have a solid understanding of politics in the Middle East so just be sure to explain all parts of the argument and again, the link is key.

CP:

States: I completely understand this argument and believe that NEG fiat SHOULD exist but if the AFF can convince me otherwise I will vote on it, remember as well that Econ is NOT a net benefit to the states CP. Be sure to respond well to the perm and how you solve the entire AFF not just a part.

2023-2024 Econ Inequality

Policy vs Policy 6-1 NEG

email: aimanimran1314@gmail.com

please be nice to each other and yourselves

Tabula rasa

-Current 2A/1N at New Trier High School (NT MY, '27). I flow debates so please make sure your spreading is clear.

-Email: 20271063@student.nths.net (please add me to the chain)

-Please do not clip or be racist/sexist/homophobic. Auto L and lowest possible speaks.

-Pronouns: she/her

-Preferences: I really prefer policy arguments over theory and Ks. I'm willing to vote on any argument as long as it is explained and argued well. I'm generally unfamiliar with T, Social Security AFFs, and strange Ks so please make sure to explain them. Previously, I've run GND + FJG AFFs.

-Please make fun of Jacob Weisman/Lindsay Ye (+0.2 speaks) for copying my paradigm.

**General

-Case turns are really useful, so make sure to utilize them if you can

-Dropped arguments are only true if you point them out + why it matters. I will not assume it is true unless you call them out

-If you spread, only go as fast as you can maintain clarity with

-1ARs are super important (maybe even more than 2ARs), if you drop something it's generally too late to pick it back up

-I won't vote for a voter unless it's dropped and extended well by the other team

-please do not drop voters/theory, i do not want to vote on a voter

-I'm not the best judge for weird Ks, so read them at your own risk

**For higher speaks:

-FLOW and show me them/use them in speeches

-do good line by line & respond to arguments in the same order as the other team

-good impact calc & explain why your impacts must be evaluated first in this debate (timeframe, magnitude, probability)

-judge instruction at the top of 2NR/2ARs & give roadmaps

-understand your arguments (depth > breath)

- +0.1 if you bring me boba or make fun of a NT debater

**Speaks

I generally give really high speaks, just please try to be clear and articulate your arguments well. I'd say my baseline is a 28 and I add/subtract from there.

29.5+ = top 5 speaker

28.5+ = top 15 speaker/above average

27.5+ = pretty standard

25+ = below average/offensive

**Opinions

Substance -x------------ T, K, Condo, Theory

Any CP -x------------ Process CPs

20 perms in the 2AC x--------------losing to a process cp

Tech -x------------Truth

Populism! -x------------Diseases!

20270051@student.nths.net — Add me to the email chain :D

Tech > Truth

Dropped + pointed out = True

Give me Judge Instruction please and thank you.

I’m very easily gaslit so just keep trying no matter what happens.

I can probably understand all arguments, just please explain them well.

I’ll try my best to flow but please make everything clear. (Give roadmaps before the speech!)

(Do not do anything against the norm… aka being homophobic, sexist, racist. If you do it’ll result in an auto L and the lowest speaks I can possibly give)

On Arg:

K Affs are silly goofy funny and I enjoy watching them, please just make sure that it’s well explained.

(For the 1A, make sure that you can get through majority of the speech, it is the only speech you have time to practice for in the first place)

CP and DA are standard to me and make the most sense, I will vote on them if the theory argument isn’t explained thoroughly.

Will I vote on T? Yes. I won’t weigh it heavily so just don’t drop it…

I am a blank slate and will do minimal judge intervention, even if it means saying that all out nuclear warfare won’t cause extinction. You’ll just need to convince me.

For Speaks:

I will do my best to give speaks only based on in round performance

I believe that Theory and T are legitimate arguments, and if you win them your speaks will be akin to a round won on generally strong debating substance arguments. (I LOVE theory)

to quote Sofia Yang

-Case turns are really useful, so make sure to utilize them if you can

-Dropped arguments are only true if you point them out + why it matters. I will not assume it is true unless you call them out

-If you spread, only go as fast as you can maintain clarity with

-1ARs are super important (maybe even more than 2ARs), if you drop something it's generally too late to pick it back up

-I won't vote for a voter unless it's dropped and extended well by the other team

-I'm not the best judge for weird Ks, so read them at your own risk[I love K]

**For higher speaks:

-FLOW and show me them/use them in speeches

-do good line by line & respond to arguments in the same order as the other team

-good impact calc & explain why your impacts must be evaluated first in this debate (timeframe, magnitude, probability)

-judge instruction at the top of 2NR/2ARs & give roadmaps

-understand your arguments (depth > breath)

- +0.1 if you bring me boba or make fun of a NT debater [+ any novice team I might know (GBS MM, GBS CA, GBN DW…)]

**Speaks

29.5+ = top 5 speaker

28.5+ = above average/very good

27.5+ = good

26.5+ = below average

25.0+ = offensive

Avery Coonley Middle School State:

Go check out Noah Heftman’s paradigm section for this. We basically have the same understanding.