5th Annual Strake Jesuit Intramural RR
2024 — Houston, TX/US
Lincoln Douglass Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideEmail: Ccbezemek25@mail.strakejesuit.org
Prefs (Arguments)
Favorite - Policy or Larp and Religious arguments
Don’t likes - Dense Ks, Dense Frameworks, and Cap K
I won't vote on ad homs or unproven out of round violations
Overall, run what you want. I will evaluate what you tell me to (within reason).
Please do -
Weigh
Signpost
Speak Clearly
Extend arguments
Link arguments to framework
Explain arguments - presume I know nothing
Weighing (if you don’t give it to me it is very hard to make a decision) - (Ballot order is)
Theory, Framework (K, ROB, and ROJ go here), Case (In that order)
Magnitude (extinction) > every other argument (probability, K args, any other args besides theory) (If no weighing)
Concessions > Args in round (If you weigh your case first I will presume it first or explain why the concession doesn’t matter, but if I am left with a few concessions and a few arguments the concessions will probably influence the ballot) (Spin is still ok though)
No way to tell who wins I will vote Neg (Unless presumption and permissibility affirms)
Speed/Flowing
Send the doc - I may not look at it
I prefer to not look at doc and follow by ear
I will say clear/slow three times and stop flowing
I will flow whatever you say, but if I miss something and you bring it up later I will think it is new and won’t buy it.
I am a really slow flower (my wpm is like 60 so understand that I will miss stuff if you go too fast)
I think debate needs to be focused on how well you speak, so speed and clarity is important
Do nots -
Clip - You will either get an auto lose or terrible speaks
Say arguments that aren’t in your case that you say are/power tag (IE if you claim only 1% of all rocks can be mined, but the evidence says NASA is mining one percent then this is power tagged) (Latter if pointed out unless its egregious)
Bring up new args in late speeches - I won’t buy them, and your speaks will drop. Weighing is ok though
Don’t yell at the opponent in CX
Cuss - You get one cuss word after that I will give you a cap at 26 speaks.
Thoughts
I hate disclosure theory. I will vote on it, but I strongly dislike it.
Defense/I meets is sufficient on theory shells especially if multiple are read.
Tricks are ok, they will probably get you less speaks. I do dislike hidden indexicals or tricks in random tags though.
If someone does something that is bad, then it is their opponents job to explain why it is bad and what the judge should do.
CX is binding. If you lie in CX or dodge questions and bring it up later as a voting issue I will be very skeptical.
Overall, run what you want and I will try to judge it fairly. Presume that I know nothing about the topic or framework you are reading or I can’t evaluate it. If I can’t understand it, then I can’t vote for you.
If both sides agree to a separate activity to decide the round, then they can do that (like a chess game or something)
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
For PF - I have never judged this before. I will just judged off persuasion and argumentation. Being clear, weighing, and explaining will be important. Don’t presume I know the norms for pf like what evidence looks like, extending arguments, or theory.
I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.
I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.
I do not flow off the doc.
Evidence:
- I rarely read evidence after debates.
- Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
- Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
- Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards
Theory:
- I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
- I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
- Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.
Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.
Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".
Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.
Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.
Strake Jesuit ‘26
Rohan Chimata
For the email chain: rrchimata2008@gmail.com
Tech over Truth. I will vote for anything with a claim, warrant, and impact.
You should aim to explain your arguments as well as possible and why that results in a winning ballot.
The more complex/unintuitive an argument is the more explanation is required. I'm willing to vote for most arguments or positions, but it's your job to make it as easy as possible for me to vote on whatever argument you're reading.
I will vote on tricks like eval after x speech but I do prefer more substantive tricky arguments.
I reserve the right to the end round due to ableism or any other form of violence.
1 - Policy, Theory
2 - K
3 - Tricks, Phil
Bad flower. Slow down on pre-written analytics.
Overexplain unintuitive arguments. Concessions aren't a substitute for lack of explanation. Scenarios start at 0.
Bad tricks debate is difficult to sit through. Logic aprioris are fine, "no neg arguments" are not. Extempting tricks is egregious.
I reserve the right to end rounds due to ableism.
Strake Jesuit ‘26
Technical ability to defend an argument precedes the actual truth of said argument. Debate is a technical speaking activity that requires concessions to be taken as truth; however, absent explicit concessions and/or dropped arguments, zero risk and the opposite are extremely difficult to achieve. Despite this, even dropped arguments can and should have their implications debated out. Sweeping claims of anything rarely exist.
Arguments must contain a claim, warrant, and implication to have meaning within a debate round. I have a low threshold for a warrant: anything except self-proclaimed truths. However, subpar arguments and warrants require equally subpar arguments or warrants to answer. Additionally, arguments that contravene basic understanding will generally require extreme amounts of warranting and explanation. I will only evaluate arguments and/or issues discussed within the speaking times, written on my flow, and explained and implicated to my understanding; nothing else is a factor in my decision.
Debate is a game.
Strake Jesuit '25
Email: shahqdebate@gmail.com
Please set up email chain before round
I'll vote on anything. That being said, all I ask of you is to be clear when you extend stuff and extend a warrant. I really don't want to have to not buy a good argument just because you never extended a warrant, so please don't put me in that position. Conceded arguments have lower thresholds for extension and I will not vote on arguments that do not have warrants or arguments I do not understand. This should go without saying, but weigh, signpost, and slow down on analytics.
Explain arguments as if I didn't know the topic. Be explicit with why I should vote for you and write my ballot for me.
In Depth:
Tech > Truth, 99.9% of the time.
Pref Shortcut:
Theory/Policy - 1
Tricks - 2
Phil - 3
K - 4/strike
Speaks:
Probably not gonna go under 28.
I evaluate speaks on strategy.
Defaults:
These can be changed.
-DTD
-Competing Interps
-No RVIs
-Fairness/Education Are Voters
-Comparative Worlds
-Permissibility/Presumption Negate (Presumption goes to the side of least change if the 2NR does not defend the squo)
-Util
Non negotiables
- I won't evaluate arguments that tell me to change the times of speeches
- I won't "evaluate after x speech" if you are reading it in "x" speech.
- I won't evaluate ad-homs or out of round practices that don't pertain to the round.
- Poorly ran tricks will lower speaks.
- Compiling the doc is prep, sending is not.
- Warrants for spikes must be extended even if conceded.
- Answer cx questions.
For No Limits:
You can ignore stuff below this if it doesn't all make sense. Just try your best and have these rounds to improve your abilities for the season.
Strake Jesuit ‘26
My role is to avoid intervention and evaluate the debate in front of me. Do not try and over-adapt, do what you do best. And, most importantly, have fun and be nice and respectful to each other!
SBRubinstein26@mail.strakejesuit.org - add me to the email chain. Speechdrop or file share is cool too, just agree with your opponent.
Quick Prefs -
Policy - 1
K - 2
Phil - 2
Theory/T - 2/3
Tricks - 3
Misc -
Tech>Truth, but truth/intuitiveness of an argument makes it easier to win.
Every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact.
Won’t vote on anything that is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
You need some sort of overview to explain the position, but it can never substitute for good line-by-line.
Judge instruction>>>> - Don’t leave me to decide how I should frame and evaluate the debate, tell me how you are winning and how I should view the debate.
Extend the aff properly - 1AR extensions have become extremely blippy which doesn’t really make sense since that’s usually where most of your offense comes from.
Please signpost.
I’m okay at flowing, so make sure to clearly differentiate between taglines and cards.
Not voting on anything that occurred outside of the round except disclosure. (No ad homs)
I’ll give the 2AR a lot of leeway given many new 2NR claims/evidence that isn’t directly responsive to the 1AR. Similarly, a 2AR that makes a 1 line, usually underwarranted, response into 2 minutes of in depth analysis probably doesn’t get these completely new extrapolations.
I reserve the right to not evaluate any argument that either a] isn’t on my flow or b] I don’t understand as per the debater’s explanation.
Split 2NRs/2ARs make the debate super messy and it’ll be much harder for me to vote for you.
I’ll read evidence if you flag it, and I need it to evaluate a key part of the round.
Haven’t really thought about evidence ethics, so I’ll directly refer to NSDA/tournament policy if the round is staked, but I really prefer you don’t.
Most things below this are opinions and can be changed through the correct arguments.
Policy -
Most importantly, weigh - whoever’s impacts come prior usually wins the round.
Assume I don’t know the acronyms and terms for each topic - even if I do, this is a good practice to follow.
Impact turns are cool.
A disad 2nr needs some sort of case defense and/or reasons why the disad turns and outweighs the case.
I default functional and textual competition.
I default to no judgekick because it probably isn’t great due to the nature of LD speech times but it's cool if you justify it.
Creative perms are underutilized against cheaty CPs.
K -
On the neg -
Framework, floating PIKs, alt solves case, etc. cannot appear out of nowhere in the 2NR, and justifies new 2AR responses if it is.
Don’t assume I know the literature base that you are reading from - just explain it.
Slow down on extensions of complicated theories - too many debaters get away with quickly spreading through their extension of their thesis claim with no time for anyone to process or understand how it interacts with the rest of the debate.
Kicking the alt is fine, just explain how I should evaluate the debate.
Love examples to support the thesis.
On the aff -
I’d prefer if you give a role for negation and why debate/the ballot/competition matters for your position, and potentially a counter-model of debate that doesn’t rely on impact turning everything.
Have some sort of identifying plan text if you don’t defend the topic. I’ve seen affs that just hint at an issue or discuss some sort of course of action/advocacy without defending it or else it’ll be really easy to justify presumption.
Phil -
Presumption and permissibility negate unless argued otherwise.
I’ll be very happy in an in-depth comparative debate between two different frameworks, conversely spamming independent justifications will make me annoyed and make the debate irresolvable.
Probably somewhat familiar with whatever you read, but that shouldn’t substitute explanation.
A lot of offense people read is pretty bad. (Take advantage of that)
Default epistemic confidence - modesty doesn’t seem to make very much sense, but please explain how I should evaluate and weigh the round if you do read it.
Theory/T -
Default competing interps, dta unless incoherent, and no RVIs.
Norm setting vs in round abuse is underrated.
Weighing is the best way to get my ballot in these debates. Weighing between different shells is extremely underutilized beyond the generic “1AR theory first because 4-6-3” such as why the abuse affects every round and the entire debate like disclosure over things like CP theory. Fairness vs education and weighing between standards is great and useful also.
No such thing as frivolous theory - the worse the shell, the more intuitive the responses should be.
Caselists are awesome to prove real abuse.
Tricks -
I can evaluate these just fine, I just won’t be very happy judging a bad tricks round with floating a prioris with little interaction or understanding of what's going on.
Be upfront about them please.
Make the round clean by the end of the debate and clearly layer arguments.
Speaks -
I’ll try to average around a high 28 to a 29.
Speaks are based on strategy, technical ability, and clarity.
If I have to clear you more than twice within a minute, slow down so I at least catch something.
Please be nice to novices or someone who you are clearly better than i.e., no more than 3 offs, make the round educational, etc. I’ll reward with better speaks.
No Limits: Try you best and have fun!
Please ignore everything below this if you're a beginner. Thanks! I take most of my debate beliefs from Tyvan Vo and Graham Erickson.
Strake Jesuit Class of 2026
SBValladolid26@mail.strakejesuit.org
Quick Prefs -
Policy - 1
Theory/T - 2
K - 2/3
Phil-3
Tricks - 4
I think Ian Ngo's paradigm adequately sums up my thoughts on this whole "judging" thing
15 Bids in LD
Won Emory, Texas, and TFA State. Broke at TOC 3x.
2 Gold Bids in PF
nwei24@mail.strakejesuit.org
Read mostly pseudo-topical Asian K affs, Set Col, Theory, Phil, Impact Turns, and Process CPs.
I reward innovative strategies and positions.
I consider myself to be a flex debater.
K debaters should pref me if they are highly technical.
Probably a quarter of my K Aff rounds ended up being a 1AR restart.
In policy debates, risk starts at 0 and goes up. My bar for warrants are high.
Comfortable with advanced counterplan competition.
No such thing as friv theory.