IDCA NoviceJV State Tournament
2025 — Winnetka, IL/US
Novice Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI competed for Solorio (policy) for 4 years and currently compete for Illinois State University (LD). Basically, I been around for 7 years.
Add me to the email chain: flowerfranco444@gmail.com
Arguments and preferences-
I love k debate. Was I a K debater? No, Conor Cameron wouldn't let me be one. Live out my dreams for me.
Cap- Is probably the root cause to every issue. That doesn't mean I'm always going to vote for it. If you read this you need to have a very specfic alt. Movements and revolutions is way to vague and gets you no where in the round.
Also, I am a product of Conor so I believe that cap is sustainable. Do what you will with this information.
CPs- Love them, they should be in every 1nc. Consult and process CPs aren't the most persuasive but I'm not against them. I prefer agent CPs and advantage CPs. In terms of answering- don't read a billion perms, perm do both is fine unless you explain the other perms in detail.
T- Hate it<3. Kidding, I only hate it if you use it as a time skew. Only read T if you intend on going for it OR are literally put at a disadvantage in the round/aff is untopical. Education> fairness. Debate is an educational activity, if you're not learning, wyd?
Theory-I don't love it<3but its fine if it makes sense. I will not give you a cheap win for it.
K-I was a K debater in my past life. I like K's but explain them!!! Don't just use old blocks and random K lingo that doesn't actually say anything. If you believe in your K, chances are I will too. With that being said, be intentional with what's in your 1nc.
Performance- If you have music playing in the background, explain why it's there. The more I see performance rounds the more I love it. It is so different from traditional debate and I think it is refreshing.
DAs-Should be in every 1nc. Disad turns case>>>>>>
K affs-Not totally experienced in them, willing to listen and learn. If it makes sense to the topic- go for it! If its a K aff that is around every year, try to connect it to the topic as much as possible because I'm less likely to vote for it.
If ur rude in round, ew+u lose+ur automatically ugly.
Email - mcallaghan4@cps.edu
Maddie Callaghan (she/her) LT debate
I would like to be added to the chain.
I will stop the round if you are offensive, it's in everyone's paradigm like cmon now. If I perceive in round bullying, it will be automatic loss and a contact to tab. I also really hate when I see someone acting like they are the best debater in the world and think that they will win the round automatically bc of how they are or what team they are, if I see any of that entitlement I will dock your speaks.
I'll vote on anything it it is explained enough to win the round. But like tbh debate is supposed to be fun so don't stress too much.
- extend args
- Line by line - AND PLS SIGN POST
- Clash ie impact calc sometimes makes or breaks a debate
- Judge instruction
- Be clear and concise
Clarity > Speed
DAs
i've ran my fair share of DAs. have an o/v. explain the DA story - impacting, tell me WHY I should vote for this story
T
make sure that you clash and go in depth with args. I hate T debates that don't actually do anything and people only use it cus they think that it's an automatic K/O.
Ks
do them well pls, I love Ks and are my favorite arg so pls pls pls
If you make me laugh I'll raise speaker points depending on how funny the joke is
If you also show me your flows after the debate I will raise your speaks depending on how well written and organized they are
In accordance with guidance from my employer, please use speechdrop. If not use: ecamdebate@gmail.com
Gbn '26.
Tech > truth. I can be persuaded most anything is true, but technical concessions are only relevant in so far as they are explained in relation to my ballot.
Flow. On paper...
Try and send out the 1AC before the round.
I don't want to hear my name or "judge" in your speeches.
Don't steal prep.
Don't clip.
Death is bad.
Chat GPT. You can use it to figure out what's going on in the debate. That's what it's for. What you should not do is ask it to make a 2AC for you and then copy and paste it. It's both annoying and usually incorrect in how it answers arguments. If I see another Chat GPT paragraph copy and pasted speaks are capped at 28.5.
If the aff reads a kritikal aff that does not defend the USfg strengthening IPR then the neg may do whatever they like the rest of the debate and will win regardless.
Zero risk is certainly possible. Some things are "yes/no" and some are probabilistic.
Please ask me questions after the round.
gbn ‘26 she/her
add me to the email chain (ecatdebate@gmail.com) or use speech drop, i don't have a preference.
FOR ONLINE DEBATES:do not start until my camera is on. if my camera is off, i'm not ready!
flow. it'll help you, i promise. line by line is important to do in a debate.
clarity > speed. if i do not understand you, i will say "clear". i would rather you get qualitative arguments across to me rather than mumbling something no one can understand just to "be fast".
PLEASE give a roadmap and signpost!! it is really helpful for the other team and the judge with flowing (ask me if you don’t know what that is).
start on time and time your own speeches and prep time---it'll boost your speaker points.
feel free to ask questions about my decision or about debate in general.
good luck!
please put me on the chain! - amcalden@gmail.com
Assistant Coach at Niles West
5 years at Baylor
4 years at Caddo Magnet
prep ends when document sent
In general i'm fine for you to do whatever you want to do. I've read and coached both policy and K things from variety of literature basis so do what you do best and I'm sure to enjoy it! Please don't be overly aggressive, rude, or dismissive of your opponents or speaker points will reflect it
if a timer isn't running you should not be prepping.
if the aff isn't clearly extended in the 1AR i will not give you the 2AR case rants
Framework v K affs: More of an uphill battle given the arguments i predominately read and coached but fairness is an internal link to the integrity of debate which still requires you to win the value of maintaining debate as it currently exists. Clash is by far the most persuasive standard, TVA's don't need to solve the entire aff if there are framing arguments in place or additional tools such as switch side debate to deal with what it doesn't solve, examples of ground, either lost or enabled is helpful on both sides!
K: Links to the plan are nice but not necessary, Alts don't have to solve the link if they are able to avoid them and solve the aff. I do not think you need an alt to win a debate if you have the appropriate framing tools however I need instruction on what to do with offense related to the alternative in a world you are not extending it.
CPs: Comparison between deficits/net benefits is key, can be persuaded for or against "cheating" counterplans, solvency advocates are preferred but not needed if pulling lines from the aff.
DAs: Nothing incredibly innovative to say here! I enjoy internal link comparison, and speaker points will reflect great impact debateing
Theory: Condo is fine, argumentative tension is okay but can be convinced on contradictions being bad.
Allie (she/her)
Niles north ‘26
T/L
Engaging in any of the isms - racism, sexism, homophobia, all the phobias will result in an auto L and the lowest speaks possible.
Please give a roadmap, "off the flow" is not a roadmap.
Make sure you actually understand your arguments well enough to explain them by yourself.
Time your speeches and prep.
Please do impact calc.
Aff
Novices should not be reading k affs. I hate them so much.
DAs
Love politics DAs. Tell me why the impacts outweigh.
CPs
Judge kick if you tell me to. A lot of CPs aren’t competitive so extend perms.
T
Explain why your interp is better for debate. If you’re going for it, it should be 5 minutes of the 2NR.
I don’t like ASPEC.
Ks
I’m fine with Ks but don’t assume I know your argument. Have clear framework and explain the link.
I did 3 years of policy debate at GBN (1999-2002). Currently a social studies teacher at GBN, who has also taught PF/LD. I have coached LD/PF and Speech Impromptu and Extemp. I will need you to slow down and take the time to explain your arguments. Avoid jargon, assume I know nothing about the topic. I'll do my best to make the correct decision, but prefer me at your own risk.
Andrew Greene
He/Him
Maine East '26
Add me to the email chain: apgdebate@gmail.com
Top-level for novices:
Most importantly, clash with your opponent's arguments. The easier it is to connect your arguments to your opponent's arguments on my flow, the cleaner the debate will be, and your speaker points will increase as a result. Don't run anything you don't understand. I advise you to go for 1 strategy in the 2NR. For every additional argument/strategy in the 2NR, the ballot gets more and more difficult for you to win. Finally, extend and apply the warrants for cards, please don't restate the tag. Contextualize everything in the final rebuttals in the scope of the debate. Do impact calculus, and explain how a dropped argument implicates each flow and my ballot.
I will dock speaker points significantly for AI-generated blocks/analytics.
Everything else:
Tech>Truth: I can be convinced of pretty much any well-explained argument during a debate round.
Case turns/disadvantages:
Both are underutilized, but both require substantive impact calculus. For disadvantages, the link debate is crucial. Both teams should spend significant amounts of time here. Absent a clear winner on the uniqueness claim, the risk of the link will implicate the impact calculus significantly.
Counterplans:
I thoroughly enjoy counterplan debates. After evaluating perms/competition and theory, I will weigh the net benefit against the solvency deficit(s). Sufficiency framing doesn't make sense to me in the slightest. If you manage to provide a concrete definition and justification for it, I will frame the counterplan through sufficiency. As a 2N, the counterplan is by far my most used 2NR strategy, and am very willing to listen to debates over nuanced competition or counterplan theory. Always great for perm theory too. I won't judge kick.
Kritiks:
I have rarely run kritiks, but I don't underestimate their strategic value. Framework usually has the most impact on my ballot. If the 2NR is a kritik, win framework or have a very good reason why you win under the alternative interpretation. The more specific the link is to the aff, the better. A specific link utilized correctly can put you ahead on impact calculus, perm debates, and debates about the alternative. I find it harder to evaluate a K with no alternative extended into the 2NR, absent an independent voter.
Topicality:
I think it's an underused strategy. 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 your standards matter and how that plays into a specific round. I rarely see why winning plan text in a vacuum should affect my decision, so explain why it should. I believe It's best as the sole 2NR strategy.
Theory:
I enjoy theory debates, and I don't believe proving in-round abuse is crucial for winning my ballot. Whether or not theory is "a voting issue" is up for debate and I don't think it belongs in my paradigm. That being said, always try to contextualize abuse in the round at stake. I think theory is useful as a strategy or just to bog down the opponent's speech time.
Speaker points:
Dos:
-Do what you do best
-Make debates interesting
-Keep debate fun
-Keep the flows organized
-Give me judge instruction/impact calculus
-Go off the flow
-Speak clearly (I'll give you more leniency if what you're reading is in the speech doc)
Don'ts:
-Don't end speeches/CX early
-Don't card dump for no reason (do impact calc instead!)
-Don't express anger toward your partner or your opponent
-Don't say, "They dropped x y and z arguments so vote aff/neg" (contextualize them in the round)
I'm a fourth-year debater. My pronouns are she/her/hers, they/them/theirs, and e/em/eirs
I'm an anarchist.
if you misgender me or others consistently or otherwise make debaters uncomfortable, I'm likely to consider docking speaks, if it's clearly making someone uncomfortable, I will stop the round
I love answering questions about concepts or arguments after the round if you want tips after my RFD!
FW
I'm not particularly partial to framework that demands USFG action as the limit of aff discussion. K affs are a solidly predictable entity within debate, if you must go for framework, handle the case, and I'd advise a TVA. Aff offense on fw is best addressed via case answers and providing a model that allows the aff some way to win.
Predictability is not really a viable internal link argument when there are previews
Limits is an ok internal link to fairness I guess Absent a reason why the limits imposed by the neg's interp are the best model, assume I think your interp is arbitrary in the face of a counter-interp that creates a comparable amount of ground
Aff should have a counter interpretation for fw that provides some model of debate I can actually picture. I'm open-minded as long as you can manage line-by-line on the flow (I default to "neg interpretation plus our aff" if the neg cant answer "no in round abuse")
Ks
This here is the double-edged sword of me as a judge, I understand the K rather well, and I'm likely already familiar with whatever you might run. The good news is this means you don't need to simplify for my sake, and I'm going to pay attention to the nuances of the theory. The bad news is I will hold you to a somewhat elevated standard. If you make a claim that's counter to your thesis, I won't miss it as easily as others. Generic links are ok as long as you can contextualize them to the implementation of the affirmative. Plan links are advised but not required. If you want me to kick the alt, tell me, same goes for treating links as disads to the plan.
Being a prospective philosophy major, I'm familiar with a lot of authors outside of debate, and will likely come in with some understandings on popular K authors beyond their use in debate, keep that in mind. Cultural theories of race, class, and gender, metaphysics, and anarchism are my main interests
My favorite 3 authors are Francois Laruelle, Fred Moten, and Andrew Culp
KvK
These debates often disappoint me, not bc I don't like them but because there's almost always more that could have been said.
I encourage Ks as the neg against K affs, but I want to see both teams dig into the scholarship, beyond that I'm a blank slate here.
Actually, wait... the one thing I do find hard to vote on is cap Ks saying "We need to use state institutions" alongside T-USFG. Trying to turn Marxism into a reformist replacement for radical thought is a hard sell for me.
T
Ok so I think T is fine, it's probably arbitrary in the face of previews, but I think ground is the main voter by default
If you're planning on T for your 2NR strat I should have some way of expecting that by the end of the block
Reasonbilty vs Precision is a fun debate
Competing Interps are good, but I can budge there
Counterplans
Delay CPs are bad
Process CPs are ok as long as you can explain how it's not the aff
Agent and Adv CPs are probably the best choices for winning theory with me
2NC CPs are only for answering 2ac addons or new impact scenarios, however, if you need to clarify the CP text in the 2nc I'll entertain it if you can provide some justification
Ill be honest I dont know how UQ CPs work so if you're going to go into that debate please be clear and concise
GBN '26 she/her
Use speech drop. It's the easiest.
Be nice, flow, have a good time
Speak clearly because if I don't understand you I can't evaluate your arguments. I will say "clear" if I can't understand you -- clarity is far more important than speed
impact calc and framing are super important
-- your 2nr/2ar should tell me what I'm voting on and why. basically think of it as writing my ballot for me
Try your best to learn from what you are doing-- try to understand what you are saying (we've all said things that we don't understand, this is the time to learn from it)
Try your best and have a good time
Anu Khishore
she/her
Glenbrook South High School '26
put me on the email chain: 266314@glenbrook225.org
Teams that embrace clash will be rewarded with speaks. The point of novice year is to learn about the mechanics of good debate. Reading down your varsity's blocks, relying solely on outspreading your opponents, and other tricks will not help you become a better debater.
Things to get good speaks:
---show me your flows after the round. On paper. If they are good, +.1 speaks
---give your final rebuttal speeches off the flow
---know your arguments. sound confident in cross-ex!
---line by line (answer every argument on a flow in the order it was presented)
--- judge instruction (tell me why I'm voting for you in your last speech)
---impact calc (why do your impacts matter more than the other team's?)
Stuff you should do if you want terrible speaks:
---be condescending in cross-ex.
---yell. the only person you're making look stupid is yourself.
---steal prep.
---not timing your speeches and prep time.
---speak super fast to the point where nobody knows what you are saying.
---set up the email chain after the round is supposed to have started.
---clipping.
K-affs. If you're a novice, you probably shouldn't be reading one.
Ks. If you're a novice, you should probably stick to the cap k.
Post rounding:
Do it. Judges should be held accountable for their decisions. You should leave the round understanding the RFD, regardless of how you feel about it.
zucie lopez (they/she)
solorio'23 -> isu'27
add me to the email chain pls!
i competed for solorio in high school. i'm currently not debating in college.
i'm not familiar with this years topic so try to explain your arguments ( not only does it help me but also lets me know that you know what you're talking about)
be respectful. there is no reason to be rude to other people in the round. i DO NOT allow homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc. any form of discrimination will result is automatic loss.
GBS '25
Debate as you'd like, tech>truth
Email Chain: The Round must use the in tabroom, or similar, to share files as this is safer for you & me :)
speechdrop.net is easy to use. Use this if the tabroom share isn't setup.
Debate Experience
I've never debated. If you want detailed analysis of your speeches and in round decisions I am not your judge.
"Coaching" Experience
Philips Academy- Chicago, IL 2010-2012
*I was a second adult.
Kenwood Academy- Chicago, IL 2014-present
*My main focus is coaching and supporting the novices (and driving the bus). If you're planning to run a strategy far outside something that a generic novice packet would include and a novice would be able to understand I likely won't either... Just because my team runs K Affs doesn't mean I understand what they are doing.
**If you are going to try to argue that Racism or any of the isms doesn't exist or isn't that bad then I'm probably not going to vote for you. I try to go in neutral but I can't completely divorce the round from what I believe to be true about the systems of the world and our society (which include racism, sexism, etc..)**
I want to hear clash and a good demonstration of understanding from the AFF and NEG (if you're reading a card you should understand and be able to explain it - especially in R speeches. basically "why is this argument or evidence important". I find I give slightly more leniency to the negative in terms of understanding especially for novice debaters, but, Affs you chose the case so you should know and understand your own cards and plan.
Good signposting is so important to me and really helps me to flow arguments and not waste time trying to figure out which flow you've moved on to.
I'm always looking for good impact calc and a good solid explanation of why your team wins over the other. "they dropped x-y&z" often isn't good enough for me- why were those arguments essential for them to win and without them they have now in your interpretation lost the round.
I'm okay with spreading as long as I can understand what you're saying. don't just assume because you sent out the cards that you can blur all of your words together. If I can't confidently flow it then I wont and it wont be part of my decision. For novice debaters it is often helpful to slow down for the tags. sign posting and a clear roadmap are also essential to a well organized debate. (it might not be normal but I love when debaters give the name of their offs in the 1NC- just helps me stay organized).
please run your own timer
You don't have to ask to take prep, it is your prep, use it! just make sure you don't steal prep.
Racism, bigotry, homo/transphobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia, or hatred towards a group is never acceptable and I will give the win to the other team almost automatically.
Be respectful and assume best intent from your opponents.
natalie nguyen (uiuc '28)
she/ her pronouns
hard of hearing (please speak up during speeches and cx)
for other inquiries & email chains (if we are not using speechdrop/ tab share): natalienguyen4311@gmail.com
ex debater & ex head captain at von steuben, was a stand-in coach during '22-'23 season
was a finalist for naudl's doty for 2024 which was really cool
debated policy '20-'24, judging since '21 (hs & ms)
taught by my goat victoria yonter
see me in person? come say hi!
my baseline rules/ things i do:
> any type of bigotry (absolutely not acceptable)
> being rude to either judge(s) or the opposing team (speaker points docked)
> i time speeches on my end. i'm pretty punctual on speech times, so i will cut you off if time is up. for hs (jv + varsity), time yourself for prep!
> i will flow cx, but that is mainly just for my note-taking.
> i'm a tech > truth kinda person
> quality of cards > quantity of cards
> call me judge or natalie, i don't care (i feel old either way)
argument prefs:
aff/ case: extend advs! i like hearing more about them. in the case of k-affs, i love them! please make sure to be clear about the rob and advocacy/ solution.
da: i like da's, but usually they're indifferent to me if not properly extended. usually tend not to vote for them tbh.
cp: i'd only really vote for cp's if properly explained. they are not my favorite offcase and i tend to not vote for it because they are poorly extended. please explain them clearly if you are running it. for process cps, i often do not vote for them.
t: as much as i say that i dislike t, i consider it very important and will consider it in my ballot. you have to win on all five factors of t to get me to vote. i am also a big person on the idea that hard debate is good debate, so take that as you will.
k: big fan of, yes! i am familiar with common k's (cap k, identity k's), but outside of that, please make sure to really push it. love a GOOD cap k.
framework: fw fw fw! easily can get me to vote for you if you have a strong FW debate.
specifics off the top of my head:
> i genuinely cannot control my face so if i make a weird face please ignore me.
> i am a big person on urban schools/ small schools impact. i personally came from a hs where we barley had a debate program (or at the minimum, a very small functioning one) until my senior year in hs. this is something that i will vote for if articulated properly.
> i'm a good judge for anything lgbt and racial theory, nuclear infrastructure, nuclear war, environmental racism, nato, arms/ weaponry, socialism + communism, american interventionism + war & climate change related. (can you tell i study history)
> i think that larger scale arguments about education good or education bad are great. think about what you take away from this debate round out side of debate, how it shapes you in learning and as a person, what this can bring upon, etc. same feelings towards the debate space is good/ debate space is bad. being critical about the space you exist and move in is crucial for education.
if you are wondering about something that is not listed here, feel free to ask! this is just quick thoughts and i can go into depth if needed.
Glenbrook South 26'
she/her
Please call me by my name, not judge!
email chain -> audreyreiddebates@gmail.com
*****
the stuff you really want to know :
- Line by Line!! Line by Line!! Please do it!!
-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
- I'm 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.
*****
other things that you should know :
- Don't steal prep, its not cool.
- Stand facing me, not the other team when speaking, same during cx
- Speak clearly
- PLEASE DO NOT READ 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 significantly.
gbn '26
Use speechdrop if you can, its a tournament rule.
If you use an email chain, my email: Joseph.rozenblat@gmail.com
I'll vote for anything if tabroom lets me.
Arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact.
Flow.
gbn '26
1n/2a
Use speechdrop.net or Tabrooms speech share if available, if not, ill give you my email in round.
Be a good person, don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, ect.
call me judge/aidan/whatever you want
Debate Things
Please answer any argument the other team makes, even if it is small don't forget to answer. Flowing may help with this. Flowing will help with this
Make sure to explain any arguments you are going for clearly, I am fine with most debate arguments, just be sure to articulate what type of world you are advocating for to make it easier to vote for you.
Answer condo
Use the block effectively, don't just use the 1nr to waste the affs time, make sue the 2n is fine going for any argument read in the block because anything could be extended to win.
he/him
GBN '26
Just call me Andrew. "Judge" is fine too. Automatic zero speaks if you decide to call a high schooler "Mr. Yim."
This is unorthodox, but please don't use email chains if I'm in the back of the room. Use Tabroom's built-in share feature or speechdrop.net instead. If you can't use them, my email is andrewyimdebate@gmail.com.
Don't be -ist or -phobic.
Top-level
- Speaks are generally 28.5-29.5, with exceptions in both directions.
- Asking me questions after the round is good and strongly encouraged. Monopolizing the time or being rude about it is not. Remember that there are three other debaters in the room who a) might have questions themselves, and b) will be extremely uncomfortable if you start screaming.
- Punctuality matters. The 1AC should be sent out before the round starts.
- If you say something silly, I will probably make a face. If you notice that and audibly backtrack, I'll be very impressed and reward you with speaks.
- Flow! (More about that in the clash section.)
- Disclosure is good! If you have a reasonably up-to-date wiki and tell me, I'll give you speaks.
- Clipping is bad. Read every tag, cite, and highlighted word in your document.
- I am very proactive about striking new arguments. If you're going to say something new,justify it.
- If you do something trolly and it blows up in your face, I will have zero sympathy. "There's no wipeout double-turn because we never actually said we solve extinction" get out of my face.
- If anything about this paradigm confuses you or you're curious about my judging preferences, feel free to ask before the round starts!
Impacts
You can go for whatever impacts you want. Pre-fiat, post-fiat, extinction, structural, I don't care. I do care that you explain why your impact is more important than the other team's. A terrible impact with great framing/impact calc will usually beat a great impact with terrible framing/impact calc.
Speaking
- I flow by ear. If I can't understand what you're saying, I'll say "clear." Besides that, go as fast as you want.
- I should probably test this more, but I don't think mumbling makes you very much faster. I think speaking clearly feels a lot slower than it actually is. But I'm not entirely sure.
Clash
Argumentative interaction ("clash") is better than reading blocks straight down. The more you clash, the more likely I am to vote for you.
Good clash involves:
- Answering every argument on a page.
- Explaining why your arguments, warrants, evidence quality, etc. should be preferred over the other side's.
- Contextualizing the blocks you read to this specific debate.
A good sign that you are performing good clash is that you are answering arguments in the same order they were presented. ("Arguments" as in arguments within a page - you can order the flows however you want.)
Flowing is a prerequisite to good clash. If you show me your flow after the round & before I give my decision, I will give you both feedback and speaks!
--------------------------------
Arguments
- Argumentative innovation and creativity are fun. That can mean whole new affs or off, but it can also mean smaller things like well-thought-out analytics, perms, interpretations, etc. The more fun the round is, the more liberal I'm likely to be with speaks.
Theory
- I think it's underused. Theory is the best answer to a lot of off and should not be ignored.
- "Reject the argument, not the team" is only a new argument if it's new in the 2AR or the other team has a good justification for something being a VI.
- The more specific your theory arguments are, the more likely I am to vote on them.
- If the other team asks for "reasons to reject the team" in cross, you don't have to list reasons to reject the argument. That's their fault for asking a bad question.
Case
- Do whatever you want, I don't really care.
- I think K affs are fine in front of me? We'll see as the season goes on.
T
- You need an interp/CI. You should probably have a card for it.
- Bonus speaks if you get the other team to concede "in means in" in cross.
- I have a soft spot for T as a way to get links/competition. It's unstrategic but funny.
CPs
- Space out your perms. I'm not going to catch five in a row, and I'm not going back to your doc if I miss one.
- Reading multiple perms with the same strategic utility is a waste of time.
- Clever perms will be rewarded.
- Judgekick and sufficiency are my defaults.
Ks
- The less generic these debates get, the more invested I'll be. 18 minutes of blocks from either side is fundamentally uninteresting. Creative framework interps, specific links/link turns, detailed alt/perm debates, strategic cross-applications, etc. are great ways to convince me to vote for you.
- I think clash is a better aff strategy than fairness when debated well, but also that good clash debate is pretty involved, so the best strategy depends on how much you're investing into framework. If and only if you win framework, I have a low bar for rejecting non-material links. If you lose framework, you better have a dang good defense of your reps.
DAs
- You need case defense if you're going for a DA. Case proper, CPs, and DA-turns-case are all fine. If you have zero defense, it'll probably be hard to outweigh the case.
- I have a soft spot for overstretch DAs. That doesn't mean they're good.
Aspec
- This probably shouldn't get its own section, but it does.
- Hidden aspec probably gets cross-applications and maybe even new arguments. Aspec on its own flow needs to be answered in the 2AC.
- Aspec at its best has both 1NC and 2AC cards. The words "Mandel 17" are never uttered in aspec at its best.
--------------------------------
Quirks
- I am an unabashed Swifte and ABBA fan. References/funny jokes about either will probably get some speaks.
- Outside of debate, I also enjoy math and programming. Ditto above, though I'm not sure how many math/programming jokes exist.
- Apologies if I drop a pen in the middle of your speech.
Quotes (roughly alphabetically)
- Akhil Sheth: "+0.1 speaks if you make fun of Emma Lee or Kristin Cho" (or Akhil Sheth)
- Emina Catic: "don't be afraid to make mistakes or try something new, we've all been in the same exact spot you've been in :)"
- Emma Lee: "please don't read something that you don’t understand at all"
- Ethan Camp: "don’t expect me to vote on dropped severance perms are a voter."
- Faiz Fatehali: "clipping is bad"
- Joe Rozenblat: "Don't make me vote on presumption."
- Kristin Cho: "debate is supposed to be fun, so please don’t make the round terrible to participate in."
- Liana Malishkevich: "novice year is to get used to how debate works. don’t get so upset about losing."
- Liora Kalinovskiy: "we've all said things that we don't understand, this is the time to learn from it"
- Matthew Ciancanelli: "HAVE FUN."
- Miao Sun: "I'm not that old."
- Mihika Pandit: "theres a difference between being smart and knowing your arguments (being confident) and being rude and derogatory and I will probably make a face if I see you doing the latter"
- Michael Greenstein: "flow"
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)
Warrant out your arguments, extend your best arguments probably, if they dropped something point it out, point everything out probably, tell me how to vote in your rebuttals.