Tabroom.com

Sunvite

2025 — Davie, FL/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Brian Becker Creekside High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 20, 2024 at 5:53 PM EDT

Paradigm Statement

Philosophy: In my view, formal debate is not so much about performance and rhetorical appeals (especially pathos), as it is a simple clash of ideas. Arguments are put forward in a consistent manner and are defended through the use of factual supporting evidence and logical reasoning. I abhor “spreading” (the rapid delivery of arguments) and “kritiks” (critiques of underlying assumptions). Neither demonstrate a command of the topic nor respect for the opponents and judges. I expect substantive engagement with the topic and the development of persuasive arguments.

Evaluation Criteria:

Engagement with the Topic: Debaters should demonstrate a thorough understanding of the debate topic and construct arguments that directly address its nuances and complexities. I expect teams to engage with the central issues presented by the resolution and provide relevant evidence and analysis to support their positions.

Defense of Position: Effective debaters should present clear, well-supported arguments that defend their assigned position on the topic. I value the ability to construct logical frameworks, provide compelling evidence, and anticipate and respond to opposing arguments. Debaters should focus on building a coherent case that strengthens their position throughout the debate.

Rebuttal: While I acknowledge the importance of rebuttal in challenging opposing arguments, I prioritize the quality over the quantity of responses. Debaters should focus on challenging each point raised by their opponents and offering substantive refutations supported by evidence. I will award points for effective rebuttal that directly undermines the opposing case and reinforces the strength of the debater's position. Any contention made by the affirmative that is not refuted will result in a point for the affirmative.

Additional Considerations:

Rate of delivery: As I previously mentioned, I do not like the rapid delivery of arguments (“spreading”). I typically write down key arguments and find that I can’t keep up when debaters’ rate of delivery is faster than an average speed of conversation. I will miss key arguments and will not be able to award points in a debater’s favor.

Complexity: Critiques of the premise (“kritiks”) run counter to my philosophy of debate, and I will award all unchallenged contentions as points to the affirmative if the premise is critiqued.

Clarity and Substance: Debaters should never assume the judge is familiar with the topic but should instead communicate their arguments in a manner that is readily understandable by the general public. “Signposting” (the practice of explicitly stating the main points of an argument before or after presenting them) really help in case I miss some contentions as I actively “flow” (note take) the debate. Clear articulation and evidence-based reasoning presented in a logical, sequential manner are essential for persuading an audience.

Fairness and Sportsmanship: I expect debaters to conduct themselves with integrity, respect, and sportsmanship throughout the debate. Adherence to established rules and guidelines, as well as mutual respect for opposing viewpoints, are essential for fostering a constructive and productive debate environment.

Final Decision: My decision will be based on the quality of arguments presented by the affirmative, the effectiveness of defense and rebuttal, and the overall engagement with the topic. As a newer debate judge, I tend to fall in line with traditional (“trad”) judges and will prioritize substance and relevance in my evaluation.

Garrett Bishop Cypress Bay High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 19, 2024 at 1:19 PM EDT

I graduated from Cypress Bay in 2020, and have coached their LD squad since.

I would like to be on the chain: garrett.bishop2577@gmail.com

I'm probably pretty good for anything.

In order:

K, LARP, existentialism, other philosophy, theory-dense positions.

> Post-Yale update: You gotta understand that it's like, K > Policy >>>>>>>> Existentialism >>>>>>>>>>> Other philosophy >>>>>>> theory-dense positions.

Yes, I'm probably good for it, but it seems like I voted twice on phil positions and suddenly everybody has me down as a phil judge

>Bronx 24:If disclosure theory is a part of your main strategy, i should not be a high pref for you. it's a true argument but oh my god im so tired of listening to it. i'm also absolutely just about never persuaded by 1ac disclosure theory.

>SUNVITE 24: I'm in the policy pool. I am not often in the policy pool. I haven't done anything with the current topic. You should presume I know nothing (I don't know anything). I'm better for the K than for policy. I love the impact turn.

My disclosure of speaks depends entirely on my mood at the time, and if you ask me after I've already closed my laptop, I will not tell you (I forget about speaks, give or take, a single second after I submit my ballot).

If you care, I'm more of a high theory guy than an identity politics guy.

If you're super fast, feel free to tell me that I should flow on paper (before the round). I recently started flowing on my computer and I'm not super fast with it yet.

I've only made one decision that I didn't entirely agree with, and I'm unlikely to make a second.

I don't care what you read, as long as you read it well. If you expect me to judge your debate based on my circuit experience, then you should probably try to meet my circuit expectations. This means I'm particularly persuaded by disclosure and paraphrasing theory. The Bronx update doesn't really apply here - it isn't yet a norm in public forum to disclose and it definitely should be, so it's above my threshold of importance in this event.

nothing is sticky

Policy

This is kind of where my heart is tbh. I'm good to go for whatever goofy argument you want to read.

Any other event (speech)

I'm a big debate guy, please treat me like a parent lol.

Old paradigm here

the big cheese

Jayden Bodet Hire 6 rounds

Trevor Brewer Bishop Moore Catholic High School 4 rounds

Judy Cheng Pine View School 3 rounds

Grant Chmielewski Dr. Phillips High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 3, 2024 at 8:19 PM EDT

This has been updated since after Columbia Invitational 2025 It's been simplified substantially (yes, really) depending on when you last read it.

yes add me to the email chain: chmielewskigr@gmail.com
If I'm at your tournament and you have a question about a local or national round and I can't disclose, ask me after awards and I'll break down the round with you. Education is a good thing. I save the flows (generally) on day of tournament.
If you're going for ontology in front of me, I'll vote for it but I need you to explain it to me like I'm a third grader because I don't see enough rounds on it to comfortably evaluate it correctly. I like Kritik's and can (and do) evaluate them properly, but I need the ontology stuff over-explained to me. The same applies to pomo.
If you're gonna read performance in front of me I've gotten (slightly) more comfortable evaluating it but please explain the implications to me like I'm a third grader. I don't want to exclude any style of debate, but I don't see enough rounds on this to feel like I'm the best to evaluate it.
If you ask me to pre-flow before the round I'm starting your prep. Be prepared, you had 30 minutes to do it. I'm not extending the round more because you were unprepared.

Notes before the paradigm proper:

* 1) Saying "it's new" to try to dodge disclosure is not good. This is probably the only disclo interp I'm persuaded to not hate.

2) The below is taken from Rose Larson. I strongly agree with the below. I'll add this: If it is a pattern with an individual debater (pattern= 2+ instances I've observed, not circuit heresay), my threshold will get increasingly low with responses as you're actively excluding others and that's not cool.

My strong preference is that if one debater is a traditional debater that their opponent make an effort to participate in a way that's accessible for that debater. I would much rather judge a full traditional debate than a circuit debater going for shells or kritiks against an opponent who isn't familiar with that style. If you do this, you will be rewarded with higher speaker points. If you don't, I will likely give low point wins to technical victories that exploit the unfamiliarity of traditional debaters to get easy wins.

3) Stolen from Deena McNamara because I think she's right:

"When the neg takes no prep time before the 1NC and says that they are sending the doc, I always question what level of engagement will occur in the 1NC if the doc was ready before the Neg even had the opportunity to question the Aff." The 30 minutes you had before round does not anoint you the ability to have a full doc read out with zero critical thinking skills. Taking 5 minutes of prep before the 2AR is also not the strat- true story.

(LD)

Defaults:

P&P- neg

Theory- DTA unless instructed otherwise. I am increasingly annoyed by theory that attempts to increasingly get away from substance. This doesn't mean I will move away from tech>truth, but it does mean that my threshold for specific shells continues to get lower. This includes spec shells. If you have questions, ask before round.

"But Grant you had more in your paradigm before". Yes. And at this point I've decided essay paradigms are a bad norm. Within reason read whatever so that you're reading what your style is. If you have questions, ask before round.

A note about arguments: As somebody recently said to me as I was judging "this isn't the panel to read determinism in front of". While I feel very comfortable judging most things (and can and will), there are certain arguments I just don't hear/adjudicate that much. If you're able to really break down and explain them really well, you'll get an auto 30 and it will be much easier for me to vote on [insert thing here]. If it's an argument I'm not as familiar with, if it's not explained well enough you may not get me to bite on it. This also means that if you read 25 tricks in an underview and then give me the blippiest extensions known to humankind expecting me grant them to you and then trash talk my decisions (yes, I'm thinking about one round in particular), it is on you. More explanation/contextualization/weighing>more things in the 2N/2AR.

Other spec stuff:

-If you tell me "but it's in the doc" that doesn't count. I'm not using the doc to correct my flowing, I'm using it to check evidence. Me being okay with spreading is not an okay to set a land speed record for word delivery. If I didn't catch it after I inform you of my speed pref, that's on you. If you're also somebody that I've had to clear ~3 times I will straight up stop flowing and get what I can from the speech. I am increasingly annoyed by incoherent spreading and people using the doc as a crutch and expecting me to magically project the doc onto the flow. It's you debating, not whatever your coach gave you to read or whatever you could copy and paste on a doc.

- Please give me judge instructions on where to go. As Amanda Ciocca once said "I'm not doing the work for you". TELL ME where on the flow I'm going. Me critical thinking isn't good for either team, because at that point I'm having to intervene to make a decision. You'll probably hear me say that the round was a "chart your own path to the ballot" round, and you'll also probably see a split panel. Debaters just need to get better and go back to the basics. You're not winning everything, and that's ok. Stop going for everything. This practice needs to die off.

- Please clash properly and extend properly. This is getting worse, especially in PF. If I have to judge another PF round where both teams have forgotten how to actually clash, and repeat me numbers, and have horrendous contextualization skills, I will vote for whoever does the contextualization better. I'm thinking about one round here in particular, but it's also reflective of debaters getting lazier across the circuit and getting worse at both research practice and debating. Please have better round vision for all of us- this goes to all debaters on the circuit. Sincerely, all judges on elim panels everywhere.

Drops and extensions: Yes, you need to extend in every speech. I am not going to float things magically across your flow even if your opponent drops them. If you don't I won't vote for it. The FBK kid who whined and ranted about my decision after they decided to extend ~25 poorly justified nibs falls into this category. Get better at warranting things so that I feel more comfortable extending them.

PF Prefs:

A) Paraphrased evidence is a cancerous trend besetting this activity. If both teams run paraphrased evidence, I might flip a coin. Please read actual cards. It's not hard to do. Your speaks are also hard capped at 25 or whatever the lowest the tournament allows is. Get better evidence practices. 100% will vote on paraphrased evidence theory to stop this practice from spreading.

B) I am... annoyed at this ridiculous trend of pseudo kritiks being run. You can't develop it in four minutes properly without being seriously deficient on the flow elsewhere and will probably lose once your opponent kills your link. I am not the judge to read them in front of in PF. Go be an LDer or go to Policy.

C) If you don't weigh I'm gonna go for the bigger number absent a separate compelling reason to interpret the evidence a different way. If the evidence comparison is bad from both of you (it probably is since weighing and contextualization seems to be a lost art form), I'll evaluate the better contextualized scenario and/or the scenario that requires me to do less "work". I'm holding the line here. See my whining above for more.

D) If you can't produce the evidence your opponent asks for within about 45 seconds I'm treating it as an analytic, not evidence. Be organized and prepared for debate. I am equally unamused with this stupid trend of pre-flowing during the round time. Learn to be prepared and not waste everybody's time.

Policy

* Honestly just kinda look at my LD stuff. There's not a lot you can read I won't understand, but I may need you to explain some of the warranting since that's been lacking in some rounds I've seen.

Alexander Corzo West Broward High School 6 rounds

Name: Alexander Corzo

School Affiliation: West Broward HS

Number of Years Judging Public Forum/LD: 6 years

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: None

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 11 years

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: None

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? All except policy

What is your current occupation? Debate Teacher/Coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: Should not be spreading in PF, Ok in LD ( although I don't enjoy it) Edit for FBK2020:

Spreading is hard for me to follow and will more than likely affect my judging ( in a negative way) because I will be reading instead of listening to you speak. So, do yourself a favor and don't spread if at all possible! you can still run non-Traditional LD, as long as it's not abusive and gimmicky.

Format of Summary Speeches Line by Line

Role of the Final Focus: Weighing

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Required.

Topicality: Very important, don’t stray too far.

Plans: Not a PF thing, LD ok.

Kritiks: Maybe.

Flowing/note-taking: Essential

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Definitely argument over style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, I don’t flow cross, if you want credit, it needs to be in a speech.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? It’s not mandatory, but extremely helpful. Sometimes, time doesn’t allow.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Grand Cross, only under extenuating circumstances, FF, never.

I value weighing over mindless card reading. Good luck!

For LD, many of the same comments apply. I'm more of a traditional judge in LD, meaning that although I understand theory and K strategies, unless there's a really good and compelling reason to resort to these progressive strategies, I enjoy traditional LD. In other words, I find many of the "progressive strategies" to be gimmicky or at least just uninteresting. (boring) Although, I know it's fun for the debaters!

Oleg Drozhinin Admiral Farragut Academy 3 rounds

Douglas Evans Admiral Farragut Academy 6 rounds

Roberto Fernandez Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 9:08 AM EDT

Cypress Bay High School

Wake Forest University

Baylor University

Good speaks for good debating, great speaks for being funny and/or just great debating.

I'll vote for anything, just turn up. What follows are my existing thoughts/biases on how to win in front of me in policy debates, please scroll to the bottom for LD and PF.

Email: robertofr99@gmail.com

CX Paradigm: NDT Updates 3/29/23

T: I don't hold strong enough opinions about topic wording and plans to stand by in a debate so judge direction on what SHOULD matter is critical. I don't judge many though and because of that I'd say I'm more likely to default to competing interpretations than not. It would have to be a pretty clear case for me to vote on reasonability. End of year thoughts: nothing is AI and everything is nature; T-subsets is mostly valid.

FW: You can go for it. Thoughts: Unlike other judges, I think to win you need to prove your model is strictly better than a model that includes the aff, which means you should probably be able to prove that a solely plan-based model would be better than the mixed status quo.

I default to thinking of these as debates about models and not about interpretations of the wording of the resolution. That means I prefer that the aff have a counter-interp, even if that counter-interp is totally unlimited. What matters is that both teams have a vision of what their model looks like. No counter-interp is also valid and often strategic so feel free to do that too.

I won't say whether fairness is an impact because that depends on what is said and won in any given debate, but what I will say is that proving that debate is a game does not, on its own, strongly imply that fairness is an intrinsic good. Fairness is also a sliding scale, so I expect nuance about the magnitude of the internal link between the violation or the counter-interp and the fairness impact.

I think that FW teams would benefit from incorporating some kind of uniqueness argument or warrant into their skills modules that substantiates why the skills we learn from plan-based debating are valuable in the current political moment. I often find that teams lose debates where they are winning their limits arguments by failing to justify the value of THIS fair game.

K: Do whatever, odds are I've read something you are reading or someone citing else citing the same people as your authors. That means jargon is fine as long as it's used meaningfully. Big words are meant to convey even bigger ideas in less time so using jargon precisely can really elevate the quality of your speech, but on the other hand, just stringing words together without much thought may really hurt your speech. Performance debate is great, all kinds of art can be evidence as long as I can see/hear/flow it (unless there's a reason I shouldn't I'm up for that too, but I won't stop flowing your opponents speeches during the debate even if you ask me to, that is up to them).

CP: I guess this is more about conditionality than anything, I'd rather not have to deal with more than 4 or 5 conditional advocacies or I might actually vote on condo. I think most counter-plans should have solvency advocates, I can't think of an example that wouldn't off the top of my head but I'm hesitant to say I wouldn't be convinced by ANY CP without one.

DAs: I think the spill-over DA is just a bad argument. If you win it you win it but I feel like I have to be upfront about thinking this argument is garbage.

LD Paradigm:

I'm down with anything, except for really outlandish tricks and some frivolous theory. You could still win "Topic auto-affirms/negates because of definitions" in front of me but my bar is as low as "even if that's true we should ignore it and debate a common understanding of the resolution for X, Y, Z reasons" for me to throw away those kinds of arguments. I have a very deep background in critical theory and philosophy so Phil, K debating, and Skep are all fine by me as long as you remember to explain why I should vote for you rather than just exposing on an argument and hoping that will translate to a win. I like evidence, but evidence can be poetry, music, art, memes, etc. as long as it's used to substantiate something and not just presented without argument.

PF Paradigm:

You should read my other paradigms to get an idea of what I think of different types of arguments, this section is mostly dedicated to what I think of PF norms.

I care about evidence more than most PF judges, I don't think you shouldn't be allowed to reference current events to make points but I think having evidence prepared is definitely more convincing than listing off things that I may or may not have heard of to prove a point. I will want to receive any evidence you use in the debate, so that I can evaluate the comparative quality of evidence when deciding things after the debate. I will prefer low quality delivery of high quality arguments over high quality delivery of low quality arguments.

I will not deduct speaker points for superficial things like profanity or dress, I care about rhetoric as a tool of persuasion and information exchange not as a show of pageantry. Be intentional about what you are saying and why are you are saying it, and I will reward you based on the persuasiveness of that delivery.

Please be respectful to your opponents, your partner, and me in debates, and that means being respectful of our time during prep and cross-examination. If people ask to see your evidence, don't make them waste prep time for you to send it to them, they should already have it.

If you have any specific questions about types of arguments in PF or norms, please feel free to ask me. As a general rule, if it exists in policy or LD I'm willing to vote for it but also willing to vote against it on the basis that these arguments are illegitimate in PF, you just have to actually win that.

Delon Fuller Hire 6 rounds

Shari Hoffman Fort Lauderdale High School 3 rounds

Chris Hudson Holy Trinity Episcopal Academy 2 rounds

Nathan Johnston Lake Highland Preparatory School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 4:24 AM EDT

Email chain info: nathanmichaeljohnston@gmail.com

The Paradigm:
Debate is meant to be a fun activity! I think you should do whatever you need to do to ride your own personal happiness train. So have a good time in our rounds. That said, remember that riding your happiness train shouldn't limit someone else's ability to ride their's. So be kind. Have fun, learn stuff, don't be a jerk though.

I've been around debate for over 15 years. You can read whatever arguments in front of me and I'm happy to evaluate them. I'm fine if you want to LARP, read Ks, be a phil debater, do more trad stuff, or whatever else. I'm good with theory as long as you're generating genuine, in-round abuse stories. Frivolous theory and tricks are not something I'm interested in listening to. If I'm judging you online, go like 50% of your max spreading because hearing online is difficult. I'd like to be on email chains, but we all should accept that SpeechDrop is better and use it more. Otherwise, do whatever you want.

Rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 2
Policy - 1
High theory - 2.5 (it'll be ok but I'm going to need you to help me understand if its too far off the wall)
Theory - 1 (but the good kind), 4 (for the bad, friv kind) - I find myself to be compelled by genuine in-round abuse stories more than potential abuse.
Tricks - you should probably strike me

The Feels:
I'm somewhat ideologically opposed to judge prefs. As someone who values the educative nature of our events, I think judge adaptation is important. To that end, I see judge paradigms as a good way for you to know how to adapt to any given judge in any given round. Thus, in theory, you would think that I am a fan of judge paradigms. My concern with them arises when we are no longer using them to allow students the opportunity to adapt to their judges, but rather they exist to exclude members from the potential audience that a competitor may have to perform in front of (granted I think there is real value in strikes and conflicts for a whole host of reasons, but prefs certainly feed into the aforementioned problem). I'm not sure this little rant has anything to do with how you should pref/strike me, view my paradigm, etc. It kind of makes me not want to post anything here, but I feel like my obligation as a potential educator for anyone that wants to voice an argument in front of me outweighs my concerns with our MPJ system. I just think it is something important and a conversation we should be having. This is my way of helping the subject not be invisible.

Arthur Kulawik Fort Lauderdale High School 3 rounds

Hello,

I am a fourth-year speech and debate coach. My pronouns are he/him.

I competed in PF between 2009 and 2013.

I prefer a conversational speaking speed. Clarity is more important than speed. I’m OK with speaking fast, but if you’re spreading too fast for me to understand, then I can’t evaluate your arguments and then you can’t win. At your request, I can tap on the desk or otherwise signal you if you're speaking too fast for me to understand.

Don't run tricks. Don't run frivolous arguments full of arcane academic jargon meant to sound intelligent without any context or substance. You are not a sorcerer reading a spellbook.

Generally not a fan of theory shells unless there is a very real apparent violation/abuse in round.

LD - I prefer traditional debate in LD but I have been persuaded to vote for Ks, plans, counterplans etc in the past.

PF - I don't like progressive cases in PF. I believe a key part that distinguishes Public Forum as a debate event is it is meant the be interpreted by the "public", meaning the average person off the street could observe the round and understand what is going on.

General notes:

-extend your frameworks

-quality>quantity. Fewer better quality arguments with better weighing/analysis is better than winning lots of weak arguments

-No ad hominem attacks. If you can't be respectful of your opponents then debate is not for you

-Don’t be smug, arrogant, rude, especially if you think you’re winning

-Disclosure – include me in the email chain/speechdrop for your case/evidence. ESPECIALLY if you spread/read fast. I find that I can judge much more effectively and accurately when I can follow along with your arguments on my computer while I flow.

-Extend all arguments, don’t bring in new arguments in final focus, and weigh your arguments. What are the real world impacts? Why does this matter? I need to know the answers to these questions.

-Cross – It’s always tragic to me when competitors make great points in cross and then don’t bring up those points at all in any of their speeches. If it’s not in a speech I can’t flow it.

-Falsifying evidence/lying in round will lead to an automatic loss. On a related note – I don’t like paraphrasing. if you do so you better have that card in hand ready to show me. I have dropped competitors more than once for “stretching” / “creatively interpreting” evidence.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round.

Email - arthur.kulawik@browardschools.com (but I prefer speechdrop)

Rose Larson Lake Highland Preparatory School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 3, 2024 at 1:42 AM CDT

Add me to the chain. My email is roselarsondebate @ gmail . If I'm judging LD, please add lhpsdebate @ gmail as well.

Assistant Coach at Homestead 2020-2021

Head Coach at Homestead 2021-2022

Currently Assistant Coach at Lake Highland Prep

Debated College Policy for a year at the University of West Georgia

Currently College Policy at the University of Kansas, First Round At Large Bid recipient, NDT octofinalist.

TOC SILVER PF:

Most of what lies below is designed for LD and Policy. Five things you need to know for PF prefs:

a) I have judged a couple of PF debates and have basic familiarity with the format, but nothing much beyond that. I'm a college policy debater who did local LD and Policy in high school, and coach phil and K debate in high school LD. Whatever you wish to extrapolate from that, feel free, but I'll evaluate whatever argument you put in front of me and don't have strong argumentative preferences as it relates to content. Read whatever you would normally read.
b) If you want an argument to be evaluated, it has to be extended in each speech. i have no idea how to evaluate a debate otherwise.
c) I do not know or care about any of the norms of circuit PF. Anything related to the form of PF (arguments about speech times, PF-specific theory norms, PF specific rules, etc) needs to be overexplained, because I just have no clue what you're talking about. I am told you all do evidence challenges far more often - if that happens, I'll consult relevant rules and render a decision based on them.
d) I am best for well developed arguments with good evidence accompanied by efficient, technical line-by-line debating. I am worst for strategies that stake debates on arguments that are not sufficiently developed.
e) I really like high quality traditional debates with technical debating and high-level analysis. If that's the debate you want to have in front of me, I will likely enjoy it far more than I would a shallow theory debate. It is easy to see "college policy debater, LD coach" and think you should adapt by reading more "circuit" style arguments. This is not the case in front of me. Debate is best when every debater debates how they would like and the judge evaluates the debate technically and fairly.
If you have really specific argument questions, read below, but it shouldn't matter, because I will evaluate pretty much anything you put in front of me as best I can.

GENERAL:

I will flow on paper with my computer closed. If I do not have paper and cannot borrow it, I will flow on my computer and will not have the speech doc open. I will not attempt to reconstruct my flow from the speech doc. I will attempt to flow in a line-by-line format, but may flow pages top-down if the content of the debate warrants it (e.g. debates where one team or both do not do the majority of their debating on the line by line).

I've judged too many debates to care what you read. I've coached and judged every style, and feel comfortable evaluating anything read in any LD, Policy, or PF debate. Yes, this includes planless affs, yes this includes framework, yes, this includes tricks, yes, this includes death good. I do not care. DON'T OVERADAPT, do what you do best, make complete, smart arguments, and we'll be fine. I will evaluate each debate exclusively based on the words on the flow, where dropped arguments are true and the qualifications for being an argument are claim, warrant, and implication. Less than that and you have not made an argument and I will not evaluate it. I will hold a strict line on claim-warrant-implication, and will flat out refuse to vote on words on the flow that do not reach this standard.

ARGUMENT THOUGHTS:

I do not treat arguments as "silly" or "not engaging with the aff" because they are not an aff-specific disadvantage. I don't share the attitudes of judges who treat process counterplans, skep/determinism, broad critiques with non-specific links, or impact turns like spark as second-tier arguments because they link to other affirmatives. The more generic an argument is, the easier it may be to beat on specificity, but I am not particularly sympathetic to "this is generic, ignore it." I will probably enjoy specific and nuanced debates more than the fiat k or signing statements. What I enjoy has no bearing on what arguments you should read.

No serious predisposition about framework debates. I've been in a lot of these debates, am very familiar with the nuances on both sides, and believe if debated evenly I would vote aff/neg about 50% of the time. I would say I'm equally good for impact turn as counterinterp strategies and don't have a strong fairness vs clash preference. I will default to evaluating the differences between the aff's model and the negative's model unless someone forwards an alternative framing mechanism. I am most persuaded by affirmative strategies that defend a large disad to the neg's interpretation or performance coupled with judge instruction and defense to the neg's impacts, and I am most persuaded by negative strategies that concretely deal with the aff's offense by either framing it out via impact calculus or accessing it via link turns. I am substantially better for impact explanations that justify the value of fairness or clash on their own terms instead of relying on "key to your offense" or fairness paradox-esque arguments. Those seem to me to be helpful impact comparison mechanisms rather than the primary basis of a terminal impact claim.

The only arguments I won't vote on are explicitly discriminatory positions, arguments based on the other debaters' appearance or dress, and arguments that ask me to not evaluate speeches.

You will lose .1 speaker point every time you ask a flow clarification question, unless I also could not flow what was said, and if that's the case, don't worry about it, because I won't be evaluating it. Status, net benefits, reasons to reject the team don't count - "did you read this card" does.

Happy to answer other questions preround or by email.

Jason Lucas Spanish River Community High School 6 rounds

Ethan Massa American Heritage Broward HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 5:07 AM EDT

Email: ethan3768@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Ethan and I debated for West Broward in Florida for 4 years. I received 9 bids and broke at the TOC - won the Valley Mid America Cup, Harvard RR, Florida States, etc.

There are a couple of things that generally contextualize my views on debate and how you should probably debate in front of me.

I am Tech > Truth. Naturally, if your arguments are both technical and true, that makes you a better debater. I will not assume something is true though just because a "claim" is dropped. It actually needs to be an argument with justified implications that follow.

My threshold for what constitutes a warrant is fair, but high for LD's standards - you need to justify the assumptions that your arguments make. The standard for what is considered a "votable" argument in LD has become exceptionally low and you should keep that in mind when you debate in front of me. I see this issue most when people "justify" theory paradigm issues.

General:

I won't evaluate

1] new 2nr arguments and/or implications that directly are used to answer something in the 1ac. Weighing is fine but I will not evaluate arguments that answer something from the 1ac. That means no GSP or skep turns case in the 2nr unless it was in the 1nc. Only exception is if new offense was read in the 1ar.

2] non-sequitur arguments or arguments where conclusions don't necessarily follow from premises.

3] won't evaluate speeches early INSIDE of the speech the argument was read in. Yes eval after 2n in 1nc, No eval after 2n in 2n.

Theory: One of the things I feel most comfortable evaluating. Coming up with a smart combo shell or making cool strategic decisions are awesome and make judging a lot more fun. I'm perfectly fine with theory as a strategic tool so if this is what you like to do, I'm all for it. There's no such thing as frivolous theory.

Defaults - DTA, Reasonability, No RVIs. NSM vs IRA assumption depends on offense to the shell. These are paradigm issues, not voters. These are the defaults because this is what any paragraph argument on any flow would look like as long as an external impact (fairness, bindingness, scope, etc) is justified.

I don’t default voters (Fairness/Ed/Etc) - they’re impacts to arguments. I will assume there’s no impact to the standards if you don't read an external impact.

You NEED to justify drop the debater and fairness is a voter. I do not like having to hold the line on the impacts to the shell but it has become considerably common for debaters to assume warrants that aren't there. Please warrant your paradigm issues; yes, that means you need to explain why dtd "deters abuse". I think the warrant is best when it's comparative to dta because if the baseline for why dtd matters is it just "deters" abuse, that's a low bar for dta to meet.

Don't read new paradigm issues for a 1nc shell in the 2n, it's new.

T: I view it as an endorsement > punishment model. It's a methods debate so winning the shell is prob enough to independently justify voting on it. These are just defaults if no one reads paradigm issues though. Obviously, I'll evaluate the shell under whatever metric you justify.

Policy: I never debated this way but I'll evaluate these debates the way you tell me to. The jargon is not exactly vernacular to me so I'd probably err on the side of explaining the implication of something for like 2 seconds if you think I wouldn't get it. Underrated strategy though against phil debaters and I do like it.

Tricks: Sure. I like warrants though. I'm also tired of analytic dumps where arguments are all over the place.

K: Better off preffing someone else. I'm a sucker for extinction o/w and frankly true arguments that say 1nc evidence has no warrants. If you cut good evidence though, that's solid. Bar for explanation is high and I don't listen to arguments that demean another debater's identity. Theory of power needs to be clear and 2n explanation needs to be found in the 1nc.

Ashley Murphy La Salle College High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 1:34 AM EDT

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab/equity side of tournaments than judging. I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate. I prefer a round where you are reading two or three off and doing more work on warranting the arguments out than in a round with 10 off and extending something blippy into the 2NR.

Generally Tech>Truth but I appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That said, debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

General Stuff:

I'm good with speed and will say clear if I am not. That said, even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

LD/CX Specific:

I have a fairly extensive background in most critical lit; however, I think a lot of tech/prog debaters lose me when they are sloppy about:

Not doing enough work on the link debate (why does this aff link to the K? What's internal link to your solvency?)
Saying random debate jargon without context and assuming I am going to follow (I find it vaguely amusing when people just yell "they dropped indexicals!" but generally I don't know what to do with that on my ballot unless you tell me more).

I will care and pay attention in round and have judged a bit on Jan/Feb already, but I promise you that I have thought about this topic less than you have, so keep that in mind when figuring out your time allocation.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com (though speechdrop is easier)

Sachika Nishizono Bishop Moore Catholic High School 5 rounds

Sanghoon Park King High School 6 rounds

Erin Quinn Robinson High School 3 rounds

Joseph Ramirez Palm Beach Independent 3 rounds

Donald Richardson Holy Trinity Episcopal Academy 1 rounds

Leslie Rini Lake Buena Vista High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 31, 2024 at 8:54 AM EDT

For NSDA Quals: I do not believe in progressive PF. You can speak at a fast conversational pace. For LD, run whatever you want, but I won't vote on disclosure against a trad opponent.

I prefer speech drop or the tournament file share, but in the case of an email chain my email is: lesliedebate2027@gmail.com. (she/her)

1 - policy

2 - Ks

2 - theory

3 - tfwk

4 - phil

4/5 - non-t aff's. I am unlikely to vote for a completely non-topical aff (although I have done so) but I just need a few lines tying your case to the topic.

5 - Tricks: I'm not well-versed in tricks but if you explain it in an understandable way, I will vote on it.

Disclosure: My standard for disclosure is sending out the aff at the request of the opponent 30 minutes before the round starts. This does not apply to trad affs or completely new affs. If you are using most of the same cards even if they are used differently, that is not a new aff. If you will be running disclosure theory, please include all communication between you and your opponent in the doc and any supporting evidence. If you just say they ran this same aff in round 3 but only include a screen shot of the name of the aff from the earlier round, that is not going to be enough for me.

Frivolous Theory: I’m willing to judge it. Debate is a game let’s have some fun with it.

I will vote on basically anything as long as I can understand it. However, I will not vote on any argument that make the debate space unsafe, which includes but is not limited to racist/sexist/homophobic arguments.

If you are spreading, send out speech docs. If you don't send out speech docs, I probably won't be able to keep up, so I would recommend going at about 75% of your maximum pace. If you skip or don't read more than 1 thing on the doc, please send out a marked doc after your speech is over.

Miscellaneous

-Speaker points: I will increase speaker points for interesting arguments I don't commonly hear. I try to be as tab as possible. I have voted against my own political beliefs numerous times and also for somewhat absurd arguments like trees are bad for the environment due to forest fires.

-Evidence ethics: Don't misrepresent evidence or clip cards. It's an automatic loss for me.

-I am impressed by a really good CX. I do not enjoy the Oppression Olympics so please try find another way to counter an identity K.

Traditional/NCFL

I will flow the debate and keep track of arguments, refutations, and dropped arguments. However the debater needs to bring up that the opponent has dropped a contention for me to count it. Please do not say that your opponent dropped something unless you are certain that they did.

Please include voters in your final round/speech. If I feel that round is too close to call, I will default to who won the framework debate.

Please be kind to novices or newer circuit debaters. Win the round but help them to learn something from it. Why does a spoon made of gallium disappear?

if you’re going to tell me that your opponent’s argument will lead to nuclear war, please give me some solid reason why this is more likely than just the everyday chance of nuclear war.

Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round begins.

Jazz Rivera Dr. Phillips High School 6 rounds

Stephen Scopa American Heritage Broward HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 5:15 AM EDT

I coach at American Heritage and have been coaching privately for 6 years now. My email for speech docs is: Stevescopa23@gmail.com .

General: I'm tech > truth, read whatever you want. I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. Also, if I don't think an argument has a warrant I won't vote on it. Speaks are inflated by good strategy and execution and capped by how bad i think your arguments are. If you're reading a bunch of unserious nonsense you might win but most likely won't get good speaks.

- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read.

- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.

- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC.

- Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such.

Theory: Go for it - this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge, and I really enjoy judging nuanced theory debates. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced.

T: T debates weren’t nearly as nuanced when I debated so you may have to explain some of the particulars more than you may be used to. Otherwise should be fine.

T “framework”: To be honest I am agnostic on whether affs should be T. I probably lean yes, but I also find non-T affs pretty interesting and fun to judge at times.

Tricks: Sure, but speaks might suffer depending how they're executed and how dumb I think they are.

Ks: I really enjoy a good K debate. Especially psycho, baudrillard, nietzsche, and warren. The more specific the links the better.

Larp: Probably the worst for this but will listen to it, just need to explain things a little more than you normally would. It is probably an uphill battle to win util vs other phil or Ks but possible if that's your thing.

Framework: This is my favorite type of debate and really want it to make a comeback. Great speaks if you can execute this well and/or read something that interests me.

Speaks: I average probably a 28.5. I assign them based on mostly strategy/execution with a little bit of content, but content can only improve your speaks not make them worse really (with the exception of disclosure probably). I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy - I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. Also, if I can tell your 1ar/2n/2ar is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.

How do I get a 30?

I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following:

1) Going NC, AC really well with a phil NC

2) A good analytic PIC

3) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting

4) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before

5) Execute a Skep trigger/contingent standard well

6) Successfully going for an RVI

Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time - win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes.

Hunter Sexton Robinson High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 1, 2024 at 12:33 PM EDT

ALL CATEGORIES:

Timing and Signals: For IEs I will provide standard time signals (2 minutes left = 2 fingers, 1 minute left = 1 index finger, 30 seconds = making a "C" shape with one hand, Time Up = Fist). In Debate, If a competitor continues speaking for ~5-10 seconds after time is up, I will verbally instruct them to stop, as this is abusive to your opponents (this will also result in a .5 speaker-point infraction (.1 - .2 at national circuit events)). I will not verbally stop competitors if I am part of a judge panel, but the speaker point infractions will continue to accumulate the longer a speaker extends their speech beyond the event category time limitations.

Competitors will be penalized if they negligently cause other competitors to be disrupted (e.g. phone or laptop noises during opponent's speech). Competitors that purposefully disrupt another speaker will be automatically disqualified from winning the round, and will suffer penalization to their scores.

SPEECH CATEGORIES:

For Extemporaneous (EXT) speakers: I find substantive information related to your topic (facts, history, expert opinions, etc.) more compelling than personal experience or how the issue impacts you personally. I give more weight to speeches that utilize an overarching theme supported by distinct points. I appreciate a roadmap and signposting. The best Extemp speeches answer the question directly while also contemplating opposing viewpoints.

For Congressional (CON) debaters: I value presentation of new issues over new facts about the same issues and especially more than a repetition of previously raised points. The exception to this is a thorough crystallization speech which a) weighs competing issues from both sides and persuades in one direction and importantly b) moves the chamber to call the question. Also, I am judging you not just on your public speaking prowess, but even more so I am ranking you based on your ability tomove legislation in your preferred direction. For example, I would give additional weight to speakers who amend legislation to successfully pass a more palatable bill. I respect and reward the duties of the Presiding Officer and will generally rank them 1st or 2nd for an exceptional performance, 2nd - 3rd for a good performance, and 4th - 6th for PO work that needs significant improvement.

DEBATE CATEGORIES:

Best described as a "flay" "trad" judge who does give some weight to aesthetic delivery. That said, I will accept technical argumentation as true if well-warranted (regardless of actual "truthfulness."). My pronouns are "coach," and that is what I identify as.

Add me to the email chain: Hunter.Sexton@sydneygrp.com. or disclose via tabroom/docshare BUT, you must verbally convey your argumentation for it to appear on my flow. This is not read and debate - its SPEECH and debate, after all. I may reference your materials but if I am forced to do so, that probably is not a good thing for you/your team.

I prohibit any "off-the-clock" rules explanations or argumentation. For example, if a competitor wants to clarify that no new arguments can be introduced in rebuttals, they must use their speech time to do this, and NOT the opponent's prep time or their own prep time. This includes any attempt to "clarify" something after the round has ended. Remain silent until I have submitted my ballot. If there is an official rules-based challenge, I will hear it after the ballot has been submitted, and if meritorious, describe the process for raising such a challenge with tabroom. When necessary, I will politely ask competitors to cease their "off-the-clock" communication. There are speaker point deductions associated with this behavior. The amount of the deduction depends on how egregious the off-the-clock communication is in the context of the round (example: disruptions of an opponent's prep time is seen as a serious violation of this paradigm).

I permit and ENCOURAGE "off-the-clock" road-mapping (especially for Policy - tell me where you're going as soon as the 2AC).

I do not permit any timing convention perversions. This mean you can not earn extra prep time if you end a speech or cross early. The only exception to this rule is if, in pre-round disclosure, one debater/team expresses that they have a diagnosed learning disability, and the opposing team offers them additional prep time, I will grant that additional prep time.

"Spreading" arguments will not result in material point gain if the arguments raised are not fully supported or are presented haphazardly. I can reasonably flow complex arguments at a 7/10 spread rate. Anything higher becomes increasingly incomprehensible. At circuit events, I will "clear" you ONCE. If you do not correct your conveyance at that point, you will be at a disadvantage on my flow. I will not "clear" debaters if I am part of a panel.

Debate Argumentation Weight: OFF....X........DEF. Turns>Blocks>Attempts>Drops. I weigh evidence-based argumentation relative to the analytical point debaters are making. This means, neither evidence alone, nor analytical arguments are fully persuasive. Your claims need to be warranted. Fully explain implications, links, impacts, etc. Importantly, you should explain why I should give you my ballot as the round comes to a close. For LD specifically, I give the more weight to argumentation that is expressly related to Value/Criterion frameworks (e.g. arguments that support your V/VC, undermine your opponent's V/VC or prove that you meet your opponent's V/VC better than they do). I am more "trad" in the sense that I do give more weight to on-topic argumentation. That said, you can certainly win/lose my ballot with a well argued/poorly addressed theory attack or kritique argument.

Debate "Styles": I can judge any style, though I am best described as a "trad" judge. I enjoy the occasional "tricks"/"traps" on cross, but they wont win you the round outright unless its a "throwaway round" and both debaters/teams agree to some goofy win condition. kritique and other "non-topical" argumentation is fine if well argued, but they are highly susceptible to eloquent procedural counter-attacks. Generally, K and Performance styles are less persuasive to me. I am a "rules"/"norms"/"institutions" matter kinda guy, so if you've deviated from the topic to make an advocacy speech or engage in performance art, cool, but I just think there are better categories for this (like OO or even Congress).

For Policy (CX) and Lincoln Douglas (LD) events, I prefer the Affirmative to present to my left (Competitors' right) and the Negative to present to my right (Competitors' left). For Public Forum Debate (PFD), Pro to my left, Con to my right.

The debate is yours, you decide the rules and conventions other than what is expressed by the tournament itself. If you want open-cross in Policy for example, sure, go nuts, but you MUST elicit agreement from the opponent to do so PRE-ROUND. Don't spring rule deviations on opps last minute.

A note on "Cap K" arguments specifically: Strike me. I have yet to find an anti-capitalism kritique ("cap K") argument compelling or persuasive. It is never an automatic loss to run a cap K, but debaters that run it have a steep hill to climb when I am their judge. The issue with cap K argumentation is that it these arguments reek of inauthenticity; and thus, the speakers presenting the argument lose credibility. The core of the "K" argument is that an issue is SO important, that it supersedes the more limited topic/resolution and so the judge should disregard the topic/resolution limitations and focus on the REAL issue - in this case Capitalism's shortcomings/unsustainability/immorality/etc. In essence, the debaters running K are using the Policy Debate medium to make an advocacy speech. A desperate real-world call-to-action. The issue for me, is that the cap K arguments ring extremely hollow. After all, it's hard to take a cap K seriously when it is being delivered by debaters wearing business suits (the unofficial uniform of Western Capitalism) and reciting their constructive argumentation from $1,500 laptops. Its also hard to be persuaded by an advocacy speech when we all know the same team running cap K is all too happy to defend the merits of Capitalism (or at the least recommend incremental policy changes to its current structure) when they draw the other side of the resolution. If the issue is indeed so important that it merits perverting the actual topic/resolution, then an authentic, credible advocate would forfeit the Affirmative and instead utilize their constructive speeches to present the same cap K advocacy they present on the Negative. If it is not so important, then debaters ought to respect the medium and debate the actual topic/resolution. TL;DR: run cap-K at your own risk.

Irene Soltero Newsome High School 3 rounds None

Roberto Sosa Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 4, 2024 at 5:35 AM EDT

hello my name is rob sosa. i debated LD about 3 years ago, have been pretty inactive since- so please start slow-ish and then pickup speed so i can flow. consider this a warning and apology in advance if i miss something, my flowing definitely isn't what it used to be but its still somewhat there.

although my ability to flow may be rusty i think i am still fully capable of evaluating debates well- pref me if you are a debater who prefers to debate SUBSTANCE whether that be policy K or phil- tricks theory and the like i should definitely be lower.

another important note- for analytics in doc i have an important formatting request- please space them out.

by space them out i mean have space between each separate point or else i wont be able to read it. for example:

email for email chains-

rasosa21@gmail.com

the first and foremost thing i expect is for both debaters to respect one another- please don’t say or do anything racist sexist homophobic ableist or whatever.

I’ll summarize my thoughts on every type of argument below to give you a better idea of whether you want to pref me or not. I will say I believe in tech> truth so theoretically read whatever you want in front of me but some arguments might get more or less leeway than others

general note;2-3 WELL JUSTIFIED AND THOUGHT OUT OFF CASE POSITIONS>>>> READING 5-6-7 AND THEN COLLAPSING ON WHAT HAS THE LEAST INK

kritiks

these were and forever will be my favorite style of debate. it’s what I did the most and it’s also what I’ve coached kids to run in the past.

in terms of what theories you can read, do whatever just make sure it’s actually good.

slight pet peeve of mine is when people cut cards for a K not knowing what the author is even talking about, highlighting the parts that sound good and then tagging the card to say whatever you want it mean. please don’t do that. and please be able to articulate what your K is saying without reusing the lingo and jargon if you are asked to in cx, it doesn't reflect well otherwise.

Be as topical or as non topical as you want as long as you can defend it. please actually advocate for something or some type of action instead of being a vague abstraction.

for debating against the K- one off T or two off T +K/cp is much preferable to spamming miscellaneous offs bc you don't have prep. for t, i find testing/clash to be most persuasive but procedural fairness can be fine too. i dont tend to buy args that aff can't weigh case so you're better off just answering impact turns.

despite my love for the kritik i think i am quite susceptible to voting on Tfw.

policy

towards the end of my career i picked up policy debate and came around to loving it. not much to say here other than please make sure you have quality evidence because I will be reading your cards to make sure they say what you’re saying they’re saying. slow down on author names when you reference them so i can make sure to go back.

philosophy

read a fair share of this as well, if you’re going to do it just do it well. one of my biggest pet peeves is when someone reads a framework (like kant for example) and like 80% of the framework is analytics that the debater wrote. I’m sorry but these types of frameworks are almost always terrible and are missing half of the necessary justifications to create a complete theory of ethics. If you’re gonna read Phil make sure you use cards. Not saying there can’t be analytics but if the primary justifications for your framework are a series of a. b. c. one liners im not gonna be happy

i am gonna be hard pressed to vote on any type of skep im ngl.

trix

i really really prefer you didn’t. like REALLY prefer. they’re just annoying. if you’re hiding arguments inside other arguments or something like that or your analytic had a secret double meaning im just not gonna flow it when you try to extend it in your next speech.

theory/ t that isn’t tfw

t can be fine if you have good definitions with a clear cut vision for the topic and solid reasoning about why their version of the topic is unfair or bad for education.

theory on the other hand im generally very unsympathetic to. most theory shells i find are read out of a desire to disengage from substance because you don’t have faith in your prep. The exception to this are counterplan shells which like if they’re reading an actor cp or delay cp PIC or whatever I understand if the 1ar reads a shell.

note- im very sympathetic to reasonability when well justified. I never understood the argument for how it’s arbitrary especially if the debater provides a bright line for me to evaluate the shell w reasonability. I find competing interps to be if anything more arbitrary- it determines who the better theory debater is not actually what’s unfair or what’s in educational

traditional debate

not a ton to say here. just make sure you warrant every argument you make, stay solid in the line by line and extend your evidence thoroughly. weighing makes or breaks these debates so please do a lot of evidence and argument comparison to make my life easy

please have a real value and value criterion based on some ethical theory or theory of justice or something and not just a random word from the topic wording as your “value”

that more or less summarizes my thoughts on debate. I don’t believe in defaults or anything like that, im just going to flow both debaters cases and arguments and do my best to decide who won based on the flow. try your best, and be a good person and good luck

Spencer Swickle American Heritage Broward HS 3 rounds

Sandhya Vennam Lake Highland Preparatory School 6 rounds

Jenny Vidrine Robinson High School 6 rounds

Nathan Weimar Lake Highland Preparatory School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 20, 2024 at 1:11 PM EDT

Hi my name's Nate,

I'd prefer if you just call me Nate, but "judge" is fine too.

Iowa City West '23

University of Iowa '27

My email is weimarnate@gmail.com

I did LD on the national circuit. I acquired 9 career bids to the TOC in LD, made Quarters of the TOC my junior year and Doubles my senior year.I now do college policy debate at Iowa.

I'm fine for any arguments, I will vote off of the flow.

*******For Congress: I am new to congress but I will do my best to evaluate the round. My background is in LD and Policy but I will evaluate the round like a congress round so don't worry about the rest of my paradigm*******

If you are a novice read whatever arguments you want I will be able to evaluate them. Please make sure to extend arguments, and respond to important things.

I will vote on any argument with a claim, warrant and impact. I will vote for any style, the following is just a preference of what I'm most familiar with, I will not hack against you or hurt your speaks because of what style you debate. (The only args I won't evaluate/I will drop you for reading is saying something like racism good)

I enjoy creative and strategic positions. Speaks are based on strategy/technical skill.

Any speed is fine.

I will evaluate arguments such as death good.

I will not vote on "evaluate the debate after X speech arguments" because they break the round and I don't think I could coherently explain how I evaluate the extension of an argument (e.g. "this arg was extended into the 2NR and dropped by the 1AR) in a speech that I did not evaluate (assuming I evaluate the round after the 1NC).

Tech>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth

Prefs:

Tricks-1

Phil-1

Theory-1

Ks-2

LARP-3

LARP

I don't LARP very much but LARP is pretty straight forward so I'll be able to evaluate a LARP round. If you're going to have a dense larp debate there's probably better judges for you to pref, but just because I'm your judge doesn't mean you can't larp.

Tricks

Tricks can be good and bad. 100% tech>truth. I will listen to anything with a warrant. If you read a variation of condo logic please understand conditional logic. If you actively bamboozle (this does not mean overwhelm with blips) someone you will get high speaks. There is a difference between making tricky arguments in the sense of you fooling your opponent and just spamming arguments like "no neg analytics" in the underview. I'll vote for both, but the former will receive much higher speaks.

I read a decent amount of Ks in high school and only read Ks in college. I'm open to whatever type of critique you want to read. In high school I read some disability studies and existentialism-esque (e.g. Nietzsche and Camus) literature, in college I've read disability studies, setcol, trans studies, and psychoanalysis. This is not an excuse to under-explain if you are reading one of these lit bases. Please hint at a floating PIK in the 1NC.

I'm probably a much better judge for Ks then when I was in high school, feel free to pref me relatively highly if you're a K debater.

Theory

I will listen to all theory shells no matter how frivolous. I default to drop the argument on shells read on specific arguments and drop the debater on shells read on entire positions, no RVIs, and competing interps. To clarify, these are only my defaults if literally zero arguments are made, e.g. you read a whole shell but don't read paradigm issues. Please read paradigm issues, because if you don't I'll tank your speaks. If you read paradigm issues, and your opponent agrees to them or explicitly reads them again in one of their shells I will use those. So, if the AC and NC read shells with, dtd, no rvis, and competing interps, then the 2NR can't stand up and go for yes RVIs.

Phil

Phil is probably what I like to watch the most. I think the NC AC strategy is very strategic and will give you good speaks if you execute it well. Hijacks and preclusive arguments are cool. If you think your framework is super complicated for some reason just explain it well but I'll probably be able to evaluate a phil debate. Please weigh in the framework debate because that makes it a lot easier to evaluate. I default epistemic confidence.

Defaults

Truth Testing

Presumption and permissibility negate.

See theory section for theory defaults.

Metatheory>Theory=T>K

I default to strength of link weighing between different theory shells on the same layer, but would highly prefer you make weighing arguments between shells. E.g. "1NC theory>1AR theory", "T>Theory", "Spec shells outweigh everything" etc.

Note on hitting a trad debater/novice:

Do whatever you want, I'm not going to tank your speaks for like, spreading, reading theory or something. I also won't hurt your speaks if you just have a phil or larp debate with them, any approach is fine. The only thing is don't try to embarrass or make fun of them. You deserve to win if you did the better debating but you don't need to insult them or something like that.

Note on Post Rounding: Please do it if you think I intervened. I can take it, feel free to let me hear it if you think I've wronged you. You deserve to get angry at me if I robbed you of a win (which is not my goal just to clarify).

You need to extend things in every speech even if your opponent didn't contest them in later speeches. E.g. your 2ar can't be 3 minutes answering T and not extend any substantive offense.

Speaks

Things that will hurt your speaks:

1. Reading no framework in the AC.

2. Doing no line by line (unless just blitzing overview arguments was strategic in the situation, which is conceptually possible).

3. Ending cross ex like a minute early.

4. Being rude or way overconfident.

5. You're clearly just reading off a doc that someone else wrote.

6. Making the round really messy (especially when there was a clean way to win).

Things that will boost your speaks:

1. Clearly knowing the arguments you're reading. E.g. being able to explain your framework really well in cross.

2. Weighing and just making the round generally easier to evaluate.

3. Doing what you want to do and just executing it well.

4. Being funny.

29.7-30: You will break and make it deep out-rounds. OR you did something really creative or interesting, like made the 2AR impossible because your 2NR was so good.

29.4-29.7: You'll probably break and could win a few out-rounds.

29-29.4: You'll probably break.

28.7-29: You'll probably be on the bubble.

28.4-28.7:You'll probably go 3-3 or maybe break.

27.8-28.4: You did a little worse than average.

Jeff Wolf American Heritage Broward HS 6 rounds

Questions	Responses
Name (First)	Trevor
Name (Last)	Brewer
School Affiliation	Bishop Moore Catholic
Coach / Current Debater / Former Debater / Lay Judge	Lay Judge
How many years have you been judging LD?	2
How many LD rounds have you judged this year?	6
Preferred rate of delivery [ 1 (slow, conversational) to 7 (rapid)]	4
Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?	No
How important is the criterion in making your decision?	May be a factor depending on its use in the round
Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?	Yes
Voting issues should be given: end of final speech or as one moves down the flow?	Either is acceptable
Final rebuttals should include: line-by-line or voting issues?	Both
Voting issues are necessary / not necessary?	Necessary
How do you decide the winner of the round?	I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of their position overall.
How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round? [1 (not necessary) to 7 (always necessary)]	6
Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.	I write down the key arguments throughout the round.
In approximately 100 words or less, please add any brief comments that you feel are appropriate. (You may want to include information about practices you encourage or discourage in a round.)	I am a parent/lay judge with no real experience. I cannot judge what I cannot understand so be clear, precise, and speak with appropriate volume. No spreading! LD jargon will only confuse me so keep it clear and simple. Stand while speaking or cross-examining. Be respectful to opponent. Confirm that opponent and judge are ready before beginning. Keep track of your own time (I will keep track as well).

Login to Tabroom

Sunvite

2025 — Davie, FL/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

Judges