Tabroom.com

Marist Scrimmage Series 1

2024 — Online, GA/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Avy Agrawal Woodward Academy

Last changed on Tue November 5, 2024 at 10:24 AM EDT

--Tldr--

3rd year, 2N, Woodward

I would pref speech drop, but add me to the chain if you make one: avylovestostealcards@gmail.com

Dont be mean stuff please — if your opp is obviously less knowledgable about debate them you, help them and dont just trash on them.

None of my argument preferences should affect the way you debate, make it an interesting and educational debate for me and your opponent

Tech>Truth

Be Clear, especially on tags and important analytics.

All dropped/mishandled arguments need to be impacted out. Explain y it matters that they conceded it

I tend to lean neg (as you could prolly tell from me being a 2N) on theory and T against K-affs

If you do cheaty stuff be prepared to answer for it, BUT I wont not consider it. For example reading 2NC CP will get you a theory arg but you can still convince me. Judges claiming to be tabula rusa but than not evaluating certain args is not possible.

Weigh the advantage of removing analytics because if the other team doesn't flow them, there is a chance neither can I. I will lower speaks if you do this vs novices/people worse than you.

+0.1 speaks if you can make me laugh/if you start every rebuttal with it's a bad time to be aff/neg

--Novice--

Most of this stuff stops applying after ~March or so when you start transitioning into open.

It's a novice debate, like no new off in the 2NC, I will not flow it.

Look at Maggie Berthiaumes paradigm for more information, but I am a Woodward debater, I like integrity, dont do cheaty stuff and you'll be fine.

Most of the time, in novice, im just left confused. For example the aff drops their own case and the neg doesnt extend off. Dont be those people. Explain your arguments without reading blocks. Give judge instruction. Most of the time in novice I can write a ballot both ways — but normally it goes to whoever does more impact calc and judge instruction.

Most of my varsity stuff applies if you really care.

--Varsity--

Do judge instruction please. I dont want to intervene.

Case:

In the 1NC try to get enough case defense instead of trying to outspread your opponents with more off case. I love a turn (esp ! turns) debate but be prepared to go for it, and have a billion cards on it. Dont read it for more offense. I love CP/Turn debates or just turn debates

DAs:

Great! I personally belive they are the most convincing argument if they are a true opportunity cost to the plan. Just impact it out and explain y that turns case. The higher up you can turn case on the IL chain the better.

CPs:

Most of them are great. I lean aff on process CPs/"Cheaty" CPs but love a good plan specific CP. Another consideration is if the CP's NB is germane to the aff. I do like limited functional intrinsicness and I WILL vote on perm do plan and CP over other issues and isn't commonly extended.

Ks:

Fine. I am from woodward, but im starting to like them more and more. If you can explain it to a layman, you can go for it. If your reading your varsity teams blocks and/or removing analytics against novices, I will give you low speaks. I don't think there is a reason why the aff cant weigh their plan against the impact of the K or a reason why the neg doesn't get Ks. Ofcourse you can convince me otherwise

Especially useful against small affs that avoid topic gens and I lean neg on T against K-Affs

Procedurals:

The only situation you should extend the common ones (ASPEC/Vagueness) is if they are dropped or fully mishandled. I can be convinced of procedurals like any other argument. If its hidden so I dont flow it, i dont care if the other team drops it

Condo:

Make it an educational/fun debate if you go for it please. I tend to lean neg, idk of any arguments of why I should reject the team even if they drop condo. If they drop I should reject the team, explain it. Again, you need to impact our everything dropped. In my opinion, its never made the debate so skewed that it's a reason to reject the team. But obviously thats up for debate

Kaitlin Algeo Marist School 5 rounds

Evan Arena Marist School

Alex Barnard Montgomery Bell Academy

Casey Czerniawski Marist School

Anna Jane Harben Woodward Academy

Rishi Jain Woodward Academy

Last changed on Fri November 1, 2024 at 10:46 AM EDT

Rishi Jain

Put me on the chain — 27rishijainpersonalemail@gmail.com

2nd Year Policy Debater for Woodward Academy — Class of 2027

I'm best for judging policy arguments. I hold tech > truth to the highest standard possible and try to minimize judge intervention.

I have a bunch of miscellaneous, top-level thoughts here that should be enough to gloss over and figure me out during the pre-round without taking enormous amounts of time:

I also bolded areas that you should look at regardless.

Novice Debates — these are different. I value good debating. That means hiding theory, splicing together cards in packet to change arguments, etc. are not appreciated.

That also means that if I find you did something non-educational, I might disregard it. I know that sounds arbitrary, but if there's a packet, you should be able to figure out what is and isn't educational pretty quickly.

Yes, I will evaluate all debates technically, but novice debates are different from varsity debates. That means I judge them differently. If I think I would vote for a side technically, but the way I'm voting incentivizes anti-educational practices (I arbitrarily determine these), I will gladly vote the other way around. i.e. Kant is something that I think should never be in a novice debate.

Chain titles should have useful info. This format should work:

[Tournament Name] — R[# round here/elim round name] — [School] [Code] [[Side]] v. [School] [Code] [[Side]]

Ex:

MBA — R1 — Woodward JT [Aff] v. Woodward NP [Neg]

Everything I think can be changed with good, solid debating. (minus the novice debating stuff.. that is unconditional.)

Online debates — if my camera is off, I’m not there. Always verbally confirm I’m there before starting.

Tech over truth.

I believe debate is a game and we're all here to win, though that belief can be changed through some good debating, as can all of my biases.

If a team asks to end the round because of [x], I will give both sides the chance to present evidence and then decide the winner of the round, but only if there isn't a rule in place or instructions given by tab.

If the team that asked to end the round loses, they will both receive 0 speaks. The other team will receive 28.5 speaks.

If the team that asked to end the round wins, they will both receive 28.5 speaks. The other team will receive 0 speaks.

I promise to follow the easiest path to the ballot.

You can defend extremist positions but you must be able to protect it from everything, including other extremist positions technically. I'm willing to vote on them.

To say it bluntly, if I have to vote on the most untrue, horrendous, ethically concerning arguments,I will.

I'll intervene if:

1 — the '-isms'. You should know what these are — sexism, racism, lgbtqphobic, etc.

2 — someone is incapable of continuing the round, whether it be physically or mentally. No, this does not mean you should make up a psychic violence claim to try to get them voted down on.

3 — forced by tab, or laws, or really anything else.

4 — this one probably most concerns you — if there is not a possible decision absent intervening. You can expect low speaks if this happens.

No card doc — but don't assume I won't read your evidence.

Similarly, highlight your evidence! When I read the evidence, I strictly read the highlighting.

I read contested evidence. It gets on my nerves when the rebuttal makes an argument with no warrant and judges read the evidence and make the warrant for them. I won’t read your evidence if you haven’t made me want to read it.

An argument has a claim, warrant, and reasoning. Reasoning can be assumed — it's their burden to disprove.

I don't care about things that aren't arguments.

Try-or-die is incoherent to me. I'm open to voting on it if told to, but without strong framing, I default to weighing risks. That also means there is a very high chance I'm going to zero or hero your impact arbitrarily if you don't do it for me.

There is a bar to neg terror. Don't cross it.

Similarly, there is a bar to aff terror. This one is a bit more vague. Don't cross it [new affs are below the bar, obviously].

I do not evaluate arguments or parts of arguments that deal with or relate to out-of-round issues.

I do not judgekick by default. That is a debate to have.

Please send docs using Microsoft Word. Verbatim formatting would be appreciated too.

If you use Google Docs, I will think you are a complete coward if you disable copy-pasting and unshare post-round. That also limits my access to your evidence.

Impact weighing is appreciated. I weigh impacts — but that's nearly impossible to do fairly and without bias absent your input during the 2NR/AR.

Dropped arguments are true. They mitigate the risk of an impact and/or provide offense to be sufficient to vote on.

(That means that, if you drop a link takeout to a DA, no matter how much impact weighing you do and how many times you say your impact went dropped, you'll probably still lose because the link takeout, which went dropped, probably mitigates a lot of the DA.)

Zero risk is possible, but "zero is a small number." Same goes for 100% risk.

Does this mean I'll float arbitrary numbers when trying to explain how I evaluated impacts? Probably, but you should analyze the numbers relative to one another, not in a vacuum. Me saying I thought the scenario was at 10% risk means I thought it had a bigger risk than the 5% risk scenario, not that it's just a bad impact because everything [hopefully] is contextual to the debate.

Counterplans:

Love them.

Don't overdo it (you know who you are).

Lenient on solvency advocates. I think some counterplans — like advantage counterplans — do need solvency advocates, but logical rehighlightings of 1AC evidence definitely qualify.

To be more specific, if a piece of 1AC evidence says we shouldn't do [x], then counterplan: don't do [x] with that card as the solvency advocate does actually have a solvency advocate.

I will vote on zero risk of the net benefit means the counterplan is irrelevant if defense is decisively won. If it needs to come to this, I'd appreciate judge instruction telling me that, but there's a chance I might evaluate that way through my own deliberation.

Counterplans that result in the aff? Ew. Cut a case neg. Laziness does not win good speaks... nor does it win at all. These counterplans definitely lose on perms and theory.

However, it's worth noting that they also probably can't solve the aff, especially on this topic — I would like to judge those debates because they're fun, but I'm not biased against the delay perm or PDCP or PDB debates.

CP-specific deficits are amazing. Even better are aff-specific deficits. I'd love to judge those rounds.

I default to normal permutation theory: a legitimate permutation is one that includes all of the plan and part or all of the counterplan.

Of course, severance and intrinsicness need to be impacted out. Can't just say it’s severance and then move on. You'd be kinda in a weird place if they extend it and say that the internal link to severance perms being bad wasn't said, so there isn't a reason it's bad.

K's (both aff and neg):

There's a bunch of rambling K-oriented thoughts below, but I think the best thing for you to understand is that I judge off the flow and read contested evidence. K's are technical. I think the best K debates are the most technical on both sides.

Granted, I do think that the side of truth for framework is no Ks.

(neg) K's are fine, but make sure you explain it to me. I'm not completely well-versed in K's. I’m good with understanding Framework arguments usually. Please make the links easy to understand. Similarly, K-AFFs are fine with me. I love a good K debate. Don't hyper-speed through your framework blocks, or really anything — being clear and concise is great. Also, define words. Please don't expect me to know some random word that the K makes up with a really vague definition. They're kinda interesting when well debated and explained! I’ve gotten better at them recently. If your framework doesn’t moot the aff, get a better framework please because it’s hard to evaluate the aff impacts v. Aff Reps/Epistemology. No framework read = default to evaluating the plan vs. alt and I’ll intervene when necessary if I don’t find any path forward to a decision given by either side. K tricks don’t really work for me without a really good top-level explanation, because most of the time I’m too dumb to understand them.

I tend to think of the K team as just spreading through blocks with incoherent buzzwords reading Ks where framework is just a bunch of repetitive, wrong, and bad garbage. Don’t be that team. There’s a reason I prefer policy arguments more: they actually make way more sense (though everything typically makes 0 sense in debate).

TLDR, default ROB is to evaluate plan vs. the alt, default ROJ = determine winner of the debate. explain to me because I'm dumb with high-theory. Cap, Racial Cap, SetCol, Psycho, and Death Ks are the Ks I'm (kind of) familiar with the thesis of (though, moreso Psycho, Cap, and TMT than the rest). I'm slightly familiar with Anti-Blackness and Afropessimism, but not 100%, more like 35.29%.

I think framework is a strong 2AR v. Ks that exclude the aff. Fairness seems quite true to me.

Performance is only critical if you have evidence (this one is a maybe) and you tell me it is (do this one).

(aff) K affs == cool. be understandable. Saying a bunch of buzzwords and debate jargon isn't an argument, and if it's explained that way in the 1/2AR then idk what your argument is and I'll probably vote neg.

It is my opinion that novices shouldn't be reading a K Aff.

I personally think that W/M and a C/I on T is a terrible strategy compared to impact turning T. The aff has a reason why debating the rez is bad, now go figure out a way to apply it to T (even though, most T impact turns are wrong truth-level)

Make smart impact turns of T. It's not framework. So don't treat it like framework. That means content based DAs to T are probably on the worse side of 2ARs for me.

I think K v. K Affs is cool, so long as it doesn't become confusing. I think performance is able to be evaluated, but you gotta tell me that, and also I think that your performance can just be terrible being a reason I shouldn't evaluate it.

I think I've become more receptive to K v. K aff but honestly topicality v. K Affs is probably more true however also very technical.

(general) Please utilize CX against the K. I think it's interesting when a K team explains their argument, but they should remember: buzzwords/fancy complex words that aren't things a typical high schooler would know about/understand are always bad. They get lower speaks from me too. AKA, anything ending with "-ology" should be explained, and anything with like over... idk 3 syllables? Just use your judgement.

I'm better for fairness than education in general, and especially against 'epistemology first' interpretations. I simply cannot coherently understand why education is lost in that round through discussing something else, and why that education is valuable.

But if you explain it well enough, sure I'll vote on it.

DA's (aff and neg):

Always great. Maybe it would be fun to just bombard somebody with like 4-5 DAs, but I wouldn’t know. I especially love the all DA 1NR — I think a good 2AC makes it pretty time-pressured which gets all the good arguments and cards read on a position.

Remember the entire DA when answering it. I like to see good offense and smart arguments on all places of the DA. If somebody reads a huge 10-card uniqueness wall in the 2NC for a DA, why bother with the uniqueness debate when you could do a UQ o/ws the link?

Yes, yes, you can win 100% risk of defense. You can zero the DA, but "zero is a small number." I'm not offense-defense.

When going for offense, please do in-depth clash.

Also, I love these nice turns case people are always making! Do them analytically. If the 1AR drops them, make it the ballot! Turns-case is lovely.

UQ CPs need to be well-crafted and have a reason that they can't be permed. Most lose to PDB. A contrived reason that they can't be permed is kinda stupid though.

*edit: Same thing above with UQ CPs, but after some thought, they just don't make sense to me...I might be missing something, I might not, but please explain how the two worlds — the plan and the UQ CP — interact/what happens in one that isn't in the other.

Politics DAs? Love them. Elections and PC tradeoff/Agenda PTX is what I'm familiar with most.

Easily one of the best DAs if you know how to debate it well. That being said, bad politics speeches hurt my soul — both aff and neg. Yes, you can go for theory against them. They're not that legitimate, which is exactly why I love them.

In general, I think that on most DAs the 2AC should have both analytics and cards. Preferably keep the analytics to truth-level claims about how illogical the DA is, and cards go to technical claims that get debated. Analytics are a strong tool for 2As to use against a DA, but making them reinforce technical claims (your cards) with truthful facts means I'll probably lean more aff than neg because the DA doesn't make sense according to those truth-based claims + whatever tech thing you're winning

Impact Turns:
Love them!! Especially the ludicrous ones. Not much to say. They're a really underused and OP strategy (well, it's only super good if there's good evidence. That's the basis of all argumentation — evidence)

Imo, unethical impact turns aren't a voting issue. Tech over truth means what it means. I'll vote on death good, spark, etc.

Kicking case and going for an impact turn is kinda underutilized on the aff but it's a fire move.

Ts/Theory:

No preferences for Ts. I like running them, but unless the aff is like egregiously untopical or they just drop T, I think it's hard to win. Just tell me in the 2NR/2AR why your model of debate is good and why their model is bad. This goes for all theory: All theory is is just a debate about models. Why is your model good? Why is their model bad?

Predictability v. Debateability is definitely a debate to have.

T's are good. Convince me. It’s especially interesting when the AFF is definitely 100% topical but you still argue T. Theory arguments are fine, but I would prefer you don't go all in on theory if you still have some other chances of winning elsewhere in the debate. It takes time to understand and, even though the impacts are evaluated first, I would prefer theory as an end-of-the-debate-all-in-nothing-to-lose sort of thing. No, this doesn't mean I err to reasonability, it just means that if I think you could've gone for something else, or had you been winning somewhere else, why would you take the time and extend that theory? I get it if they drop it, but just going for theory for giggles isn't going to get some cool speaker points in lieu for that nice in-depth econ DA debate you could've had rather than the boring condo debate.

Of course, if you're losing, I guess theory is your savior. Just don't forget theory crossapps.

Save T for the 2NC not the 1NR. It isn't that much of a deal if you run the same old T an aff has seen 100 times against it and all the 1A has to do is pull out some blocks and that's it. At least in the 2NC they think there's something important going on.

General:

Open CX/'Tag-Team' CX is allowed. Don't bulldoze your partner. You're both supposed to know your arguments.

Don't cheat. I always prefer 0 downtime in debates, so do you really need that marked doc? If I can't understand your argument, you should either go for another one or consider a different argument. I won't vote on it if I can't understand it. If you say it, I evaluate it, and I try my best not to do work for you. Slow down on analytics please I'm decent at flowing but I'm not the godly listener-hyper-typer flower. Be clear please!

Rehighlighting theory. Obviously safer for you to read it, but you can have the debate.

Sometimes I flow on paper. Sometimes I don't. That shouldn't affect how you give your speech. Give me pen time and time to switch between flows and clarity, please. Justify new arguments if they’re in the 1AR/2NR/2AR. New 2AR arguments aren’t evaluated (the ones that are really new and unjustified; new warrants also count this way). Time yourself. I will time you as well. Use Microsoft Word & Verbatim please for sending docs. At the very least, use Word and I’ll convert to verbatim. Unformatted docs are not appreciated, and if you don’t send out some cards, chances are I won’t read them. I won't dock speaks if you don't use word + verbatim, I'd just prefer it this way.

I'm fine with fast spreading, but make sure you are clear when you do it. If I can't understand you, I won't count the argument; please make an overview, but don't have a 5-minute long overview. Tech > True unless both sides are over on tech, then I evaluate the truthfulness of the argument. Explain K's completely, don't expect me to know huge vocabulary words (like seriously, what is floccinaucinihilipilification?). I flow and I use speech docs. If you're going to remove analytics from speech docs, slow down on them.

Comprehensive case defense > running as many off-case as possible and practically dropping both advantages.

(and extend that case defense too! I love an in-depth case debates! Affirmatives should be ready for in-depth case defense, not just count on too many off-case and low case defense. The way some affs are crafted is just horrifying to me.)

Double DA block == overpowered.

I don't really like laundry list impacts. If you spread at top speed through some of them, chances are I'll flow "laundry list" and that's it.

At worst, you should read (some/a) terminal impact(s) to the laundry list.

Speaker Points:

Mainly based off of CX and Rebuttals (unless something sticks out to me during the constructives [including 1NR, yes the block is a constructive]). Immediate loss + 0 speaks if any racism, sexism, or any lgbtqphobic things occur (+ cheating). Basically, don’t be offensive and I won’t give you low speaks. Don't do the '-ism's

Just do your best and you'll do well!

Oliver Johnston Montgomery Bell Academy

Michelle Lee Marist School

Last changed on Tue October 1, 2024 at 11:30 PM EET

Hey y’all! I am a junior at Marist School. Please add me to the email chain: michellelee26@marist.com

misc

- Please time your prep time and speeches please! While I do time speeches, don't count on me for keeping track of prep time. I will automatically start your timer on your first word; if a speech goes on for more than 5 seconds over, I will say something.

- Tag teaming is fine with me - it gets problematic with me when your partner takes over the majority of CX. Please use your CX to show what you know!

- Signpost please! Simple things as stating "next" or "and" when moving from evidence to evidence or argument to argument will boost your speaker points and make it easier for me to get your arguments. On a similar note, please give a roadmap before starting your speech, but normally I'll ask for one if it hasn't been provided yet. It's fine if you don't follow your roadmap, but please signpost or else it will make it harder for me to get arguments down on my flow.

- Since this topic is relatively new, it's understandable to me if you don't know complex jargon. However, you should still be able to answer questions sustainably in CX - it will be very clear to me if you don't know your aff/off case positions. Citing authors in CX is also very impressive, and I encourage y'all to try to extend specific warrants from your evidence.

- Flow speeches. It will help you to better understand what the other team is saying. If you are planning to ask the other team about a piece of evidence, make sure they have read it in their speech.

- If you need to mark cards, please do so completely ("mark the card at (x)"). Also, make sure to mark your own speech doc.

- Don't be mean. This should go without saying.

content wise (please bear in mind that while these are my general ideas, I can be convinced otherwise!!)

- Tech over truth.

- Impact calc and judge direction will raise your speaks and make it easier for me to evaluate the round. Please put it at the top of your final rebuttals, and that will be greatly beneficial!

- Case: please read and defend some sort of a plan in front of me - otherwise it's very easy for me to side with the neg on framework. Specific case answers and case debating is really good to see, otherwise I can be persuaded that arguments are too vague and don't apply. Big stick plans are good, but so are smaller affs.Nontraditional Ks are good with me as well, just make sure that you are within the bounds of the topic enough to give the neg ground.

- DAs: if the debate comes to case v DA, you have to have impact calc starting as early as the 2AC. This makes it so much easier to evaluate the debate and to see which impacts come first. It can get very messy without impact calc. DA turns the case is a very good argument.

- CPs: most CPs are fine with me. I think condo is good, but I can be convinced. If you want me to judge kick the counterplan I can do that, but you have to tell me. This should go without saying, but please have a NB for your counterplan. If the neg loses the CP, I can still give them the NB or whatever else they read.

- T: T is fine, but you have to have a TVA. If you're confident on T, go for it. Also, please don't hide it (especially for ASPEC). Please put it on it's own flow

- K: I'm very easy to persuade on both sides for the K - again, there has to be a good framework debate and judge instruction for me to vote for you. Please explain K jargon - if it's not your typically traditional K assume I won't know jargon. Also, please have links specific to the aff.

Most importantly, have fun!

Aaly Nanji Woodward Academy

Tanvi Pamulapati Woodward Academy

Jayden Rachal Marist School

Res Seibels Montgomery Bell Academy

Ria Thakur Woodward Academy

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 11:40 AM EDT

Ria Thakur

Johns Hopkins University '26

Woodward Academy '22

Last Updated: 07/20/2023

Please add me to the email chain: riathakur228@gmail.com

Top Level

Most important thing is to be respectful and have fun. We are all taking valuable time out for this activity, hopefully everyone learns something from the debate. Please send out a speech document — don't intentionally take out any analytical arguments. Flow. Feel free to ask me any questions and/or email me post round.

Online Debate

It is very important to speak slightly slower and more clearly with online debate. I would prefer that you keep your camera on throughout the debate.

Do not worry too much if you have a tech issue — it happens and I know it can be stressful. Don't steal prep.

[Side Note: Your speech starts on your first word. You know that. I know that. So you really do not need to do the whole "Starting in 3...2...1..." countdown or say "Beginning on my first word...". Just go for it. You got this!]

General

Explain your positions well; the better you do so, the more likely you are to win your arguments. Contextualize your arguments to the opponent's position and make sure to cite and extend your evidence with well warranted claims. Do line-by-line and signpost your speech. Don't forget to explain the significance of winning a particular argument—why does that mean you should win the debate? Also, important moments from CX should show up in your speeches.

Please do not read positions such as "death good" in front of me.

Case

Case debating is very important. I can vote on complete defense. Impact turns are fun, but please explain them well.

Kritiks

I am fine with you reading pretty much whatever you want, but I cannot guarantee that I will understand everything. I am particularly not good for high theory debates. I like when kritiks are more topic (or aff) specific.

Contextualize the links to the affirmative. Explain the alternative.

Counterplans

Read what you want. Please have a solvency advocate.

Disadvantages

Good, specific links will take you a long way. I love good impact calculus and turns case arguments. Not the biggest fan of the Politics DA, but can still vote on it.

Miscellaneous

Don't hide ASPEC; put it on its own flow.

If you have good/better evidence on an argument, point it out in your speech (make sure to explain why it is better). I'll make sure to look at it.

New block arguments justify new 1AR answers.

Try not to speak for or over your partner in CX unless they are seriously struggling.

Lane Tharp Woodward Academy

Victoria Yan Westminster

Michelle Zhou Westminster

Login to Tabroom

Marist Scrimmage Series 1

2024 — Online, GA/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges