Greenhill Fall Classic
2018 — Dallas, TX/US
Tim Alderete Paradigm
Judging Philosophy - Tim Alderete -The Meadows School - firstname.lastname@example.org
Time before a round is Limited - you usually can't read the Whole Philosophy -the first part is the Short Version, the second part is if you have time to read it all.
First Part - Short / Pre Round Version
-"If nobody hates you, you are doing something wrong." - Dr. House
-I do want to be on the email chain - email@example.com
-I have a minimum standard for coherence of arguments or evidence. This probably means you think I’m “Interventionist.”
-I am not the best judge for Bad Theory. This is the area where my “minimum standard” gets used the most.
-I don’t inflate speaker points. To offset my low speaker point range, I offer incentives for flowing and sharing documents.
-I have often voted for kritikal affirmative and negative arguments
-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will call "Clearer" if you are unclear.
-I will vote on Defensive arguments.
-Prep time ends when you hit Send on the Email or hand over the USB.
-(Never thought I would have to state this in my philosophy...) Misrepresenting the context of evidence is cheating and can result in (up to) the loss of the round and points.
Second Part - Longer Version
Initially - I don't think that many people describe accurately how they judge. This is how I think I judge, but it is always better to ask Other people how I judge - they may have more accurate information.
Speaker Points – My speaker point range: 26 (Bad), 27 (Decent), 27.5 (Pretty Good), 28.0 (Very Good), 28.5 (Outstanding). 29.0 and above are saved for the most exceptional speakers – I have only given 3 people over a natural 29.0 in the last five years. I recognize that this range is lower than many judges. My Reason for my range is based upon my 28 years judging well over 4000 rounds at the high school and college levels – I am probably harder to impress than most judges. I have thought about changing my range, but I have chosen not to inflate speaker points, for the same reason that I chose not to inflate grades – it gives me no way to rate truly exceptional debaters, and doesn’t let fair to middling debaters know that they need to improve.
However, I Have chosen to augment points with incentives. If you keep a good flow, and show it to me after the round, I will give you up to an additional speaker point if I agree that it is a good flow. I do this to encourage flowing and organization. If you do not steal Any prep time during the debate and practice good USB/Paperless norms, I will give you up to .5 more. Remember that once I have entered my E-Ballot online, I cannot change your points, so you must Ask before I turn the ballot in.
The Theory – Good theory arguments are essential to prevent abusive practices by teams. Good theory is one aspect of debate that makes our activity unique, because it gives students a sense of empowerment as they control the rules of the game. Theory arguments are sometimes your only option – your “Plan B” – and I respect debaters who recognize and utilize their most strategic options. Bad Theory arguments make it harder for me to take Good Theory arguments seriously, because if everything is a voting issue, then nothing is. I think that currently, Bad Theory is drowning out Good Theory. I admit that there is no precise line or list dividing the two, and I won’t “Automatically Intervene” against arguments that I think are Bad, and I Often vote against my “defaults” or “preferences” on Theory. I will Try to take your Theory arguments as seriously as you do, but at a fundamental level, It is Harder to Convince me of a Dumb argument than a Good argument.
For the most part, debaters do a bad job of justifying that arguments are a reason to vote against a debater, rather than to drop an argument. Debaters too often conflate “Bad Debate Practice” with “Abusive Practices.” Too often, debaters focus on comparing fairness and education as terminal impacts, rather than focusing on the Link Magnitude and Probability of your theory arguments. Too often people overcommit, or go all-in, on theory too early in the debate. I believe that good theory can/should drown out Bad theory. Because that is such an imprecise line, I will try to give you some examples, so that you can see what my proclivities are:
Bad Theory –
Affirmative Framework Choice – this, Literally, Argues that Argument is Bad
“No Solvency Advocate = You Lose” – this is a solvency press, not a theory argument.
“PICs must have one card which advocates the Action it takes and Advocates Not taking the Action it PICs out of” – like above, but Waaay more silly.
“I cannot turn your theory argument, so you lose.” – Fundamental misunderstanding of how arguments work.
“Topicality is a Reverse Voting Issue” – No, it isn’t.
“You lose because you put your Role of the Ballot on the Bottom, not the Top, of the AC.” – Stunning.
"You said no reverse voting issues. That's a reverse voting issue." I'm speechless...
“You lose because you ran both theoretical and substantive justifications for your framework” – Really?!
“You didn’t number your Spikes = You lose.” – Strike me. Seriously.
Good Theory –
Whole Resolution / Plans Bad
Truth Testing vs Competing Worlds
Role Playing Policymakers vs Discourse
PICs Good/Bad (only run against Counterplans, not against Plans or the Resolution… Just FYI)
Fiat issues (Multiple Actors, International Actors, Contingent Fiat, etc. NOT "No Neg Fiat")
Offense and Defense – Offensive arguments are good because they give you options and they pressure the other debater. Defensive arguments are good because they often are necessary complements to offensive arguments, and because they are often the strongest logical flaws against a position. The idea that Defensive arguments cannot take out a position alone is misguided. "Offense/Defense" is a useful teaching concept but it is often misapplied as a debate argument or comparison, most often on theory. It is not an excuse to avoid responding to Link answers or Violation Answers or Counter standards. I am easier to convince than most judges that there is No Case, No Violation or No Interpretation. I rarely default to "There is always some risk." I evaluate impact calculus After I decide whether you have won an argument, not before (or instead of) it. I do not see "Defensive" arguments as being weaker arguments. An Intelligent Defensive argument is better than a Poor Offensive argument. I am willing to vote on Defensive arguments that take out the entirety of a case or the entirety of a Theory argument. It may be a high Threshold, but there is a Threshold. Again, Examples:
“You did not extend your Impacts – therefore there are no impacts” – this is just a weak press.
“Alternative Causality – they cannot solve all racism in the world” – I don’t believe that was their claim to start with…
“Economic Decline doesn’t cause war” – this is Defensive, but just because it doesn’t cause war doesn’t mean that decline isn’t bad.
“There is no Offensive reason why they Don’t have to number their spikes.” – Defense will probably suffice here.
“Obama won’t lose political capital if Kenya decides to ban oil” vs “There is always a risk of a link” – this has crossed the threshold of No Risk.
Kritiks - Good Kritik debates are some of the best debates that I have judged. They are interesting, creative, demand challenging case specific research, and respond to core issues and assumptions raised by the Affirmative. Bad Kritik debates are some of the worst debates that I have judged. They avoid engaging the debate either through obscure jargon or shallow procedurals, or conflate kritiks with other arguments, or are hopelessly generic, or are about Baudrilliard. I think that kritiks often balance well the philosophical and the political in LD – as such, I think that LD has been “Doing Kritiks” for decades, without calling the arguments kritiks. I think that it is a mistake to conflate all discourse arguments with “Micropolitical Activism” – they are not always synonyms.
Prep Time – LD has not developed norms or practices for sharing paperless evidence. This causes a substantial waste of time, which extends or moots prep time limits. At a minimum, I have these expectations:
-Prep time should end when you hand the USB to the opponent.
-Debaters must provide a USB or Email copy of every card they read to their opponent prior to the speech. Paper copies can be handed to them as they are read.
-Reading over someone’s shoulder is NOT a sufficient substitute – it is a major distraction, interferes with flowing, and it means one person will not be able to use their computer
-The Cases, Disads, frontlines, evidence, etc. must All be in One word document, rather than spread out over multiple documents.
-You may time yourself, but only My time is official.
-Why wouldn't you use Microsoft Word?
-I won't read evidence that isn't shared via USB or email. I realize that some teams have a Policy against sharing evidence. Those teams either already strike me, or should in the future.
Policy – I have coached both Policy and LD – although I have focused on Policy for most years. While I have judged a substantial amount of LD, my judging will always, inevitably, be influenced by my Policy background. Because of that:
-I hold debaters responsible for high quality evidence.
-I am familiar with Counterplan, Kritik and Topicality positions and burdens.
-I “can handle” The Speed.
-I have a lower point range.
-I reward strategic choices, and believe that Diverse Options are good.
-I don’t like Disclosure games – Although Don’t take this to mean I want to hear Disclosure theory…
-I will disclose decisions after the debate. I am not used to disclosing points, but I am not opposed to it.
I am usually loud and long winded when explaining decisions - I am not trying to be mean, just loud. I do enjoy judging a lot, even if I appear intimidating. In general, I will flow pretty much any intelligible speed. I will consider pretty much any intelligent argument.
Jonathan Alston Paradigm
I am a head coach at Newark Science and have coached there for years. I teach LD during the summer at the Global Debate Symposium. I formerly taught LD at University of North Texas and I previously taught at Stanford.
I like many types of arguments, but I like them to be smart.
I don't presume to any side. I listen to student arguments. I do believe that basic things are true, though. The Affirmative must present a problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine.
Do not spread philosophy. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)
Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.
I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I would like for the debates about the debate to be interesting. I am not into frivolous theory.
Every argument has a standard, even if it is pre the agreed upon standard in the round. Explain to me why it is important or makes sense. I like smart, substantive arguments.
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. Do not take evidence out of context by cutting qualifiers like "might" or "maybe".
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
For policy Debate (And LD, because I judge them the same way).
Same as for LD. Make sense. Big picture is important. I can't understand spreading dense philosophy. Don't assume I am already familiar with what you are saying. Explain things to me. Starting in 2013 our LDers have been highly influenced by the growing similarity between policy and LD. We tested the similarity of the activities in 2014 - 2015 by having two of our LDers be the first two students in the history of the Tournament of Champions to qualify in policy and LD in the same year. They did this by only attending three policy tournaments (The Old Scranton Tournament and Emory) on the Oceans topic running Reparations and USFG funding of The Association of Black Scuba Divers.
We are also in the process of building our policy program. Our teams tend to debate the resolution with non-util impacts or engages in methods debates. Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it.
I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.
Important: Don't curse in front of me. I don't like high school students cursing in front of me. Please don't do it. I may take off points because of it. If the curse is an essential part of the textual evidence, I am more lenient. But that would be the exception. Ultimately, I do not think that high school students are grown, and the language that is used should be consistent with my classroom standards.
Malachi Ambrose Paradigm
You do you. I don't really care what you do in round as long as it's not racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic etc. I won't intervene unless the other team instructs me to do so in their speech. In egregious cases I will stop the round.
Now for everything else. I debated for 3 years at Skyline High School in the Bay Area Urban Debate League. My high school career culminated in two major accomplishments, winning the 2017 Urban Debate Championship and having a 4-3 record at the Tournament of Champions. Now I debate for the University of Texas at Austin where I run antiblackness (more specifically a kritik aff and afropessimism or black nihilism on neg).
I have experience judging everything from theory heavy kritik debates to 9 off policy debates. I prefer the kritik but 2 years of judging has made policy affirmatives very persuasive especially when the neg uses buzz words and poorly explains the thesis of the kritik.
Jugal Amodwala Paradigm
Hi I debated LD throughout high school at Westwood (2018), earned two career bids and qualified to the TOC. pls flash firstname.lastname@example.org
I am coaching Westwood during the 2018-19 season.
I never considered myself as a particularly good debater due to my inability to execute in round but I'd like to think that I have a good grasp of debate.
In my year at Westwood we had a few debaters that competed a lot on the national circuit and since all five of us (rohith mandavilli, rishabh shah, dhruva mambapoor, and abby grifno) were coached by Rodrigo Paramo I think I share similar views to these people. I also agree with Bennett Eckert, Travis Fife, and Aaron Timmons.
If you're lazy some pref shortcuts:
LARP - 1
Theory/T - 1-3 (depending on the frivolity of the position)
Kritiks - 2
Phil - 2
Tricks - strike
I am NOT tabula rasa and I don't think anyone actually is.
I will say slow/clear twice and after that I'll stop flowing.
My favorite kind of debate was a simple plan disad cp debate because I think those brought about the most clash and in-depth evidence comparison at the high school level. That said I don't want to hear you failing to go for a disad when you've never read one before in your life.
I will not vote for anything I don't understand - I think I have a good grasp of the "generic K's" and Kant but beyond that some explanation might be necessary given I haven't read all of the literature.
I am a very expressive person - I will constantly be making faces in round, think of them as you would like but I would recommend just ignoring them.
I love a good case debate - challenge the aff's home turf.
DISCLOSURE IS A MUST - The only exception is if you are unaware of what the wiki is. Screenshots must be provided including time stamps.
I have a HIGH threshold for good evidence - I think it should be about your scenario and as specific as possible. If it's a politics disad or a time sensitive argument newer evidence from reliable sources prevails. If your evidence isn't particularly relevant it's likely I will discard it.
Evidence ethics challenges means the debate stops. No excuses.
I largely agree with Rodrigo regarding trigger warnings
Defaults: Education (Not persuaded by fairness mattering as much, but I will vote on it), Competing interps, Drop the debater, No RVIs - making arguments will change my defaults.
I don't recall anyone being too fast for me to flow on evidence but for short analytics like theory standards you HAVE to go slower.
Clarity is a MUST, and in my opinion debaters always think they're clearer than they actually are so maybe go slower
In my opinion the most impressive debaters are able to beat fast opponents by being slow and efficient
I will award speaks based on what I think your propensity to win the tournament is. If I believe you can win, you get a thirty, and it'll go down from there. It's likely that my standards or perception for what this is might be skewed and I will usually end up giving you lower than what your final record will end up being.
Efficiency and good strategy will bump u up.
Try not to 100% BS facts. If you say xyz is polling at 80% when they're actually polling at 40 you will lose speaks.
I WILL dock speaks for being rude and award speaks for being kind.
I love a good theory or T debate but clear standards need to be emphasized regardless of whether or not it's a potential abuse or in-round abuse claim.
I think potential abuse exists and can be an effective argument even if you have aff specific offense.
I think most theory shells that are based on CX are frivolous (ex. must list perms, must spec k over T, etc)
Counter interps and Interps must be flashed before read.
I'm persuaded by disclosure, open source, and brackets - I don't believe these are frivolous as long as the argument is justified with a warrant.
If the 2nr is literally 6 mins of theory/T I think the aff implicitly gets an rvi. I see no benefit to forcing the aff extend the 1ac for ten seconds, and they had the last substance speech so the neg has functionally conceded substance.
Dislike nebel T and I have no idea what grammar is. If I don't get your violation I can't vote on it.
Developed standards and voters are important and weigh between them if you want to have a good debate
I don't think a dictionary definition is necessary but in T debates it will go a long ways - the more specific the definition the better
Interps and counter interps need to be complete statements. I treat them like plan texts since they are an attempt at defining a norm, so things like "Counter interp: let this aff in" are not real counter interps.
I strongly believe they should have solvency advocates
frameworks are a must
I'm not a fan of underviews filled with analytics - just read cards bruh
For whatever reason I'm more lenient on the existence of a solvency advocate here, that said having one could be relevant to theory debates
One condo is chill
Not a fan of judge kick and will only evaluate the arg if it's made in the 1NC
I think these are some of the most strategic arguments in debate but I am persuaded by well crafted theory shells saying they're cheating.
The way I've always thought about philosophical frameworks is the same as Kritiks. There should be a way of explaining the world, a link to the topic, and some sort of impact.
I love util but in my senior year I branched out to deontologists like Kant and Hobbes.
Miss me with your justice v morality args - I don't care
Not a fan of Floating PIKS - I think they're cheating but if your opponent doesn't ask it's fair game
I was a big fan of the security and cap K's but specific links make a world of difference
I have a high threshold for afropessimism based arguments. I think they're often read poorly in LD and commodified, therefore I'm persuaded by the argument that white people shouldn't be advocating for it.
NOT a fan of generic links like the state is anti-black - the more specific the better
Carded responses are my favorite but I understand that the 1AR is time crunched
Kritik's must have SOME form of framing and I believe that the ROTB might precede case but this must be clearly justified.
Big fan of framework against kritiks done similarly to how Policy does it.
go for it as long as it isn't something that could potentially endanger someone
I do think all of your actions must be justified
I'm strongly compelled by T-Framework, and think plans are good for debate
no. A burden will result in an almost instant loss. I'm more than happy to discuss this with you outside of round but I think practices that focus on winning from blippy analytics are bad for debate.
Byron Arthur Paradigm
Byron R. Arthur
Holy Cross School
Judging Since September 1983
Debate Events Judged : All of Them
Debate Events Coached: All of Them
I have worn a number of professional hats through the years and they all influence how I see the debate. First, I am an attorney. This means that I insist upon evidence and its integrity. Under no circumstances do I tolerate debaters who play fast and loose with interpretation of evidence. Second, I am a teacher which means I seek to maximize education for all of us who are involved in the debate. Please join me in that effort when you are debating in front of me.
Topicality – I am happy to vote on T if it is argued well. You should know that I tend to interpret T very broadly so in some instances you might want to choose something else if your violation is one that is based upon a fairly strict interpretation. Not a huge RVI fellow. I tend not to ignore all else in the round in order to give the AFF a win for meeting one of its burdens.
Types of Arguments – There are no arguments that I reject out of hand. While I was in high school when LD was created, I am not opposed to all of the ways in which it has evolved. Counterplans are not only acceptable but encouraged as long as they are meeting all of the traditional burdens such as competition and net benefits. I would say the same for the disadvantage and its burdens.
I am very fine with the K debate as well. But at the end of the day, there must be a link for me to consider. I love debates about race, gender, sexual orientation, and other opportunities for debaters to engage in discourse about issues that are important. Yet, I also believe that individuals spend time crafting topics for a reason and call me old-fashioned but I still like those discussions. Most topics allow us to have the best of both worlds but at times they do not. Learn to recognize the difference if I am in the back of the room.
Theory is a means to an end and those who love the idea of theory as its own thing should definitely strike me.
Speed – There was a time when I would walk out of a room very impressed with the debater who was incredibly fast and offered a cornucopia of arguments. That was about 30 years ago. Now I am impressed with the debater who does more with less and values depth of discussion and argument.
Points- My range for points is generally between 26.5 -29.9. 26.5 is reserved for those who are incomprehensible, disengaged, non-responsive, or simply missing the boat. 29.9 is reserved for the debater who demonstrates a mastery of argument, communicates nuances, has the ability to analyze arguments and make meaningful comparisons, has on-point evidence, and has outstanding communication skills. THOSE WHO ARE RUDE TO OPPONENTS OR USE PROFANITY WILL RECEIVE A 20. IF YOU ARE UNEASY WITH THIS YOU SHOULD CONSIDER STRIKING ME.
I am very sensitive to the way that we treat each other in this activity. I take allegations of bullying and intimidation very seriously. As an adult in the room, I will immediately deal with these issues and protect the rights of all individuals involved. If you feel that there is an issue when you are debating in front of me, know that we will proceed in the following manner:
1. Please raise the issue when you are aware of it. I will then allow both debaters to go and find their respective coaches/adult chaperone before we proceed. I will not engage students on issues of this magnitude without their adult advocates present.
2. I will listen to both sides of the discussion to determine whether or not we can proceed with the debate or if it should be brought to the tournament director for further resolution.
Aisha Bawany Paradigm
- If you have any questions: message me on Facebook, Instagram, or email me at email@example.com
I debated in high school in LD for 4 years at the local, state, and national circuit, and 2 years in PF. I did policy debate at UT Dallas.
I'm fine with speed just please be clear.
I believe you need some sort of framework/way for me to evaluate the round. Don't assume that because I do policy that I default to a consequentialist/magnitude impacts. If you want me to evaluate that, you need to have a value/criterion that says that I should evaluate arguments on the scale of consequentialism. I ran different philosophical frameworks when I did LD and enjoy listening to different ones and the way you justify your position through it. You may be able to convince me that disclosure is good in LD.
I'm going to be honest when I say I'm predisposed to preferring topical aff positions in policy because I have mostly debated with topical policy cases. That is not to say that I won't vote on them, just that I am not the best judge to evaluate K v. K debates, and K Affs v. Framework debates. However, I do have experience running/understanding those arguments because my partner and I ran a nontopical aff for half a semester, so don't stop running those arguments, just make it easier for me to understand the method by which I should evaluate the round. Oddly enough, I'm fine with evaluating Topical Aff v. K debates, and enjoy seeing good ones. I think you need to win a link (by link, I mean a link, not a risk of a link, I mean a LINK) in order for me to vote on any K/DA. Disclosure is good.
- Debate is a game, I believe that you shouldn't bring your identity or feelings into it.
- The point of debate is to be persuasive, so I think that as long as you persuade me on something, and have some cards (even if they're untrue) then I'll vote for you. I love people that can answer arguments using a few logical responses. Quality over quantity.
- I will vote on everything in round if it's explained well and you win the argument. Caveat to that is that I don't care about out of round impacts or voting for you because you're discriminated against
- Debate warrants, not tags. Name the argument not the author. I don't know your case as well as you do to remember your authors name
- Policy: presumption flows neg because if you can't prove that the plan is a good thing from the status quo, then there is no reason to vote for you. LD: I can be convinced either way, but it's VERY unlikely for me to vote for presumption in LD on either aff or neg
- DAs need to have Uniqueness, a Link, Internal Link, and an impact. K's need to have a Link, Impact, and Alt (though it doesn't always need it, you need to tell me it functions as a linear DA). CPs need to have a counterplan text and a net benefit.
- Condo is basically Dispo because you still need to answer offensive arguments on off cases in order to kick them. You can still win condo in front of me though, I've gone for it a bit and won off it, so as long as there's clear abuse/lack of response, go for it.
- Also LOL @ you if you try to post round me, because idgaf, and my decision isn't fucking changing :)
- My RFDs are generally blunt, so don't get offended, I'm only trying to make you a better debater
- To those who like to spread really fast through analytical theory arguments that haven't been written up: good job, I'll probably miss a lot of those arguments, so it's on you for me missing those.
Basically goes like this:
- Debater spreads analytics so fast that judge can't keep up while flowing
- Judge votes for other debater because they missed something probably important because the debater didn't slow down and sacrificed quality for quantity
Erick Berdugo Paradigm
My judging philosophy is first built on the approach that debaters define the debate. This means I generally do not have any predisposition against anything within the context of the debate. Hence, I do NOT push an agenda. The arguments presented before me are to be engaged by both sides and analysis should be given whereby I should either reject or accept those arguments. This means arguments for or against should be well developed and structured logically. There needs to be a clear framework, but that is the only first level. Impacts and disadvantages need to fit within this framework. They need to be developed so that they are consistent.
If there is one thing I do not like, blip arguments. These are essentially glorified tag lines that have no analysis behind them, where then a debater claims a drop of this 'argument' becomes a voter for them. For me: no analysis = no argument thus is not a voter. However, if within the context of the debate both debaters do this they lose the right to complain about me intervening. So, take heed, do this and I will allow myself to insert how these blips should be pieced together and the analysis behind them.
There needs to be clash. Far too often debaters do not really analyze. Generally, people view good debates where the flow shows responses to everything. I view this as a fallacy. There should be analysis as to how the arguments interact with each other in regards to the line by line debate and hopefully build a bigger view of the entire debate. Again, it is the debater's job to fine tune how everything pieces together. Specifically, I prefer hearing voters that are in some way intertwined versus a bunch of independent voters. Yet, though, I prefer intertwined voters it does not mean independent voters could not subvert or outweigh a good story.
Things I have voted for AND against
K - I actually like a good K debate. However, I do warn debaters that often I see people run K's they have no reason running because they themselves do not really understand them. Further, as a theme, debaters assume I am as familiar with the authors as they are. Not true. Rather, I feel it imperative that the position of K be well articulated and explained. Many debaters, read a stock shell that lacks analysis and explanation.
counter plans - I have no problem with these in the world of LD.
Topicality - I generally stand within the guidelines of reasonability. Muddy the waters that’s what I will likely default to.
Role of the Ballot - At its heart I think the ROB is a paradigm argument or more simply a criterion argument so that even if one on face wins it does not guarantee a win because the opposite side can in the venue of the debate meat the criterion or ROB. However, the ROB I tend not to like are ones devolve the debate into pre fiat and post fiat debate. I end towards post fiat worlds in close debates.
RVI - Again this less so, an RVI for seems to be justified within the context of some blatant abuse. As an analogy I have to see the smoking gun in the offenders hand. If it not clear I will side with a standard model. To date I have not voted on an RVI 2-10-18
Understand, I honestly do approach all arguments as being justifiable within the confines of a debate. However, arguments I will on face reject are arguments whose sole objective (as a course or an objective for gain) is to oppress, murder, torture or destroy any class or classes of people. That is to say you know what you are doing and you are doing it on purpose.
I'd say that the realm of debate is for students to engage and craft. As I am no longer a competitor my bias, if it exist, should only intercede when debaters stop looking at human beings as genuine but rather as some abstract rhetoric.
Feel free to ask me some questions. but understand I'm not here to define what will win me. Good well structured argumentation that actually engages the other side are the types of debates I find most interesting. It's your world you push the paradigm you want. My voting for it or against it should not be interpreted as my support of the position beyond the confines of the debate.
Personal Narratives - I am not a fan of these arguments. The main reason, is that there is no way real way to test the validity of the personal narrative as evidence. Thus, if you introduce a personal narrative, I think it completely legit that the personal narrative validity be questioned like any other piece of evidence. If you would be offended or bothered about questions about its truth, don't run them.
Communication - I believe in civility of debate. I am seeing an increasingly bad trend of students cursing in debates. I fundamentally, think that High School debate is about learning to argue in an open forum with intellectual honesty and civility. The debate format is not that of exclusive conversations academics would have. I reject any belief that the competitive nature of the debate is like a professional sport. Cursing is lazy language and is a cheap attempt to be provocative or to fain emphasis. Thus, do not curse in front of me as your judge I will automatically drop you a point. Also, most people don’t know how to curse. It has its place just not in HS debate.
So what about cards that use curse words? Choose wisely, is the purpose because it is being descriptive of reporting actual words thrown at persons such as racial slurs. I will not necessarily be bothered by this, however, if it is the words of the actual author, I advise you to choose a different author as it is likely using it to be provocative versus pursing any intellectual honesty.
i do not have a have a problem for a spread. However, I do not prompt debaters for clarity as it is the debaters responsibility to communicate. Further, I think promoting is a form of coaching and gives an advantage that would not exist otherwise.
I do do not put myself as part of the email chain as I think by reading along it lowers the standard of the verbal communicative aspect of the debate.
I will automatically down a debater that runs an intentionally oppressive position. IE kill people because the world sucks and it’s bad to give people hope. However, if a person runs a position that MIGHT link to the death of thousands is not something I consider intentional.
Mike Bietz Paradigm
Head Coach: Harvard-Westlake School, Los Angeles CA | firstname.lastname@example.org
Use speechdrop.net for sharing speech documents. No more email or flashdrive problems. The affirmative should have this ready to go before the round starts.
Jonah Feldman, coach at UC Berkeley, summed up a lot of what I have to say about how I evaluate arguments
I do not believe that a dropped argument is necessarily a true argument
I am primarily interested in voting on high quality arguments that are well explained, persuasively advanced, and supported with qualified evidence and insightful examples. I am not interested in voting on low quality arguments that are insufficiently explained, poorly evidenced, and don't make sense. Whether or not the argument was dropped is a secondary concern...
How should this effect the way I debate?
1) Choose more, especially in rebuttals. Instead of extending a lot of different answers to an advantage or offcase argument, pick your spots and lock in.
2) If the other team has dropped an argument, don't take it for granted that it's a done deal. Make sure it's a complete argument and that you've fully explained important components and implications of winning that argument.
His full paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6366
I never thought I'd have to say this, but you have to read aloud what you want me to consider in the round. Paraphrasing doesn't count as "evidence."
The affirmative probably should be topical.
I think that I'm one of the few circuit LD judges who votes affirmative more than I vote negative. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must engage. Being independently right isn't enough.
I would probably consider myself a policy-maker with an extremely left bent. Answering oppression with extinction usually doesn't add up for me. I'll take immediate, known harms over long term, speculative, multi-link impacts 90 out of 100 times. This isn't paradigmatic so much as it is negatives failing to engage the affirmative.
Given my propensity to vote affirmative and give the affirmative a lot of leeway in defining the scope of the problem/solution, and requiring the negative to engage, I'd suggest you take out the 3 minutes of theory pre-empts and add more substance.
Topicality is probably not an RVI, ever. Same with Ks. Today I saw someone contend that if he puts defense on a Kritik to make debate a safe space, the judge should vote for him because he'll feel attacked.
Cut your presumption spikes. It's bad for debate to instruct judges not to look for winning arguments. It also encourages debaters to make rounds unclear or irreconcilable if they are behind on actual issues.
Where an argument can be made "substantively" or without theory, just make it without theory. For example, you opponent not having solvency isn't a theory violation. it just means they can't solve. Running theory flips the coin again. So it's both annoying and bad strategy. Other examples might include: Plan flaws, no solvency advocate, and so on. Theory IS the great equalizer in that it gives someone who is otherwise losing an argument a chance to win.
Cross-x cannot be transferred to prep time.
- Not letting your opponents answer a question. More specifically, male debaters who have been socialized to think its ok to interrupt females who have been socialized not to put up a fight. If you ask the question, give them a chance to answer.
- Ignoring or belittling the oppression or marginalization of people in favor of smug libertarian arguments will definitely not end up well for you.
- People who don't disclose or they password protect or require their opponents to delete speech documents. I'm not sure why what you read is private or a secret if you've read it out loud. The whole system of "connected" kids and coaches who know each other using backchannel methods to obtain intelligence is one of the most exclusionary aspects of debate. This *is* what happens when people don't disclose. I'll assume if you don't disclose you prefer the exclusionary system.
Some considerations for you:
- if you’re reading such old white male cards that you have to edit for gendered language, maybe consider finding someone who doesn’t use gendered language... and if you notice that ONLY white men are defending it, maybe consider changing your argument.
- if you find yourself having to pre-empt race or gender arguments in your case, maybe you shouldn't run the arguments.
Jane Boyd Paradigm
School: Grapevine HS
Number of years coaching CX: 31 LD: 27
Number of years coaching speech and debate: 31
What many think is progressive debate was done originally in 98-99 by Grapevine Debaters. We just did it better. Good debate is good debate. Keep in mind that trying to be cutting edge does NOT make for good debate by itself. While I appreciate innovation - I hate tricks for the sake of tricks. Keep that in mind.
Standards, criteria, framework and/or burdens serve as the same thing - these are mechanisms on how to determine who wins the debate. If a value is used it needs to be defended throughout the case and not simply an after thought. The framework of the debate should not be longer than the rest of the case. Unless it is absolutely necessary to make the framework clear, cut to the chase and tell me what is acceptable and not acceptable, but don't spend 2 1/2 minutes on something that should take just a few sentences to make clear. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic not excessive framework or theory. Note the word excessive. I am not stupid and usually get it much quicker than you think. In the debate resolve the issue of standard and link it to the substantative issues of the round then move on.
Evidence and Basic Argumentation:
Evidence adds credibility to the arguments of the case however I don't want to just hear you cite sources without argumentation and analysis of how it applies to the clash in the debate. I don't like arguments that are meant to confuse and say absolutely nothing of substantive value. I am fine with philosophy but expect that you are able to explain and understand the philosophies that you are applying to your case or arguments. A Kritik is nothing new in LD. Traditional LD by nature is prefiat, but I recognize the change that has occurred. I accept plans, DAs, counterplans and theory (when there is a violation - not as the standard strategy.) Theory, plans, and counterplans must be run correctly - so make sure you know how to do it before you run it in front of me.
Flow and Voters:
I think that the AR has a very difficult job and can often save time by grouping and cross-applying arguments, please make sure you are clearly showing me on the flow where you are applying your arguments. I won't cross apply an argument to the flow if you don't tell me to. I try not to intervene in the debate and only judge based upon what you are telling me and where you are telling me to apply it. Please give voters; however don't give 5 or 6. You should be able to narrow the debate down to the critical areas. If an argument is dropped, then make sure to explain the importance or relevance of that argument don't just give me the "it was dropped so I win argument." I may not buy that it is an important argument; you have to tell me why it is important in this debate.
I can flow very well. Speed isn't a problem, it is usually clarity that is the problem. Unless words are clear I won't flow the debate. If I am not writing then you probably need to adapt. Speed for the sake of speed is not a good idea.
I have been around long enough to have seen the genesis of Kritik arguments. I have seen them go from bad to worse, to good in policy. I think that K arguments are in the worse state in LD now. Kritiking is absolutely acceptable IF it applies to the resolution and specifically the case being run in the round. I have the same expectation here as in policy the "K" MUST have a specific link. "K" arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of a generic Kritik that questions if we exist or not and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate at hand. Kritiks must give an alternative other than "think about it." Most LD is asking me to take an action with a plan or an objective - a K needs to do the same thing. That being said, I will listen to the arguments but I have a very high threshold for the bearer to meet before I will vote on a "K" in LD.
I have a very high threshold of acceptance of theory in LD. There must be a clear abuse story. Also, coming from a policy background - it is essential to run the argument correctly. For example having a violation, interpretation, standards, and voting issues on a Topicality violation is important. Also knowing the difference in topicality and extra-topical. or knowing what non-unique really means is important. Theory for the sake of a time suck is silly and won't lead me voting on it at the end. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic not just generic framework or theory. RVI's: Not a fan. Congratulations you are topical or met a minimum of your burden I guess? It's not a reason for me to vote though unless you have a compelling reason why.
Bekah Boyer Paradigm
THIS PARADIGM HAS BEEN UPDATED FOR THE 2018/2019 SEASON
I competed on various circuits, first in policy debate for 2 years, LD for another 2 (and I have even dabbled in extemp and interp), at Colleyville Heritage in TX under Dave Huston. I've worked at Greenhill School as an assistant LD coach under Aaron Timmons since late 2010.
I feel very strongly about evidence ethics in academia.
IF YOU DO NOT SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE IN SOME WAY WITH YOUR OPPONENT (EITHER THROUGH FLASHING, VIEWING LAPTOPS, SHARING COMPUTERS, E-MAIL CHAINS OR PAPER COPIES) I WILL NOT CALL FOR IT AFTER THE ROUND. Exceptions will be dependent on previous disclosure of the citations and extenuating circumstance.
DO NOT CLIP CARDS - Every time you clip a card, a kitten gets kicked. Don't kick kittens; don't clip cards. You will lose the round if you have clipped. I will not be lenient on this issue. I may spare speaker points if you attempt to follow the norms outlined or demonstrate a norm that prevents the harms of clipping, etc. *e.g. "saying "cut the card there" and then IMMEDIATELY marking where it is cut instead of saying "cut the card at (last word spoken)."
Check out this article if you don't understand "card clipping."
I expect cites to be able to be provided for all evidence used. I reserve the right to call for them if I so choose - I may do so randomly or if I suspect something is amiss. Evidence ethics is extremely important, and I will let card-clipping, plagiarism, and forged evidence affect my decision as I see fit - in the past, it has just affected speaker points. If it is an egregious, intentional violation (yes, I determine this) I may vote you down/decrease your speaks/refuse to vote on that argument, even if your opponent does not point it out; if your opponent does indicate that I should punish, I will be more comfortable smiting your points.
If you do not know how to cite something,
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/11/ is a great resource.
I am happy to talk to you about this. Seriously, y'all, people get kicked out university/have their careers ruined for improper, albeit unintentional, citation. I'm not opposed to an entirely analytical case if you don't want to take the time to give credit where credit is due.
One great way to combat this in the community is to disclose your positions on
If sent a speech doc, I will only open it during CX to follow along with questions about the evidence. Pointed indictments about evidence will increase speaker points.
Generally, I don’t call for evidence, unless the debaters haven’t gone in depth enough with a contestation or I want to give you tips, but I do feel comfortable calling for evidence when I I want to see it.
· I default to a comparative worlds paradigm. I would like the affirmative to do something; the negative’s job is to prove why that action is bad/undesirable.
o A CP need a net benefit. Solvency deficits on their own do not make a CP competitive – e.g. If the CP solves the aff and the aff solves with a risk of advantage and no unique advantage on the CP, I will affirm. Perms are a test of competition (Affs should have clearly stated perm texts to minimize confusion and/or potential severance)
· I need a weighing mechanism and offense that links in to that weighing mechanism. Unless given another method, I will default to v/c structure as the mechanism to evaluate & prioritize the round impacts, otherwise. I acknowledge and endorse the advent of multiple, valid methods of argumentation, but I prefer a topic-centered evidence debate comparing pragmatic solutions using CBA, but you do you. Whatever you do, please make an effort to do it well (your arguments must have warrants). Most importantly, I need you to outline how both debaters can expect to access my ballot - particularly if you are employing a non-traditional method of debate.
· What is on my flow is what counts. You will be able to tell if I am lost or confused.
I consider myself alright at flowing, but I am not afraid to admit I am not perfect or even close to the best. That said, I will not vote on something that I:
a) do not not understand
b) don't have on the flow
· I will hold you to your extensions based on what I have on the flow.
o I am more lenient on 1ar shadow extensions than I am for the 2nr (my remedy for the inevitable time skew). If an argument is conceded, use that time to shine and increase your speaker points with a great extension (c/w/I style)
o If you want to win an argument you need to start by extending, at minimum, the basic parts of the argument (e.g. You need to extend T/theory violations; ROB/standards/weighing mechanisms if you want me to vote on them)
· IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU EXPLAIN THE LAYERS OF THE DEBATE FOR ME. IF YOU DO NOT WEIGH THINGS FOR ME, I WILL DO SO BASED ON WHAT I THINK (something on which we may not agree) .
o What I don't want: having to wade through the arguments and establish my own opinion
o Pro tip: Give me prioritized voters.This helps me establish that YOU have a strategy and are not just grasping at straws.
· I'm fine with speed, but I'd prefer you to make a couple of really solid arguments than many blippy ones. I will say clear twice per speech before I stop flowing that speech. After a 3rd "clear" in a speech/round speaks will be noticeably affected. Speed is a strategy - I will be annoyed if you go super fast just to make 4 underdeveloped arguments and sit down with lots of time left.
· Best way to make sure we are on the same page? Be clear. SLOW DOWN WHEN YOU ARTICULATE A WARRANT AND ITS IMPLICATION IN ROUND. Again, I have a terrible poker face. Use that to your advantage. It is obvious when I am not getting something. Loudness and/or clarity is usually more of the issue for me than speed and if I am having a “bad disability day” with my hearing, I will let you know at the beginning of the round so we can all start at a higher volume.
· IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU EXPLAIN THE LAYERS OF THE DEBATE FOR ME. IF YOU DO NOT WEIGH THINGS FOR ME, I WILL DO SO BASED ON WHAT I THINK (something on which we may not agree).
o Pro tip: Give me prioritized voters. This helps me establish that YOU have a strategy and are not just grasping at straws. AND it will increase your speaker points
· Speaker Points, in general-
o I try to average a 28.3, but I think points are overinflated these days, and I don’t know how to fix that.
o A good debater who does everything necessary to win with a smart strategy and clear extensions, evidence comparison, and weighing between arguments will receive a 29-29.8. If it is a local, Texas tournament and I think you should break, I will give you a 29+ ; @ TOC circuit tournaments, anything above a 29 means I think you are the bees knees.
o I only give 30sin certain circumstances, usually for a perfect speech, and I will tell you why you got one. In a given season, I usually give 2-3 30s.
o I assume everyone starts with a 27.5 you go up or down by tenths of a point based on strategy, extensions, speaking style, etc --- if tenths aren't available, I will round to the nearest .5. If I round up, I will indicate that on the ballot or in the RFD. Yes, I know this is subjective: welcome to any evaluation of public speaking.
o Protip: If you give me a phrase I write on my ballot, I start you at a 28 automatically instead of 27.5.
-If you are neg and don't flow the 2ar, I will dock .5 speaker point
Argument Specific Questions:
· I default to drop the arg over drop the debater
· The in round abuse story needs to be strong if I am going to drop the debater on theory
· I default to viewing Topicality/Theory as gateway issues, UNLESS other justifications/arguments are given
· If there is not a voter or a violation extended, I will not vote on theory/T.
· I default to reasonability on T if the interp is inclusive not exclusive. I prefer Competing interps because it leaves me less to wade through
o "Reasonability" vs "Competing Interps": Forget the buzzwords: everything collapses to reasonability if the debaters aren't doing comparative work. I would prefer you to have C/I's and substantial clash/weighing against each other's standards OR establish a metric of "reasonablity"
· RVI's –
o I don’t think you should win by being topical or fair; those are obligations and should not be rewarded --- It is unlikely that I will vote on RVI from an I/M on Topicality unless there is demonstrated abuse in the round (you can prove this by running something where the link depends on the interp --- or you can establish it in CX).
o I am more open to independently justified voters against T/Theory than I am RVIs (e.g., T Is racist)
· I am open to listening to RVIs as long as there is clear, obvious weighing between the standards of a competing interpretation!
· I hate skep triggers and presumption. You can run them, but I will be annoyed. It’s a pretty common strategy... mostly because it's easy. I have voted on them when the lack of clash leaves me no other option and speaks have suffered. Risk of offense means I will unlikely resort to this. Prove to me why you don't need them and speaks will certainly reflect that.
· I just need a reason why those arguments are true, just like any other argument AND how they function as offense/terminal defense. Those arguments have strategic value; I just fear the trend that many debaters employ: blippy spikes as a crutch to avoid substance. If you want to discuss this, please let me know.
Narratives/Micro political arguments –
· I am alright with these. I do believe that the debate space can allow the oppressed to speak.
· I am a firm advocate of the consensual nature of all dialogue. The speech act is half talking and half listening: it is undesirable to force people to participate in discourse that would wound them in some way. T
· If the narrative is graphic, I expect you to disclose the nature of the discussion before the round starts to warn me, your opponent, and anyone in the room. Feel free to talk to me about this.
"Policy" Args versus "Traditonal" versus whatever:
Debate is debate. An argument is an argument. As long as it has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I'll listen.
Misc. Laundry List of Paradigmatic questions:
· Perms are a test of competition. Just as I would like to see a CP text/advocacy, I prefer there to be a perm text/advocacy established so everything is clear.
· You gotta have uniqueness to win a turn.
· If there is inherent harm in the squo and there is a risk that action would solve for that harm, I will take that action. (meaning I'm extremely partial to "risk of solvency" args). Defense doesn't win debate rounds.
I am okay with "Flex Prep" if that means you can ask questions during prep. If your "flex prep" is the practice in which you can apply cx time for extra prep, that's not cool. (ex: "I have 1:42 sec of CX left, I'll add that as prep."
Behavior (in round)--- If you know me well or I know you, congratulations; I'm pretty neat and you must be too! I always want debaters to feel comfortable in a competitive environment. I am not scary and I do not think many people are--- so we should all get along!
But...PLEASE DO NOT make your opponent uncomfortable in round because I have judged you a lot or I taught a lab you were in etc. I have been on the other side of that too many times, and it's super awkward.
By all means, say hello outside of the round (sometimes I even have baked things to share)!
Behavior (at anytime):
Be kind to each other. We are all here because debate is awesome - though our reasons may vary. Be courteous and polite. Say what you need to say and stay appropriate.
If you want to do a rebuttal redo, ask how to clarify an argument/response you made, or ask me anything post-round, that is definitely alright. I will do my best to help with the time I am allotted.
Feel free to ask me anything I may not have covered adequately/did not address at all.
You can always reach me through e-mail at email@example.com
If I don't respond to the follow-up email within 72 hours, please email again.
Tl; dr: You do you, but watch my face - if I am annoyed or look confused, proceed at your own risk.
Chris Castillo Paradigm
I am the LD coach at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx. I've been involved in debate since the year 2000. I judge a lot. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo at gmail dot com.
I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.
Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments. D
Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.
Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".
Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity.
Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during cx. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.
Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip.
Daniel Cho Paradigm
Prior to joining the debate program, I was close with several national NSDA public forum competitors who got me interested in debate. During sophomore year I began my career in Lincoln Douglas and later became captain for my team. I currently attend UT Dallas studying biomedical engineering. In my free time, I play pool, video games, or whatever else my friends are down to do.
Important note: I only competed in UIL Lincoln Douglas and am most familiar with value-criterion debate. I've judged UIL policy and LD debates but am new to NSDA/TFA. I'm open to catering to personal debating styles, but please keep my background in mind as you cater to my preferences.
I'll disclose and enjoy giving critiques, but don't take them too seriously. I'm familiar with hating judges for an unfair ballot, but go easy on me :)
1. Be confident. Push through mindblanks and reinforce a weak argument with a strong demeanor.
2. Spreading is cool and all, but at least have a clear speaking voice. If I can't understand you, I can't flow the debate.
3. Your opponent may be an enemy in the round, but they're nothing more than another debater. Expect to be voted down for any sexism/discrimination/homophobia or any general animosity.
Especially coming from UIL Lincoln Douglas, I'd like it if rounds were based on theory. I generally disfavor debates with plans and other traditional policy elements, but am still familiar with it.
I generally dislike progressive tactics only because I'm more familiar with traditional LD/PF.
Be clear and concise.
Both debaters receive flex prep (using CX time as additional prep. time); use it wisely. I personally prefer truth over tech, but this is a personal judgement that is malleable based on the arguments made. I generally favor a single powerful argument to trump multiple less-compelling ones, but this is debate.
I firmly believe strong evidence and facts are necessary to make sound contentions. Don't cheat and make up BS facts on the fly, but have solid evidence with with well-qualified authors. I enjoy arguments regarding the disparities of evidence quality, and they have a strong impact on my view of the round.
This should be obvious, but please stay on topic and keep the resolution in mind. I've seen far too many medium-low level debaters go off-topic over irrelevant arguments.
Tammy Claeson Paradigm
I’ve coached LD Debate for 13 years. Policy debate for eight. PF Debate for five. Other speaking events for 22 years. I like a good old fashioned philosophy debate. With that said, I understand those are few and far between. I am not progressive. But I won’t vote you down for it, either.
Lincoln Douglas Points ~
Speed - Don’t spread. There’s no fire. Debate is about communication, not seeing how many points you can get your opponent to skip because they didn’t hear them correctly.
Value - Choose a value other than morality. One that actually matches the resolution. I like to see a good value clash. If you don't know the purpose of a criterion don't just throw it in there to look pretty.
Theory - Make sure you understand it yourself before you try to run it in a round. Don’t throw everything at your opponent and hope something sticks.
Framework - Should be clear and labeled. If you can both agree on a mutual framework, I will judge based on which debater upheld it better.
Offcase arguments- Have fun. I can follow whatever here. Just give me a heads up as to how many you have.
Topicality - I'm fine, if it's well structured.
Case/Plan - If the topic lends itself to one, that's fine. I prefer not to hear a counterplan. This isn't Policy. But if you want to run it, go for it.
DA's - I will vote you down for non-uniqueness. Make sure your link is clear.
At the end of the round, make sure you give me clear voters. Don’t make me pick my own. I will go for the value I like better.
Last but not least, include me on the email chain.
PF - Crystalize your arguments. Be civil. Stand for cross. Sit for grand cross. Give me voters. Make sure your arguments can be understood by the average person. PF is constantly evolving. As it evolves, you as a debater should evolve.
Courtney Coffman Paradigm
Berkeley 2019 Update: I haven't judge a lot of circuit LD rounds this year. I've been judging a lot of World Schools Debate. Please don't go your top speed and please slow down on tags & author names.
Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX. I graduated in 2008 after debating for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NFL, TFA). I was a "traditional" debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at Global Debate Symposium, Mean Green Workshops and Pinnacle.
Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow.
Theory: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse.
Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is really easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks.
Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. You can consider me a 7 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.
Miscellaneous: I think permissibility and skep. arguments are defense and don't prefer to see them in a round. I default to comparative worlds.
1. Don't try to win on tricks...I will severely dock speaker points and just be generally sad when making a decision (aka don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc). I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence "argument" that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!
Danny Debois Paradigm
Harvard '18; Harrison '14
I debated for Harrison on the national circuit. I used to coach and judge pretty frequently, but have become pretty inactive since 2016.
I have a high threshold for clarity, and I will drop you if I have to keep calling clear--I will not let you just re-explain things in later speeches. Be careful with new literature and debate strategies--I am happy and interested to hear them, but I am likely unfamiliar with them and will be hearing them for the first time when you read them. That means you need to be slower, not just what you think is clear.
I care much less about the types of arguments you run and much more about the way you run them--be clear, crystallize well, and clash with your opponent. I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact, so long as it is not morally repugnant. That being said, I will be much happier with and give higher speaks to debaters who debate the topic and/or show creative, independent thinking. Perceptual dominance, making an attempt at being persuasive, and being kind and respectful will also be good for your speaks.
Ask me about any other specifics before the round.
David Dosch Paradigm
I debated for four years at John Marshall High School in Los Angeles, California. I qualified to the TOC my junior and senior years, attaining a career total of 8 bids. I am the Co-Director of the The Debate Intensive. I am a conflict for any competitors on this list: https://www.debateintensive.org/faculty/
Speed is fine. I don't care if you sit or stand, feel free to lay down if that’s how you're most comfortable. I come into the round with very few rigid preconceptions about what arguments should be read. Nearly all of the defaults outlined below can be changed by explicit arguments to the contrary. I will not blatantly intervene against any position (save for those which are morally repugnant).
As a competitor I ran primarily policy style arguments, so I feel very comfortable evaluating these types of debates. Robust evidence comparison is a tool that I feel is very underutilized. Identifying power-tagged evidence and pointing out intuitive logical gaps in an advantage can be just as effective as reading a hefty carded prep-out. I would say that I am fine with more conditionality than most judges. Feel free to read condo bad theory, just know that it’s a slight uphill battle.
The bulk of the K debate should not be centered around arbitrary assertions about the "role of the ballot." I absolutely loathe the state of K debate in contemporary LD. I will reward competitors who can make it through the round without using the phrase ROB or relying on the contrived pre/post-fiat metaphor, with extra speaker points. Rather than relying on Trifonas 03 as your ace in the hole, you should make arguments which actually explain why your criticism is a prior question to the hypothetical consequences of the 1AC. Many kritiks suffer from links which are overly generic and alternatives which are horribly convoluted. Remedy this by pulling specific lines from the Affirmative and by being able to provide an intelligible explanation of your alternative in CX. I'll vote on your silly K tricks (floating PIK, VTL > Extinction, Alt solves the case) just be prepared to defend them theoretically.
I gave this topic a separate heading because it presents unique challenges that may raise more nuanced questions. I am fine with performances and non-topical positions; often they introduce very interesting discussions and literature bases into the round which might otherwise be over looked. I would prefer that your position be at least in the direction of the topic, but that’s no mandate. Please defend something tangible. By tangible I do not mean realistic (feel free to burn it down, just please do tell us what that means!), rather I ask that you defend a consistent position so your opponent can formulate a coherent strategy. I will vote on T. I think topical version of the Aff arguments are pretty close to being silver bullets, so be sure you are winning impact turns to topicality or some other offensive reason why the topical version of your position is bad.
I default to viewing theory as an issue of competing interpretations. To me this means that you need offense on theory to either beat it back, or, assuming you've justified it, gain access to an RVI. Offense on the theory flow can come in the form of turns to your opponent's standards or a counter interpretation with standards of its own. I do not believe that competing interpretations necessitates an explicit counter-interp. If you want to justify an alternate understanding of competing interpretations, go for it, just explain the effect it has on the theory debate. To me reasonability means that winning sufficient defense on your opponent's abuse story is enough to beat back theory. Again, if your understanding of reasonability differs from the above explanation, warrant it and impact it. I default to drop the debater and no RVIs. As mentioned above, you must have offense in order to access an RVI. I will not vote on the RVI + I meet double whammy or any similarly preposterous shenanigans.
I'll touch on the issue of "spikes" here because it fits more neatly under the theory heading than any other. I strongly dislike spike-heavy strategies that rely on deception and trickery to snag a few easy ballots. Please slow down for short spikes. Though not mandatory, it would be greatly appreciated if you numbered your spikes. If your 1AR is four minutes of extending 1AC blips, expect very poor speaks. I am extremely receptive to the argument that spikes needn't be answered until they are extended. I will not tolerate CX evasiveness about the implication of spikes. Answer your opponent's questions honestly or face the wrath of the loss 25.
I default to a paradigm of epistemic modesty where I assign offense credence to the extent that the framework it links back to is won. I do not view frameworks as being entirely preclusive impact filters. I find framework heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing contention to be unpersuasive. I find framework heavy strategies to be more effective when coupled with case turns/case defense. If you are going to read a generic NC against a plan, please read a link specific to the plan just as you would for a DA or a Kritik.
Be comparative with warrants for your framework. Don't just insist that your framework justifications "come first", instead address the differences between your frameworks at the warrant level. I enjoy good framework clash and appreciate the strategic value of contesting framework.
My range is 25-30. An average performance will earn a 27. Good disclosure practices will earn you extra speaks (like a .5 boost or something).
Bennett Eckert Paradigm
Updated for NDCA 2019.
I coach Greenhill.
Things to know
 Please do an email chain. Email: email@example.com
 I have no interest in judging debates about bad theory arguments. They are bad, boring, and pointless. If you make a theory argument so bad that it deserves to be laughed at, I just won't vote on it. This doesn't apply to many arguments. For example, arguments that are fair game are CP theory, plans good/bad, some spec args, AFC good/bad, etc. This is only meant to exclude really awful arguments like "neg may only make 2 arguments," "must spec CP status in speech," and "must spec what you meant when you said 'competing interps.'" Good theory debates are awesome and fun to judge and strategic theory is fine, but theory debates about arguments this bad are honestly just not worth my time.
 I value explanation a lot. I've found that I vote aff in a lot of debates in which the neg goes for a ton of arguments, each of which could be a winning 2NR but end up getting very under-explained. I have also voted for a lot of debaters whose evidence is not amazing but who give very good explanations/spin for that evidence. The best debaters I've seen collapse in rebuttals, give overviews, and weigh.
 I am unlikely to be convinced that something categorically outweighs something else (e.g. .01% risk of extinction outweighs, fairness outweighs everything no matter what, etc.). Your weighing arguments should be contextual/comparative.
 Evidence ethics: I will take these challenges seriously. If someone says that a piece of evidence is miscut in a debate and their opponent clarifies that it is an "evidence ethics challenge" (and the former person confirms that they want to make a challenge), the debate ends. I will read all of the relevant stuff and then make a decision. Whoever is correct on the evidence ethics challenge wins the debate. The loser will get the lowest speaks I can give. Here are some things that, broadly speaking, I believe are sufficient to end the debate: cards cut from the middle of paragraphs or sentences (1-2 inconsequential missing words is a bad copy/paste, more than that is a very serious problem), cards in which the next paragraph/remainder of article explicitly contradicts the part of the card you read, inserting words into cards, removing words from the middle of cards, attributing cards to the wrong author/article (a broken/wrong hyperlink is a bad copy/paste, the wrong article title or author is a very serious problem).
In "evidence ethics" situations, I am also ok with: asking your opponent to just strike the cards from the doc/cross them off the flow in cx and have the rest of the debate but calling a challenge if they refuse to do so (this is noble but not required), making substantive arguments about how mis-citing or something has a bad performative impact and is a VI, etc. But I'm compelled by by a response that basically says "call an ethics challenge or don't make the argument; we'll stake the debate on it."
 I really enjoy good T, policy-style, theory, and K v. policy aff debates. I’ve found that I normally do not like “philosophy”/ framework debates because they tend to involve bad mis-explanations of moral theories, cards cut out of context, and general trickery/tomfoolery. Paraphrasing Travis Fife: If you actually read moral/political philosophy and apply it to debate in a way that’s true to the literature, I might be a great judge for you. If you use moral theory as an excuse for engaging in trickery/obfuscation and making implausible normative claims, I am a very bad judge for you (and you should stop doing that).
 I have difficulty piecing together debates in which the 2NR reads a very long overview but doesn’t mention how arguments in the overview interact with 1AR arguments. To avoid me having difficulty, you should either do most of your work on the line-by-line or flag which parts of the overview answer which aff arguments.
 I have voted for T/framework against K affs more often than I have voted against it. I think the aff in these debates needs to have a counter-interpretation and should prove that that counter-interpretation is better than the neg interpretation.
 I have a poor understanding of high theory. Obviously I will vote on it, but I won't vote on something that I cannot coherently explain, so the bar for explanation is pretty high. In general, you should not assume I am well-read on the literature you’re reading unless it’s the core of the topic literature or contemporary analytic ethics. I have found that slowing down, collapsing, and giving examples all enhance my understanding of arguments made in rounds.
 I am very unlikely to vote on a "risk of offense" argument on theory. I'm inclined to think that the debater initiating theory has to generate a real/substantial advantage to their interpretation that I could describe without using the term "risk of offense".
 “Reasonability” means to me that the person answering theory need only meet a “reasonable” interpretation, rather than the optimal interpretation. “Reasonability” does not mean to me: “evaluate just whether our particular aff should be allowed,” “only demonstrated/in-round/whatever-you-call-it abuse matters,” or “we may ‘reasonably meet their interpretation.’”
I think that reasonability is most persuasive against theory arguments with a very small impact. The best arguments for reasonability argue that requiring debaters’ practices to meet a certain (reasonable) standard, rather than requiring them to meet the optimal standard, produces the best debates. Generic “competing interps is bad” arguments are not great args for reasonability.
 I often read a lot of cards after debates. When I look at cards after the debate, I am generally looking for a few things. [a] Does the card say what the tag says? How explicitly does it do so? Is the card specific to the claim being made in the tag? [b] Does the argument in the card match the explanation/extension of the card? [c] Is the argument in the card good?
People that have influenced my views on debate
I will give speaks based on how well I think you should do at the tournament. I also give higher speaks to reward strategies and arguments that I think are good/enjoyable to listen to/generally fun.
Here's a rough scale of how I'll give speaks:
30 = you should win everything. the only 30 I've given was to Jack Wareham, so if to attain a 30 you must debate roughly as well as him. I gave a 29.9 earlier this year and would have given a 30 if they had read T, so that should give you an idea of how much I like to see T!
29.5-29.9 = you should be in late elims
29-29.5 = you should clear
28.5-29 = you should be on the bubble
27.5-28.5 = average
26.5-27.5 = you made some important strategic errors/lacked a clear strategy
<26.5 = I found something about this debate very annoying
Things I Won't Vote On
Awful theory args
Just disclose, ok? All of the stuff below this is still true but it won’t matter if you are reasonable about disclosure.
At the Greenhill RR/tournament 2018 I am going to adjudicate disputes about the disclosure policy exclusively on the basis of who I think is correct. Both debaters can say their piece/explain the situation but I will not decide these disputes "on the flow." To be clear, I'll still evaluate arguments like "must disclose full text/open source/etc." like other normal theory arguments. But I will decide disputes about the disclosure policy such as those about: lying about what the aff said, whether someone didn't disclose tags/cites/whatever, whether someone waited too long to disclose, etc. based on what I think about the disclosure policy. I will not listen to debates about whether the disclosure policy matters/how it's worded/whether your school doesn't have a wiki (you should have foreseen this problem)/how bad the wifi is/etc. If you have questions about how I interpret the disclosure policy, feel free to ask me whenever.
You can ignore everything below here for Greenhill.
Please do it--if you don't disclose and the person you're debating mentions it, your speaks will suffer. Also, if disclosure theory is read, I'll vote for it pretty much no matter what as long as 1] they actually didn't disclose 2] it's not being used against debater who is clearly far less experienced.
I really do not like to judge disclosure theory debates. Please be reasonable (e.g. ask your opponents which aff they’re reading before the debate) and don’t have debates about whether the wifi works and stuff like that.
I have difficulty separating my opinions on disclosure from my judging debates about disclosure. I am likely to make a judgment call in the event of a debate about disclosure. I will do this to both incentivize good/reasonable disclosure norms and avoid judging a bunch of disclosure theory debates.
The aff has to tell the neg what aff they’re going to read before the debate unless it’s a new aff.
To clarify, this means that I, for lack of better words, hack for disclosure theory. I don't really like judging debates that are like "but my computer was broken!" so please don't make me. I'll also evaluate full text disclosure/new affs bad/etc. just like any other theory argument.
Katya Ehresman Paradigm
TLDR: I am pretty tab and will vote on anything so long as its not morally repugnant and you tell me why it matters.
I would like to be on the email chain; Katyaaehresman@gmail.com . please time yourselves, flashing isnt prep unless its egregious. Let me know what pronouns you use & pls abide be your opponents pronouns.
Extensions of an aff arent 'overviews to the 1ar'.. they are just on case.. you prob want me to extend them n the flow not in a clump... idk why this is a trend
on this - i tend to haave a higher threshold for extensions, you need a warrant and impact for me to vote on it.
If things get uncomfortable, you need to leave because of mental health/personal safety reasons etc. just message me or knock on the table & give me some look and you will be allowed to go get water/we can stop the round/whatever is best in that situation. Debate should be safe & accessible in order to get these ~portable skillz~ all the kids are talking about.
Short version: Give me some sort of framework to weigh offense under or tell me why the impacts that you are winning are the top layer and I will be happy. I try to do as little work for you as possible so if you didn’t do big picture analysis or weighing the I’ll have to cipher through flows to make a more arbitrary decision and then we are all sadbois. You can read anything you want, though I am probably better at evaluating K/Larp debates and worse at evaluating dense Phil/friv theory debates ~~~ do with that what you will. I care about how you treat one another in round so if you are being obnoxious or problematic in anyway to your opponent, I will start dropping your speaks and if its irredeemable then I won’t vote for you. *shrug emoji* If you are worried about your behavior then… err on the side of being nice?????
I think paradigms are supposed to be more like what sorts of strategies I like to see on each type of flow to help you W30 in front of me so these are things that make me very happy:
- Great, love them
- Pls win some sort of link or a reason why me voting for you matters & WARRANT it - I will probably call you on just regurgitating tags if that’s all you do for extensions.. do work please
- Performance is fine, the resolution isn’t always necessary as a stasis point if you tell me why - but I don’t have a default on this.
- PIKs are fine, be clear on what exactly you (my ballot) is solving for
- Subsequently I can be persuaded by PIKs bad, again just warrant it and do top level weighing
- Again, love these! Read a wide spectrum of them myself.
- Apply strategy/framing issues from the K section here too
- Win why either talking about the topic is bad, your approach to talking about the topic is better, why your method or approach is good etc. and importantly what happens when I sign aff on the ballot.
- Don’t shy away from your off in the 1AR - a big pet peeve of mine is when debaters invest a lot of work into a solid K aff that has warrants about why your pedagogy or performance comes first and then you kick it and go for theory or barely extend it and the round comes down to the neg flows… don’t be like this
- This is great, I love this - go for whatever you feel like/want, make the round your own - again just warrant why its important and importantly what my role in endorsing your performance is/why the round is important for this medium.
- Great, some of my favorite debates are really good topical, substantive larpy rounds
- Give me clear impact calculus/ an internal link story
- I don’t think there are really many paradigm issues surrounding DAs normally… ask me whatever
- Great and super strategic
- CP/Pic theory also viable - I don’t really have a default on pics good/bad but am probably persuaded that its good to test the policy of the aff from different angles
- Analytic, actor, delay etc. Cps are fine - just warrant solvency & competitiveness and give me some sort of net benefit to your world
- This is true with DAs too but try to give me some comparative worlds weighing, again - tell me where & why to vote
- Have a low threshold for frivolous theory, would prefer people to just have substantive debate but I am very receptive to engagement and in round abuse preventing topical clash
- Just warrant an abuse story
- Go slow on interps
- very open to this
- If you’re hitting a k aff then try to weigh offense from the shell under the k fw - do interactions or clear layering, these debates get v messy v quick
- Slow down a bit on long analytic dumps
- Err towards over-explaining phil warrants
- Go as fast as you want but emphasize clarity
- I give speaks based off of strategy not speaking quality but strategy requires me to flow it and so clarity is somewhat necessary for that
- I will tank your speaks if you are rude, aggressive, say something morally repugnant, demeaning to your opponent etc. so pls don’t do this
Sean Fahey Paradigm
Benjamin Franklin ‘16, Tulane ‘20
Current Conflicts: The Brentwood School, Mountain View AE
I debated for 4 years at Benjamin Franklin High School in New Orleans, LA. I primarily debated LD on the Louisiana local circuit, but also regularly did extemp and congress with some success. I competed as a lone wolf on the LD national circuit my junior and senior year and qualified to the TOC both years. I also got to finals of the 2016 CFL National Tournament my senior year.
I also work with a debate-related non-profit organization called the Public Debate Initiative that uses organized debate formats to get impoverished and disenfranchised youth engaged and informed with issues that are pertinent to their local communities and systematically ignored by political elites. Check it out if you care.
I mostly study English and some other stuff at Tulane University. I now coach the Brentwood school, the occasional independent, and have taught at both the Victory Briefs Institute and The Debate Intensive.
***LOUISIANA STATE UPDATE 3/30/19*** Having to judge policy and traditional LD this weekend for the first time in a while, so some clarification for my paradigm is probably worthwhile.
In terms of policy, most of this paradigm aptly applies. Obviously, the truth-testing content isn't particularly applicable because of the presumption in policy to read a plan bc of broad resolutions. I like stock issues! If you're going for a one off K strat, your 1nr explanation should be stellar and the 2nr should probably be mostly framework...and don't forget the case debate, I have a hard time not evaluating weigh the case unless there is specific case line-by-line in the 1nc or 2nc. I'm probably more willing to listen to theory args that aren't stock theory issues like condo or T than most other judges because of my LD background, but that isn't a good excuse for reading horrible shells to up-layer.
In terms of traditional LD, I'm still a strict flow judge and care heavily about evidence quality and your representation of your evidence's content in rebuttals. I appreciate good framework debate a lot and think you should use it offensively to exclude your opponents offense as much as you can. That said, a good debate engages at both the framework and substantive level. Big picture framing in the 2ar is so valuable, use it well!
I used to have a lot of stuff here and I really don't think it matters anymore. My opinions about debate and scholarly thought are constantly shifting and I found that having a static paradigm was likely to do more harm than good in terms of accurate prefs. I will and have voted on anything (within reason, as I will clarify later). I think I vote very mechanistically based off of what I flowed. I find that I can only logically flow arguments that have a warrant; this sounds common sense, but many people seem to expect you to evaluate any claim from the speech if it's functionally conceded - I think this is ridiculous and won't vote in an intellectually deleterious manner. Want to win? Being halfway reasonable helps. Being halfway a good person helps. Don't try and appease what you think my sentiments about debate are unless you know me well enough to truly capitalize on it, I've voted down too many bad (mostly accelerationist) Baudrillard Ks. I primarily want to decide speaks and wins off of clear display of content knowledge, whether this be topical or theoretical knowledge; I don't like blippy, bureaucratic styles of debate.
**NOTE** Because I feel like this has less to do with debate and more about the integrity of the event/community, I'm putting this before my nerdy debate views. PLEASE do not use the debate space as an open season to maliciously verbally abuse your opponent. To clarify, please refrain from a form of argumentation that relies on racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any other form of arbitrarily violent forms of cultural hierarchies. I think this is a pretty reasonable thing to ask considering I'm sure your schools ask the same thing of you and make you sign a handbook of rules agreeing to similar conduct. If you have to ask, "how far does this extend?" 1. you're pushing it, bud and 2. there are other forms of skepticism aside from moral skepticism if that's what you're trying to get at and, guess what, they're much better args than any moral skeptics deflationary attempt at objectivity and infinitely less abstracted to the point of cultural insensitivity. Just be a chill person, be nice, have a good, intelligent debate, make me happy :)
A few assumptions about debate that I have that have not changed in a long, long time (and they won't unless you argue otherwise):
- Send me the speech docs, compile the doc in prep and be ready to attach it to an email and send it once you end prep with immediacy. I'm going to start docking speaks for what I feel to be stolen prep time and you'll know if I feel that way because I'll tell you to start prep again if you take too long. Attaching a document and pressing 'reply all' should take no longer than a minute. I'm more lenient for earlier rounds as people figure out the wifi situation at a tournament, but the prep stealing is getting ridiculous, it's a waste of everyone's time, and it's unfair.
- I'm probably flowing cx.
- Absent offense for either side, I presume neg, unless the 1nc reads an advocacy other than the squo (this is only true of fiated advocacies; methodological debates generally require the neg to present a method to compete, hence, the squo is not an option, so I still presume neg in this case). In the case of framework/tricks affs that play with this assumption much more, I will totally evaluate presume aff arguments in the 1AC, but I would hope that you read smart warrants based off burden structures and strange logical rules instead of meaningless side bias stats ;)
- I default to truth-testing with the caveat that any consequentialist framework defines truth about ought statements as a de facto comparative worlds form of debate (absent the necessity for an explicit plan advocacy). I think implementation and truth-testing are not necessarily incompatible absent philosophic objections as to why not.
- I default to drop the arg; reasonability with a bright-line of in-round structural abuse (meaning, I determine an abuse of fairness based on if a practice creates a skew in the number of burdens a debater needs to fulfill to win - by extension, I default to thinking the aff can be substantively abusive because the neg can up-layer and has a time advantage to answer any substantive unfairness in the 1AC -- ergo, you probably don't want me to presume here); aff gets RVIs on neg theory, but no RVI on T; fairness/education are voters (in no particular order, really depends on the type of fairness and education at stake - weigh for me). If no paradigm issues are warranted or brought up when one reads theory, I think it is a perfectly valid (and good) response to say "no warranted paradigm issues means there's no impact to the shell and you can't vote on it" (especially against theory read in the 1NC when no paradigm issues were introduced by the 1AC), however you need to say this or I will fill in the gap and evaluate the shell under my default assumptions, which might suck for you.
- I will autonomously/responsively adjudicate card clipping violations. My definition for clipping is the repeated skipping of words in tags or the highlighted section of cards. If I think a debater is clipping (I have a good ear for it, trust me!), I will verify it with the speech doc and, if you are clipping, I will stop the round myself as long as that is kosher with the tournament's head tab staff. However, I may not notice clipping and if you do you should record the violation, be certain of the abuse (you shouldn't stop a round for one or two accidentally clipped words), and verbally stop the round no matter what is happening (I don't care if it's mid-speech, but prep time is probably the ideal time to verify a clipping violation). Evidence ethics violations in round should be absolute and entirely certain. Be ready to stake the round on it. When you call for the round to stop and produce the evidence of the ethics violation, I will adjudicate it as I see fit. I take these claims very seriously and will jump at the chance to vote on a real evidence ethics violation. No shell format needed for clipping specifically; some other issues of evidence ethics (like disclosure theory) ought to be debated in shell form and the round will not be stopped prematurely for these arguments even though I may be inclined to vote on them more than other positions if the violation is true.
- Disclosure is a pretty true arg. I won't say I'll hack for it anymore because I think some of these rounds are worth resolving and hearing out, but I err HEAVILY towards any true violation under the moderate interp (hour before, first 3 last 3, full citations, proper student wiki, all case positions read disclosed) of disclosure. I will also happily adjudicate more demanding disclosure interps (full text, open source, etc.), but I feel that the 'moderate interp' is a safe baseline with me. It is hard to convince me that that is not the case. That said, I've had to judge rounds where I do think disclosure is situationally silly (notably, anyone who reads disclosure against someone not on the wiki when the tournament rules don't mandate it - smh, don't do that) or I think the interp is so poorly written that it doesn't solve the offense of the shell. I will evaluate these rounds like any other theory round, by the flow, and even if I agree with the spirit of the shell, I am sympathetic to semantic or textual arguments in theory debates. I have also voted on poorly handled impact turns to fairness/education in disclosure debates, even under the moderate interp, so don't think my personal opinions will coast you to victory.
- I do not need extensions to be 'full', i.e. claim / warrant / impact, especially in the 1AR, but I do expect you to articulate what arguments you are advancing in the debate. For conceded arguments, a concise extension of the implications is sufficient.
Hope this has been useful for you. If you have any questions, feel free to email me, come talk to me in person at a tournament (wavy hair, usually have a beard, likely with the Brentwood team), or send me a message on facebook, but email is preferable if we're not friends on facebook.
Check out these paradigms for clarification:
Adegoke Fakorede Paradigm
I have debated in Lincoln-Douglas Debate for 4 years in Science park high school. I recently graduated and I am now on the Rutgers Newark debate team. I've qualified to the TOC in both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy debate my senior Year.
I am ok with speed. I love k's and critical arguments when they are ran correctly.
Theory is fine with me as well as topicality but I need really good analysis on the violation and impacts back to standards.
Im really ok with any argument that isn't racist, sexist, or offensive in anyway.
I give high speaks if you are clear and really good in the big picture debate. I like a good story.
3 Rick and Morty references executed smoothly= 30 hands down
Danny Frank-Siegel Paradigm
UPDATE AS OF OCTOBER 2018
I enjoy a good K debate but I don't hack for the K. I don't love tricks as an argument style but a well explained trick can be fun to judge. When its frivolous I have a hard time buying theory, but will evaluate the debate nonetheless. Over the course of one tournament (Valley) I voted for the indexes a priori, Baudrillard, Kant, a LARP aff, and theory. If any of those things sound like arguments you read and you HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT YOU CAN EXPLAIN WELL ENOUGH TO ME TO WARRANT MY BALLOT then pref me. If you do not believe you can have a good and nuanced debate where you explain the intricacies of your position to me, do not pref me highly, because when you don't explain things and your opponent does you will lose me quickly. The only exception to this is explicitly violent language, which I will not take kindly to/intervene against in extreme instances. This is the only scenario in which I will intervene. You can read the rest of my paradigm if you want to (if you are a theory debater trying to make a judgement call on whether to put me at a 1,2, or 3, you may want to read the TJFs/ Sliding Scale section below), because I do go more in depth on some things. But this should be the size of it.
Extra note: if you are debating a novice/debater without a lot of circuit experience, I won't force you to adapt to them, but an attempt to make the debate more accessible (this can look like slowing down, intentionally being forthcoming in cross, reading a position that is engagable, editing your case so that it can be read in an accessible way) I will bump speaks a bit.
YOUR ROUND IS ABOUT TO BEGIN AND YOU NEED TO KNOW WHO THIS GUY IS:
Plant ontology is a true arg. But so is T. Here we go...
tl;dr: do you.
I really don't care what you do. I'm good for all of it. As long as you are not actively offensive in the round. If you are/if someone asks you to stop doing something they perceive as violent and you blow it off/do not make an effort to change your behavior I will take your speaks I would've given, subtract 4, assign your speaks that number, and then wait that many seconds to talk to your coach after the round.
My Preferences/Things you should know about me:
-My pronouns are he/him. I will ask for your pronouns before the round (if I forget please remind me!). That is the most I will ask you to disclose about your personal identity unless you choose to do so later in the round. You do not have to tell me anything about yourself you don't want to.
-I'm kind of a point fairy in LD and more of a stickler in policy. I try to match my speaks to the average I perceive on the circuit.
-I judge a lot of theory debates but I don't love them. I'd much prefer to watch a K vs. K aff round. But since I keep getting preffed by theory kids I guess I'm ok for the theory debate tho. I'm even starting to enjoy watching good debaters go for theory...? But only when its done very well and not frivolous.
-If you read bad theory in front of me (I know this is arbitrary, but I tend to believe that most debaters know what this means and choose to ignore it.) and the other debater tells me to gut check it in any way shape or form, hold this L real quick.
-I will not vote on permissibility skep or any argument akin to "moral decisions are irrelevant," that is explained as "the holocaust/slavery could be good bc everything is true!!1!"
-If you are reading a strategy that doesn't make its arguments until the 1AR (ie you are spamming a speech doc with incoherent cards knowing the only one that matters starts with an R and ends with an odl) you and I will not get along. I'll vote for it if you're winning it, but I'll be unhappy. Caveat: if you're debating a novice/someone without much debate experience and your 1AR is all tricks, yes I'm giving the NR leeway.
-I cuss. A lot. Sorry in advance (and if you are legitimately uncomfortable let me know and I will control my language).
-Albums I'm listening to a lot of right now include but are not limited to: Astral Weeks by Van Morrison, Live in Amsterdam by Phish, Teenage Dreaming by Stranded Civilians (relatively short EP, very worth the listen!!), Bundles by Soft Machine, 10 Day by Chance the Rapper, Blue by Joni Mitchell. If you arrive early to a round and have music recommendations for me I will massively appreciate it :)
I did policy. I'll listen to your LARP args. Specificity on Politics links is usually where I end up pulling the trigger one direction or the other because most of the time they are either the best card in the DA or the worst card in the DA.
Consult/Process/Delay CPs are cheating, but strategic cheating that you have every right to run. But the more unfair your CP the less likely I am to vote against an equally unfair perm.
Idk how I feel about judge kick. I don't love it in theory, but I also don't know how it would interact with flipping the direction of presumption, so just if you want me to do it make the argument in round.
Not super familiar with a lot of super dense philosophy. That said, if you tell me what your offense is and why I care clearly in the last speech you've got my ballot. If my lack of philosophical knowledge is a hindrance to you winning, hinder that hindrance by being clear, making sense, impacting, and explaining (see Kant joke I'm doing my best to accommodate you phil hacks). I'm slowly but surely taking more phil classes in college so my knowledge base has broadened somewhat, but still, explain it to me and we'll all be happy.
It makes the game work. That said, I HATE listening to bad framework debates. If I can tell you're reading someone else's prewritten backfiles and you aren't doing it well speaks won't be great. If I can identify the person who wrote your prewritten backfile I will rate how much I like that person on a scale from 1-10 and give you that many speaks. I hate listening to prescripted crappy framework debates.
Watching LASA MS go for framework honestly was one of my favorite things to do, even though I usually ran things on the other side of it. Seriously framework can be an art form.
T is a procedural and gets evaluated first, but if there is no analysis done beyond your generic blocks I'm gonna be sad and you will too when you see your speaks. Competing interps is my default, but I can be swayed otherwise easily. I try to only evaluate what's in the round. If the aff isn't topical read T. But after the 3rd or so T interp I/We meets become reasonable to me quickly... take that as you will.
Frivolous theory makes me sad but some theory is a necessary evil. That is about as straightforward as I can say. I will listen to your theory shell. But a counter interp explaining why your interp is absurd and your abuse scenario is contrived is gonna make you sad if you are reading a frivolous shell. That said, watching a good theory debater go to work is a thing of beauty and I guess I'll watch and evaluate as such. Side note: I don't understand the obsession with the counter interp "I defend the converse of the interp." It makes it harder for me as a judge to decide these debates because sometimes I have a tough time figuring out what the world of the counterinterp looks like. It also generally lets the person making the counterinterp shift a lot, which seems pretty unfair. I'll listen to the argument, but if your opponent calls you on it, it seems pretty tough to theoretically defend.
I actually find these very convincing when deployed alongside a traditional util framework, and I think that these are a good way for LARP debaters to have a leg to stand on against unfamiliar phil positions full of tricks or Ks that you aren't familiar with. Do I think there's a theory debate to be had over them? Sure. Is it a debate I'm willing to listen to because I think these are a good practice, but there is plenty of theoretical reasons as to why they aren't? Totally. This is also how I approach most theory issues. I will do my best to do due diligence to both positions and hear them out, and legitimately want to hear the theoretical debate about practices that may be a gray area.
Sliding Scale (the shells listed in each section are examples of the stuff I'd put in each category):
Theory I like/would not mind hearing a debate about:
-Disclosure (with MATERIAL evidence proving a violation- I won't vote on something I can't confirm)
-The neg may not read a preclusive theory shell and read multiple counterplans that include the aff (this is an example of how a 1AR theory interp against an abusive neg strategy that would fare well in front of me would look).
Theory I don't like/Will begrudgingly listen to:
-ROB spec (this serves the purpose of policy framework on topics without an agent in my mind)
-Ridiculous spec args (Reporter Spec was not quite in this category in my mind, but it was close. That should tell you what you need to know about this)
Theory I will gut check as soon as one side tells me to:
-must say "bracketed" when reading bracketed card ie just noting it isn't enough (bracket theory can be in any one of these three categories depending on the context, but this version will almost always be here)
-must spec status in the speech
-all neg theory are counterinterps so they must win an RVI to be offensive
One final theory note: I'll vote on any theory, this is just a scale detailing the level of work you will have to do to make me want to consider pulling the trigger for you. Feel free to facebook message me/ask me at a tournament any questions about this scale.
This is my bread and butter, but if its not yours, DON'T DO IT!!! If you know DnG like the back of your hand I'll listen to whatever you have to say about God being a lobster and Rhizomes (but the mitochondria is still the powerhouse of the cell). Even just a well executed cap K or security K is dope. But if you get up there and say "his paradigm said read Ks Imma do the thing now" and have no idea whats going on all of us will be sad. So I'll reiterate. Do you. Not what you think I want to see. Performance is also really fun to judge, but make sure you're explaining and implicating well.
Arguments I like
- Delay CP
- Ship of Theseus procedural
- time cube
- thyme cube
- aspec/ospec double bind
- fiat double bind
- Antonio 95
Arguments I don't like
- true ones
- sarcasm bad
If you're still speaking after your timer goes off just know that I'm already listening to the trap remix of the Mii theme song (thanks Katya)
Sunil Gedela Paradigm
TOC 2019 Update
TL;DR: Third year natcirc LD parent judge. I am able to flow most common types of args (but not dense phil/Ks) delivered at normal speed. I value logical args/ rebuttals, even if purely analytical.
Spreading: I will likely miss some args but will do my best to follow along with any speech docs you share. I strongly recommend you slow down for your tags and crucial points, especially if extemporaneous. Do signpost.
Case Debate: I expect a basic level of case debate in addition to whatever else you may choose to run, especially since the TOC topic has been out for a while.
Theory: I am unlikely to view it favorably unless you can show a timely pre-round good faith effort to avoid citing the violation in question. Unless it is a completely unexpected/ egregious in-round violation, the burden is on you to have engaged in pre-round communications if it could have voided the need for a theory debate.
Warrants: Incontrovertible, objective, data based cards are more potent than opinions/ claims. If I call for a card, I am also checking the text you minimized/ did not read.
ROB/ ROJ: Unless proven otherwise, all args will be viewed as a strategy to win a HS debate round and not as an altruistic endeavor to effect societal/ policy change.
Trent Gilbert Paradigm
For when you inevitably ask for my email for the email chain, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Stanford University '21
Valley HS '17
Conflicts: Valley HS, Southwoods HS
I debated LD for 5 years and now coach at West Des Moines Valley High School. During that time, I attended the TOC my sophomore, junior and senior year and attended Nationals my freshman, sophomore, junior and senior year. I acquired 12 bids total during my career, cleared at the TOC my senior year, and was awarded ninth at Nationals my senior year. I've also worked at NSD, TDC, and VBI as an instructor.
If I had to guess, I think I probably approach rounds most similarly to TJ Foley, Leah Shapiro, Evan McKinney, and Jason Smith since they all influenced my understanding of debate in some way. Evan and TJ because we were pretty close teammates that prepped together and debated similarly, Leah because she was most involved in helping me prep my Junior and Senior Year/influenced my strategic vision a ton and Jason because he had a consistent presence in my career as a debater (and even as a coach). Dave McGinnis and Christian Tarsney also had an incredibly formative influence on myself as a debater (and person), though I think I probably approach theory debates slightly differently than they do.
I will evaluate any arguments you make in the round so long as they are not blatantly offensive. I have found that I am often more compelled to vote on line-by-line comparison in rounds rather than overviews that are not directly implicated as responses to arguments on the flow. That said, an overview clarifying the way line-by-line argumentation functions in the context of the round as a whole generally makes it a lot more clear for me on how to evaluate certain arguments.
It was really maddening to me when a judge didn't seem to care about making the correct decision, so please know I'll make my best attempt to fairly and accurately judge your round. I'm okay with you asking me questions after the round about my decision so long as they don't hold up the tournament and your questions don't become insulting to me or your opponent.
UPDATE: I guess I will also add here that I've decided I will no longer intervene against any theory (yes, this does mean I will vote on disclosure theory, an update from my initial paradigm)— this is not to say I'd like to hear either disclosure theory or brackets theory though, and you'll be quite displeased by the speaks you receive if you go for disclosure or brackets bad and really didn't need to.
I will try to default on paradigmatic issues to what's assumed by the debaters (for example, if no one reads a fairness voter, but both debaters talk about fairness like its an end goal, I'll evaluate the round with the assumption that fairness is a voter. To clarify, though, I won't assume fairness is a voter if one debater contests whether or not it is and points out that no fairness voter was read). I also will evaluate internal links on standards if they are embedded implicitly (within reason) to the standard.
If no one seems to take a stance on any issue, here are my defaults:
1) I default to fairness and education are voters.
2) I default to drop the argument.
3) I default to no RVIs (and that you need to win a counterinterp to win with an RVI)
4) I default to competing interpretations. With that said, I will assume the counterinterp is the converse of the interpretation even if no counterinterp is explicitly read. I think this avoids the regressive theory trick about needing a counterinterp to win under competing interps and also makes the round possible to resolve in a muddled theory debate.
5) I default to metatheory comes before other theory.
6) I default to T and theory being on the same layer.
Trust me, though; you should address paradigmatic questions if they're of even vague relevance. If I'm in a situation where I have to default, I'll be pretty frustrated.
A few more things you should be cognizant of:
1) I am not the best at flowing- I catch the majority of arguments made but usually not all of them. if you are reading a dense position filled with analytics and particularly theory, I recommend slowing down. Also, for very technical debates it is best to signpost clearly (it's maddening when I'm trying to flow a speech and I realize the debater suddenly started talking about another layer of the flow without telling me). If you don't do this, there is a decent chance I will miss a few of your arguments.
2) While I read mostly framework heavy positions as a debater, this does not mean I will automatically understand your position- I expect you to make your framework clear enough to me in rebuttals that I feel comfortable explaining the ballot story after the round.
3) When reading Kritiks, it's best to have a well-explained ballot story. I think Kritiks that are well executed are often very compelling, but often Kritiks go poorly explained. Also keep in mind that I probably will not be up to date about the latest norms tied to critical debate and most definitely won't extrapolate implications from your Kritik that weren't explicitly stated in the round, and I've found this particularly applies in reference to pre-fiat implications of a K that are either not explained or barely explained (consistent with my general interpretation of arguments).
4) I rarely took the more than 3-off approach when negating as a debater, but that isn't to say I don't appreciate general LARPy tendencies. I think disads that are pretty specific to the topic with unique impacting that isn't strictly utilitarian are pretty strategic and of course T is a great strategy as well.
5) This is tied in with the don't be offensive part of my paradigm, but I won't vote on anything advocating the exclusion of a certain member of the community (this includes your opponent, your opponent's coach, Dave McGinnis, and anyone else in the community). It will make me particularly unlikely to vote for you as well.
Beyond this, feel free to ask me questions before the round.
Paul Gravley Paradigm
I coach Northland Christian.
Please justify a role-of-the-ballot argument (standard, criteria, ROB, ROJ, all fine, just justify it)
Evidence Ethics (and decorum) matter. If there is an evidence-ethics/cheating claim, I will stop the debate immediately. If I believe there is a violation, I will award the accusing debater with a win. I will then immediately contact tab and let them know what I have done. All challenges are then up to the tournament process.
I prefer and believe I am best at evaluating util/policy-style debates. Plans, CP's, Disads, all good.
I like the K debate. I am not well-read in Deleuze or Butler. I am fairly well read in Marx, Wilderson, Curry, and bell hooks. I am very well read in Cone, Augustine, Aquinas, and Wesley. These are not exhaustive lists.
I see theory/Topicality as a matter of competing interps. I am more inclined to buy reasonability arguments on Theory than T.
The K vs Theory debate is interesting. Be clear on in-round implications when impacting out this debate.
I'm probably not your best judge if your strategy is tricks.
Performance arguments are fine. See ROB caveat above.
Speed is fine. Clarity is better. Please make sure I know where a tag starts and a card ends.
I want to be on the email-chain (if the tournament is cool with it). paul DOT gravley AT gmail DOT com
Kelli Grimes Baggett Paradigm
I am a lay judge from Montgomery High School in Montgomery, Texas. This is my first year as a debate coach/teacher. Although the 30th Annual Grapevine Classic Speech & Debate Tournament was my first debate experience, I have ample experience in theatre and special education. I love to learn and am ecstatic about being a part of the debate world this 2018 - 2019 school year.
I prefer that you adapt to my needs as a lay judge. Please do not spread!
Ursula Gruber Paradigm
If you seem like you are having fun and maintaining civility, I will listen to pretty much any argument that isn't intentionally obnoxious or repugnant (death good, racial equity bad, etc.). I prefer lines of argument that don't rely on nuclear war or extinction, but if your case is strong, go for it.
Clash and analysis are key. Use your case to analyze and refute your opponent's arguments. Don't just toss out cards; explain WHY and HOW. If your logic/reasoning is sound, you don't need to extend every card to win. I prefer strategic condensing over shallow line by line rebuttal.
The burden of the aff is to present a case that allows for debate interaction on the topic of the resolution. The burden of the neg is to respond to that case, with possible alternatives. Theory and K are fine, but If you pull the focus of the round away from the Aff, your logic must be sound and you MUST use the conceptual framework of your K as the basis for your argumentation (i.e. don't read "We can't draw conceptual lines between people," and then respond to case with phrases like "those people")
Make sure you weigh your impacts for me. I may have a different perspective so if you don't make the weighing explicit, you are leaving it up to my interpretation.
I expect timers and flashing to work without much delay. Having issues more than once in a round will lose speaks.
My speaks start at 28 for circuit tournaments. I'll dock a varsity debater more often for nonsense or rudeness than a JV debater. Making me laugh is a good way to bump up your points. Enunciation is also a bonus.
CX is important and ought to be used for more than just clarification questions. Don't be rude or talk over each other, especially if you are up against a less experienced debater. I will dock points for badgering novices.
I don't mind speed, as long as you are clear. I will only call "clear" twice in a varsity round. Taglines, authors, and card interp should be noticeably slower. It is up to the speaker to communicate their arguments and be aware of the audience's attention level.
There is a way to make most arguments topical (or explicitly attack the topic). If you link your case to the resolution AND interact with your opponent's case, I will consider your argument.
I evaluate the full participation of the chamber, from docket maneuvers to quality and variety of questions. Successful legislators are those who drive the debate, present new/unique arguments, extend/refute/deepen previous arguments, choose sources carefully, and use parliamentary procedure appropriately. Debate on the merits/flaws of the specific legislation is given more weight than general issue arguments. Delivery style can enhance the persuasiveness of your analysis, but will not make up for canned speeches, poor supporting materials, or rehashed arguments.
POs are an essential part of the chamber. They set the mood, pace, and attitude of the chamber. It is a risk, and that is taken to account when I score. POs with a good pace and no major errors are very likely to be ranked.
Note on authorships/first pros: The price for establishing recency is that your speech must provide some background for the debate and at least one reason why this legislation in particular is the answer.
The purpose of evidence in all forms of debate is to support your arguments with expert testimony, not to BE your arguments. I will only ask for cards if something sounds exceptionally wonky. Have some understanding of the bias of your sources (Are they all from conservative think tanks?, etc.). It is generally up to your opponent(s) to point out blatantly wrong evidence, but I will dock for egregious offenses.
Nicky Halterman Paradigm
Kenneth Harris Paradigm
First and foremost, let me explain my view of any debate I am asked to adjudicate. Ultimately, I have a ballot and it is your (or your team's) job to convince me why I should sign the ballot in favor of the arguments you presented. I believe the role of framework and techne is merely a means to that end. Therefore, it is up to the debaters to justify their framework and their arguments within the round. I try my absolute best to be objective in this respect, despite my previous experience with certain forms of debate. For me, my decision will always come down to who I feel most persuaded by. Truth over tech. In terms of tech, I find myself closest to an offense/defense type of paradigm.
Also, an argument has:
A claim (what is true?)
A warrant (why is it true?)
An impact (why does it matter?)
I don't care if your opponent dropped the argument, especially if it was already lacking one of these components. You still need to extend each of these components (especially the impacts) to fully extend the argument. Telling me there's a line-by-line drop in 5-10 seconds is not persuasive.
Likewise, having a "card" for an argument does not justify the argument. Analytics can be just as good as evidence for warrants. In any debate, I highly value specific and in depth evidence/argument analysis over the amount of cards/arguments one team may have.
Speed - As much as I did it in my career, I find speed reading to be one of the least persuasive things we do in debate. I believe there's an argument for the virtue of speed reading as a talent, but in terms of debate I believe how it is deployed as a tool of rhetoric is important. Going fast does not excuse good argumentation or persuasion, and certainly does not impress me in terms of speaker points or argumentation. If you spread too fast through your analytic/theory arguments, I will not flow them or give them to you just because you put them in a speech document.
I especially am against speed reading and defenses of speed reading that are meant to be exclusionary. Obviously a words per minute line pretty easily escapes us, but you know when you're "spreading" and being a good debater ought to mean exercising the interpersonal skill of speaking to different audiences, whether they be your judge, opponents, or spectators. You will not win arguments you obviously went for in an attempt to outspread your opponent. If someone you are debating has difficulty with your level of speed, you need to adjust. If you don't, you will lose.
I was a policy style debater for all 4 years in high school at Park Hill South in Kansas City, MO. In college, I have competed on and off since 2013 for the University of Oklahoma and the University of Missouri-Kansas City where I switched to being exclusively a K debater. In terms of judging, I have no preference for the style of argumentation, as long as it is done well.
// Will finish at a later date //
Lincoln Douglas Debate
I only sparingly competed in LD in high school, and never did in college. However, since my first year out I have frequently judged HOA regional tournaments in Kansas City, and since my 3rd year out annually have judged the HOA NSDA district qualifier. I have had my fair share of judging traditional value-clash debates over the past 5 years, and have judged alternative forms of LD at these tournaments and at various regionals in Oklahoma.
Again, refer to my general philosophy at the top. I see value/value-criterion, or offense/defense, or whatever the framework may be as a tool of persuasion. Therefore you must justify your frame within the round. Why ought we view the debate using certain values? Why does that matter? Why should we look at other consequences instead? I see Lincoln Douglas as more resolution centered than affirmative case centered, and it no doubt is because of where I am from, but I am more than open to persuasion. Either way, I believe your rebuttals still need to answer the question of why it matters and why it means you have earned the ballot.
For value/value criterion debates - I believe value clash is usually more important than the direct clash between contentions. If your contentions don't align and support the framework of your value/criterion then your case will likely be less persuasive to me. I see contention clash as a way to test the validity of their claims, or to argue which contentions matter more. However, that should ultimately be done in the context of why your values are a better way to approach the resolutional question.
For all debates - As I said I am predisposed to center the debate around aff/neg to the resolution theoretically. Therefore, I believe interpreting the resolution is very important. This doesn't mean adjust to me by filling your case with definitions. This does mean that I am willing to hear arguments based on differing interpretations of the resolution and which I should prefer. This could mean specific definitions, it could also mean defining the ground/burdens that each side has. Even if your framework argues the resolution as an abstract statement matters little, your case ought to have an opinion of the topic.
Rebuttal speeches - In my mind these speeches are about boiling down the round to a few major points. The mark of a good rebuttal is one that correctly identifies their strongest arguments, and considers them/weighs them against their opponents strongest arguments. "Conceding" a line by line argument or a contention doesn't mean anything unless it was already a strong argument and your opponent mishandled it. Even if I give you that conceding the argument means I should give you 99% credibility on it, why does that matter in the grand scheme of things? You never win every single argument in the debate. Rebuttals are about identifying where you're ahead and behind, maximizing where you're ahead, and convincing me why you have won the debate. If you need to flag these arguments as "voters", that's fine. Either way, you should make it apparent to me which argument you're going for and why it outweighs your opponent's best offense (why it matters more than your opponents best argument).
Also, I believe that their should not be brand new arguments in rebuttals. The only exception would be if the rebuttal happened to be the first opportunity a debater had to respond to an argument. This doesn't apply to more relevant evidence, or a different explanation of an earlier argument. A new argument to me is one that conceptually is unique to anything already on the flow.
As a general note, my background has left me obviously inexperienced with certain forms of LD jargon/structure. I can handle most of the styles that are similar to policy, but keep that in mind if I start to look at you funny after a tag line or something. Either way I'm much more concerned with the strength and persuasiveness of your arguments. Jargon is for flags and flowing, it's not persuasive.
Miguel Harvey Paradigm
TLDR version: I'm fine with most things, including arguments that say the things I'm fine with *aren't* ok. I don't default one way or another on most arguments. Don't be argumentatively or personally abusive. For email chain email@example.com
Nats-specific PF update mid-day 1: OH MY GOD PLEASE WEIGH SOMETHING WE ARE NOT ON THE MOON
Update to update: nvm we might actually be on the moon I feel like there is no oxygen in this place
Update to last update: cold dark alone
PF Nats day 2 update: Trust no one. Become your surroundings. Survival only objective.
Hello darkness, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Within the sound of silence
In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
'Neath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of si
10:45 spiral notebooks the universe is chaos
Update: they are coming
A little about myself: I'm the head coach at Anderson HS in Austin, TX. I was a policy debater in Illinois back when there were tubs. I work on the administrative staff at TDC. Beginning in 2019, I'll be doing curriculum and teaching at the UTNIF. I've judged a lot of debate, going back to the late 1990s. You can call me Harvey or Miguel or whatever.
Generally, I don't think it's my job to tell debaters what to do; rather, it's the job of the debaters to tell me why to vote a certain way. I'm fine with anything so long as it is properly reasoned and explained. Tight, organized debate on the line by line makes me happy. Messy garbage annoys me. I'll read evidence if I need to, and especially if it is powertagged. I always disclose unless I'm told not to and try to either write a decent ballot or give a detailed oral or both.
Debaters shouldn't lie or act like jerks. While I get that debate is ostensibly a competitive activity and can get very intense, this is supposed to be educational, good-spirited, and fun. Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. I don't like to intervene, but blatantly oppressive/bigoted speech or behavior will make me consider voting against a debater whether or not the issue is raised by their opponent. If a debater asks you to respect and use preferred pronouns/names, I will expect you to do so. If your argument contains graphic depictions of racial, sexual, or otherwise marginalizing violence, and there's even a slight question as to whether it might be a trigger, please notify your opponent.
Our community and the individual people in it are deeply important to me. Please do your part to make debate safe and welcoming for competitors, judges, coaches, family members, and friends. I'm not so completely naive to think everything is fluffy bunnies and we'll all be best friends forever after every round, but I really do believe this activity can be a place where we lift each other up, learn from our experiences, and become better people. If you're reading this, I care about you. I hope your participation in debate reflects both self-care and care for others.
Mental and emotional well-being are at a crisis point in society, and particularly within our activity. We have all lost friends and colleagues to burnout, breakdown, and at worst, self-harm. If you are debating in front of me, and contribute to societal stigmas surrounding mental health or belittle/bully your opponent in any way that is related to their emotional state or personal struggles with mental wellness, you will lose with minimum speaks. I can't make that any more clear. If you are presenting arguments related to suicide, depression, or self-harm, you must give a content warning for my sake and for your opponent's. I am not flexible on this.
Please don't make me keep time. I'm terrible at it. I will forget time signals, and everyone will be angry.
Speaks: You're probably not going to get a 30. I tend to start at 28 and work my way up or down. If it's a circuit round and you get a 30 from me, congratulations, I think you're an incredible debater who will get all the bids. If you get a 26 or below, you likely have either a very limited understanding of varsity debate or you did something bigoted/abusive. I usually range between 27 and the low 29s. I'm a little more generous at locals.
Speed: Fine. If you are not clear, I will say "clear" once. I like speed to be consistent between reading and extemping, but whatever you do you. If you won't flash or email docs, maybe slow down for tags for my sake and for your opponent's sake. But yeah, however fast you can go I can probably handle it fine.
Kritik: Fine. I have a basic understanding of most of the literature and a more advanced/nuanced understanding of critical legal frameworks. If you can understand it, I probably can as well. You don't need to be a kindergarten teacher about it, but don't think my basic understanding of Butler, Ahmed, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Levinas, anthro, or whatever will excuse you from explaining why I should vote. Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned.
Theory/T: Fine, including 1AR theory. I'll think you're mean and won't like you if you're reading 1AR theory strategically *just* because you know your opponent won't understand, but I'll still vote on it if you win it. Just like with any other winning argument, I tend to look for some sort of offense in order to vote on either side. I don't think this means the aff needs interp-specific offense in a collapsed T debate that they are definitively winning defensively (e.g. I meet), but if the round collapses to theory and I don't have a specific RVI or offensive justification for voting it's probably a good idea to at least give a cursory impact or framework extension somewhere else on the flow. I don't default to drop the debater or argument - I want to hear that debate (or not, if that's not your thing). I love a well thought-out, reasoned theory debate. I was a T debater in high school. I'll have a fairly high threshold on a strict "you don't meet" T argument against an extremely common aff. One more thing - all voters and standards should be warranted. I get annoyed by "T is a voter because fairness and education" without a reason why those two things make T a voter. I don't care if it's obvious.
Frameworks: Fine with traditional (stock or V/C), policy-oriented, phil, critical frameworks, performance, narratives. While I don't think you have to have your own framework per se, I find it pretty curious when a debater reads one and then just abandons it in favor of traditional util weighing. I am incredibly suspicious of framing that is abusive for abuse's sake, like "the aff/neg must win every round."
LARP: Fine. Plans, counterplans, PICs, PIKs, disads, solvency dumps, whatever. Argue it well and it's fine. I don't think making something a floating PIK necessarily gets rid of competition problems; it has to be reasoned well. I'm skeptical of severance perms and will have to be convinced.
Condo: Fine, although I don't think all conceded offense on kicked arguments just goes away because the argument is conditional (especially stuff like oppression/discourse-related offense). Be really, really careful before you kick a K, especially if it is identity-related - I think reps matter.
Flashing/Email/Disclosure: YES. I will vote for disclosure theory, but have a higher threshold for punishing or making an example of novices or non-circuit debaters who don't know or use the wiki. Lying during disclosure will get you dropped. If you're super experienced, please consider not being shitty about disclosure to novice or small-school debaters who simply don't know any better. Educate them so that they'll be in a position to teach good practices in future rounds. My personal perspective on disclosure is informed by my background as a lawyer - I liken disclosure to the discovery process, and think debate is a lot better when we are informed. One caveat to prior disclosure is that I do conform to "breaking new" norms, though I suppose I'd listen to theory about it. For sharing, I prefer email. Please include me on email chains.
Sitting/Standing: Whatever. I have my own debaters stand if they can because it helps with volume and clarity. But do your thing, it won't affect speaks. Maybe look at me every once in a while, your call.
Flex prep: Fine. More clarity is good.
Performative issues: I am a little bit skeptical of white debaters running afropessimism or similar arguments, particularly against debaters of color, but will not tell someone they can't. That said, if you're a white person debating critical race issues against a person of color, or a man advocating feminism against a woman, or a cis/het person talking queer issues, be sensitive, empathetic, and mindful. Also, I tend to notice performative contradiction and will vote on it if asked to. For example, running a language K and using the language you're critiquing (outside of argument setup/tags) is a really bad idea.
I do NOT default to util in the case of competing frameworks. You specifically need to tell me why your extinction scenario is more compelling than someone's dog achieving self-actualization. Say it with me: Harvey does not default to util.
Being a tabula rasa-ish judge, I will listen to arguments that any of the stuff I accept is not OK, albeit skeptically. I don't vote against a "traditional" value debater because they're "less progressive" or "less cool" or "memes" or whatever. Every person in our community has value. That's a pun, I like it.
All speeches aside from the 1AC should begin with a roadmap, and I expect consistent signposting. If you want me to flow an overview, tell me where. If you expect a detailed debate on a counterinterp, have me flow it separately.
Most of this is LD-specific, because that's the pool to which I'll generally be assigned. Policy debaters, most of what is above applies to my policy paradigm. I was a decent policy debater, and I get how it goes. Critical/plan-less affs are fine. That said, just like in LD I like a good T debate. One minor thing is different from my LD paradigm: I conform a little bit more to policy norms in terms of granting RVIs less often in policy rounds, but that's about it. Obviously, framework debate is not usually as important in policy, but I'm totally down with it if that's how you debate. I guess a lot of policy debaters still default to util, so be careful if the other side isn't doing that but I guess it's fine if everyone does it.
PF people: If you're actually reading this, congratulations! Speed is fine. Nontraditional PF arguments are fine. I will listen to disclosure theory, though I am less likely to buy it if the offending case is straightforward/common. Offense is important. I'm surprised and impressed when PF debaters cut actual evidence rather than summarizing it, especially offense and uniqueness evidence.
More PF specifics:
Anything above regarding performative issues applies to PF, so please read carefully. I am primarily an LD judge on the Texas and national circuits. Take from that what you will, and assume I am fine with either a more progressive or traditional style of PF debate. "It's not allowed in PF" is not a warranted argument. Line by line debate is important, and as it's what I am used to, I am not likely to vote on new arguments (or arguments that weren't gone for in Summary) made in Final Focus. Weighing offense is important. Don't call something terminal without a warrant. Don't call link defense a turn. If you want me to use something from crossfire in my RFD, it needs to be in subsequent speeches. I have an extremely LOW tolerance for miscut or mischaracterized evidence.
Please ask questions if I can clarify anything, and don't be afraid to engage and ask questions after the debate. That doesn't mean I want to be post-rounded or harangued about my decision, but I'm happy to discuss stuff in a rational and collegial way. If you get aggressive after the round, expect the same from me. I encourage pre-round questions. It is endlessly annoying when a judge dismissively tells debaters they should have read the wiki paradigm. I might suggest you look over my paradigm, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions.
Finally, I find Cheetos really annoying in classrooms, especially when people are using keyboards. It's the dust. Don't test my Cheeto tolerance. I'm not joking, anything that has the dust triggers me hard. Cheetos, Takis, all that stuff. I get that it's delicious, but keep it the hell out of the academy.
Chetan Hertzig Paradigm
EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004, at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I debated for Lexington from 1994-1998. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students.
If you're in high school, please just call me Hertzig.
Please include me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
BIG PICTURE: CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.
PRACTICES I LIKE & WILL REWARD WITH HIGHER SPEAKS:
- Starting speeches slowly and building speed as you go (rather than starting at top speed)
- ENUNCIATING and INFLECTING throughout
- Speaking slower than average circuit speed
- Providing an explicit decision-calculus/voting issues
- Explicitly linking to a standard or ROB in speeches, especially rebuttals
- Telling a clear and coherent ballot story
- Weighing between your extensions and your opponent's (not just giving me two non-clashing sets of extensions)
- Reading a whole res aff that defends the topic as a principle
- Having a layered NC and responsive/specific turns off the aff
- Making topical critical arguments/reading Ks that are grounded in the topic lit
- Comparing evidence and weighing
- Giving structured speeches
- Using good word economy
PRACTICES I DISLIKE & FOR WHICH I MAY DECREASE SPEAKS:
- Using profanity in the round. I don't care what your purpose is; it's not necessary.
- Using ad homs of any kind against your opponent (e.g., commenting on their race, clothing, or practices as a debater). Find a non-personal way of making the argument.
- Reacting non-verbally when your opponent is speaking (e.g., violently shaking your head, making faces, waving your arms). It's rude, unpersuasive, and unnecessary.
- Indicting or insulting an opponent's team or coach in round (e.g., "It's no surprise [team name] is going for T this round")
- Sitting during CX and/or speeches unless you're physically unable to stand
GENERAL: For the most part, I want to see a substantive round about the topic. My conception of what counts as topical argumentation is based on what's in the topic literature.
*PLEASE READ: If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.
Speed: Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary. I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds.
Theory: I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will intervene against theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on theory. I will vote on theory that is actually justified (as in, you couldn't have answered the position without it, or there was something about the opponent's strategy that made it impossible for you to win without theory). Is that subjective? You bet. Is there a brightline? Probably not. Don't like this view? Don't pref me.
Framework: If you and your opponent agree on a FW, great. If not, make the FW debate relatively short (i.e., not 4 minutes of a 7 minute speech). Also, please explain the philosophical concepts you're using instead of assuming that I know them. I probably don't.
Policy Arguments: I dislike generic politics DAs and extinction impacts on topics that clearly don't link to them. If you want to run those impacts on a topic about nuclear weapons, go for it. If the topic's about compulsory voting, I'll be very receptive to good defensive answers from the aff.
Ks and Non-T Arguments: I generally prefer TOPICAL critical arguments, but I'm okay with non-topical affs if you make it super-clear why you had to be non-topical to read them. Otherwise, I tend to think a TVA will solve.
Disclosure Theory: I'll vote for this if I think it's won on the flow, but I'm not a huge fan of rounds that come down to this.
Tricks: Shut the front door! Who are you?! (In other words, "no.")
Extensions: I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.
"Flex Prep": Different people use these words to mean different things. I am fine with you asking clarification questions of your opponent during prep time. I am not okay with you ending CX early and taking the rest of the time as prep time.
Other Stuff: Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. Be nice. And stand up.
To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.
Thomas Hobohm Paradigm
My email for email chains is email@example.com. My facial expressions tend to show what I think during debates because I have a terrible poker face. Please ask me questions. I tend to agree with Louie Petit, Eric Forslund, and Calum Matheson.
Overview: I debated policy. I went for both critical arguments and policy arguments, depending on what was more strategic. I like speed, tech over truth, and high-level criticism.
General Policy Notes
I generally think college-level speed (spreading) and policy-style arguments (Plan-Based Affirmatives, CPs, DAs, Kritiks, etc.) are good. I ran both hardcore policy arguments and narrative-based critical affirmatives. Speed is good, conditionality is probably good, I enjoy judging both policy-style and critical debates, and can't say I prefer one style of argument over the other. I am willing to listen to whatever arguments the debaters want to make, and I vastly prefer line-by-line to overviews, especially on Kritiks. I'm sick of seeing K teams re-explain their arguments every speech in long-winded overviews and neglect clash. Your time is probably better spent on impact calculus. I am Gay and ran Queer Failure, Queer Optimism, and Queer Pessimism a ton, if you run that argument please do it well or else I will be very sad.
I was a national-circuit policy debater at Southlake Carroll. I attend UT Dallas (while helping coach some HS policy debaters), and am majoring in Economics and Computer Science. I work as a product designer. I will definitely disclose and give you ample feedback. I heavily focused on high-level technical policy debate and narrative-based critical arguments. I often ran queer theory arguments and high-level criticisms (my last year I ran a queer failure affirmative), however I most enjoyed a technical policy debate and collapsing down to a CP / DA; running Kritiks was more of a strategic decision for me. Much of my debate career was driven by building case-specific strategies - I wanted to go with the best argument, regardless of whether it was a CP+DA or Antiblackness. I believe in the value of debate as a serious activity, but at the same time, I don't want you to take it too seriously. Have a good time, learn, and be nice to each other.
I prefer tech over truth. Conditionality is good, the neg should exploit it. I can follow college-level speed, I flow very well, and want you to use share evidence with me. I really want you to ask me questions after the round, but I won't change my decision. Here are some important opinions I have about debate:
1. Disclosure is good - you should use the wiki. If I see that you have made a concentrated effort at disclosing your arguments and improving debate, but your opponents have not, please make an argument about it. At the least it will increase your speaker points. If you are unable to disclose for personal reasons, or because your coach / school disallows it, that argument will be sufficient for me to disregard any other disclosure arguments made in the debate. Another passage I stole from Varad that I agree with greatly:
The affirmative must tell the negative what the aff is before the debate, unless it is a new aff. If it is a new aff, the affirmative does not have to tell the negative what the aff is/what the advantages are/what the advocacy text is/anything. All they need to say is "new aff."
Teams must disclose all broken positions on the NDCA Wiki. Failing to do so will make me sad. It will also result in a loss (likely) if the opposing team reads an argument about why you must disclose. I think most arguments against disclosure are pretty silly, and don't worry about whether or not the violation can be verified. I will check their wiki for you.
Two caveats to this. (a) Forgetting to disclose one or two positions does not constitute failing to disclose. (b) If you are debating someone with clearly far less experience, reading disclosure theory will just make me sad and make me ignore your argument and likely dock your speaks.
2. Author qualifications are important - please bring up disparities between the quality of your evidence and the quality of your opponents. It will heavily affect how I view the round.
3. Clarity - I want you to go fast, but if you maintain an exceptional level of clarity with regards to your arguments, and I find the debate easier to follow / flow due to it, you will be rewarded.
4. Control the frame of the debate - meta arguments about impact comparison, theoretical boundaries of debate, and the importance of different debate styles are far more important than line-by-line issues.
5. Ethical violations that result in a loss with 0 speaks: card clipping (accidentally skipping one or two words in a card is not clipping), accusing the other team of an ethical violation falsely or without proof, and stealing cards.
Quick LD Notes
I am 100% down for policy-style arguments in Lincoln-Douglas and (especially at major tournaments like Greenhill or St. Marks) am not very sympathetic to arguments in favor of traditional value-criterion style Lincoln Douglas debates. If you're wondering whether you can run your plan text aff, critical affirmative, narrative, CP + DA, politics, etc. argument: don't worry, you can, and I hope you will. Please try to stay away from theory unless there is an in-round violation that makes sense; if your opponent runs a theory argument that is dumb, feel free to go all-in on reasonability, I think it is underused in LD. I find that the negative reading the same case every round in LD is pretty useless, if you can just run off-case arguments and then respond to the case.
Long LD Notes
I'd prefer if everyone in Lincoln Douglas debated like they were in a policy round and didn't go for theory. I enjoy watching debates with plans (policy affirmatives), counterplans, disadvantages, kritiks, critical affirmatives, topicality, etc. Politics disadvantages are great, as are advantage counterplans and conditionality. I don't care much for criterion / value debates, impact calculus is significantly more important to me. Impact calculus isn't just about timeframe, magnitude, and probability; it is about relative framing and contextual evidence-based comparison. I'd prefer that you went in depth about how your specific internal link and impact evidence interacts with your opponents instead of reading a typical impact calculus block.For the love of God, slow down on plan / counterplan text and don't read RVIs. Theory preempts / spikes are not persuasive to me and are probably a waste of your time - get into the meat of the argument instead of wasting your time on cheap tricks (this goes both ways). Speaker points are based off of both strategy and clarity. Explanation is important. To steal from Varad, a lack of explanation in the debate round will look as follows:
Neg: And the mechanism to my shitty alt is an affirmation of radical Deleuzian joy in the face of the realpolitik of death [ends explanation].
Aff: That's not an argument.
RFD: That's probably not an argument.
I love people who are efficient, but I also love speakers who are entertaining. The best debaters somehow manage to do both.
Edit after Greenhill 2018:
If (as affirmative) you read a plan and kick it in the 1AR, I will be very sympathetic to theory arguments from the negative about why that is not Ok. If you try to kick it in your last rebuttal you will get a loss. I consider saying "we will not defend the implementation of our advocacy / resolution but only that the resolution is ethically good" when you read an advocacy text to be kicking the plan.
What I believe about debate (stolen from Eric Forslund):
Ultimately I believe that debate is a game. I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are very few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other. Finally, although I understand the strategic value to impact turning the alternative to kritiks and disads (and would encourage it in most instances), there are a few arguments I am unwilling to listen to those include: sexism good, racism good, genocide good, and rape good. If you are considering reading one of those arguments, don’t. You are just going to piss me off.
Avi Jayaraman Paradigm
I competed all over the circuit from 2006-2009. I coached from 2009-2011. I've judged sporadically since then. My paradigm was longer once, but now this is really all I would like to see:
- Run topical arguments. If your opponent's arguments do not impede on your ability to run your arguments and you run theory, I'll punish you with terrible speaker points. If you run theory strictly as a time suck but then win the round off something else, you'll get a very low-point win. That said, if your opponent is running a position that prevents you from running your arguments, I would certainly vote on theory. In fact, I would be happy to vote on theory in instances where it is run for the purpose of checking in-round abuse.
- If you are running a weird, counterintuitive philosophy position that has absolutely no real world implications and uses verbose rhetoric, you will need to slow down quite a bit. If I don't understand your arguments, you'll probably lose the round with bad speaker points.
- As long as you're not going through theory shells and obscure philosophy at blistering speeds, I will be able to handle your top speed if you are clear. I will say clear no more than twice.
To put numbers on it - 275wpm is probably my max for listening to philosophy and theory; closer to 350-375wpm for "normal" arguments and cards.
- Lastly - this should go without saying - do not be mean to your opponents. If your opponent runs something dumb, I expect you to unleash a firestorm of verbal abuse at the argument, not at the person who made the argument. On a similar note, I don't mind if two seasoned debaters get heated and lob some banter at one another (and in fact, I encourage it). But if your opponent is clearly at lower level than you, and you decide to be malicious in your interactions, I will nuke your speaks to the point of hilarity.
- I like debaters who run well-warranted and versatile arguments which can serve multiple purposes in a round. I like debaters who can deconstruct the flow at numerous levels, and win the round at many of those levels.
Feel free to ask any questions before the round; I promise I don't bite!
Austin Johnson Paradigm
Trinity Valley School
Head Coach/Program Director
Debate coach for four years. Took kids to TOC and NSDA Nats.
Role of the Judge
I’m willing to evaluate any and all roles-of-the-judge you put forward. It’s the judge’s job to weigh the round under the criteria you give. That is, the judge is a referee who makes decisions about a game whose rules are determined by its players over the course of each round.
I do not flow CX.
Track your own prep. I’m okay with flex prep. Flashing is not prep.
Speak as quickly as you are comfortable. However, if you’re going to spread, please be sure to include me on the e-mail chain.
I’ll weigh theory if I must. But I would prefer to vote on literally anything else. If something genuinely abusive (not even in the direction of the topic, undisclosed, etc.) happens in the round, then you should call it out. Otherwise, don’t waste time. If the only reason you’re winning a debate is because you’re manipulating the rules of debate, you’re not winning a debate.
Additionally, don't run Theory just to suck up time. The only thing worse than winning a round because you're just manipulating the rules is winning a round because you're wasting time talking about manipulating the rules and then not manipulating the rules, because that means I had to listen to your crappy theory non-argument which you then did nothing with!
I’m cool with plans. Just remember that reading a plan in LD means taking on a heavier burden of proof than defending the resolution as-written.
If I’m letting Aff run plans, I should probably let Neg run DAs and CPs. So I do.
Performance is cool. I buy in-round solvency and pre-fiat alts.
The K is the reason I’m a debate coach. I’m a Ph.D. in English lit who got his degree after 2000, which means I had to be conversant in a loooooot of critical literature. I like materialist or semiotic approaches; psychoanalysis Ks are very slippery and I don’t generally enjoy them.
K Affs are fine, but you need to be prepared for a protracted debate about framing that you can actually win.
Todd Kessler Paradigm
School Affiliation: Coach at The Episcopal School of Dallas
Coaching & Judging Experience: I have been coaching teams and judging tournaments since 2006. This includes LD, PF, Congress, CX and IEs at different schools in Virginia and Texas. I have had debaters qualify for NCFL and NSDA on multiple occasions which are both considered traditional tournaments.
Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. If you see me stop flowing for an extended period of time then it would be in your best interest to slow down. I also prefer if you go slow on your taglines, analytics and any theory arguments.
Types of Arguments: Although I prefer framework heavy debates, a lot of clash in the round, and good crystallization and overviews in your final rebuttal, I will still vote on topicality, counterplans, some theory arguments at times and kritiks if they are explained well by the debater. I am not a fan of non-topical Affs as I tend to favor whole resolution ACs. Make sure when you run T, that you are linking your violation to your standards/voting issues and that when you run a CP, you explain your net benefits and how it's competitive.
Theory Argument: Please do not waste your time running any disclosure theory or new affs bad arguments. Not only will I not vote on these types of arguments, but if you waste enough time making arguments that are not related to the resolution in anyway, your speaker points will suffer. If your opponent runs new arguments in his or her rebuttals, then you can run theory.
Kritiks: Run at your own risk because I'm not really a fan of complicated philosophical arguments that have nothing to do with the actual resolution that should be debated upon. I'm not saying you can't win if you run them, but I might look at you funny and simply not flow the argument depending on the complexity of the K.
Speaks: Clarity over speed is prefered. If your spreading is incomprehensible, this will reflect on your speaker points. Any acts of rudeness or displays of an unprofessional demeanor towards your opponent will also be taken into account. If you go against an inexperienced debater or a traditional style opponent, it would be in your best interest to accommodate their format and invest some time clashing with or turning their value, criterion and contentions. Also, please do not ask me if I disclose speaker points. It's not going to happen. In addition, please do not use profanity at all during the round. It will impact your speaks and could also impact my decision so don't do it.
Tricks: Please don't.
Overview: Debate the resolution, clash with your opponent's arguments, provide framework, slow down during tags and analytics, don't run disclosure theory/new affs bad.
Email Chain: If and only if both debaters are sharing files, please include my email as well: firstname.lastname@example.org
Gurmeet Kindra Paradigm
I am a simple judge
1. I will say clear or slow-But please don't make me- slow on tags and evidence
2. If I don't have the doc don't plan on spreading
3. I don't have a preference to what you run K's, LARP etc. as long as you can defend your case clearly. If you are spreading make sure you slow down on tag lines.
4. I love smart CX, and I pay close attention to it.
5. Be Eloquent as I do pay attention to that as well
1.Let Weighing live in LD, I don't want a blitz of back file answers without leveraging the AC- then whats the point besides wasting 6 minuets?
2. I know there is a skew! Please don't waste more time complaining about it, it is an acceptable standard in a counter interp or just argument but shouldn't be the the main point of the 1AR, the more time you spend, the less i'll buy it.
3. Not super familiar w/ performance/Non t affs but please go for it- just break it down and you'll be fine
1. I won't vote you down but i'll kill your speaks if you run more than 5 off that are all condo, it always leads to bad debate- I'm generally good with condo but 5 or more off is just abusive
2. I expect clear articulation of what operates on the highest layer, K or Theory- If they go for one and you don't kick the other i'll assume risk of offense so for your benefit be clear
Please Note: I don't disclose. when you see it you will see critique clearly showing what and why.
email the doc to email@example.com
Jeff Koegler Paradigm
Updated: Jan 10, 2019
Background: I am a former TOC LD and (to a much lesser extent) policy debater from Texas. I have a background in economics. I am a military veteran, small business owner, and have ample government experience. Currently, I am an LD assistant coach at Lincoln High School in Portland, OR.
LD Judging Paradigm:
TL;DR version: Speed is fine, but if you are unclear I won't flow it. If your argument is obscure or poorly linked, I am not going to do the work for you, spell it out. I like good theory, but I won't vote on absurdity. I default drop the argument, not the debater. Kritiks can be excellent if run well. I will vote down a debater that creates a toxic environment for debate. Truth > tech.
Speed: Speed is fine, but years in the military has made my hearing terrible. I will tell you clear once. After that I can't flow what I cant understand. I don't believe in interference in the round, so if you have heard that you are unclear regularly, you might want to take that into account from the outset. To be safe you might want to slow down tags/source/analytics and use inflection for particularly relevant sections. Also, try enunciating. Send me your speech doc at firstname.lastname@example.org to avoid an issue
1) I will not "connect the dots" on your arguments. Spell it out. If it is a complex argument, break it down to the point where an intelligent observer could follow you.
2) Claim, warrant, impact. Impact it or I tend not to vote on it. There is no such thing as implied impact.
3) Topicality is a big issue to me. Be Topical. If you are clearly not Topical, I have a hard time signing a ballot in your favor. Aff plans are generally topical as long as they show a relevant adherence to the topic. If it is logically part of the debate ground, I will probably accept it. (That means that if you are talking about a topic that consists of/affects .1% of the potential debate ground, then you may not be topical).
4) I don't accept drops as "true" arguments. Extend and impact them if they are relevant for you to have me include in my decision calculus.
5) Weighing arguments should be contextual and logically consistent.
6) I try to be tab, but calculus will include whether or not an argument is grounded in reality. Ultimately, flow typically wins.
7) Harms. I prefer higher likelihood real world harms over infinitesimally small chances of world ending harms, however impacts determine calculus. I like the 1% rule, but I am willing to be flexible.
8) Debate space is a safe space. I will not tolerate racism, sexism, toxic masculinity, etc. If you leave me wondering what you meant, you might just lose a few speaker points. If I feel offended (that's pretty tough to do) or if I feel your opponent is the target of your issues, you will lose the round. Easiest way to avoid: treat every opponent as a person.
Kritiks: I like well executed Kritics, but generally don't buy into generic K's. Frame it well. It must be thoroughly explained. If it lacks analysis, it won't win you anything. A K needs to have a link.
1) Theory should be a response to a violation/abuse, not a standard strategy. A lack of specificity will lose you the argument. If you are rattling off random theory in the hope that something is going to stick, it won't. Save yourself the time.
2) Theory doesn't have to be in a shell as long as you are organized and clear. I accept theory in a shell though.
3) Don't assume I've read your lit or heard your particular theory before.
4) I default towards dropping the argument over the debater. Clearly intentional abuses identified by theory can change that.
Prep: If evidence swapping, agree upon an email chain or online resource for doc sharing at the beginning of the round. Once you stop prep, you will have 30 seconds to transfer documents. After that I will start your prep time up again. Include me in your document sharing. Please flash me in at email@example.com.
Speaks: I consider 27 to be the average speaks, however I often give 29+. Better points are achieved through clarity, politeness, and technique. Points are lost if your speech patterns are boring, you are rude/condescending/insulting, or have poor technique. I don't distribute speaks based on what I think your W/L record should be or argumentation.
1) Debate space is a safe space. I will not tolerate racism, sexism, toxic masculinity, etc. If you leave me wondering what you meant, you might just lose a few speaker points. If I feel offended (thats pretty tough to do) or if I feel your opponent is the target of your issues, you will lose the round. Easiest way to avoid: treat every opponent as a person.
2) I like a good ballot story or clearly enumerated voters at the end of your last speech. Not required, but gets you a nod. It shows me what you are seeing in the round.
3) I don't particularly like performance Affs. I have seen few well executed ones. Use them at your own risk.
4) I generally don't buy gimmicks. If your strategy involves a lot of gimmicks, be prepared to lose me.
5) I don't have any triggers, but I expect you to clear the issue with your opponent and inform the room.
6) Pref list:
7) Signpost. Please signpost. Even if you give a good roadmap before your speech, signpost during, so that I make sure I am following your arguments the way you want me to. You know what happens when you assume...
8) My pronouns are he/him.
9) Just call me Jeff.
Evidence Ethics: If you feel like you are the victim of an ethics violation and want to pursue it, what you are asking me to do is end the round immediately. The burden of proof is on the accuser. I will vote on the spot based on the evidence of the accusation. Accusations that I deem unfounded will be ruled against the accuser.
Policy Judging Paradigm:
Speed: Speed is fine, but years in the military has made my hearing terrible. I will tell you clear once. After that I can't flow what I cant understand. I don't believe in interference in the round, so if you have heard that you are unclear regularly, you might want to take that into account from the outset. To be safe you might want to slow down tags/source/analytics and use inflection for particularly relevant sections. Also, try enunciating.
1) I vote on T. Be T.
2) I prefer high probability realistic harms to infinitesimally improbable harms. You do you, but I am pretty lenient towards defense against NW/Geno/etc, unless they are very well established.
3) My debate calculus typically includes weighting the biggest argument(s) in the round and the flow.
1) Debate space is a safe space. I will not tolerate racism, sexism, toxic masculinity, etc. If you leave me wondering what you meant, you might just lose a few speaker points. If I feel offended (thats pretty tough to do) or if I feel your opponent is the target of your issues, you will lose the round. Easiest way to avoid: treat every opponent as a person.
2) I like clearly enumerated voters at the end of your last speech or give me a good ballot story.
3) I don't particularly like performance or K Affs. I have seen few well executed ones. Use them at your own risk.
4) I generally don't buy gimmicks. If your strategy involves a lot of gimmicks, be prepared to lose me.
5) I don't have any triggers, but I expect you to clear the issue with your opponent and inform the room.
6) Signpost. Please signpost. Even if you give a good roadmap before your speech, signpost during, so that I make sure I am following your arguments the way you want me to. You know what happens when you assume...
7) My pronouns are he/him.
8) Just call me Jeff.
Jonas Lebarillec Paradigm
2013-2017: Competed at Peninsula HS (CA)
Yes I want to be on the email chain, add me: firstname.lastname@example.org
I primarily read LARP arguments during the regular season. At camp I experimented with everything including high theory, performance, (ethical) framework, theory, and tricks.
I am willing to judge, listen to, and vote for anything. Just explain it well.
Speed should not be an issue, but be clear.
Drop the argument
If I shout TAGS it means that the end of your cards and the beginning of your next tags are not distinct enough.
If you want a better chance at winning and higher speaks start rebuttal speech with a real impact overview and not just explaining how debate works.
Explaining dense arguments will make me more likely to vote for them/higher speaks.
CX and prep are both flex prep. You can just use CX to prep if you want to, and you can use prep to ask questions, and both!
I now default epistemic certainty. But I still think modesty is a great argument.
Incomplete extensions will be viewed with heavy skepticism when evaluating the argument. 99% of the time this is just shouting an argument or an author name without explaining what they say/warrant.
Aff vs. the K: No Link + Perm (Yes)
K vs. the Aff: Ks without a link (No)
"Read the Cards!" : If your 2NR/2AR puts your faith in me to just read all the evidence in the debate without any prodding as to what I am looking for, odds are you may be disappointed. I will not make arguments for you/come to conclusions about an argument on my own.
Erik Legried Paradigm
*Updated on 4/21/18 while migrating to Tabroom. I'm revising this because my former paradigm was dated, not because of any significant changes to my judging philosophy.*
Background: I coach LD for the Brentwood School in Los Angeles. I competed in LD for Robbinsdale Cooper HS and Blake HS, both in Minnesota, from 2006-10. I studied philosophy, economics, and entrepreneurship at Northwestern University, graduating in 2014. I have judged several hundred circuit LD rounds, and plenty traditional rounds too.
Overall: I am a 'least-intervention' judge, and try my best to vote on the arguments in the round. Barring certain complicated extremes (i.e. offensive language, physical coercion), I vote for the best reason articulated to me during the debate. This involves establishing a framework (or whatever you want to call it - a mechanism for evaluation) for my decision, and winning offense to it.
Some implications/nuance to 'least-intervention' - a) I won't evaluate/vote on what I perceive to be new arguments in the 2NR or 2AR, b) I won't vote on arguments that I don't understand when they're introduced, c) I won't vote on arguments that I don't hear, and d) I won't vote on arguments you don't make (i.e. if your evidence answers something and you don't point it out)
Spreading: I think speed is overall bad for debate, but I will not penalize you for my belief. You should debate at whatever speed you want, granted I can understand it. If it's just me judging you, I will say clear / slow up to three times per speech. After three I will stop trying. The first two 'clears' are free, but after the third one I will reduce your speaker points by 2 for a maximum of 28. On a panel I will say 'clear' once, maybe twice, depending how the other judges seem to be keeping up.
Speaker points: holistic measure of good debating. I'm looking for good arguments, strategy, and speaking. I average around a 28.5. A 29.3+ suggests I imagine you in elimination rounds of whichever tournament we're at. I'm averaging a 30 once every four years at my current rate.
- As of the 4/21/18 update, I do not need extensions to be 'full', i.e. claim / warrant / impact, especially in the 1AR, but I do expect you to articulate what arguments you are advancing in the debate. For conceded arguments, a concise extension of the implications is sufficient.
- If I think there is literally no offense for either side, I presume aff.
- I default to a comparative world paradigm.
- I default to drop the argument, competing interpretations, no RVI, fairness/education are voters.
- I will call evidence situationally - on the one hand it is crucial to resolving some debates, on the other hand I think it can advantage unclear debaters who get the benefit of judges carefully reviewing their evidence. I will do my best to balance these interests.
Feel free to contact me at email@example.com.
Daniel Lewis Paradigm
For Policy Debate:
I started my debate career probably long before your parents met, much less before you were born. I was a Prosecuting Attorney under Janet Reno and still practice occasionally when I'm not teaching or at debate tournaments. I prefer and my expertise is in policy round argumentation but I can be convinced to vote for critical argumentation when done correctly. Barring tournament rules, Flash time is not prep. Email speech docs. Points are between 28-30, barring bizzarro argumentation, presentation or decorum (This does not include personal narratives or performance arguments with a purpose - they are fine). If you speak (debate) worse than the other debaters in a Round, you will get lower points. Quick and clear is OK. Unclear is not. I will let you know at least once - then it's up to you. I will read evidence in a close debate when I think it is at issue because cards exceedingly often don't prove what they are being offered to prove. You have to point it out unless I think the claim is outlandish.
See the above. I was a policy debater. So LD theory which deviates from policy may be lost on me. You've been warned. Critiks and CPs are ok. So are theory args against them. Standard frameworks which stifle all critical debate won't fly. Tell me why your framework should be applied in this debate.
Nick Malanga Paradigm
Bolded stuff is the most important to me (read this if i am about to judge you). I Debated for Strake Jesuit senior year and part of my junior year, graduating in 2018. Currently an econ major at Texas A&M. I competed on TOC/TFA circuits. I didn’t have many noticeable accomplishments, I got one bid and a bunch of state points. I feel like as a judge, I have a responsibility to teach people about how to get better, I enjoy it when you lost but still hang around to ask about re-dos and better strats. if you do this, I will probably send you articles to read as well as possibly help you drill. I mostly read LARP positions and theory, and a couple reps K's here and there, and an occasional Kant AC or NC. My favorite rounds to judge are Theory and K rounds. Don't let this be the sole influencer of your strategy. If you are only good at framework debate, then do that. I ideologically agree with Matt Chen, Jason Yang, Chris Castillo, Chase Hamilton, and Jonas LeBarrilec. Here’s my wiki if you want to get an idea of my preferences with argumentation when I debated:
Big picture / miscelaneous
All offense has to be linked back to some framing mechanism. This can be theory voters, a role of the ballot, or a standard. This also means that I think claiming T comes before the K or vice versa is an incoherent and arbitrary concept. What you really mean is procedural fairness comes before x rob.
Tech > Truth.
I've re-written my paradigm after judging a bit, and I do now believe that embedded clash exists and it's an impossible to hold people to the standard of implicating an argument against every single other argument it logically indicts (this is mostly important when it comes to close theory debates).
I won't vote on or endorse in any way explicitly and intentionally problematic arguments or rhetoric. I don't think death good is offensive unless it's 'death is good for one culture/race only' or you openly advocate for killing your opponent. I'm also fine with skep in any context.
Please weigh everything and I mean everything you want me to vote on. Anything else and you will be sad about my decision.
Extensions can be two ways (this is mostly for pedagogical value, if you're very experienced, do your own thing)
1] if a large portion of your position is conceded: “[claim] – they’ve dropped three internal links to extinction. First, [warrant]. Second, [warrant]. Third [warrant].
2] if it’s closely conceded or you’re going to implicate something in multiple ways: “extend jones 18, which says [claim], proven by [warrant], which means no link to the K.
I think that debate is a game, educational benefits are great, but procedurals are extremely necessary to have a functioning activity. I vote for the better debater, meaning whoever did the best job winning a framing argument and offense back to that wins my ballot--this doesn't exclude performances, you just need to frame them. Don't think this makes me hate K's, literally all the kids I coach are K debaters.
I flow on my laptop, and I'm not the best at flowing analytics. Going super fast while reading carded evidence isn't an issue for me since I can backflow, but if you're extemping analytics, go 75-90% of full speed if you're really fast off paper. I will say clear and slow as many times as I need, your speaks won't suffer unless you're just not getting the message.
Please, please, please, clearly signpost, number arguments, and pause after the numbering. If you do this well, your speaks will increase. If you disregard this, then your speaks will suffer and I will probably not get all your arguments where they need to be and I will make a decision on what I have down, meaning you will be sad.
SLOW DOWN ON TAGS AND CITES. Slow down on interps, plan texts, standard texts, or the like.
- Truth Testing (don't interpret that this makes me a trick hack, I just think all arguments can concievably be included under TT)
- Presumption and Permissibility flow neg.
- Competing Interps, Drop the debater, and no RVI
- Jurisdiction > Fairness > Education / K’s > other pre-fiat voting issues
- Meta-theory > T > theory
- I average a 28.6, but I consider myself extremely generous with speaker points. Good performances get much higher, and bad ones get much less.
- Tech, round vision, strategy will get you good speaks, but doing this with persuasion as well as clarity gets you super high speaks.
o 30: Perfect round. You probably inspired me in some way. I expect you to at least be in finals.
o 29.5-29.9: Not Perfect, but pretty good. I expect you to be in late out rounds.
o 29-29.4: This is a good debate. I expect you to break.
o 28.7-28.9: You were satisfactory. I expect you to be in the bubble.
o 28-28.6: Still a good amount of ways you can improve. .500 at best
o 26-27: Your performance was lacking in a number of ways.
o 25-25.9: You were rude or offensive in round.
I think tricks like trivialism and condo logic are fun and interesting, however i'm not so sure a prioris are good for debate. I'll give you higher speaks for creative tricks and applications of them, but not for a prioris. Please make sure to expain how they triggered condo logic or the like, if I'm unsure how they did it, I'm less willing to vote on it.
Triggering permissibility or skep is fine, extra points for well-explained arguments and strategic use of these things.
Frameworks which exclude kritiks are cool, explain their implications though.
I grant your opponent new responses to new implications of spikes and tricks in the 2N/2A, but not to the spikes themselves.
Please explain your framework and why it is better than your opponent's.
I think that author indicts i.e. Kant is racist, is a strategic way to layer the round, but should not be the only response to the opponent's framework. also my email is nickmalanga two (number, not the words) at sign gmail dot com. if you read add me to the email chain. I added this here because i feel like no one reads this section of the paradigm, reading all my paradigm makes me happy. if you add me to the chain without having to ask me, I will be very happy. I also find reasons that their framework justifies bad things way more pursuasive than reasons one author might be a bad person. And no, a 5 second argument about kant being racist in the 1AR shouldn't be 2.5 minutes of the 2AR (@josh porter).
- Go for it. I don’t care how frivolous your shell is, if you win it, I’ll vote on it.
- That being said, reading disclosure against a traditional debater who has probably never heard of the Wiki is a bad idea in front of me. Same goes for frivolous theory
- Please weigh voters and implicate standards while extending them.
- No, the 2AR doesn’t get to weigh voters if there was nothing there in the 1AR. Strength of link weighing, however, is something I will allow the 2AR to make. You will get higher speaks if you make it in the 1AR though.
- The best way to get high speaks on in a theory debate is to clearly win the line-by-line with pure technical ability, but also break the round down with an overview that pretty much writes my ballot for me.
Any larp position you can imagine I am perfectly fine with (this does exclude extra-T and effects-T affs)
I have no strong beliefs on the condo good-bad as well as PICs good/bad debate. I lean toward Delay CPs, Object CPs, and Consult CPs bad, but still I don’t have a strong belief here.
Permutations are tests of competition if there is no net benefit, but if there are articulated net benefits then they become a new advocacy which can be kicked in the 2AR. Intrinsicness perms are also ok, but they are hella abusive.
Plans are the best. I am lenient to reasonability versus T if you read a plan, unless the plan is blatantly extra-topical or effects-topical. Have good internal links and good solvency evidence.
- I love a well-done K debate, and I really dislike a poorly-done K debate. Don’t read a K because it seems edgy. Read a K if you think it is your most strategic option against that opponent.
- Don’t hide behind big buzzwords. If you can explain the K in a way I understand it, you get higher speaks.
- K’s I’m familiar with (most to least)
o Generic K’s – Cap, Reps K’s, Anthro
o Baudrillard / Bifo / Semiocap <3 <3 <3
o Wilderson / Afropessimism
o A little Psychoanalysis
- General K Stuff
o The 2NR overview is powerful. What are you going for? What do you have to do to win? How have they messed up? Questions like these need to be answered.
o Please explain the literature behind the K. It usually isn’t an issue, but in the event that I just don’t know the thesis of the K, I’m very lenient to your opponent's arguments.
o Isolate a clear link to the aff. If I’m unsure exactly what bad thing the aff does, I’m likely to err aff on this debate.
o Impact Framing is crucial. Tell me what counts as offense under your ROB. If you’re going for the K as offense under your opponent’s method, I also expect a significant amount of weighing to be done.
o What does the alt look like in the real world? If I don’t know, I err to your opponent’s arguments.
- K v K debates
o In these debates, it’s of tantamount importance that in addition of explaining the thesis of your K that you explain how your lit base interacts with theirs. If I don’t know what your K says, I’m more lenient to arguments made by whoever is reading a K from a lit base I’m more familiar with.
- Performance, non-t affs, etc. are fine by me. Just give me a way to frame the round. Other than that, the same kind of stuff said above applies. I prefer K affs that are at least somewhat related to the topic.
If Debating a Novice
If you are debating a traditional debater or a novice, I would like it if you are more cordial than usual. Give them the dignity of a full round, but do not read a bunch of frivolous theory or read something like skep, or 5 off. I think that all argument types in these rounds are legit, but don't go for a bunch of a prioris bracketed into cards or take advantage of the fact they don't have the exposure you do.
Evidence Ethics / Extra Stuff
Self-reporting an ev ethics violation immediatley after it's happened (before round if it's something on your wiki) means I won't hold it against you.
If you think someone you are debating has committed an ev ethics violation:
-call it out in cx or flex prep. Give them a chance to scratch it off the flow or a chance to steak the round on it.
-if they don't scratch it, the round continues and you're encouraged to read theory on them.
If you did commit an evidence ethics violation,
-but agreed to scratch the evidence off the flow, then we go back to the rest of the round and act like nothing happened.
-and lost to their arguments about ev ethics being bad, then you lose and I drop 5 points.
If you read theory against evidence ethics, your violation better be freaking amazing or else I will gut check the violation, because you are literally calling someone a cheater. If you win the shell, then I will read over the evidence in question to determine if they violated the interp-- if you won the shell and I think they violate, I vote them down. If you lost the shell you initiated and I think they violate, I also vote them down.
If you steak the round on it and it turns out they did not commit an ev ethics violation, then you will get a L25.
I like full text disclosure. I'm neutral on opensource disclosure. First three and last three is better than nothing, but full text is better.
Things that make me sad.
- not having a framing mechanism
- not weighing or engaging
- rude people
- unnecessary post-rounding
- 'CX isn't binding'
Dhruva Mambapoor Paradigm
Hi I'm Dhruva Mambapoor!
I debated for four years in LD at Westwood HS (2018). I qualified for the TOC my senior year.
team email (preferred): firstname.lastname@example.org
non-team email: email@example.com
I am a first-year out with little judging experience, as of 02/01/19.
1. I'm inexperienced as a judge and educator.
2. I don't know myself as a judge well enough to write my paradigm accurately. What you read is subject to much change.
However, just so you can understand me a little better, here is my paradigm with what little information I have gathered judging my teammates for practice.
Important Things Others Have Said About my Judging:
1. I'm bad at flowing --- I tend to miss a lot of arguments, I don't like it, but I'm not afraid to admit it because you deserve to know.
To resolve this go somewhat slower than you would with other judges. You don't have to go super slow or repeat things often, just be clearer and go slower than your regular style.
On my end, I will flow on my laptop, because I can type much much faster than I can handwrite, and it's neater.
Will I say slow or clear? I will try, but if your unclear or too fast, most of my attention will be on figuring out what you're saying, so I will probably forget. If its incomprehensible to me, then I will say slow or clear twice and then just focus on listening.
2. I tend to overthink --- I get lost in my own thoughts during and after the debate.
That means probably more judge intervention than most judges. Usually its because I'm trying to find a missing piece of the puzzle in your arguments, because I'm afraid I missed something.
That also means I will take a long time to decide.
That also means I confuse myself of a lot. The messier the debate the more this gets worse.
To resolve this make the debate less messy, focus on a few arguments (i will miss something if you just dump a bunch of arguments on the flow), fill in the gaps you may assume I just know, and send a doc with all pre-written arguments in all speeches. On my end I will do my best to sift through the debate, identify what could or could not be judge intervention, and reduce my decision time to avoid overcomplicating the debate.
3. Long RFDs --- This is less from giving my decision and more from me giving feedback. I also am not an efficient speaker, which makes things much worse.
To resolve this feel free to interrupt me (yes I know its rude, but keeping the tournament on time matters), point out that I'm being inefficient or going on a tangent, and ask questions to selectively choose the feedback most important to you.
On my end I will keep decision time and feedback to a max of 15 min. Yes that means the messier the debate, the more decision time, and the less feedback time even though messier debates are when you need it the most. To resolve this, if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. If you're a coach or judge watching and you wanted to give feedback, so I can be a better judge, also feel free to email me.
Overview to How I Evaluate Debates:
I evaluate arguments based on credence. This may be a bad explanation of this or not even close to the actual judging style based on argument's credence values. Basically, I don't start of every argument at 100%. Instead each argument has a certain validity to it, from 0 to infinity and beyond.
How compelling or credible an argument is, I base on two factors:
1. If your justifications are true, how well does the conclusion logically follow.
2. How well does it fit my background knowledge on the subject.
The second usually happens unconsciously, but I've decided to mention it, so you know that I have biases. If I recognize the bias, I will account for it, but recognizing my own bias is a difficult task. You can override the second factor by simply filling in the gaps where I would put my background knowledge. If you say your shirt is green because you rolled around in the grass, that would make sense because I think grass is green and stains clothes. If I didn't, you simply have to say your shirt is green because you rolled around in a green grass field which stains clothes.
If there are no arguments in the debate that are compelling or have decent enough warrants, then I will lower my standards until someone has sufficient offense for me to vote. The more I lower my standards the riskier the debate becomes.
So then what's compelling and fits my background info? see below
The Specifics of the Common Positions:
A debate whose key characteristic is often blitzing through analytics is very risky in front of me because I tend to miss a lot especially when I can't verify with another source of information like a doc or its a common shell I've heard before. You can read theory, just make sure you can really implement the solutions given at the top of this paradigm. That also doesn't mean you can be as abusive as you want. I will give more leeway to common T/Theory (Pics bad, 2+ condo bad, infinite NIBs bad, etc.). That given, reading theory strategically instead of reading it to check abuse (or often both), is ok, but because T/Theory is naturally harder for me to flow and understand, it probably isn't strategic anyways.
Extra note for topicality:
I read basically only plan affs in HS, so I will understand them and the subsequent T/Theory debates more. If you have an untopical K aff, great! I also understand that subsequent T/theory debate more than other T debates as well. As the aff, I just need a stronger defense of why you are untopical and a more easy to understand explanation of the theories behind the K aff. And No, I'm not going to reject the aff just because its untopical. Against K affs, I'm also more interested in an neg strategy that engages with case. That just means I will pay more attention (unconsciously) to neg strategies without T in it or at the least has substantive case answers.
Don't assume I know the lit behind, because I probably don't. In HS I read: Deleuze, Culp (Dark Deleuze), Cap. I have some knowledge on: Deleuze, Culp, Wilderson, Nietzsche, Foucault, Baudrillard, Bataille, Freud and Lacan, Marx, Zizek. I have a little knowledge on: Derrida, Fanon, Queer Pess, Buddhism.
I have high standards for the alt. It should, ideally, resolve the impact, or propose and thoroughly explain some shift in paradigm/lens that is competitive with the aff and is more net beneficial than continuing with the aff paradigm.
Don't assume I know the lit behind it. In HS I read: Util, Generic Structural Violence, and Koorsgard (Kant-ish). I have some knoweldge on: Util, Koorsgaard, Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Levinas. I have a little knowledge on: Scanlon, Jaeggi, Hegel, Grievability.
I love util and SV frameworks. As a good rule of thumb, I will like frameworks that are grounded in materiality more. However, I can like a good phil debate if each argument is developed and fleshed out. I do not like phil debates with a lot of dumps and blippy analytics.
If you run a CP, the burden of proof shifts to you. If the aff and the CP are very similar then I need a strong net benefit to vote neg. The CP alone needs to be better than the perm to win the CP.
Easiest debates for me to understand. I love a good DA debate. If its big-stick (nuclear war, etc.), which it probably is, then I have high standards for evidence. It should at least indicate extinction (or whatever the scope) is possible, or it's paired with a compelling analytic that indicates extinction is possible or you explain why the evidence would imply this well in cross-ex.
I'm not as informed as I would like to be. Given that, I won't be able to verify many analytics so most if not all arguments should have evidence. I will give more leeway to responses because its hard to have applicable evidence to strange politics scenarios or weirdly structured ones.
Disclosing open source is preferred. Disclosing full text is functionally mandatory. If you read a disclosure shell, you must include a screenshot with a timestamp.
You can change any of the above with warranted arguments. No I don't mean just good arguments, I mean make arguments with claims like "Big-stick impacts don't need to indicate extinction", "Frameworks grounded in materiality are oppressive", etc. Be very explicit and clear with the paradigm you want me to adopt, and then warrant it well.
If you have any questions, feel free to email me, or ask before the round.
Daiya Massac Paradigm
I competed for Bronx Science 2012-2014, coached Scarsdale 2014-2016, and am now entering my last year of being involved with this activity by coaching independently. Conflicts- Bronx Science, Scarsdale, Lake Travis, and a few others.
Go slower then your top speed, if I don't catch an argument I am not going to flow it. I honestly don't care what is run in front of me- just signpost well and explain your arguments. slow down on tags and analytics. I am cool with flex prep. flashing/emailing better not take over a minute or it eats your prep time. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at email@example.com (use email for your email chains.)
Edited for LHP RR and beyond: I honestly hate most of the arguments run this year. Don't get me wrong, I love this activity and think that it's awesome but it seems like a bunch of you on the national circuit have taken it upon yourselves to ruin this perfectly nice debate event to the point that I wish I could travel back in time and force myself to join Policy. I haven’t heard much that I thought was smart or creative aside for a few Ks, a couple plans, and a single framework shell. As I am forced to make a decision, I will do my best to adjudicate but I can’t promise you will like my speaker points nor my decision. I got a little better at flowing but being able to hear y’all’s arguments probably will just makes me dislike them a lot more. Best way to win my ballot is to establish a clear framing mechanism and offense back to it. The saving grace for your speaker points and my sanity is the way you present your arguments. Being funny, making gutsy strategic moves, reading interesting arguments, and/or being smart will be rewarded with really high speaker points. If you are a robot that just reads docs please strike me or just have your coach speak for you instead. If you have a coach that wants to waste my time please strike me. If you want to read a case full of analytic arguments that sounds like you are reciting the alphabet or practicing how to count please, for the love of god, strike me. If I judge you I apologize in advance cause if I do and you do not listen to my advice then chances are I am just going to be replaying an episode of "Entourage" in my head instead of paying attention to your boring/asinine arguments. If you want a free conflict, feel free to send me a couple bucks on Venmo and we can claim a financial relationship (just kidding). If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me in person (please do not attempt to contact me) about my thoughts on debate.
My pronouns are He/him/his- let me know yours before the round to avoid any issue
Mitali Mathur Paradigm
*UPDATE: I haven't judged a debate in a year, so go a little slower please
I debated for Greenhill School for 4 years
I also was a member of USA Debate for a year
I currently attend Georgetown University
- OVERVIEW STUFF:
- I view rounds through a comparative worlds paradigm.
- Don’t be racist/sexist/homophobic/unnecessarily rude in round or ever.
- Give your opponent a copy of your case if they ask – printed, flashed, e-mailed, or via a viewing laptop - this could affect speaks if your opponent asks and you say no
- THINGS I LIKE:
- when you talk about the topic
- when you make your advocacy clear and aren't shifty
- when you talk about real world issues
- overviews that explain how I should evaluate the round/prioritize issues
- weighing with explanation, not just the jargon of magnitude, probability etc.
- Extensions– I think 1ARs can have a bit more leeway, but make sure warrants and impacts are clear – author names alone don’t cut it
- A good CX. CX is binding and I’ll pay attention.
- THINGS I DISLIKE:
- racist/sexist/homophobic/classist/offensive arguments and comments
- arguments that say any action is permissible
- too many spikes or really long underviews that aren’t related to the topic. If you are aff and concerned about a side bias, write an aff that uses the entire 6 minutes with substantive arguments
- misrepresenting evidence and reading strawperson cards. If there is an evidence ethics challenge, I will read the article and the piece of evidence in question. If you make the challenge, you are staking the round on it.
- Go as fast as you want but don’t sacrifice clarity
- Please slow down for interpretations and advocacy texts
- Slow down for spikes/underview type stuff
I never was a framework debater myself. But, if you are a framework debater, don’t shy away from your strengths in front of me, just be extra clear and do a lot of interaction and weighing if it's a more complex framework and it should be fine.
Totally fine. A framework is just a way to evaluate what impacts matter. Tell me what impacts matter and what piece of offense applies under that.
- I love a well thought out CP
- I'm fine with PICs as well
- When you debate CPs, make at least one cleverly worded perm and explain how the perm functions (solves all offense, mitigates the link to the disad etc.)
- make sure there is real uniqueness!!!!
- specific links based on specific affs will make me like you more
- I prefer specific links over general links that can be re-used
- Make sure you can defend the alternative and can EXPLAIN what it means
- I’m fine if you have a role of the ballot/role of the judge – but if there is a counter ROB/ROJ, do some weighing
- For me, fairness is not a terminal impact, but it is an internal link to other impacts that are important
- There is no “spirit of the interpretation,” there is just the interpretation
- Don’t read stupid theory arguments over the smallest technicalities. I’ll be expressive so you can tell what I consider to be reasonable. I’ll evaluate it, but your opponent won’t have a high threshold answering it.
- T is determined through the plan text.
- A good T argument should have a specific interpretation and carded evidence
- I’ll be impressed if you answer T with specific, carded evidence and do some weighing
Rachel Mauchline Paradigm
Director of Debate Cabot High School 2019-2020
Conflicts- Bentonville West High School
Put me on the email chain [firstname.lastname@example.org] I’m down with whatever arguments you want to read. No matter what style of debate I’m judging you in, don’t over adapt. Do whatever makes you enjoy and succeed in debate. I would recommend reading the specifics of each section, but I understand that time is limited between rounds. If you ask a question to something that is answered here, it comes across like you’ve not read this.
Answering the common questions…
Yes speed is fine
Yes flex prep
Yes sit or stand
Yes open cross
Short Version Policy Debate
I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debates, however, if you get me as a judge and you read other non-policy arguments- read those arguments. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.
Short Version Lincoln Douglas Debate
I’ve got experience both coaching progressive arguments but competing on a traditional circuit so I’m open to whatever unfolds in the round. If traditional, framework needs to be prioritized and the scope/lens of how the ballot is cast at the end. If progressive, look to the specific section below for specific arguments. Overall though, I’m good with whatever arguments you want to run as long as you have a clear link.
Short Version Public Forum Debate
I’ve judged a mixture of local, regional, and national tournaments and have seen a variety of different styles for Public Forum. I’ve worked at multiple camps such as Capitol Debate and the UTNIF so I’ve seen a vast number of styles of PF. It shouldn’t be a debate going back and forth asking for thousands of cards during prep. I don’t mind if the second speaker frontlines in the rebuttal- it’s whatever you think is the most strategic. It’s your call if defence is in the summary speech- I would reccomend extending terminal defense but you do you. Final focus should extend offense and write the ballot and not be some fresh hot takes that should have been in earlier speeches.
Of course a voting issue. This shouldn’t simply be about reading interpretations back and forth. Be sure to articulate warranted analysis on the voters level. Give clear reasons to prefer. Don’t assume simply because it’s a camp aff that it’s topical. Camps cut non topical affirmatives every year.
This is my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.
I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.
I’ve judged more of these debates in the past year, but overall these were not my preferred argument when I debated. I am not a hack for a specific type of literature so be aware of that when explaining the thesis of the kritik. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just reading a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. Similar to disads, the neg block/nr should expand on the link level of the debate and then condense down to the link they are winning in the 2NR for policy. I am seeing more and more teams, taking the strategy of kicking the alt and cross-applying the links as disads on the case flow. It's important to be aware though that for some kritiks that simply kicking the alt eliminates the uniqueness level of the link debate since they are simply implications from the status quo. That’s a cool strategy, which is also why affirmative teams need to be sure to not just focus on the alternative vs. the aff but also respond to all parts of the K. I think most aff teams that read a plan should have clear framework against the K in order to weigh this aff against the alt. Like I’ve said I judge more K rounds than I expected, but if you are reading a specific authors that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work in the o/v.
I personally prefer judging policy affirmatives BUT if this is what you’re most comfortable with, go ahead and read it. Don’t over-adapt to me, but also be aware that you might need to flesh out your analysis more than norma and specifically focus on why your method is good. I think that K affs should be somewhat related to the resolution. You also should be able to answer general thesis level claims of your affirmative. I’m not super well versed in a lot of specific literature, but if it’s common or you are able to explain it, I would rather you read that rather than over adapting. Arguments that are particularly convincing are those that can be backed up by concrete examples; this not only makes it easier for me to evaluate your arguments, but it also demonstrates to me that you know what you’re talking about. In the 1AR/2AR, explain to me how you want me to frame the debate, and extend it accordingly (this can be done in the form of a “role of the judge” argument).
K Aff vs Framework:
These were my most preferred 2NR choice against planless affirmatives -- I see the relevance and educational value in these debates, although I can be persuaded either way based on the competing models presented by both teams. For affs, I prefer a mixture of offense and defense, i.e. impact turns along with arguments that the counter-interp provides enough stasis and ground. The best aff teams I’ve seen have been technical with a lot of engagement with the neg’s arguments and debated why their model, not their aff, was a good idea. For the neg, I’m not heavily biased towards either procedural fairness or advocacy skills arguments - you do you, but have a good and warranted explanation of why your model is better along with comparative impact analysis.
K vs. K:
I haven’t judged m(any) of these debates, so judge instruction will be especially necessary. I’m not a super huge fan of links of omission, unless the neg has a really good justification. In regards to k affs getting perms, I think that all the affirmative has to say to justify that they get a permutation is “they provide a method, and so do we, there’s no reason why we cannot do both methods together”
I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.
Cameron McConway Paradigm
*Updated for UT 2018*
Note for the current and Nov/Dec topics: Given recent political events and their relevancy to debates, please be respectful and cautious if you choose to engage in discussions around sexual assault, particularly if they are narrative based or descriptive.
I debated for three years at Cy-Fair HS outside of Houston, Texas, qualifying to the TOC, TFA State, and NSDA nationals in LD. I work for McNeil HS in Austin while attending the University of Texas, and I teach at NSD and TDC.
I'd rather evaluate your style of debate than have you do things you're not comfortable with because you think it's what I want. I am willing to be persuaded against most defaults in my paradigm as long as you have offense and a mechanism for me to evaluate it under.
Feel free to ask me questions at email@example.com.
I will vote on pretty much any argument as long as it isn't morally objectionable or blatantly false. I will do my best to be tab, but I think there is a level of plausibility necessary for me to vote on an argument (for instance, I won't vote on an obviously false I-meet).
I was mostly a K/LARP debater, but I have also enjoyed judging good theory/tricks rounds and framework debaters. Feel free to engage in whatever style debate you prefer, just do good weighing and clear explanations of argument interaction.
Please add me to the email chain.
I strongly dislike the current trend of hostility in debate rounds. I'm fine with people being funny or sassy, but attacking each other makes everyone involved uncomfortable and at minimum I will dock your speaks. This means if you are rude to your opponent, or me, I will not hesitate to intervene however I feel is appropriate.
I'm fine with speed, just slow down on tags/author names and interps/advocacy texts. I will yell clear/slow/louder but I will give up if there is no change.
I am comfortable evaluating theory under whichever paradigm you prefer, so long as you justify it. I have found that I enjoy a good theory debate, where there is a lot of weighing and internal links.
I am not a fan of disclosure/theory debates where the violation is unverifiable. For instance, in a scenario where your opponent has a blank wiki or doesn't contest the violation and defends not disclosing I would feel fine voting on disclosure, but if they generally disclose and there was some wifi problem or the wiki was down and the violation is pictures your emails, I probably will not enjoy evaluating this debate.
I read high theory and identity politics and enjoy both of these debates. I feel comfortable evaluating most K debates but I strongly prefer debaters err on the side of overexplaining/not relying on jargon rather than assuming that I am familiar with the literature they are reading. These debates tend to either be excellent and enjoyable or my least favorite.
I liked K affs a great deal in high school, but I do think if you are nontopical you need to a) win that being nontopical is legitimate b) have an evaluative mechanism and c) have offense under that mechanism. I am happy to listen to unique/innovative K affs regardless of their topicality, though I do think you must defend your topicality or lack thereof.
Recent observation: I find positions that rely on premises like "performative contradictions good" or "debate itself bad" to be unpersuasive. Not positions that criticize the current iteration of competitive debate (I am fine with that), but rather I think there is inherent value to the act of debating. This doesn't mean I won't vote on high theory authors like Baudrillard, because I will and I have, but I do think your interpretation of these authors should be compatible with your performance.
I think that high level LARP debates tend to be more difficult to evaluate because a lot of debaters do not do sufficient weighing or impact calc. That said, I enjoy well done LARP debates, just please do good weighing.
I enjoy framework debate more the longer I judge. Slow down a bit on long analytic dumps and err towards overexplaining the dense philosophical warrants, because these things are difficult to flow at your top speed.
I start around a 28.5 and go up or down depending on in-round strategy and skill relative to the tournament. Speaks tend to be over-inflated and relatively arbitrary, so I try to give speaks with influencing who clears in mind. The further I think you can/should be in the tournament, the higher speaks I will give. Being rude or demeaning will negatively impact your speaks.
David McGinnis Paradigm
I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.
I coach students on both the local and national circuits.
I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.
I'm most familiar with philosophical framework debating, but you can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing.
UPDATE JUNE 2019: AND IMPACTING!
Jennifer Melin Paradigm
Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)
Email for email chains:
If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.
-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.
I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.
In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.
That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.
Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.
l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.
I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.
One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.
I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.
I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.
Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.
Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.
I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.
Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.
Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.
You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.
Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.
Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.
Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.
Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.
Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.
Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.
Dan Miyamoto Paradigm
Former policy debater. Sensibilities skew towards policy making / comparative worlds. Skeptical of root cause kritiks.
Explain the K alt, what it does, why it solves.
Don't assume I'm intimately familiar with your critical theory or its warrants. Make the warrants explicit.
Disclosure is good, you should disclose. It's not my job as a judge to enforce disclosure.
If you plan to go for theory, you should be able to articulate in-round abuse as a result of your opponent's violation.
Sending email counts as prep.
Don't ask if I disclose speaker points. Unless you're tracking the points of everyone in the tournament, that information is useless to you.
* Explicit is better than implicit
* Simple is better than complex
* Complex is better than complicated
* Equity delights in equality.
* One who seeks equity must do equity
* Equity aids the vigilant
Dhanush Nadella Paradigm
TLDR: I did policy all 4 years, so little experience with LD, and I was a “K debater.” Basically go for anything in front of me, major framing is appreciated on all flows. I dislike theory though, especially spikes please try to avoid crappy petty theory debates if possible.
email: firstname.lastname@example.org (if there is a chain add me please)
Be nice and courteous but a lil sass is dope.
LD Remainder: I didn’t debate LD but major framing is appreciated and I will try to judge to my best ability.
Background: graduated in 2018 go to ucla studying math (no debate program here :\ ), did policy debate all four years of high school, barely know this years topics in all formats. I was, in my opinion, a slightly above average debater.
Speed: I wasn’t the fastest of debaters but i can pick up speed OK. That being said, the first time I hear you spread please slow down for the first 1-2 minutes of your speech so I can get accustomed to your spreading voice. If you want something flowed for sure, slow down. I love clarity please.
DA’s/CP: I debated them in locals liked them vote for them. I do believe in zero percent chance of an impact.
K’s: I was a “k debater.” I read these in bid rounds and other important rounds at tournaments. I don’t have too much experience in literature but I did read Baudrillard, Deleuze, Antiblackness, Cybernetics, Psychoanalysis, and cap. I know some of the lit but just a bunch of random buzz words don’t help. Big overviews andlinks anything is chill as long as there is framing in the last speech and examples are used.
T: love it, didnt debate it much though. In round abuse > potential abuse.
F/W: I debated against this a LOT. Framing is hella important for me on both sides. I will not lie, I do have preconceived notions about some of the impacts ( fairness, “small schools DA”). But, tech over truth and “k teams” don’t answer framework properly way too often so as a judge I see myself going both ways.
Theory: I dislike these debates in all but a few situations. Especially theory spikes. I won’t dock you speaks or vote you down but I dislike these debates so unless there is serious abuse please don't do this to me.
Nelson Okunlola Paradigm
GBX 2018 Update
I know nothing about the topic.
Earl Warren '17
Email: email@example.com [Add me to the chain]
I did LD and Policy in high school and was a 2N at Northwestern
I haven't read the topic lit. Don't assume I know the acronyms or that I know what's "common sense" in regards to the topic.
I generally evaluate LD and Policy the same, correcting for obvious activity discrepancies. If something is specific to one event, ill label it as such.
Do what you want and do it well. If something isn't clear here, contact me or ask before the round
- Use an email chain or speechdrop or pocketbox. Prep time ends when the doc has been compiled and is ready to be sent. If you say "cease prep" and aren't ready to give your speech within 30 seconds, I'm starting prep up again. Get better at compiling speech docs.
- Debate can be whatever you want it to be, whether that's a game, a liberation strategy, or an activity you do just cause.
- Decision Calculus = "who's winning framing" "who's winning offense under that framing"
- Absent framing I'll presume util=trutil
- Tech > Truth
- I don't give credence to one lit base over another. Reading something just because you think i'd like it is probably not the way to go but do you I guess. Ill vote on pretty much anything that's warranted and impacted both generally and in the context of my ballot.
- Don't assume I've read your lit
- I'll call for evidence judiciously
[LD] Decision calculus: Whats the highest "layer"? I'll default theoretical positions unless otherwise contested (it should be). What's the winning framework, whether its a theory voter, ROB/ROJ, standard and then its pretty much offense defense from there. Of course as is everything, this isn't set in stone. If your strategy is contingent upon a different evaluative mechanism then make that clear.
- Don't do it, if you do its an L0
- If you make a false accusation, its an L0
- I think brackets are only germane for questionable language, given that the word or phrase you change is not omitted from the text.
- Speed is chill but keep in mind I've never been the best at flowing
- Do not start at full speed, 8/10 times I'll miss the first 3 words
- Slow down considerably on tags/texts/analytics. You can speed through anything else
- Some speeds are just incomprehensible for me to flow so I will yell slow and/or clear. I won't dock speaks if you're too fast for me because that's not your fault, but if you are unclear it is my jurisdiction to dock speaks.
- The longer you take to adapt the angrier I get and that affects speaks
[LD] Pref shortcuts
- Tell me how to evaluate the round. Absent framing, I'll assume util is true and adjudicate accordingly. You don't want me to do that.
- I'm not an analytic/dense phil guy. If this is what you do thats fine just please don't assume I've read your lit.
- CP theory is fair game
- Competition should be clear
- Impact framing and weighing is important and the lack thereof make these debates hard to evaluate
- I need to know what your alt and my ballot means/does
- Don't assume I've read your lit
- Make framing arguments, I don't like intervening
- Go all out, but warrant your arguments/practices
- I would much rather evaluate substance but theory is fair game. However, just like every other argument, the more bullshit it is, the lower my threshold for responses are but at the same time I won't make those responses for you
- Slow down on the interpretation and the standard/impact names (Predictability, Time Skew etc)
- Reasonability is very underutilized and can be compelling but deploy it effectively
[LD] If theory is your pre-meditated A strat, don't pref me. No one likes frivolous theory, it will make me sad and you'll be sad when you see your speaks
[LD] I shouldn't have to default on any theory paradigms, it's your job to have that debate but without contestation, I'll default competing interpretations and no RVI's. All this means is that if these aren't contested in the round, that's how i'm evaluating theory.
[LD] Theory does not have to be in "shell" format
- Do it well
- I need to hear your interpretation
- Slow down on the standard/impact names (Limits, Ground etc)
- Ngl I enjoy a good topicality debate
[LD] this isn't policy and there are not stock issues. T is probably not an intrinsic affirmative burden. You probably need a voter.
Kritikal Affs/Performance/Micropolitical/T - Resolution
- Warrant and defend your practice/speech act/performance
- Been on both sides of this debate, enjoy both sides of this debate. I'm just as willing to vote on T as I am to vote aff in these debates
- The negative could usually benefit from saying something about the case proper in these debates
- It's an argument. It can be worthwhile if read well, therefore if you plan on reading this do it well and defend your practice.
- 1 off skep probably won't get you too far but I'll evaluate it I guess
- If your A-strat are tricks then I'm not the judge for you. I honestly don't really know how most of the shits function so you probably dont want me judging you anyways
- Ill still evaluate it, just err on the side of explanation of the utility of your argument.
- This changes depending on the caliber of the tournament
- I see speaks as a tiebreaker for seeding and I evaluate it accordingly
- General criteria: should you clear? strategy, in round persona, "are you good or bad at debate"
- I had a stuttering problem growing up, speech impediments won't factor into my evaluation of speaks
- I'll reward innovation by giving more speaks to debaters that teach me something new
- 29.6-30: You can win this tournament or be in late elims
- 29-29.5: Better than the majority of the pool
- 28-29: You'll probably clear
- 27-28: You'll probably not clear
- 26-27: Lots of room for improvement
- < 26: .........
- Content warnings are valuable
- Lay debate is chill, but I prefer faster debates over slower ones.
PF Paradigms Update 3/27 for TOC
- Everything in the Policy/LD section generally apply, I suggest reading that especially the TLDR/General section
- I prefer faster debates over slower ones
- The only hard and fast/objective rules that constrain me are those of the tournaments/whatever rule guidelines said the tournament is following. Everything else is up for debate (i.e theoretical arguments)
- I don't care what you read/how you read it (see note above)
- Don't assume I've read the topic lit
- I'm fine with "progressive" style arguments but if your opponents ask for clarification you better do some explaining.
Adesuwa Omoruyi Paradigm
I am one of the most naturally neutral individuals I know. I will NOT favor a side because I SHOULD. I will favor a side because you convinced me to... hence the purpose of effective argumentation. Don't assume -- just explain.
Be understood. Be clear. If I don't flow it... IT NEVER HAPPENED. Remember this during warrants / impacts / extensions. I rarely call for cards, so if I need to hear it, make sure you set the scene for optimal results.
Debating about debate is fun and engaging -- if it makes sense. Silly theories are just silly, but go back to my section on presumption - I will favor a side because you convinced me to... hence the purpose of effective argumentation. If you convince me that the theory is valid, then it is for the round. I will not assume how it functions or the reasonability of it. Prove that it does or doesn't. A good K with clear explinations, links and impacts are refreshing to me. Neg must explain why aff can't perm the day away -- why is the alt superior? Aff, why is the perm better than the alt and case solo? This is where speed choices are important.
Here are a few questions you should ask yourself: Do you understand the card? Does it link to the argumentation presented? Is it topical to the context you're using it in? Do the warrants exist in the text? Is it qualified? Is it dated? ....is clipping truly worth it?
T's, DA's, CPs
Policy was my niche back in the day. That being said -- I'll buy it if its clear, all conditions are met, it makes sense, and if it actually does something / proves a point. I will follow the flow, and the flow alone. Keep it clean!
Finally... most importantly... tell me WHY I should be voting for you. Yes. I want voters. Explain why a drop is catastrophic. Tell me why case outweighs. You know what happens when you assume... don't assume that I'm rolling with you. Explain why I should be.
Spkr Point Breakdown
30 Likely to take the tournament
29.5 Contender to the crown
29 Excited to see how deep you go!
28.5 Highly likely to clear
28 Clearing is possible
27.5 On the bubble, keep pushing
27 Congrats on earning entry into the tournament!!
Rodrigo Paramo Paradigm
toss me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated ld and policy in high school, coach ld @ greenhill starting in 2018.
[past affiliations: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18), westwood ('14-'18)]
(current conflicts: westwood (all), edgemont rg)
I am most comfortable evaluating policy and kritik debates, but find myself enjoying 6 minutes of topicality or framework if its delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast. I am not a good judge for tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not coach or think about analytic phil outside of debate tournaments, so need these debates to happen at a slower pace in order to understand all the moving parts - notably, this is also true for whoever is answering these positions.
I am not super interested in frivolous theory debates, and am very sympathetic to semantic trickery in response to frivolous theory - not as interested in semantic tricks in other contexts but will always have a soft spot for textuality args when there is a typo or some other error in an interpretation, advocacy text, or some other similar thing. I have recently purged a lot of this - the following are miscellaneous observations i have made as i have judged over the last year that i share so you have some sense of how i approach judging rounds as well as some specific argumentative preferences. I think a few of them are decently important.
here are some thoughts i have:
0.5) i am so deeply deeply unreceptive to and uninterested in this trend of explaining new identity categories with the same form and language of antiblackness literature. if you do not have a psychoanalytic warrant, dont claim you do! if you do not have evidence identifying a structural antagonism, i do not know why you are using that language! sigh.
1) if the 2nr is split that is rarely a great sign for speaker points - it also is liable to implicate your ability to win the debate!
2) i will default to a comparative worlds paradigm unless the 1ac justifies otherwise - the 1ar cannot shift to truth-testing without an indication of that interpretive claim in the 1ac.
3) i follow domestic politics pretty closely. this means i will be thrilled to reward smart analytics made on politics scenario and will be impressed if you know your stuff bc i'll likely know when you actually do vs pretend to. that said, this means my bs meter is pretty high on some ptx scenarios - for instance, i am not going to vote on an impeachment impact unless you tell me how we get from a 53-47 gop senate to a successful vote to remove trump from office - absent that warrant, i will not grant you "impeachment proceedings remove trump from office" [of course, the opposing side must be able to explain why a 53-47 gop senate is unlikely to cast that vote]
4) miscellaneous thoughts on permutations:
a. i do not understand why the aff doesnt get perms in a method debate - never seen a compelling warrant - default assumption on my part is that the aff does and its an uphill battle to convince me otherwise,
b. will not grant you the perm if i am uncertain about the perm text bc the articulation between 1ar and 2ar was different
c. (perm texts should be more than "perm do both")
5) the phrase "evidence ethics" means something - if someone says it and their opponent clarifies "is this an evidence ethics challenge," i understand this to mean that the debate ends - whoever has made the accusation wins if i believe the evidence ethics violation is correct, they lose if i believe the accused did not commit an evidence ethics violation - i will not independently end the round if the accused does not ask for this - if they do, i am happy to - words matter and evidence ethics matters - see the relevant section on bennett eckert's paradigm for more of my thoughts on this question. i also believe that debaters should think carefully before accusing their opponents of academic dishonesty, plagiarism, etc. - heavy claims.
6) slow down on theory - will say slow twice, after that it is on you if i cannot flow it - i will miss your arguments and feel very comfortable disregarding them regardless of what is in the doc. this is similarly true for perm texts etc - dont super care what the doc said if i didnt flow the text near verbatim in the 1ar. if i say slow i have almost certainly already missed an argument - do with that what you will.
7) i do not think i have ever been convinced by the claim that judges have a jurisdictional constraint to only vote for topical affs - i do not foresee that changing [really, *any* jurisdictional constraint is unlikely to be compelling to me bc it is a claim that just kind of is incapable of a particularly good warrant]
8) i will not vote for a position i do not understand - this includes poorly explained kritiks, incoherent link scenarios on a disad, dense ncs that i probably just wont get, and theory shells whose abuse story i can not adequately explain back to the debaters.
9) i have a good ear for when clipping is occurring - if i suspect it is, i will follow along in the speech doc - if i determine i am correct, the person clipping will lose. to be very clear, this does not necessitate the opponent making a clipping accusation - i feel very comfortable making this adjudication on my own.
10) one notable contradiction in my thinking - i am very receptive to semantics bad claims on t (not into nebel t) but also pretty receptive to text of the interp/text of the rotb/plan flaw args - i generally think that when issues arise in those 3 things, they are a result of students not giving much thought to them which is a shame bc all 3 are pretty important in my view - well crafted interps, as well as cxes that isolate plan flaws/interp issues will be rewarded (this doesnt mean i like /bad/ plan flaw args.............). i am also fairly willing to check in on semantic i meets against frivolous theory.
11) if you suspect that i may need to look at interps/counter interps you read, those should be flashed before the speech [this applies to perms as well]
12) given how clear it is to me that no one could flow a debate round as it is delivered, i am cool w debaters tossing out a "slow" at their opponents if they can't flow at top speed
13) flex prep means asking questions during prep time - in no world does unused CX time become prep time - what?????
- I'll say clear or slow twice - speaks will be deducted after that
- clarity is important for high speaks but more important than how you sound is making strategic decisions in the 2AR/NR;
- give a strategic and efficient 1ar; collapse in the 2nr.
i really dont understand baudrillard in debate rounds, i have tried and i just cant wrap my head around it feel free to try to be the one to change that but it is... an uphill battle [update: i am far far more receptive to baudrillard on the negative than on the affirmative.]
speech times dont change presumption how wild - people should deploy presumption more against affirmatives that do not defend anything.
- you should not just say 'its in your paradigm that fairness isnt a voter lol'
- i will likely be easily compelled by a "debaters should not bracket evidence" argument *if* you can execute it well - i have grown sympathetic to this argument as abuses become increasingly egregious
Scott Phillips Paradigm
My general philosophy is tech/line by line focused- I try to intervene as little as possible in terms of rejecting arguments/interpreting evidence. As long as an argument has a claim/warrant I can explain to your opponent in the RFD I will vote for it. If only one side tries to resolve an issue I will defer to that argument even if it seems illogical/wrong to me- i.e. if you drop "warming outweighs-timeframe" and have no competing impact calc its GG even though that arg is terrible. 90% of the time I'm being postrounded it is because a debater wanted me to intervene in some way on their behalf either because that's the trend/what some people do or because they personally thought an argument was bad.
Rounds Judged on the topic- a lot
My Ideal affirmative- 2 well constructed advantages
My Ideal 1NC- 5 off and case
Cliffs Notes-Top 10 Things you should know
1. I vote on arguments commonly considered "bad" frequently because a team mishandles them, it is my belief belief that most bad arguments can be defeated by making a thumbs down motion, so if you fail to meet that minimum threshold I will be qualmless voting against you. The overarching principle of my judging is "least intervention"-Much like Harrison Ford in Ender's Game under no circumstances will I help you with bad arguments, I believe in self help.
2. I vote on kritiks a lot because the team answering them reads a lot of bad generic answers instead of making analytic arguments based on the specific arguments they have made in that debate. To clarify this sentence - what I mean is an analytic based on your 1AC- ie "tradable permits empirically don't cause commodification and extinction since we already have them for SO2". In general I think most debaters have no idea what they are saying when reading a K and that affirmatives SHOULD win about 80-90% of the debates in which the negative goes for one.
3. No plan affs- 100% of the time when I vote against you on framework its because the other team won theory was a trump card over issues like education/K impacts and you didn't advance theory offense for your interpretation. I end up voting for no plan args frequently because the neg collapses/has no idea what to do.
4. Theory needs to come back with a vengeance
A. Entirely plan inclusive counterplans- I have never heard a theory argument to defend them that passes the minimum threshold explained above. That being said, winning a solvency deficit against them is basically impossible.
B. More than 2 conditional counterplans is just you being a chazzer
C. K frameworks/roles of the ballot that stack the deck absurdly are worse than entirely plan inclusive counterplans
D. Reject argument not team produces terrible debates with very bad strategies. Voting on theory doesn't fix this, but it improves it substantially.
5. I believe you have a choice
A. Clearly articulate your ground/say as much in CX
B. Because your position is vague you are susceptible to a reduced credibility modifier that taints many of your arguments. Plan vagueness affects plan solvency, alternative vagueness affects.... etc.
6. IMO there are, in fact, risks of things. Debaters should be aware of this and make arguments about how I should resolve risk. The plan may be popular with 5 people and unpopular with 6, should I place more emphasis on the number of people or maybe are those 5 more important? Very few link cards establish such a clear threshold that you can say with certainty (when contested) yes definite link. (this point is largely irrelevant now as the tides of history have turned and no risk people have been successfully marginalized)
7. I will always defer to debater argument resolution if one side does it and the other doesn't-no matter how bad or illogical I think the argument is. This is to me, the most important part of debate.
8. I try really hard to flow well. Teams who willfully ignore line by line/structure - I will not do work for you to figure things out if the other team does line by line barring some argument why I should.
9. I often call for lots of evidence after a debate, most of the time this is just out of curiosity. When making my decision evidence is only a factor when it is a point of contest or someone has made an argument for why it should be a part of the decision. I am not a judge who reads every card from both sides and makes a decision based on the evidence.
10. Evidence quality in debate is in terminal decline. If you have good evidence and you make an issue of it in the debate (talk about quals, or recency for uniqueness) you will most likely crush.
Making a decision:
Everything is debatable but speech times: The role of the ballot, whether evidence or analytic arguments are more important, is it acceptable for the other team to read off their computers, who gets presumption and why etc. If neither team makes an argument on the issue, the following are my defaults:
1. Evidence and analytic arguments are treated equally- I will look at the total sum of explanation offered for an argument, from any form. So if a well explained analytical will beat a poorly written piece of evidence. If one teams reads qualifications and the other doesn't, the team who read quals will receive a slight bump in the level of quality I assess to their explanation (assuming all other factors are equal). Treating them as equal until told otherwise is my way of encouraging debate.
2. Presumption, in the case of a tie or too close to call resolution of an argument, goes to the team advocating the least change. I would use presumption in the instance where each team had an advocacy and an offensive argument, and each team dropped a terminal defense argument to their own offense such that the net risk in either direction of presented offense was exactly zero. In that instance the "hidden disad" of change makes sense as a decision making tool. In no other circumstance I can think of would I use presumption unless explicitly instructed by the debaters.
3. If an argument is unresolveable (or tough to resolve) I will use a "needs" test- the burden of explanation will be assessed to the team who NEEDS the argument to win. So for example
-on a CP permutation, if the neg would win the debate without the permutation, then the aff needs it to win- so the burden of explanation is on them
-for CP solvency, if the neg would lose if the CP did not solve the case, then the neg needs to win solvency- so the burden of explanation is on them
4. Concession= truth. If you drop epistemology comes first/is a side constraint, then it is. You can drop that framing issue and still win as long as you beat the link (that your epistemology is flawed), but you will not be allowed new answers to the impact. I use a reasonable person standard- if I was unaware that the 1NC presented a epistemology first argument (based on what was said in the 1NC, not my prior knowledge of the negative team), then if the aff says "they didn't say this, therefore our answers aren't new" I would allow it. But remember, everything is debatable. If the 2NR comes back and asserts it was clearly stated when they said XYZ, the aff has to disprove that.
5. The threshold for how good a response to an argument has to be is directly related to the quality of the initial argument. Saying "RANT" is sufficient to beat a lot of voting issues. If the other team answers RANT in their 2NC sever perms are a VI block, and thats all you say, you will be in trouble. Similarly, many counterplans (consult, recommendation, delay, lopez) are easily defeated by theory arguments but almost impossible to beat on substance. A well rounded debater should avoid trying to ice skate uphill.
6. I spend a lot of time on debate. Other than eating and playing video games, basically all of my time is spent cutting cards, coaching, writing and reading about debate. A lot of judges say "I'm not a very good flow". I'm a very good flow, I may even go as far as to say probably one of the best. All that being said, it is very possible that you could say a string of words, or utter a quote from an article I have written that fully conveys your argument to me, but would leave a less experienced/judge with a life with no idea what you were saying/what your argument was. I try to temper this fact by using a "reasonable person" standard for what makes a complete argument. I feel this is essential because otherwise any student who was in my lab, had emailed me a question, or had just read a lot of the 3NR would have an absurdly unfair advantage vs a similarly skilled student. So if I made a joke in lab about saying "purple monkey dishwasher" and that meaning "we do the whole plan minus the reps", so you say that in a debate and expect me to vote on it, I won't. Unless you are debating someone else from the lab who had equal access to that information. Similarly, even if I flowed an argument/got the jist of what you were saying, but feel that the other team is being reasonable when they say your argument was poorly explained/did not constitute an argument I will be open to that and you need to respond.
1. I like fast debate. That being said, some people give fast debate a bad name. You can be fast only after you are clear and efficient. I should be able to understand every word you say, not just the tags. If you are stammering (or displaying other verbal missteps) excessively you are going faster than you are capable of going imo.
2. Points are determined by how well you perform your function, which depends on what speeches you give. A 1AC should be perfectly smooth because you can practice it as much as you want. A 2NC assembled on the fly vs a new case can be excused a few missteps on the other hand. I think auto giving the 1N low points because they could be replaced by a robot in most debates is a bit unfair- a blazing fast 1NC and devastating 1NR can be game changing. That being said, rarely do people perform up to that level.
3. Points are assessed relative to the field in which you are competing. The same speech can be a 29 at a local, but a 27.5 at St Marks.
What is your threshold for T?
The threshold is established by the other teams answers- if they make good defensive arguments and argue reasonability well than my threshold will be high. If they don't it will be very low.
What are you favorite kinds of debate?
Ones in which there are clash, since that is not really a thing anymore its usually impact turn debates- heg bad, de-dev, CO2 ag and warming good- loved to go for these when I debated and love to see them debated now. CO2 ag is the upper limit of stupid I think is acceptable.
Did you run kritiks when you debated?
Not as much as Bricker would want you to believe. My senior year in HS and my senior year in college I went for K's about 30% of the time, in the other years of my debate less than 5%.
Did you ever read a critical aff?
By today's standards no- I always had a plan, though sometimes the advantages were not nuke war.
You bash the politics disad a lot, will you still vote for it?
Yes, almost always because the affirmative never does anything of the things that highlight the problem with politics.
Are you OK with speed?
Yes, if anything I dislike slow debate. However this is a double edged sword- if you do fast debate terribly I will punish you for it.
Is Fem IR beatable?
What race do you play in SC2?
Usually random, but if I pick -zerg.
If you were in Game of Thrones, which house would you belong to?
A note on jumping:
I want to see good debates. I'm not interested in charging you 10 seconds of prep to jump your speeches. If, however, you show total technical incompetence at jumping/severely delay the round your speaks will suffer. A good jump is like a good road map- its not hard, so get it over with quickly.
Standards for sharing should be reciprocal, and as such are established by the team willing to do the least. If Team A doesnt jump speeches as a policy that is fine by me, but then Team B is under no obligation to let Team A see any of their evidence. If Team A doesn't jump analytics, Team B doesn't have to etc.
A note on quality:
I generally believe that there are certain "norms" in debate- don't steal prep time, don't clip cards etc. These norms are not rules, and as such as a judge I don't think its my job to enforce them. In fact, I think it SHOULD be the burden of a good team to be on top of is the other team stealing prep, are they clipping cards etc. Encouraging students to take responsibility for this is the best model imo. However, there are debates where there is a huge mismatch in terms of the quality of the teams involved. I no longer think it reasonable to expect novices entered in their first varsity tournament to check to see if the Baker Award winning team they are debating is stealing prep. I also don't really care to argue with you about whether or not you are stealing prep. So my solution is that for all things that could be considered a violation of good sportsmanship I will severely jack your points if it is a debate where I subjectively decide the other team should not be responsible for checking you.SO
-If I think you are clipping cards/stealing prep/misquoting evidence/lying in cx in the finals of the TOC vs another excellent team I would expect the other team to catch you
-If I think you are clipping cards/stealing prep/misquoting evidence/lying in cx during a preset vs a vastly inferior team I will severely dock your speaker points
Parker Pogue Paradigm
Intro: I debated for 3 years at Royse City (it’s okay if you don’t know where that is) I was the only debater at my school my senior year but actively competed on the National circuit. I primarily did LD but I also have experience in Policy I ran just about everything during my years of debate from non-T affs, K affs, and any option on the neg that saying I’m open to any argument you will read.
Short version- I try to be as TAB as possible knowing there are some preferences just read whatever you want I don’t have preferences in that sense (plans, DAs, Ks, theory) just tell me why you ran them and why they matter. Go as fast as you want I’d like to say I’m pretty good at flowing. I’m not the best at really dense phil so please explain exactly what the argument means (even if you win the tech debate it’s hard for me to vote on an argument that wasn’t explained well during round.
1. Policy args (CP, DA, ADV)
2. T & Theory
If you start an email chain put me on it. Pogue2000@gmail.com
Framework- V/C debate, ROB, ROJ, are all acceptable. I didn’t really run dense framework in my years of debate but for certain positions its required so go for it. I’m sad I have to say this but just because you win framework doesn’t mean you win the round. Please weigh well tell me how your arguments fit in the framework and why that framework matters. I feel like most debaters don’t do a great job at arguing frameworks after the first two speeches so even if you read a 5-card dump on your opponent’s framework you still need to extend and say why yours is good.
Policy args- I tend to lean to policy style debates even in LD but only if the topic allows it. If the wording of the resolution doesn’t ask for some sort of policy action don’t try to fit on in.
Topicality/ theory- When you read these arguments in front of me give 1. A proper structure Interp, violation, standards, voters 2. A clear abuse story (if one isn’t pointed out it’s hard for me to vote on it even if you when the tech debate) don’t just say it’s bad for education or fairness show me why that matters and how it’s bad for debate 3. I feel like competing interps is a better way to debate theory but sometimes reasonability is a good strategy (I don’t like reasonability as much because it calls for me to create some type of Brightline and requires a bit of intervention) 4. I feel like the 1AR is one of the hardest speeches in debate and will vote on RVIs for theory or topicality if the RVI is properly warranted.
K- I don’t have a lot of experience in super dense K debate so if you’re going hard please explain it because it’ll go right over my head. I’m good with general Ks Biopower, Cap, ECT. If you can explain the position in an overview in a way that I can understand I will vote on it.
Chris Randall Paradigm
Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.
T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen. I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.
DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly
CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit
K- I am familiar with most of the k literature
CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at
In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).
First let me explain how to get a Hot L:
So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L
THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING
Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation is dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean
Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples
I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc
I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating
Bianca Rathwick Paradigm
I debated at Winston Churchill (SATX) from 2014-2018 in LD and policy.
I am currently debating for the University of Texas at Austin.
I taught at VBI this past summer.
If you and your opponent are both waiting outside of the room between flights or waiting for me to get to the room etc., please have the email chain ready to send out the 1AC ASAP.
Few important things:
Tech over truth: Technical debaters do all of the work for me and understand how to evaluate arguments as opposed to leaving it up to the truth of an argument which largely relies on my own personal bias.
Don’t try to spread too fast. I was pretty fast in high school. But I also heard a lot of double breathing, gasps for air, wiggling around and not standing still. Overall looks funny and doesn’t make you sound persuasive. Your speaks will suffer.
I am ~generally~ open to whatever and want you to actually be into the debate and not sound robotic or just be reading blocks throughout every rebuttal. Do what you know and are good at. With that being said, here is how I view most arguments.
K affs: I read k affs sometimes. I enjoy them sometimes. That being said, if the 1AC is a riddle of buzzwords with no topic cards I’ll probably just stop flowing. I’m not going to vote on an aff I think you explain poorly. For instance, if your answer to every cx question sounds like “we solve by deconstructing subjectivities” (or something like that idk lol) I’m not going to be compelled to buy your solvency. Additionally, your aff should talk about the resolution, AFFIRM it, and have a methodology that is in line with what the resolution is doing. I’m fine with performances just please make sure it’s relevant to the resolution.
T/Theory: I personally default to evaluating competing interps because reasonability seems arbitrary unless you substantially explain to me why I should prefer reasonability and why that is good. I really like T and think teams need to be going for it way more often. As far as theory goes: condo, vague alts bad, floating piks bad, pics bad are all fair game in front of me. Where I will literally stop flowing are theory shells like: any spike ever, that shell that’s like “the solvency advocate of the k or cp must be the same actor as the aff” etc. Not convinced by RVI's.
Phil: I don’t know anything about phil and feel that high school debaters are very bad at explaining it. The frameworks confuse me and I always feel like there’s literally no offense whatsoever so if you want to read it in front of me you need to be explaining it and impacting out in the same way that a policy aff would be explained. Just because you have some framework from like 1822 that your opponent doesn’t understand doesn’t mean you can just extend that and weird anecdotes without ever talking about the advantages/contentions.
CP’s: You really can’t go wrong with a solid counterplan in front of me. Please slow down on the cp text. Do a good job of explaining how it solves the aff. Clearly explain and articulate how it doesn’t link to the DA. I feel like I shouldn’t have to say this but I do: make sure there’s a net benefit to the counterplan.
Disads: Have solid internal links and know how to articulate them clearly so I feel comfortable voting on a risk of the disad. Please get in the habit of doing a substantial amount of impact calc.
K’s: I enjoy them. While I’d rather hear a solid cap debate you can read whatever you’d like in front of me. That being said, there are a few areas where my prior knowledge is pretty limited. I probably don’t know about your new pomo strat. While I get the general theories behind big name authors I won’t be as caught up on the vocabulary of the alternative and stuff like that. So please make sure you are doing a good job of explaining things and NOT RELYING ON BUZZWORDS. Other than that, do whatever.
-Make sure you have good topic links that apply to the aff. I probably won’t vote on your Wilderson 10 card that was cut 4 years ago and is being recycled on every topic. However, if you’re reading older link evidence I will buy it if you know how to extrapolate on how it links to the aff in new creative ways whether it be specific instances of the language in the 1ac or particular moments in the debate.
-You really need to be doing a good job on the framing debate. I think the framing debate is something that is often under covered but it one of the easiest routes to the ballot.
-As far as permutations go, please slow down on the text of them so I am actually able to flow them and keep track of which ones are answered etc. If your opponent “dropped” one of your ten perms I need to have it on my flow before I can vote on it. As for the affirmative, spend your time in the 2ar explaining what the permutation functions as and what the net benefits are. I’m very convinced by policy affs that leverage their access to solving immediate tangible impacts which creates a sequencing question. Use that to your advantage.
-I don’t have any opinion on types of k’s that certain people can read. Just remember to be respectful and as a rule of thumb: read arguments that you actually care about and preferably the ones that you’ve actually read the lit for.
Other: Don’t be condescending to your opponents. I know it gets intense but make sure you maintain a level of civility. Actually answer questions in CX. Don’t just say things like “why not” in response to “why vote aff?” If you’re debating someone that is more traditional or much younger than you be nice and don’t spread at your top speed because that isn’t enjoyable for anyone involved. Other than that have fun!
Grace Reon Paradigm
I am a collegiate debater at Southern Methodist Univeristy currently in my eighth year of competitive debate. In high school, I did LD debate, and I currently participate in the IPDA league. I have debated and judged at both the state and national level.
For LD, I can handle and understand speed-especially if you flash/email your evidence, but I also really value presentation and speaking skills. I also really like value/value criterion clash. I tend not to like theory shells or topicality except in cases where it's really necessary. I just don't think they make for a compelling debate.
I think debate should be fun and I encourage debaters to try new and risky things when I'm judging. Have a CP you've always wanted to run? Want to make jokes in the round? Go for it. Honestly, you can run whatever you want as long as I can understand it, you can link it to the resolution, and it makes the debate more interesting. The main thing is to thoroughly explain CPs, kritiks, etc. so I can easily link them to the rest of the debate.
Claudia Ribera Paradigm
Katy Taylor 2017
Hello, I’m a sophomore at Texas and coach CX and LD. I was coached by Elijah Smith (Emporia SW) in high school and he taught me everything I know about debate. This means I've had my fair share of reading and/or coaching teams reading very policy arguments to very critical arguments. I debated nationally in high school and have coached kids to deep elims of tournaments, obtain bids to the TOC, place at round robins, etc. In regards to the high school policy topic (2018-2019), just know I am a Latinx immigrant and know most of the current policies centered around immigration. Also, I will be teaching at GDS this summer so if you have any questions hmu!
Conflicts: Katy Taylor AP (LD) and Woodlands MR (CX)
Overall, I think it's important to be consistent on explicit labeling, generating offense, and having a clear impact framing because this is what ultimately frames my ballot. Debate is place for you to do you. Just like everyone, I have my own predispositions (see further explanation below). However, I make my decisions on what was presented to me in a debate and what was on my flow. I am unlikely to decide debates based on my personal feelings about content/style of argument than the quality of execution and in-round performance. Have fun and best of luck!
PLEASE put me on the email chain -- if you ask what my email is, I'll assume you didn't read this and be sort of disappointed. email@example.com
Theory: I will default to “competing interps” and “No RVIs” unless told otherwise. I will not make any presumptions on the voter level of the debate. This includes the voter (fairness/education/etc.) and the implication (drop debater/argument). Failure to present arguments in favor of a voter and its implication is to present an unwarranted argument. I will not evaluate the argument, and I will default to truth testing if the debate is a policy oriented debate. This also means you should be extending your voter and its implication properly and in every speech. Blippy theory arguments are dumb if not extended well so I won't vote on it. Just slow down on interps on shells. Weigh standards!
Frivolous theory/tricks: I don't typically judge these debates and I really don't like this style in LD debate. A prioris, skep triggers, and other arguments similar to these should be left back in 2012.
- Voting Neg on Presumption
- No RVI
Kritiks: I went for kritiks almost every 2NR the second half of my senior year. I’m the most familiar with antiblackness, necropolitics, set col, and quare/queer theory kritiks. I am cool with most kritiks but if it's high theory i.e. post-modernism, I am not the most well versed. This means, if you are reading this specific type of literature base, your argument must have contextualized links to the aff. This means not blazing through the intricate details of your arguments. You really don't want me to not know what you're talking about because that means I will lower your speaker points without hesitation. Read specific links not just state bad links. EXPLAIN THE JARGON. Give examples on the link level (super important) and have impact framing because it is incredibly important for you to do that in order to get my ballot. Please include some type of framing so I know what you are talking about. This can be in value/standard, ROB/ROJ, or any other framing you can think of. This also means your impacts have to link into a framework. I don't mind PIKs, but make it clear ballot in the 2NR. Read impact defense against the 1AC in the 1NC or make indicts to the affirmative substance/framing level claims, otherwise the aff debater will just go for case outweighs every single time.
Performance Debate: I'm always down to listen/watch. You must have a methodology and defend an advocacy. Explain how your performance (aff or neg) does something whether that be within debate or this round etc.
Topicality: Same rules apply with theory except I don't vote for RVI's on T because that doesn't make sense. DON'T FORGET TO WEIGH AGAINST THE CI/STANDARDS. You must have offense under T to win so do that. I also think this is a legitimate strategy against non-topical affs and can be a means of pointing out the flaws of their affirmative. You must have specific TVA(s) against K affs and have clear justifications as to why your model of debate is good/better.
Framework: I read a lot of policy positions in high school so I'm comfortable with util debate of course. I am not very good at evaluating dense fw, so If you choose to read a dense framework just give me a decent overview of the FW and how offense operates under it i.e. what do I evaluate, how it affirms or negates, how it/if it precludes your opponents argument and offense. I don't typically see a lot of these types of debates when I judge, so pref accordingly if you only like reading phil positions.
Policy args (LARP): Go for it. I usually read a plan aff if I didn't read a K/critical aff. Counterplans are cool and you must have net benefits on it. Be ready to have the textual/functional competition debate. I don't care for condo bad/good debate unless multiple offs that are conditional. PICs are cool. Disads are always a good strat as well and even better if it is impacted as a net benefit to the cp. Make sure to generate offense and you must have impact calculus.
General: Clarity is important and debaters forget to slow down on long blocks of analytics (especially for T/theory) and pls try to follow the line by line as best you can.
Case: Case is incredibly underutilized and should be an essential part to every negative strategy. You need to have some sort of mechanism that generates offense/defense for you.
Policy Affs: if you have a traditional policy aff just slow down on the plan text pls and have some sort of impact calc in the 2AR. I think these are fine.
CP/DA: Go for it. Don't forget to ask the status and PICs are fine. Test the competition of the cp(s) and make impact turns/defense. Explain why the perm(s) won't solve.
K Affs: I'm all for it. There are couple things you need to do to win: you need to explain the method of your aff, the nuanced framing of the aff, and the impacts that you claim to solve. You should have some sort of an advocacy statement or a role of the ballot for me to evaluate your impacts because this indicates how it links into your fw of the aff. If you’re going to read high theory affs, explain because all I hear is buzzwords that these authors use. Don’t assume I am an expert in this type of literature because I am not and I just have a basic understanding of it. If you don’t do any of these things, I have the right to vote neg on presumption.
Theory: Go for it I guess. I'm more persuaded more by competing interps than reasonability.
Kritiks: This form of debate is my bread and butter. However, it is important to note I have a reasonable, but sort of high threshold for each debater's explanation of whatever theory they present within the round, extensions of links, and impact framing. I need to understand what you are saying in order for me to vote for your criticism. You should have specific links to affirmatives because without it you will probably lose to "these are links to the squo" unless the other team doesn't answer it well. Link debate is a place where you can make strategic turns case/impact analysis. Make sure you have good impact comparison and weighing mechanisms and always have an external impact. The alt debate seems to be one of the most overlooked parts of the K and is usually never explained well enough. This means always explain the alt thoroughly and how it interacts with the aff. This is important time that the 2NR needs to dedicate time allocation for if you go for the alternative. If you choose not to go for the alternative and go for presumption, make sure you are actually wining an impact framing claim. Please include some type of framing so I know what you are talking about. This can be a ROB/ROJ or any other framing you can think of. This also means your impacts have to link into a framework. I don't mind PIKs, but make it clear ballot in the 2NR.
Framework: I think K affs vs T debates are interesting. I like fw debates a lot more when they're developed in the 1NC/block, as opposed to being super blippy in constructives and then the entire 2NR. I lean more to competing interps than reasonability and believe that the neg should make sure to fully flesh out the link and internal link to your impact and actually make offensive arguments against fairness/education voters. TVA are my go to so if they concede it, I expect the neg to blow it up. If the neg has an advocate for it, I will be happy. Aff teams need to answer TVA well, not just say it "won't solve". Framework is about the model of debate the aff justifies, it’s not an argument why K affs are bad or the aff team are cheaters. If you’re going for framework as a way to exclude entire critical lit bases/structural inequalities/content areas from debate then we are not going to get along. Aff teams this means: 1) You need a counter interp or counter model of debate and what debate looks like under this model, and then go for your impact turns or disads as net benefits to this. Going for only the net benefits/offense without explaining what your interpretation of what debate should look like will be difficult. 2) The 2AC strategy of saying as many ‘disads’ to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out is likely not going to be successful. 3) Leveraging your aff as an impact turn to framework is always good. The more effectively voting aff can resolve the impact turn the easier it will be to get my ballot.
Miscellaneous for both CX/LD:
- I don’t count flashing as prep time unless you're taking too long.
- Always be ready even if I am not present in the round yet.
- Tech > truth. the more you're proficient in the debate, the better your speaks will be.
- Respect your opponent's pronouns.
- Everything must be together in one speech doc before you stop prep to flash.
- Time yourselves.
- Flex prep is cool if your opponent is cool with it.
- Tag Team CX is fine.
- Higher speaks will be rewarded with strategic cross-ex.
- Please don't start off by spreading at maximum speed if it's 7/8 am.
Here is a list of some people (in addition to Elijah) who are some of my favorite judges and/or have influenced the way I view debate:
Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley
Don't be rude and don't make arguments that are bigoted, racist, homophobic, etc. because I will dock your speaks.
email me firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any questions or fb message me
Mykaela Salcido Paradigm
Why should I pref you?
I am knowledgeable on a wide array of arguments and comfortable judging a round anyway it unfolds. I can evaluate your framework, or your theory shell, or your performance, or your poetry, or your policy aff. There is nothing I'm unwilling to watch, flow, and engage with. I am a flexible judge with the desire to watch you read whatever you want and are good at. I have multiple years of diverse debate experience ranging from traditional LD, progressive policy debate (including multiple performances cases) and public forum.
How do you feel about K's?
I like them. Establish a clear link to the affirmative, provide an explanation of the alternative, and explain the literature. I LOVE debates with passion. I feel like debate should be a place where we can talk about anything and everything- please feel free to do that in front of me. I want to hear your narratives, poetry, and hot take on capitalism.
How do you feel about framework/theory/topicality?
Framework makes the game work. I love a good framework debate- keep it clean, technical and provide voting issues. I can definitely get down with a solid framework debate- keep the nuance. I can really appreciate a shell that is personalized to around and not just read directly off a computer. Potential abuse isn't really a voter, but maybe you can convince me.
Can I run my policy aff in front of you?
Absolutely! Have internal links to your impacts and weigh them!
What do you NOT like?
When people are rude to each other in the round. I would also prefer you abstain from using gendered language- including terms like "you guys". I like when oponnents are kind, knowledgeable, and non-problematic.
How do you evaluate a round?
However the debaters tell me to. If I am instructed to evaluate a round through a certain framework, I will. If I am told to evaluate through a role of the ballot, or a role of the judge, I will. I prefer to evaluate based off clear framework and impact weighing- good old magnitude, timeframe, and probability.
Put me on the email chain and I hope you get my ballot!
John Sasso Paradigm
I debated for Strake Jesuit for 4 years, qualifying for TFA & TOC in LD, and I've taught at TDC and NSD.
I will vote on any argument so long as the conclusion follows from the premises–my primary aim is to operate under the shared assumptions held by both debaters, so I will avoid "defaulting" on any framing issue at all costs and will detest being forced to do so. I will evaluate arguments as they are presented on the flow, so I will always prioritize explicit over implicit comparison made between arguments.
Other things that might be important:
-I tend to give speaks based on a mixture of strategy, passion, and clarity. In terms of clarity, I'll call clear three times before I start docking speaks
-If I'm looking at you and not flowing that means I'm not understanding your arguments
-I won't give any credence to arguments that I deem as being made new in the 2N/A
-CX is binding
-If you extend something through ink, I most likely won't evaluate the argument
Wendy Sayre Paradigm
For email chains: email@example.com
I'm a parent judge, but debated CX and LD in high school and CEDA and British Parliamentary in college in TX. That was a million years ago. Now I judge mainly LD, with some PF and Policy thrown in occasionally.
I mainly operate as a tabula rasa judge. I’m open to most arguments, but need/want a clear explanation as to why I should vote on it. I’m sure there are exceptions to this if you try to push ethical boundaries with an argument.
Plans are fine.
I like a clear debate with lots of clash and clear summaries that explain how you think I should weigh things and how I should vote. Don’t leave it up to me to weigh everything. Give me overviews and voting issues.
I don’t like to have to ask to see cards because I think debaters need to put the arguments on the flow and give me enough info to make a decision. I will ask to see something if it’s not clear in the end and it might be a voting issue, though.
Some speed is OK, but I can’t flow the fastest spreaders. Slow down on tags. I’ll tell you (verbally) if I’m not getting everything and I’ll be annoyed if you are spreading for no good reason.
Flashing is fine, but do it quickly.
Open CX is fine.
I generally don’t care where you speak from, how you are dressed, or how informally you speak as long as it’s a good debate. But be a good human being. I don’t tolerate debaters who disrespect others.
Ekta Shah Paradigm
Updated during Harvard Westlake 2019 because my previous paradigm was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.
TLDR because you could be reading a more interesting NYT article or somthng:
· I’m not a former debater.
· I’m not a current debater either, although I am often mistaken for one.
· I’ve been teaching high school English and coaching Speech and Debate at Quarry Lane for the past three years.
· Debate is a safe space. I won’t tolerate anyone that violates this. No exceptions.
· My former student Allen Abbott said it best: Debate is still problematic in many ways. If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand.
· Convince me why I should vote for you and you can win. It’s that simple.
· My email is firstname.lastname@example.org. Start an email chain.
· Extra kudos to those who wear Northwestern merch. Go Wildcats!
Jharick Shields Paradigm
Hello! My name is Jharick Shields and I am the assistant debate coach at St. Andrew’s Episcopal School in Mississippi. I enjoy listening to/voting for functionally all forms of argumentation, provided that it is clearly explained, implicated, and weighed. Speed is fine, people usually have problems with clarity however. I will say clear twice and then you should watch for me to put my pen down. I am a huge fan of non-verbal cues, so you should watch for those as well. They can give you key insight into how well you’re doing. I am a fan of explanation and thoroughness. People should not expect me to “check in” for certain types of analysis, but should expect to get my ballot if they tell me why they won. Claim. Warrant. Impact. Easy as pie. I am not a fan of blippy analysis and the weight i give each argument will be based on how much work went into it. You shouldn’t expect me to understand words that you do not explain. The rule of thumb is that if you had to read multiple articles to understand it, you should not just throw it at me and then complain indignantly when I tell you I didn’t understand it. I like impact analysis and this part of the debate is important. I get that your impacts are important. Weigh long term v short term. Weigh probability and magnitude. Tell me what my ballot does and tell me why it goes to you. I am not a fan of under-explained theory arguments – theory and topicality are functionally the “death penalty” so just saying the words “the neg skewed my strategy because it’s hard to respond’ doesn’t constitute an adequate reason for me to drop the debater. However, don’t interpret this as “this judge won’t vote for theory, I can’t go for condo in this debate even if it’s the right option” as some have previously. Speaker points start at a 28. They can go up or down from there based on strategy, execution, clarity, and persuasiveness. I like games, so here’s an interesting one: for every correctly identified conceded argument, you get +.1 speaks and for every incorrectly identified conceded argument, you get -.2 speaks. I look forward to judging your debates!
Also, unless you are a peer of mine or graduated, please call me Mr. Shields. K, thx.
Rich Simpkins Paradigm
I'm essentially a tabula rasa judge in that I will listen to justifications for any paradigm that you can convince me to hold That isn't to say I don't have biases, but I can be convinced to vote against them if you set up standards, win them, and meet them. One bias that I do hold (and it can be overcome) is that I default to seeing myself as judging the resolution up or down. That is to say, if you affirm the resolution, I vote affirmative. So, if you want to, say, run a topical PIC from the negative, you need to tell me why I should write "negative" on my ballot for something that is affirming the resolution.
Speed is fine so long as you are not skipping syllables or slurring your speech. Too many debaters have a tendency do this to gain speed. If you want to go faster than you can anunciate, you do so at the risk of losing me. Slowing down on taglines and citations is always a plus, because I tend to organize my flow around cards (unless you get very theoretical, in which case, I'll switch to line numbers...so number your arguments in this case). It's also a good idea to get louder (and clearer) on phrases within the card that you especially want me to hear. Doing this will ensure your argument gets on the flow in context. Most judges like to hear cards and not just taglines, so we can evaluate source indictments.
I'm evolving on flashing. I once disliked it because I noticed that it made teams stop flowing, and resulted in less line-by-line rebutting. This is an unfortunate habit. I still allowed it because were some teams who managed to handle it just fine. I think reading clarity is also sacrificed when flashing, because there is not the added pressure of having to be understood by your opponent. But you still have to be understood by your judge! Email chains are no better than flashing, by the way, and differ only in that judges are sometimes included in the chain. I tried this once, and I realized that *I* stopped flowing! It's not to say that I don't like being in on an email chain (so I can look at it during prep), but if you send me briefs, I will still not flow with them.
On the other hand, teams who flash look more critically at their opponents' evidence and are less likely to accept the tagline as an accurate description of what the card says. Even though all of the above problems are real, this new critical way of assessing evidence makes it worth it to flash. So, flash away, but don't let that stop you from flowing!
This paradigm works for CX, LD and PF, but I should add that
1) in LD, I am sympathetic to suggested paradigms that flow from the resolution. For instance, if a resolution includes a call to action, a plan makes more sense. If it doesn't, then not so much. I can be convinced to shift this bias, but you must tell me why.
2) in PF, I tend to think more like a lay judge, since that is the spirit of the event. I will be evaluating speaking skills and your ability to make logical arguments more broadly persuasive to a reasonable (but lay) audience. That isn't to say I won't follow the flow if you get technical, but I will give you some lattitude to use grouping to buy time for more pathos and ethos.
My email address is email@example.com
Sam Smith Paradigm
If you have an e-mail chain going on please add me to it - firstname.lastname@example.org
I am a Senior at Kansas State University finishing up my undergrad in Philosophy. I have 7 years of debate experience (mostly CX and LD) and 3 years of coaching for my local high schools (Kapaun Mt. Carmel and Wichita East). I peaked at top 40 nationals my Senior year in LD.
I am okay with any argument and any speed, but please fully explain your argument and the impact. I do not like to interfere with the debate as a judge but if you don't tell me how I should evaluate an argument, I will intervene as necessary. Please avoid any arguments that are discriminatory, and in general just don't be rude. Also, I keep track of time in rounds - please don't try and cheat on prep or waste time flashing/e-mailing documents or I will run your prep.
I fully believe that Debate is a site for education and helping people find their voice. While the competition aspect of debate is enjoyable and gives it a way for people to assess their growth, I really want to see people have fun and engage within the debate. That means I judge based on how you performed, not because of the content of your argument or who you are or what school you represent. The implications of this that I hope people take away from my paradigm are these:
1. Don't tag-line debate, please
All arguments should have some level of interactivity. Evidence comparison is great, re-reading un-highlighted portions is great, but saying the word "concede" and "extend" a bunch isn't great. What matters the most for me is the purpose behind why all of that matters. Ex: "They have little ink on our second contention, this is critical because it frames how you view this impact. It also turns link arguments, 3 reasons..."
It's less that I hate those words and more that I want some simple explanation and warranting which can help me establish why you should win. I don't want to render a decision where it sounds like I am bringing in information that was not directly presented in the debate (i.e. I believe that this argument, while strong, doesn't have a clear link to anything the opposing team was talking about).
2. Think of the debate as an open-forum
As noted before, the fact that debate is competitive does not license you to be rude, exclusionary or un-interactive. At the end of the day, debate should be an accessible activity that helps teach people advocacy skills and communication. All that this means to me is that you aren't trying to undermine anyone in the round or try to do anything you can in order to get the ballot.
Oh, and it goes without saying but if I find evidence of you clipping cards in a round that I am judging - 0 speaks, lose. *Disclaimer: do not make false accusations, those are just as bad as clipping*
The rest of my paradigm will be explanatory towards what I believe about certain types of arguments
I will be honest, I am aff biased on T. I prefer reasonability probably 70% of the time. I want T arguments that are innovative and have a clear, not just tangible, relation to the affirmative case.
As for framework debates, I do have an inherent bias in favor of debating the resolution because of my background. I try very hard to separate my personal beliefs from the round as I believe the debate is for the debaters, not for me. However, due to my background, I am more obliged to believe that debating the topic is good. This doesn't mean it's that much harder to win my ballot if you aren't in the topic -- it is ultimately up to the debaters to give me the best and most logical arguments in order to win the round, not repeat "policy debate good" one hundred times.
Please be very clear on the interpretation and violation level for this - if the voting issue just comes down to "they did something bad" and I don't know what it was or what your framework is, it's hard for me to justify voting on it. I'll vote on probably any theory argument, all things aside.
I know that in circuit LD, theory is quite big - I'm not very well-versed in this so please do explain it well enough so that I can grasp onto it. I am cognizant of the fact that there are much more legitimate theory arguments in LD because of the format difference, so I'm more likely to listen to "drop the debater" or RVI arguments.
While I do find that there are some legit spec arguments pertaining to actors and implementation, you will almost always never impress me or win me over by out-spreading the other team with a time suck spec argument. Like any argument, I will still evaluate it but I have a higher threshold for it versus other arguments.
I like DA's...a lot. I was really big into cutting unique disad files when I was debating and I still find myself loving to watch a good debate that comes down to Case vs DA. The most important part of the DA for me is the link and internal link level, win those and it's ball-game.
For Politics specifically - theory on it can get very messy. In general, I really don't believe fiat "solves the link" unless there is overwhelming evidence that the aff's link is weak or that PC is ficticious. Even then, I think it's odd to fiat away a disad that is a core part of negative strategy.
Do not read a Consult CP in front of me, you won't win on it. And if you do, I will be upset.
Otherwise, I like CP's. Theory can be tricky, please try to address all of theory before you answer any of the line by line if possible so that I can flow it separately. If it's not functionally or textually competitive, I will have a hard time voting on it. Be clear in CX and in the 1NC why it competes or what the net benefit is. If you read the net benefit in the block, I probably won't evaluate it because I think that's just dirty. However, feel free to read additional net benefits in the block, so long as they make sense.
I really enjoy Kritiks. They are one of my favorite arguments that can be utilized, but they can also end up being my least favorite if you are not good at explaining it.
What I think is core about kritiks is de-constructing the affirmative and showing some of the inherent problems that are present in the 1AC. The 1NC should make it clear to me about what the aff has done that is wrong, and then further articulate later why I should vote them down for it (be it a rejection of the 1AC or another alternative). In general, rejection alts kind of suck, but you can spin then in a way that still gets my ballot. For example, "Rejection gives us alternative ways to engage within the affirmatives framework, without a focus on extinction level events"
I will vote on floating PIKs, but I think it needs to be pretty clear to me at least somewhere in the block why it solves the aff. If the 2NR gets up and says they conceded the floating pik, i'll probably look at you funny.
I think because of the prevalence of anti-blackness in the debate community, I should explain that I have very little lit base with these kind of Ks, as well as performativity Ks. That doesn't mean I won't vote for it, but my threshold for voting on it will be a little bit higher unless your explanation is solid.
I think for the sake of clarity I will disclose how I usually judge speaker points. I think on face they are 100% arbitrary and don't do a good enough job to evaluate how well a debater has performed because of how low the scale is, and how judge preference and intervention works a lot of the time. Thus, here's what you can take from me if I give you these speaks
30 - Perfect, this is the kind of speech I would expect from a person who could win nationals or get to outrounds at the TOC
29.5 - Outstanding, you had almost no mistakes
29 - Great, your strategy was exceptional, great line by line, I could understand you very well
28.5 - Pretty Good, I believe you have good arguments and understand what you're doing, but could get better at the more technical side of the debate
28 - Good, what you said was fairly accurate but you still might need more warrants or explication of your arguments
27.5 - average, you spoke OK and your strategy makes sense but there is a lot of work to be done as it relates to your technicality, time allocation, speed, etc.
27 - you were not prepared for this debate at all, you might have cut your speech time a lot, you need a lot of practice on the basics
anything below a 27 usually means you said something extremely rude, discriminatory, or otherwise not fit for this debate
Any other questions, e-mail me at email@example.com
Jasmine Stidham Paradigm
-Pronouns: she/her. I will default to using they/them if I don't know you.
-Yes, put me on the chain. firstname.lastname@example.org
-I coach/teach at the Harvard-Westlake school, I'm an assistant coach for Dartmouth, and I work at UM 7 Week in one of the seniors labs. I debated at the University of Central Oklahoma for 4 years and graduated in 2018- qualified to the NDT 4x, NDT octafinalist 2x, 1st round recipient, etc.
-No judge will ever like all of the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate them fairly. I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to positions from every angle, so I try to be one of those judges. I have coached strictly policy teams, strictly K teams, and everything in between because I enjoy all aspects of the game. Debate should be fun and you should debate in the way that makes it valuable for you, not me. My predispositions about debate are not so much ideological as much as they are systematic, i.e. I don't care which set of arguments you go for, but I believe every argument must have a claim, warrant, impact, and a distinct application. I think "tech" matters. Dropping a bunch of arguments means your "truth" claims aren't so true anymore. Evidence quality matters a lot to me. Stop reading cards that don't have a complete sentence and get off my lawn. I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible. Impact framing/judge instruction will get you far. The predispositions I have listed below are my general heuristics I use when making a decision, but I will ultimately vote for the team who wins their argument, even if it strays from these conventions.
-Don't base your strategy off of your (probably incorrect) assumptions about my own debate career.
-Creative, specific, and bold strategies = yes plz.
-For everyone: stop being afraid of debate. Cowardice is annoying. Don't run away from controversy just because you don't like linking to things. If you don't like defending arguments, or explaining what your argument actually means, please consider joining the marching band.
-I'm grumpy, but I promise I care a lot.
-Some judges I always appreciated having in the back of the room when I debated: Toya Green, Kristen Lowe, Courtney Schauer, Jyleesa Hampton, Corey Fisher, Hunter McFarland, Will Jensen, Martin Osborn, Allie Chase, Scott Phillips, Kristiana Baez, Kurt Fifelski, Becca Steiner, Travis Cram, Marquis Ard, Sarah Lundeen, Geoff Lundeen, Brian McBride, Andrew Myers, Samantha Rippetoe, Michael Wimsatt.
Topicality: Everyone needs to have evidence that has the intent to define whatever word/phrase is being contested. Evidence that offhandedly mentions how one rando decided to define 'trade power' doesn't cut the mustard.
Theory: My only predisposition is that I tend to think conditionality is okay. I would not advise you to go all in on "condo bad" in front of me, but reading your "condo bad" block is probably still a good time trade-off for you. Yes, I have voted on condo bad before. If you debate the argument well I am sure I will vote for you. Random note based on recent trends: just because an aff is new does not mean the neg is automatically able to get away with murder in terms of condo/other shenanigans. I think it's totally reasonable that the neg should get some flexibility in these situations, but if your answer to 2AC theoretical objections is just, "you broke a new aff, we get to do whatever we want" I'm not 100% with you- just answer the argument like you normally would.
Framework: I vote for framework and I vote against it. I judge a lot of "clash" debates and I'm probably even in terms of my voting record. In my ideal world, affs would defend a clear, controversial advocacy that has predictable neg ground against it, but I understand that debate isn't about me. Affs should have a counter interpretation/model of debate that they think is desirable. I am less likely to vote aff solely on impact turns because I really need to know what the aff's 'vision of debate' looks like compared to the neg. I understand that going HAM on impact turns is sometimes more strategic, so if that's really your style you should stick to it, but you must contextualize those impact turns to whatever DAs the neg is going for and do comparative impact work. I find myself voting neg a lot just by virtue of the aff never doing impact calculus. Unpersuaded by the argument that topical versions should have to solve literally everything ever in a 9 minute speech. Judge instruction is extremely important- please tell me what to evaluate first. I'm fine with any 'flavor' of framework- procedural fairness, skillz, deliberative democracy, etc. Do your thing. The neg needs to explain how the TVAs access the aff's general theory/scholarship, what those affs look like, and how it (could) resolve the aff's impact turns.
Critical affirmatives (no plan): Beyond what I have said about framework, there are a couple things you can do to make sure we're on the same page. First, I need you to answer the question of "but what do you doooo tho?!" even though that question seems obsolete. I don't need a 5 minute overview explaining every part of the aff. I really just need to know what I am voting for and why that thing is good, which seems really simple, but in many debates I am left wondering what I'm supposed to vote for. Second, I am often persuaded by presumption if the neg invests a decent amount of time going for it properly. To counter this, make sure you do the minimum of answering the BWDYDT?! question above, and perhaps give me a different way of thinking about presumption as it applies to critical affirmatives. Third, you need to have a solid relationship to/critique of the resolution. If you read 9 minutes of structural claims about the world and say virtually nothing about the resolutional mechanism, we're not going to be on the same page.
Disads: Love em. I will reiterate an important component: do not hand me a stack of cards at the end of a debate that do not have complete sentences. I would rather read 5, solid, well-highlighted UQ cards than 10 poopy cards that say "it'll pass but it's clooooose!" without ever highlighting anything beyond that sentence. Uniqueness controls the direction of uniqueness and the link controls the direction of the link- not sure why that's controversial.
Counterplans: Love em too. Theory: I know a cheating counterplan when I see one, but I honestly don't care one way or another, so it is up to the debaters to convince me whether or not these are legitimate. However, counterplans that don't have **any form** of solvency advocate are starting to get a little old.
Kritiks: For everyone, please focus on argument development and application in these debates rather than reading 15 poopy backfile cards that probably won't get you anything.
-Stop with the mega overviews. I am not one who will particularly like the style of 6 minute overviews, and then answering the line by line with "ya that was the overview"-- just say those things on the line by line!
-Framework: it's important- the most common mistake I see the aff make is failing to develop substantive framework arguments about legal/institutional/pragmatic engagement. I often see the 1AR get bogged down going for random blurbs about fairness, which ultimately ends up being a wash. You get to weigh your aff. Now explain why I should prioritize your form of political engagement to outweigh the neg's ethics/epistemology/ontology 1st argument(s).
-Impact framing: also important- for the aff, even if the neg does not read case defense, do not make the mistake in assuming that you auto-win. You have to win a subsequent impact framing argument that tells me why those impacts matter. For the neg, the inverse applies. If you do not read case defense, you obviously have to win your impact framing arguments.
-Roles of the ballot are arbitrary. My role is to tell tab who won. Just win your impact framing argument and stop telling me the ballot has a role. PLEASE.
-Really hate it when the first question of 1AC CX is, "why vote aff?"
-If your strategy involves going for some version of "all debate is bad, this activity is meaningless and only produces bad people" please consider who your audience is. Of course you can make arguments about flaws in specific debate practices, but you should also recognize that the "debate is irredeemable" position is a tough sell to someone who has dedicated her life to the activity and tries to make it better.
-Floating PIKs: if the neg makes a PIK that clearly ~floats~ and it's flagged as such, it's up to the aff to call it out- I won't do the theory work for you. If you can't identify it/flush it out in CX, you deserve to lose.
-Examples are incredibly helpful in these debates, especially when making structural claims about the world.
Evidence: Evidence quality correlates with a higher chance of winning. Good evidence does not, however, substitute for good debating. You should be doing evidence comparison. Logic will always beat a terrible card without a warrant.
-If you clip, you will lose the round and receive 0 speaks. Seriously, don't cheat. I will vote against you for clipping EVEN IF the other team does not call you on it. I know what clipping is and feel 100% comfortable calling it. Mark your ev and have a marked copy available.
-Shady disclosure practices result in you catching the L. Stop being a coward.
-If I say "clear" more than two times I will stop flowing. I say clear more than most judges because debaters are getting away with murder in terms of clarity.
-If you are a jerk to novices your max for speaker points is a 25
-Biggest pet peeve: debaters being unnecessarily difficult in cross-ex. This includes asking absurdly vague/irrelevant questions and debaters refusing to answer questions. This also includes cutting people off, and giving excessively drawn out answers to questions that can be answered efficiently. Please recognize that cross-ex is a mutual part of the debate.
-If you want me to evaluate the debate outside of line-by-line, that's fine, just tell me what that looks like so we're on the same page.
-Be respectful to each other, which includes your partner. Pettiness/sarcasm is appreciated, but recognize that there is a line and you shouldn't cross it. You should never, ever make any jokes about someone else's appearance or how they sound.
-If there are any access requirements, whether it be for disability or anything else, just let me know.
-If you try to turing test anyone I will transform into Dallas Perkins.
STOP BEING LATE TO ROUNDS. WHY DOES THIS ALWAYS HAPPEN?! The 1AC doc chain needs to be ready by the start time.
Update for 2019 TOC: Please for the love of god do not read the new Nebel "nonhypocritical theory" article in front of me. I'm sorry if this was your A-strat, but I'm just not here for it.
Everything I have written above applies to you. I am not a fan of LD's weird fascination with frivolous theory arguments. No, I will *not* vote on font size theory or other ridiculous and arbitrary interpretations even if other judges will. No, I will not be a fan of your ridiculous "spikes" that aren't actual arguments. No, the aff being topical is *not* a reason why RVIs are a thing. Let's make real, substantive arguments. To be clear, I'm good for more policy-oriented theory arguments- condo good/bad, PICs good/bad , process CPs good/bad, etc. Not good for meta-theory nonsense or whatever that is. I am not good for "new affs bad"- hard debate is good debate, sorry not sorry.
To be clear...I will never _ vote _ for_ an_ RVI. This is my hard rule. I will vote on other theory arguments, but not RVIs. I do not care that you had to answer T and other arguments in the same speech. I am not persuaded by the sob story of the 1AR time skew. With all the time you spend making an RVI, you could....idk...answer the arguments you claim you couldn't answer :) If you are neg, you don't even have to answer the RVI in front of me. That's how little I think of RVIs.
I don't know what it is with LD and unethical representations of evidence, but don't do it. No, you may not uses ellipsis in the middle of a card to leave out several pages of evidence in between the paragraphs you plan on reading.
Not the biggest fan of reading debate coach ev. You most certainly CANNOT read ev from your current coach. That's absurd and I just won't evaluate it.
Also, idk why this is a thing in LD, but if you're going to not flow and take time before CX to ask about which cards were/were not read, that's your prep time. If I can keep track of which cards were read, you can too.
STOP WITH THE UNDERVIEWS-- to be clear, I'm not referring to the cards at the bottom of your aff, I'm referring to the underviews you think you need to give at the end of your speech that rerun the speech you just gave. I don't need you to tell me again the things you just said. I was literally_right_ there.
I promise I'm not as grumpy as my paradigm makes me seem- I just hate cheating/prep stealing.
Any other questions can be asked before the round or email me.
Robin Stroud Paradigm
My name is Robin Mitchell Stroud and I'm primarily an LD judge for Norman High School in Norman, Oklahoma.
I didn't compete in high school debate, however, have earned four degrees (BA, MHR, MEd, PhD) and am very comfortable with argumentation in a competitive setting across a breadth of subjects. Educational areas of concentration include:
* Bachelor of Arts (psychology)
* Master of Human Relations (international/intercultural relations)
* Master of Education (foundations of education)
* Graduate certificate (women’s and gender studies), and
* Doctor of philosophy (educational gender studies; religion and education)
I am newer to judging in circuit/progressive tournaments, however, have experience and very much enjoy judging in traditional ones. See my preferences for each below.
PHILOSOPHY/FRAMEWORK: I enjoy philosophical/theoretical argumentation and value a strong and clear framework. Be explicit in how your contentions support your framing (when presenting your case and throughout the round).
ARGUMENTATION: Arguments shouldn't merely be repeated in rebuttals. Debaters who extend and develop them will do better in front of me as will debaters who clearly articulate and extend their warrants and impacts.
EVIDENCE: Please don't be repetitive with evidence. Repetitive evidence doesn’t equal more weight, and solid analytics can take out that kind of evidence. While evidence is good, please ensure that it's useful and efficient to your argumentation and soundly ties to your framing.
SPEAKER POINTS: Be respectful. Be confident. Engage with questions in CX. Signpost.
NOTE: If both debaters are okay with bringing circuit style argumentation and speed into a traditional round, I'm okay with it. Otherwise, I may not allow it or it won't weigh in my decision.
Aside from these, be sure to have fun!
PHILOSOPHY: I like and am most experienced with philosophical/theoretical argumentation and enjoy it best in a round. I am accustomed to weighing arguments under dense philosophical frameworks and can understand it if you do the same.
FRAMEWORK: I appreciate strong and clearly communicated framing. If I don't understand how the framing and argumentation engage in a round, I won’t vote on them so please make sure they are clear. While I am most familiar with a traditional structure, I am comfortable judging others. If you can explain your framing and properly weigh with it, I'm open to just about anything.
EVIDENCE: Please don't be repetitive with evidence. Repetitive evidence doesn’t equal more weight, and solid analytics can take out that kind of evidence. While evidence is good, please ensure that it is useful and efficient to your argumentation and soundly ties to the framing.
KRITIKS: I like a debate that is grounded in critical argumentation. I’m well versed in certain kinds of critical, feminist, pragmatist and theo/alogical theories, and am pretty comfortable voting on other kinds of critical arguments if they are explained well in the round.
POLICY: I'm okay with policy style arguments.
SPEED: I like to flow rounds and am generally fine with speed. Just be sure to slow down for tag lines so I can capture them correctly. If you’re going to spread at a super-fast speed, you'll need to flash your case to me.
SPEAKER POINTS: Be respectful. Be confident. Engage with questions in cross examination. Signpost. And again, if you spread, make the taglines clear.
T/THEORY: If you're going to run a T argument, you'll need to do a very good job explaining it and its impact on the round.
If you’re sharing documents, please add me to the chain: email@example.com.
Aside from these, be sure to have fun!
Julien Tagnon Paradigm
I debated HS VLD at Newman Smith High School in Carrollton.
Contact me at Paintballvet18@gmail.com if you have any questions. That is also the email for the chain.
Judging History: Here.
I give all the credit to the Honorable Lawrence Zhou for the spreadsheet.
The quick version for prefs:
I am willing to listen to any argument you make. Period. It’s not your job to be flexible, it’s mine. As Overing says on his paradigm, “"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."
That being said, every judge has preferences, and I’ll denote them in more detail below.
I view debate as a game. You either win or you lose (and that’s rather unfortunate because this activity was originally created to improve communication skills but oh well to that). I work hard to separate my personal opinions (either political or other) from the actual debate (an example of this is my current disdain for impeachment impacts in debates – cuz it’s not easy to convince me that you’re going to be able to change a 51-49 GOP senate to 67-33, but hey, go for it if you’d like).
Tech > Truth for the most part
Speaks (cuz it’s important):
LD: I start at 28 and move from there. I will reward strategy execution, clarity, efficiency and overall quality of debate. I will deduct for doing the opposite.
Sidebar: I am personally dedicated to making debate a more inclusive space for everyone. Outright sexism, racism, or any arguments that are inherently exclusionary are going to make me very angry. And I’ll likely say something about it after the debate.
Now that last note obviously doesn’t prevent two experienced debaters to start dishing it at each other (and I’ll be the first to say I love it when the sarcasm starts going but making people uncomfortable or feel unsafe is unacceptable. Please provided trigger warnings regardless of if you believe in them or not. I personally don’t but it helps inclusion so I’m all for it.
Sorta breaks down like this:
1. Gut feeling decision – i.e. if the round seems 100% obvious for me following the 2AR, I will take the path of least resistance and vote there
2. Separate RFDs for Aff and Neg – if the round requires actual evaluation, I will, similar to some other judges, write out a reasonable RFD for both sides. The winner will be the RFD that requires me to intervene the least.
3. Coin toss. I have yet to get to this stage, so don’t make me.
Post-round is for questions about strategical decisions. It’s not, IMO, for venting (albeit it sometimes get to that). Feel free to ask questions and I’ll do my best to answer them. If the answer is not satisfactory, I’m not against pressing further, but hostility is discouraged in every sense of the term.
I like me some plans and counterplans. Plans probably ought be topical and need solvency advocates. DAs need specific link args. CPs need to be competitive. PICs make me want to vote aff. Anyways, have it here.
Kritik debates are either fabulous or a mess. Often, when I label a K debate a "mess", it's likely that the debaters spent too long debating the ROB and not why the K comes first against the hypothetical implications of the 1AC. Functionally, it is my opinion that the alternative on the Kritik functions either in a pre-fiat or post-fiat world, and the 1NCs job is to clarify the advocacy in this sense. Horribly convoluted alts need to be explained in CX. If I can’t make an extrapolation after that, I’ll probably be frowning. I will pref specific link evidence vs pre-written general links (esp. if the general links don’t link). If in doubt, talk and weigh about the alt more.
Aff Ks make me happy. However, I’m still neutral on performance debate (i.e. Rutgers in the NDT), but I’m flexible.
Theory, in my mind, comes down to a story of competing interps. That means you need offense on theory to at least wash out the Theory debate or gain access to an RVI. Reasonability plays a key role in theory defense imo, cuz it'll make the certain "amount" of defense necessary to beat back theory go up or down depending on the shell.
Defaults: Competing Interps, Drop Args, RVIs justifiable
That being said, if you'd like to provide alternate definitions to anything provided above, warrant them out and explain them will in the round and roll from there.
If your team mandates non-disclosure, I suggest you strike me. That being said, I am much more willing to ignore disclosure theory against small school debaters that aren't on the wiki.
Tricks? I suppose. They will be evaluated along with everything else.
You'll be hard pressed to win an a priori in front of me, but hey, you do you.
What are your favorite kinds of debates?
Ones in which there are clash, where both debaters are fully involved to win and show a high proficiency in the understanding of the literature and material
What are your least favorite kinds of debates?
Are you OK with speed?
Do you think people would hire me if I wasn't? I'm good with about an 8 on a 10pt scale.
Are there arguments you don't want me to make?
Favorite football team?
The 5-time Super Bowl champions from the northeast.
If you were in Game of Thrones, which house would belong to?
Stark (Lannisters suck) :) Esp cuz my favorite character was killed off after just 9 episodes... :(
The one and only, Shawshank Redemption. A close second would be Schindler’s List. I have an emotional connection to that movie... I’m also a sucker for Up.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round. Or better yet, email me before the round and I'll answer the question before we start.
Good luck to all!
Nathan Thompson Paradigm
(there's always a chance I forgot to update here, so check the date on the wiki to make sure this paradigm is current)
Norman HS 14
University of Oklahoma 18
Updated 15 September 2018 sitting in the cafeteria before Greenhill round 1
I debated for Norman High School (OK) for four years, graduating in 2014. I qualified to NSDA Nationals my junior and senior year, breaking twice and placing 24th my junior year. I primarily debated in Oklahoma and did not have the resources to travel. I have worked at the UTNIF LD camp as an instructor in 2015, 2017, and 2018. I like email chains - firstname.lastname@example.org
- Speed is fine. I will clear you twice if I cannot understand you.
- THAT SAID, please do not fly through analytics or theory. I am decent at flowing but hardly amazing; if you hit the jets while reading a bunch of blipping theory args, I am going to get lost and miss stuff on the flow.
- I only vote on stuff I've successfully flowed.
- Indicate where your cards and arguments begin and end and slow down for authors and tags.
- Value and criterion are not necessary so long as you give me a way to decide the ballot.
- Label your framework arguments as what they are - I don't like tricky preempts or prestandards that become more than what they were in the constructive.
- I default to competing interps, although I find I've gotten friendlier to reasonability args over the years.
- I am probably not the judge to read a half-dozen theory shells in front of - you can do it if you think it's strategic or (obviously) to check abuse, but know that I might not like it if you overdo it.
- You must have absolute clarity on what your interpretation is, especially if the text that you give your opponent is different than the one you read in round.
- I will listen to potential abuse as an argument.
- I do not know what Nebel T is and am not about to learn now. If you read anything like that, don't expect me to know any overly-specific jargon.
- I will evaluate RVIs like anything else.
- I will evaluate 2AR RVIs in response to new 2NR theory.
- The RVI needs offense back to a counter-interp.
- CX checks abuse!
- CX checks abuse!
- CX checks abuse!
- That said, I'm not flowing CX, so don't lie about what's happening there after the fact...
- Don't lie or intentionally obscure your answers.
- I don't care whether you sit or stand, but be engaged.
- Flex prep is fine as long as it's agreed to by both debaters.
- I am not opposed to Ks, but I'm not super well-read on the literature base; make sure you're clearly explaining what your K means and does. Remember that there are scholars who study some of these K authors for literal decades to understand them properly; you can at least give a simplified explanation here. None of us are experts.
- Make sure your alt doesn't suck. I am not enthusiastic about voting on vague K alts that you can't explain to any level of detail.
- Have clear tags.
- Your K should still link to an ethical framework.
- New evidence should only respond directly to an objection to the original argument - do not post-date the original card and do not read new offense.
- Weighing is the difference between bad debate and decent debate. Please do it early and often. Explain your clash and interactions with their arguments.
- Give overviews in 2NR and 2AR that frame the round.
How to Get Good Speaks
- Weigh early and often through the round. Demonstrate how your arguments interact with others on the flow.
- Demonstrate a clear strategy and understanding of the importance of arguments on the flow. Don't just go for everything or straight down the flow.
- Collapse in the 2NR/2AR! It is not worth either of our time for you to go for everything every round.
- Be clear in CX. Good strategies needn't be disguised.
- Don't argue with me about my decision. I will dock you speaks.
If you are clear, I will probably give between a 28 (borderline) and 30 (perfect, you've done something laudable, or I learned something). If you are not clear, I will probably give you between a 26 and a 27.5. Any points lower than 26 will be for punitive reasons (overt aggression or rudeness, problematic, etc).
I think debate has a lot of potential for good, but it's going to take effort from both of us to ensure that it's reached. Ask me questions after round if you want. Just don't argue about the decision.
Adam Torson Paradigm
1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)
2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)
2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)
2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)
2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)
General Preferences and Decision Calculus
I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.
I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.
Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.
I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.
Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.
I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.
I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.
I will apply a higher threshold to random theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.
Tricks and Triggers
Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.
Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs
The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.
I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.
I default to the presumption that floating PIKs must be articulated as such in the NC. If it is not apparent that the kritik alternative allows you to also enact the affirmative advocacy, then I will regard this argument as a change of advocacy in the NR and disregard it as a new argument.
To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.
The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 90% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.
My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.
It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or pocket box that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.
I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:
30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.
29: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.
28: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.
27.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.
26: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.
25: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors
Below 25: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.
Rude or Unethical Actions
I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.
A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to both your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.
To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that s/he has clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.
I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.
Nigel Ward Paradigm
[Conflicts: Heritage, Oak Hall, Kamiak and Futures/Halstrom
Paradigmatic additions: FWK/T and Ks are arguments that have been in debate for a while now...get over it and win teh debate. If you expect a judge to stop the round after a debater reads a Shapiro or Patterson card...I'm not the judge for you and will probably laugh at you.
I go in to rounds as a blank slate, you should tell me how you want arguments treated/used("filter the debate through permutation etc.) This makes framing HUGE
I love a good T vs policy aff debate
I'm capitalist but think the Cap K is one of the most underrated and strategic positions.]
About me: Existentialist and Capitalist majoring in Finance, Intl Business and Arabic.
Don't be lay. Don't be boring. Don't be anti-semitic. Facts>Feelings. Tech>Truth (default).
"The infants in the graveyard smile widely without teeth, Carefully sewn in columns and rows, rotting little seeds...Raking tears from upturned eyes"
Ed Williams Paradigm
I will listen to most arguments. I have problems with most theory arguments in LD. Topicality is like the death penalty so I proceed with care. I understand policy arguments and kritiks. I flow most of the time. If you have questions about what I think about your arguments you should ask.
I believe debaters should be civil to each other. I would prefer that high school students not use foul language in debates.
I am ok with performance debates. I do believe the teams should engage the topic. If a team chooses not to engage the topic, then I will give the other team leeway to deal with the lack of engagement.
Reverse voting issues do not make sense in most instances.
I am ok with counterplans and disadvantages.
I will vote for the team that makes the most sense at the end of the debate.
Aurelia Williams Paradigm
Im currently studying philosophy at Loyola. I have a background in coaching, judging and debating LD, Public Forum, and Policy. I will listen to most arguments as long as I do not find them offensive. I prefer clarity over speed, that being said I am perfectly fine with speed. If I have to call clear more than three times I will stop flowing. Counter plans and theory arguments are fine as long as they are coherent, the same goes for K's. However, I rarely like to vote on theory arguments unless the violation is resolved by the ballot.
My email is: email@example.com
Walter Willis Paradigm
Lawrence Zhou Paradigm
University of Oklahoma '19
Bartlesville, OK '14
Affiliations: The Harker School
Conflicts: Apple Valley, Norman
Last updated: 1/22/2019 for Emory
Email for the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org (Yes, I want to be on the chain, if you don't put me on the chain, I just assume you haven't read the paradigm)
Any questions, just ask.
If it is right before the round, just look at the "Answers to Common Questions" section. If you are doing prefs before the tournament or have more time before the round, you should begin at the "Prefs Overview" section in my paradigm in full paradigm linked below.
Full Paradigm here.
See full paradigm
Answers to Common Questions
Q: Should I shake your hand?
Q: What's your paradigm?
A: ... the way I evaluate rounds? More specifically?
Q: Are you okay with speed?
A: If I wasn't, do you think anyone would hire me?
Q: What experience do you have as a judge?
A: Too much.
Q: Do you care if we stand/sit?
A: Nope, but it's better for you if you can stand
Q: Preference of seating?
Q: Will you yell clear/speed?
A: Yes, 2 times.
Q: Are you okay with theory?
A: I suppose.
Q: What do you default on theory?
A: Competing interps, drop the arg, RVIs fine, but need to be justified.
Q: How about policy arguments?
A: I suppose.
Q: What about kritiks?
A: I suppose.
Q: What about performance?
A: I suppose (see below)
Q: What if I read a blatantly non-topical aff?
A: Meh (see below)
Q: Are there any arguments you don't want me to make?
A: Yes, bad arguments. Again, I'll vote on them, but I'd rather not.
Q: Do you disclose speaks?
A: Not anymore
Q: What does it take to get the 30?
A: You probably won't get one, but knock my socks off and you'll get close.
Q: Should I pref this guy?
A: Good question.
Maggie Zollo Paradigm
I currently coach LD, PF, and CX at A&M Consolidated, and did LD at Northland Christian in high school. If you're here for PF, skip to the third paragraph.
As a debater, I read a lot of plans, DAs, and CPs and so I like listening to them, but I'm cool with other off case positions, too. When it comes to Ks, I would really appreciate it if the position was clearly explained (especially in terms of ROB/ROJ and the layer of the debate it functions on) and cleanly extended throughout the round, since I may not be as familiar with some of the literature (especially if you're reading pomo type stuff). I won't vote on any argument that tries to justify unjustifiable things (the Holocaust, slavery, other forms of oppression). If you need clarification on what that means, feel free to ask. If you're reading a process CP I'll be more receptive to perms/theory against it.
I would prefer that you don't read frivolous theory in front of me, it bums me out. I know my definition of that is different than others, so feel free to ask for clarification before the round. I'm open to listening to T, but I'd honestly prefer to not have it become the only layer in the round/the only thing I have to vote off of. Same with RVIs. Also, I find myself voting for K's a lot more often in TvsK debates, so my threshold for "non-topical" affs is probably more forgiving than some. I default to reasonability if it's a situation of potential or frivolous theory but will go with competing interps if you justify it, which isn't hard to do, so please take the extra 15 or so seconds to do so if that's what you want to go with. Also, extend voters and drop the debater arguments please. Condo is fine when limited to one (or two in CX) positions, but feel free to take the time to explain otherwise in either direction. I think conditional K's can be kind of bad perceptually depending on what the pre-fiat impact is if there is one, or if there's a performative/different method-based aspect to it.
You'll get high speaker points if you speak clearly, extend arguments, and weigh, and you'll get low speaker points if you're rude and/or offensive to anyone in the room (I listen to CX, too, so be civil during that), especially if you're debating someone clearly out of their depth and you're obviously winning but you decide to go about it obnoxiously, or if you speak particularly unclearly. In more competitive rounds aka at bid tournaments, speaks will be more likely to be based off of strategy. If you go all in on T or theory when you don't need to, for example, there's a chance I'll dock speaks. You can read as fast as you want, please just be clear. I'll ask you to be clearer a few times, but eventually I'll just have to try my best with guessing if you don't listen, and that isn't good for anyone. Also, for PF, the 2nd speaking team should cover part of the case in the rebuttal speech, terminal defense is fine to extend, and line by line is alright up until the summary, arguably the final focus. Don't go for everything, have solid issue selection since y'all don't get the best time constraints.
Feel free to ask for clarification on any of these points before the round, or ask any more questions that you think could apply to the debate. Thanks for reading this!
My email is email@example.com, I would love to be added to the email chain.