About Me - I have debated policy at Glenbrook South for three years.

**Please put me on the email chain - aaralis27@gmail.com

Top Level - If you don't flow, I will dock speaker points. Be nice to your opponents; debate should be an inclusive activity where everyone feels welcome. I will not vote on any offensive arguments.

Topicality - I think topicality can be a really convincing negative argument if done properly. You need to extend your impacts throughout the debate and explain why the world of debate under your interpretation is better than the aff's counterinterpretation. I think that the best aff arguments are based off aff ground and overlimiting, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Counterplans - I am fine with any type of counterplan as long as there is some sort of solvency advocate. The more specific to the aff the better. I think solvency deficits can be the weakest part of counterplans, especially ones that aren't specific to the aff, so be sure to address them thoroughly.

Theory - Theory debates are not my favorite, but if the negative team is being abusive, then you should go for theory. It is important to extend your impacts throughout the debate and explain how they ruined topic education and decimated ground. I think the limit for condo is three, but I can be convinced three is abusive.

Disadvantages - I'm a big fan of disadvantages. I prefer there to be specific links. I think the aff team should extend some type of offense on the disadvantage because its hard to win there is a low risk of a disadvantage with defense only. That being said, impact calculus is the most important part for both the aff and neg.

Kritiks - These are not the type of debates I like to judge. Other than the Capitalism K, I am not familiar with kritiks. This means if you go for a kritik, you really need to explain to me which part of the aff you disagree with and why that is bad. Specific links are a must and a link of omission is not a link. I tend to lean aff on framework, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Final Thoughts - With all this being said, you should run whatever you feel comfortable with and whatever your style is. The most important thing is to have fun!

Freshman debater @ Wake Forest. Debated @ Glenbrook South for 4 years.

I'm pretty much good for anything, not as familiar with critical literature but that doesn't mean I won't vote on it, you just need to be clear.

I don't know topic jargon - please be clear with terminology.

email: alexwakedebate@gmail.com

I am a policy debater at GBN, class of 2020. I have judged a good amount of novice and JV debates.

My advice: Flow. Tech over truth (this doesn't mean I like dumb arguments). Be respectful and confident. Usually, the team that better understands and explains their argument wins.

I will vote on any argument, but here are my preferences:

DA or case turn plus case or advantage CP is my favorite.

I like creative arguments and focus on internal link stories rather than impact calculus.

I like topic generics and agenda politics. I'm not a fan of agent, elections, or base das.

I also like T debates.

I err against Ks, condo, process CPs (every CP that interacts with or results in the resolution), soft left framing, and aspec.

Ask me any questions. I give a ton of feedback after rounds or through email.

Have fun!

UPDATE FOR TOC 2024

a.bhaijidebate(at)gmail.com

gbsdebatelovesdocs(at)gmail.com

**please add both emails to the chain!**

Aasiyah (ah-see-yuh) Bhaiji (by-jee)

any pronouns (pls don't call me judge)

Debated for GBS 2016-2019, qualified to the TOC my third year and was awarded the JW Patterson Fellowship as a member of the graduating class of 2020. I do not debate in college.

I’ve judged around 30 debates on the fiscal redistribution topic. Most of my work related to debate is with Chicago Debates, where I help to build and maintain programs.

SHORT VERSION

"Do your thing, so long as you enjoy the thing you do. My favorite debates to watch are between debaters who demonstrate a nuanced understanding of their literature bases and seem to enjoy the scholarship they choose to engage in...I think judging is a privilege."-Maddie Pieropan.

I flow as much as my fingers will allow me. Slow down on the important parts and always remember clarity should be prioritized over speed.

LONG VERSION

Debate as an activity loses all value when debaters do not consider that there has to be a reason why a team deserves the ballot. I try my hardest to stick to my flow and rely heavily on judge instruction as to how I will write my ballot. YOU DO NOT WANT ME TO CONNECT THE DOTS FOR YOU.

I appreciate debaters who are passionate, excited, and well-prepared. The best debaters I’ve witnessed throughout the years have been the ones who show kindness and respect towards their partners and opponents. I am not a fan of teams that openly mock, belittle, and disrespect the people they are debating.

Clarity is key and seems to be a lost art. I mostly flow by ear and will not catch what you are saying if you blast through your analytics. Please slow down and do not start at 100% speed at the top of your speech.

Planless Affirmatives

I like planless affirmatives, but you absolutely need to defend the choices and explanations you give in early cross-exes. I need to know what your version of debate looks like, and I am finding that most teams aren’t willing to defend a solid interpretation, which makes it hard for me to vote for them.

Please stick to an interpretation once you’ve read it. Clash debates with affs that are centered around the resolution are fun, and I find myself in the back of those debates most of the time.

CPs

I do not default to judge kick; you have to give me instructions. What does it mean to sufficiently frame something? I am so serious. I have been asking this question for what seems like forever now.

I miss advantage counterplans, and I am a less-than-ideal judge for Process CPs (I'm not saying I won’t vote for them, it might do you well to spend a couple more seconds on process cps good in the block).

Solvency advocates are good but not always necessary.

DAs

Zero risk of the DA is super real; sometimes you might not even need a card for it!

DAs as case turns will inevitably end up on the same flow, so please just tell me where to flow things earlier on in the debate.

Ks

Biiig fan of 'em.

“Kritiks that rely entirely on winning through framework tricks are miserable. If I am not skeptical of the aff's ability to solve their internal links or the alt's ability to solve them, then I am unlikely to vote negative.”-AJ Byrne

If you cannot explain your alternative using a vocabulary a 7th grader can understand, you are likely using language and debate jargon that I find counterintuitive and, quite frankly, boring.

T

Why are we putting this as the first off? I will most likely miss the interpretation if you are speeding through it.

FW

Fairness is an internal link, clash is good and I personally think that more teams should be going for portable skills.

I am not good for “our interpretation is better for small schools”.

Other things:

1. If I could implement the no more than 5 off rule, I would.Obviously against new affirmatives, the circumstances are different, but I firmly believe that everything in the 1NC should be a viable option for the 2NR.
2. DISCLOSURE IS GOOD!I will try my hardest to be in the room for when it happens and I am not afraid to check teams wikis to see their disclosure practices. If you post round docs and show before I give you my decision, you will be rewarded.
3. I am super expressive, and you will be able to tell if I am vibing with whatever you are saying. I do have a very prominent RBF. Don’t take it personally; it means I am trying to get everything down.
4. Fine with tag-team but have found myself becoming frustrated when one debater from a team dominates all of cx. I do think that all debaters should speak at some point during cross-ex.
5. CX as prep is only justified when there is a new aff or if you are maverick.
6. The 1AC should be sent out at the scheduled round start time, the only exception is if the tournament is behind schedule and Tab has alerted everyone of the timing change.

More things I have thought about in regards to debate but aren’t wholly necessary to pre-round prep.

1. There is a difference between speaking up and yelling, I do not do well with debaters talking over their partners.

2. STOP HIDING ASPEC ON YOUR FLOWS, say it with your CHEST.

3. I LOVE good case debating, and I get sad when the block treats it as an afterthought.

4. I had no idea teams gained the ability to remember every single thing their opponent said. FLOW! PLEASE!

5. Why are we reading the tier 3 argument against planless affirmatives.... let's start using our critical thinking skills

6. Rehighlighting evidence is a lost art. Bring it back for 2024

7. Clipping is bad, don't do it. I will clear you twice, and after that, I will stop flowing. If there is a recording of you clipping, it's an auto loss and a talk with your coach

8. I flow straight down (primarily because of sloppy line-by-line); the more organized your speeches are, the happier I am.

9. DRINK WATER

10. I do not care if you put a single card in the body of the email chain.

11. Have fun and let the games begin!

Debated Maine East H.S. 2009 -2012, Coach/Judge 2012 -

Debate is an educational game where everything in debate is debatable i.e. should I prefer tech over truth, do I need a plan text. Be nice to each other, try your best and have fun. Prefer debates were debaters are challenged to think in new ways. Do not be deterred from going for any argument because of what you read here. I’m open to listening to and voting for any argument even debates about what debate should be i.e. k of debate. Just because I stated that I will listen to / vote on / prefer something does not mean that it is an automatic win. If I do not understand something I will not vote on it.

Has been said in many different ways by many different individuals: debating / coaching for a school without many resources and understanding the experiences of similar schools competing against schools who are well resourced, I tend to be sympathetic to arguments based on inequities in policy debate. I will default to a policy maker but am open to other ways of deciding the ballot. I will go off the flow and will try not to intervene, however I might default to my opinions below (which are not concrete).

I will vote for the least complex way to sign the ballot. Explaining your arguments / ideas and keeping the debate organized by road mapping, sign posting, and line by line are key and will help your speaker points. Other things that are key and help to explain / frame the debate are: overviews with impact clac, turns case/da arguments, framing of arguments and the debate, impacting out arguments, and in-depth analysis of arguments. Likewise, overall analysis and framing of evidence / arguments / warrants / qualifications / the round, is key. “Even if” statements will help with speaker points and to frame an argument. Do not assume that I know an argument, author, or specific terms. Analytics, defensive arguments (even without your own evidence) are able to reduce any argument/evidence to zero risk or close to it. If I do not understand a part of the argument or it is not explained/major gaps in your logic I will be less likely to vote on it, even if it is dropped. Explain to me why you should win the round and what this means for both you and your opponent’s arguments. Speed is ok but need to clear. Do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Emailing speeches does not count as prep time as long as it is reasonable and send it all in one doc. Have cites available after the round. I will vote down teams/dock speaker points for rudeness, racist, sexism, unethical, offensive and unacceptable arguments / behavior.

Look at / debate / answer the actual warrants (or lack thereof) in the cards not what the card is tagged as. Comparing evidence / qualifications with explanations as to whose is better helps me to evaluate an argument (even just reading evidence and pointing out its inconsistency is great (will help your speaker points)) and is something that I find is missing in a lot of debates. If their evidence is bad point it out. I will read evidence if call for or if I believe there is an issue with it.

Cross x – Tag Team is fine if both teams are ok with it. Overtaking your partner’s cross-x might result in lower speaker points. Be sure to carry cross-x into the rest of the debate. If you indicted a piece of evidence or proved that an argument does not work, say so in your speech.

Theory – Just like any other argument dropping theory is not an auto-win. If a part of the theory is not explained well enough or the other team points out that it is not explained or missing, I will be less inclined to vote for it. Will vote on all types of theory, but need to explain the theory, in-round abuse (why what they did was bad), voters, fairness, education, impacts and why I should either reject the argument or the other team. Do not just re-read your blocks. The more specific the theory is to the argument / abuse / voters / round, the better.

Topicality – Overviews help. Tend to lean affirmative (Neg has the burden) unless there is a clear: violation / definition, bright line between topical and untopical, impacts for allowing the affirmative and others like it to be topical and in-round / potential (prefer in-round) abuse. Will default to competing interpretations. Explanation on all parts of the flow are key i.e. definition, bright line, topical version of the affirmative, case lists, reasons to reject the team (in-round and potential abuse), standards, ground, limits, voters, fairness, education, and impacts. Reasonability, clash / lit checks, race to bottom, etc. are able to reduce the chance of voting on topically. Will vote on aspec / other spec arguments however, need to show abuse in-round.

Speaker points – My range is 27.8- 28.5, this does not mean that I will not go above a 28.5. The road to better speaker points is in this philosophy i.e. know your arguments, be clear, do line by line, point out inconsistency in arguments and evidence, extend / explain / compare warrants and or qualifications (or lack thereof), road map, sign post, impact clac, frame the debate and the other things that are listed in the various sections.

Plan text / Counterplan text – Should be written down. Check how they are written. Will vote on plan flaws and counterplans that change the plan text with a net benefit.

Affirmative – Two things are key: good overviews with impact clac and in-depth case analysis.

Counterplan – Use overviews. Make sure that there is a clear net benefit and/or solvency deficit.

Disads/advantages – Good overviews with turns case /da along with impact analysis/clac where opponent’s impacts/arguments are considered. Disad links should be clear and specific to the case. All types of turns (link, impact and straight) are also a good idea.

K–Explain. Have a general idea on the basic k, not a k hack, but will vote on them (including k of debate arguments / debates about what debate should be). The k needs to be specifically explained not just in terms of what the idea of the k is, but what is the framework, link (the more specific and clearer the better), impact and alterative (not only what the alterative does but how its solves the k and plan’s impact (i.e. root cause) and what does the world of the alterative looks like). A good overview of the k and framework helps a lot. The affirmative should always question the alterative.

K affirmatives and framework - Will vote on k affirmative and k of debate arguments / debates about what debate should be. Needs to be a clear role of the ballot and clear reason why your version of debate is better. Totally fine with looking at images, listening to music, narratives, stories and other things. Debates are more interesting when: the neg does not just read framework / k but engages with the affirmative and the affirmative k the negative positions through the lens of the affirmative. Framework and disads to framework have to be explained, show how your interpretation of debate solve or root causes the other side’s impacts, impacted out fairness and education, have analysis to show which style of debate is the best and show why the affirmative or argument should be or not be in debate.

Hi! I'm Maggie, and I debate for New Trier.

Please put me on the email chain: maggiecao.nt@gmail.com Thanks!

Run anything you'd like! Show me you know what you're talking about, make good comparative claims, and engage with the other team's arguments. If you do it well, I'll be happy to vote on it. Do what you do best!

That being said, please also show respect in the round. We're here because we love debate, so please don't be rude or put anyone down. Show respect for the people, and show respect for the activity!

I'm all about creating good habits here, so...

- if you found my paradigm, kudos to you! Show me, and I'll give you +0.1 speaker points.

- at the end of the round, if you show me a good, organized flow, that's +0.2 speaks (but make sure you're not too absorbed in flowing that you lose sight of the round... I have a funny story about that -- ask me about it!)

- shake your opponents' hands at the end of the round and you can get a high five and/or a sticker from me :)

Tips in general...

- make sure you understand your own argument. You're much better off with CP + DA strats that you can explain to me in the context of the AFF than crazy K's or T interps that YOU can't even wrap your head around. I've ran my fair share of those args, but help us all out here -- if you are solely surviving off of pre-made 2nc/1nr blocks I'll be much less inclined to vote for it than things you can explain in your own words. Obviously, if you're a pro at Ks and deep-literature arguments, go for it!

- I default to reasonability. Sorry, I'm a 2A! Unless the AFF is something egregiously untopical, why can't we just let it go and carry on with the debate? Of course, I can be persuaded otherwise... it's up to you!

- the only voters are T and condo. Run as many theory args as you want, but let's be honest, most of them are cheaty anyways. If you can beat the team on the substance of the argument, why waste your time poking at their argumentation? Even though I say condo is a voter, it's honestly not until we get into the 3 or 4+ k/cp range. Again, I can be persuaded otherwise... you tell me!

- "now what?" What does this mean for us after this round ends? We all know that me voting AFF or NEG doesn't really do anything in the real world, but the things we learn are things that follow us beyond the round. So show me what we can all learn from my decision! K-specific: Explain to me how my decision would change how we approach policy-making in the future. T-specific: Explain to me how my decision would impact future debate rounds.

- I <3 clash. No one likes a debate where the two opposing sides never contest to each other's arguments. This is commonly referred to as "two ships passing in the night." That's no bueno! How am I supposed to evaluate your arguments if YOU don't even evaluate them? Good line-by-line, evidence comparison, and impact calc help a lot!

About speaker points...

1. be nice (not just to your opponents, but your partner too!)

2. be clear and/or organized

3. *be fast* (pro tip: speaking drills are your friend!)

4. **be funny** (call me crazy but I love puns!)

These things need to happen in order. I don't care if you can go 500 wpm, if I can't understand you, that means nothing to me. Likewise, you can make jokes, but if it's at the expense of someone in the round, then don't expect anything more than a 25 :/ Do these things well, and I'll be happy to award high 29's or even a 30! :)

Yup, that's all I have to say! Do what you do best and be compassionate and respectful, and we'll have a great time!

Good luck and let's have some fun!!

email: wesleychen121@gmail.com

I go to uchicago and debated at gbn. My philosophy is that persuasion is the most important aspect of debate, so I must believe in the correctness of your argument to feel comfortable voting for it. Consequently, I value evidence/explanation quality extremely highly and I might be more interventionist than the average judge. Obviously I'll try to divorce myself from pre-existing beliefs (e.g. warming good/bad, econ growth good/bad, etc.) but I will apply logic to your arguments and determine if they are plausible. The reason I say this is because there is a proliferation of arguments that are constructed via stringing together unrelated cards and filling in the blanks with explanation. An example is if you read the politics disad, you must have a card saying that x thing happens for y reason, the plan causes y reason to not happen, and that x thing is good. Otherwise, I will not consider it a logically complete argument and won't evaluate it as a reason to reject the aff. Please debate with arguments rather than tricks.

Preferred 2nrs

1. Disad/turn

2. CP based strat

3. Kritik

4. Topicality

I always prefer arguments that relate to the real world over arguments that depend upon the structure of debate to work.

Theory

Make sure your impacts are tied to differences between conceptions of debate (e.g. time skew isn't persuasive because it arises under any conception). Condo is the only voter but rejecting an argument can result in the ballot (e.g. if the neg only goes for a PIC and the aff wins PICs bad, rejecting the PIC is an aff ballot).

Counterplan

The best answer to the counterplan is a solvency deficit. Besides PICs, I like multi-plank advantage counterplans where any plank can be kicked the most.

Kritik

Kritiks must demonstrate causality. Not persuaded by most procedurals. Not going to evaluate arguments about things debaters/coaches/schools have done out of round because the ballot isn't a corrective for that.

Disad

Most disads are logically incomplete. I'm fine for weird turns but the probability debate becomes important, which includes author qualifications and plausibility.

Topicality

Topicality is a good strategy and necessary for debate to function. You shouldn't be afraid to make topicality the a-strat in front of me. You should frame your impacts/internal links through the lens of predictability.

Please explain why you are reading a TVA vs. a planless aff because I don’t understand how it's a useful argument in that context. Framework is a good strategy and probably the only one that you can go for unless you know how the aff will respond to your position.

Impact Framing

I find the following persuasive:
1. Death is bad

2. Util is the only way to compare impacts (although what’s “good” is debatable)

3. Probabilistic predictions are possible

4. Consequences matter

Speaking

Don’t waste time, but I'm not a self-righteous asshole who hates small-talk. Technical debate comes first but rhetoric decides who's right. Ad-hominems, saying that the other team's args are bad, hyping up your/your partner's speech, etc. are neither arguments nor persuasive. Hiding stuff in other shells makes me want to vote against you. Racism and sexism are auto-drops. If you make a claim that the other team is racist/sexist, I will stop the round, determine if you are correct, and act on that determination.

If you make a reference to Scotty P's blog or Lincoln Garrett's blog I will view you in a better light.

Sup. I'm pretty chill

Sure, email chain titandebater8@gmail.com

Some things about myself. I have debated at Glenbrook South High School for 4 years. I look like I am a high school freshman, however, I can assure you that I am a Senior!

Top Level: In any debate round I judge I am mostly a Tech v. Truth judge. That being said, if the other team drops an important argument you must point it out AND explain why the dropped argument matters for my decision, not just that they dropped it. I prefer DAs and CPs over Kritikal arguments however, if you can clearly explain your alternative, and if the K makes sense to me you have a good chance at the ballot. I was pretty policy-oriented throughout my debate career, but that doesn't mean I will totally vote down the K.

Affirmatives: I prefer affs that defend the resolution and advocate for the USFG. You and your partner being the advocacy is not my favorite when it comes to affs. That being said Soft Left, and Hard stick right-leaning affs with big impacts are both ok. In the context of a planless aff, I am very familiar with a T debate, but you should be able to defend and explain your interpretation of the role of the ballot, as well as impact out the round as to why not engaging the USFG or the resolution is bad.

Disads: DA v. Case debates are fun when impacted out well and use of good LBL. When you just tell me your impact o/w because they do isn't a good enough reason for me to vote on them. For a Disad, you should be able to explain the link story as well as how your internal links reach your impacts.

Kritiks: I was pretty policy in my time debating at GBS. I know the basics so when it comes to Cap, Security, Militarism, I'll be fine. However, if you decide to read something fancy or tricky, a good explanation is always crucial not only for me as you judge but also for the other team. To be able to properly engage your opponent is crucial and that's what makes clash so important.

Topicality: If an aff is truly not topical, AND if you properly impact out T then you will win the round. That being said, you should be able to defend your interpretation as well as debate a c/i. Furthermore, if the aff drops T and the neg extends it and points it out with an impact, I will defer to Tech. v. Truth in the round.

Theory: If there is any abuse in round and you properly point it out with a clear explanation, I will vote on it. That being said, Tech v. Truth still applies here. Always explain your violation and why its a voter.

Technical Things: You should always be flowing, if you don't flow and or care about your round, how do you think I am going to react as I have to sit and evaluate what you present to me. Time your own speeches and prep, but I will still keep the main time. If you steal prep and I catch you I will dock speaks, so don't steal prep.

Remember, Debate is a technical game that has a winner and a loser. Please be respectful to both me and your opponents. This activity means a lot to me, so you should be respectful as to not put down or even have someone quit debate. This is without saying, but if you are disrespectful you'll see it in your speaks, and comments, no matter if you won or lost.

former 2a at new trier. soft-left policy affs heavy on framing (gender/sexuality/colonialism) and various policy + some k things on the neg. yes email chain, josielewing(at)gmail(dot)com.

I know very little about the topic.

please(!) make the debate clear (both in speech & content), your speeches organized, and your tags de-thesaurusized. i have a low tolerance for intentionally confusing arguments and overly complicated language (excessive legal/theory jargon that goes undefined). organized speeches are instinctively persuasive & enjoyable. especially important for wacky impact turns.

ks: aff specific scholarship and/or plan links are best. I like neg arguments that the aff is a process and product of scholarship and aff arguments about aff solvency being a justification of scholarship.

k affs: in the absence of a plan text I prefer a contestable advocacy statement. the aff should do something rather than explaining what it shouldn't do (i.e. 8 min impact turn to framework). I hold k-affs to the same standard of solvency explanation as policy affs.

framework: debate is a game but its rules aren't carved in stone. treat framework like any other argument rather than a moral battle with right/wrong answers--- plans aren't key to climate change & and framework is not literal violence. I'm persuaded by clash impacts and leveraging structural aff claims (aff true = fwrk prolly not true). aff teams need strong answers to switch-side & TVAs.

t/theory: cps that compete off of "should" are rather offensive. i prefer perm to theory debates. i enjoy reasonability when explained as a reason why precision/accuracy/predictability outweighs limits/ground.

framing: make these debates content-specific. "util bad/good" by itself is lazy and unpersuasive.

niles west '19

University of Michigan '24

she/her

put me on email chain - nadia.f427@gmail.com

last update: January 2021

if you have any additional questions please email or ask me

background!

I debated competitively at Niles West for 4 years. I was a 2a/1n for most of my career but was a 2n/1a for a couple of months. I was a policy debater in high school, but my partner and I did go for the k often. I received a bid to the toc and have been in many bid rounds. I don't know the topic at all.

aff!

Explain your aff to me with a clear story. Use your impacts and extend them throughout the debate, I love impact debates. I really like it when teams use their aff to answer off case positions and make cross applications in the 2ac.

neg!

My main thing is to have applicable arguments against the aff, I don't like arbitrary off case that are just 1nc fillers. I am fine with reading as many off as you want, but I hate big a 1nc that is just to spread the 2ac thin. If you have a big 1nc at least have a strategy that goes along with it. I don't like huge neg blocks, but I get it sometimes.

cp!

Love love counterplan debates, but I am picky. Advantage counterplans are my favorite and I will be very happy with a smart one, but giant adv multiplank cp without a real solvency advocate are ehhh. Process cp are good IF competitive, so please have a clear cp competition debate if that is your strat. Please don't forget the net benefit debate though! I think net benefits are a huge part of the cp debate. I lean aff on cp theory.

k!

I am not a good judge for the k. Please extra explain things for me, I do not know all of your k jargon. Keep the debate clean and have a real link/impact.

t!

I love a good T debate. I am not super knowledgeable on the arms sales topic so please explain your interps for me. I lean aff on reasonability. I don't like aspec, sorry. Impacts to your standards are super important to me.

da!

DA and case debates are awesome. I am tech over truth, except when it is too true. Love love turns case and case turns da arguments!

k aff!

I don't love k affs. I am better for k affs with some topic relevance and think those are the more strategic. I am neg leaning on fw, but I will vote for aff cause tech over truth. Please explain your aff to me because the chances of me understanding your aff are very low.

theory!

I love condo debates and think 2-3 condo worlds are ok. I am down to hear any theory debates, but they need to be full arguments and not fake small theory arguments. Either go all-in on theory or not at all.

speaks!

Don't clip and be nice and respectful to not only me but especially to your opponents! If you say anything racist, sexist, or hateful I will vote you down and give minimum speaks. Please have a subject line clarifying the tournament and round on your email chains! Other than that, just be clear & smart and you are good. If you know me then you know what jokes to make to help your speaks.

she/her

please add jfrese016@gmail.com to the email chain

I am a coach at Washburn Highschool where I have been working since 2021.

I debater for a total of 6 years before I decided to stop debating. 4 were in high school at Glenbrook South and 2 at the University of Minnesota. I have qualified for the TOC once and the NDT twice

updated for Blake

TLDR

I don't really have much to say in this paradigm I have previously had long paradigms that explained my view of each argument, but, I dont think that provided anything useful because the way you debate is a stylistic choice and I don't think judges should have a preference on what styles they vote for. It is my job as a judge to evaluate the flow and vote for which ever team I think wins the round. I will vote for any argument (excluding arguments that make the debate space harmful as I won't ignore my role is as an educator).

Ks--i really like these they are useful education that should be discussed in the debate space. I will vote on framework because I think the debate about framework is a useful conversation to have (how should our engagement with debate operate is a useful question and one that I really like).

Policy--this is the style i debated. i really like these I don't know if there is much more to say. I mean DAs, Ts, CPs, Turns, all are good.

Condo--I think that condo is fine but Ill vote for condo bad even against 1 condo if you win it.

If u want to read my full views of debate they are here

My experience is one mainly as debating policy, however, my more recent experience coaching have left me more focused on critical arguments, mainly the cap k and set col while also adding in a role as an educator inside of the space. I don't think that it should be up to the judges to determine the stylistic decisions they vote on it should be the argumentation. That said I won't vote for arguments that make the debate space harmful.

Kritiks

I typically think of kritiks as coming in a couple forms. One that focuses a criticism on the framework of debate or one that focuses more on an alternative. These are both very strong and I understand the strategic choice of keeping routes open, but, by the end of the debate I think that having the time to spend constructing a specific route is more sucessful than trying to keep all options open. It is much more persuasive if all the arguments you chose to go for use a similar foundation. This is extremely useful because if you spent so much time winning framework it will make certain case arguments, certain links better.

If you are debating against a kritik what helped me was trying to identify the route the neg's k takes and having a plan for each of these avenues. I think it really depends on the aff, but there are a few strategies against Ks. By strategies I mean what is the focus of the 2ar win on, because you should still have everything covered as much as it needs to.

-Perm, no-link--it is important to have a net benefit to the perm which can be alt fails, cede the ptx, the advantage, ect.

-Framework, extinction outweighs, alt fails--it is important to think through the implication of you winning framework. There are some Ks where they will just lose while other Ks have strong alts and impacts.

CPs

I am a fan of CPs. I don’t really have any leaning way I believe. I think theory typically isn’t the best strategy not because I won’t vote on it but unless the CP is really cheating then it typically is just easier for the neg to defend theory.

This is where I spent a lot of my time in debate doing coming up with cps.

DAs

I love DAs. The bad ones the good ones whatever da you want. I feel like this isn’t controversial.

T

I am a very good judge for T if you are ready on the tech level. I will peetty easially pull the trigger on less viable T violations if you are just ahead. I really like the focus being put on the implications of how debate would work.

This is also where I spent most of my time debating

Email: dylan.goldberg2@gmail.com

Put me on the email chain.

I debated for four years at Glenbrook South, where my partner and I almost exclusively ran policy centric arguments. While I always vote off the flow, that policy focus is certainly going to influence how I decide debates.

Counterplan and disad debates are the area I feel most comfortable, given that I have the most experience in those areas. For disads, the links is the most important part of the debate, and generally the hardest to win. I'll vote on contrived politics disads, though it's going to be harder to convince me of something that's absurd than a more well thought out topic relevant disad.

Critical debate is an area I feel a lot less comfortable in, though if that's what your good at, just know to explain concepts a little bit more. I'll listen to anything, though if you run a critique I don't understand it will be a lot more difficult for me to decide in favor of it. If you're aff against a K, I generally find impact turns to be more persuasive than link defense, though as always keep that within reason (I will never evaluate racism good).

T vs. Policy aff's: I was never the best T debater, though that doesn't mean I won't evaluate the argument. I find reasonability to be fairly persuasive, though if there's enough limits offense

T vs. Planless aff's: Coming from a policy background, I generally find argument refinement or fairness to be persuasive, but that doesn't mean I won't vote off the flow. If you can't defend why fairness should be a prior question, don't expect my policy bias to change how I vote.

Be nice, be respectful, and have fun. Debate's an amazing activity, enjoy it.

Please put me on the email chain:

alannagoldstein16@gmail.com

Currently New Trier '19

Quick Notes

Debate is supposed to be a fun activity, while ultimately debate is a competition, please recognize the other values of the debate community. Be respectful to your opponents and work as a team in round with your partner.

Case

I think the case debate is heavily underutilized. I'm a fan of a well-developed case strategy. I enjoy hearing impact turns and specific circumvention arguments. While I tend to prefer soft left affs, a well-explained big stick debate will still go well.

T

I think many of T args are a great strategy given this year's topic. I find T versus affs that adjust status, are temporary, or give nonimmigrant visas persuasive. I can be persuaded for T humanitarian but am more aff-leaning on this question. Some T args like eliminate or USCIS are probably not worth it to run. Don't force me to intervene - have clear explanations in your final rebuttals on how you want me to evaluate the debate.

DA

I am willing to vote on most das, however if the da has poor quality evidence and the aff team is able to point the internal link flaws in the da can be taken down to zero risk. I would avoid running any rider das (I find them questionable) or xenophobic das (terror, opop, etc.) Both teams need to include turns case and strong impact calc.

CP

Be careful with your plan texts - aff teams should take advantage of any solvency deficits here (since neg teams often mess up with cp texts). I'm not a huge fan of theoretically questionable cps like process cps, agent cps, etc, however I can persuaded to vote neg on theory if debated well. I think cps are most legitimate when there are specific solvency advocates.

K

Don't assume I know the k, the neg has the burden to not just rely upon jargon. Aff teams should pay attention to k tricks (floating piks, fiat illusory, etc.) and use theory to not let the neg team get away with more than they should. I would say I am more of the middle of the road so both sides should prioritize framework. I tend to think neg teams need to defend an alt, but the burden of plan focus/rhetoric/etc. is to be debated.

Speaks

26-26.9 - offensive

27-27.9 - key strategic misunderstanding of the arguments going on in the round

28-28.9 - solid debating

29-30 - probably a top speaker

I tend to find speaks as overvalued by debaters so don't over-stress. It's more important to learn and practice than to get top speaks. I do think speaker points are subject to a lot of bias within debate (sexism, homophobia, racism, etc.) so I tend to give higher speaks.

David Griffith

Coach at New Trier

Debated at Oak Park River Forest and the University of Kentucky

Add griffithd2002@gmail.com and jordandi505@gmail.com to the chain.

If you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about Kentucky, please feel free to ask me via email or at tournaments. I also (most likely) have Kentucky Debate stickers on me at any given tournament, so if you want one, let me know.

The following is the only information that you must know. The rest of this paradigm is just organized ramblings that may or may not be helpful.

Conditionality is good---I will vote neg if the 2AR is only condo. This is neither a prediction nor a challenge. It is a threat. Every other theory argument is fair game (including yes/no judge kick), but I will never punish the neg for advocacies that the 2NR does not extend.

Organization is more important than style or substance---if you are unclear, refuse to number, do not signpost, make arguments in long, intricately worded paragraphs, or fly through analytics at a million miles an hour, I will miss arguments. I will never use the speech doc to fill in holes because debate is communication activity. If I miss an argument, that is on you because debate is a speech activity, not a reading contest. I always try to make it obvious that I am not able to follow you through both verbal and non-verbal cues.

I have very few argumentative preferences---other than my hatred of theory, I hold very few predispositions when it comes to arguments informed by evidence of any kind, whether that be cards, personal experience, or something else. The only thing I must know by the end of the debate is why you should win. Put another way, I value execution more than substance. I do not read very many cards. I do not assign arbitrary importance to single lines not impacted out in final rebuttals.

How do you get the decision you want from me?

Tell me what to do in every place possible---robust judge instruction is the only way to avoid catastrophic judge intervention. Rather than force the judge to find the win for them, the best debaters tell the judge both why they win and the other team loses. This is aided by a clear, cohesive, and consistent narrative through the debate. Final rebuttals should clearly explain the implication of winning your most important arguments, particularly relative to the other team's arguments. Doing so will result in a faster, clearer decision and better speaker points. I only read cards when it is absolutely required because of a dispute over evidence quality, qualifications, etc. I do not read cards to fill in gaps on my flow.

Explain the implication of technically concessions---the bar I use for this is that I have to be able to explain to the other team what the implication was of them dropping a certain argument. Often teams will assert that things like "turns case" are dropped but won't say what this means or what the argument even is. If you truly believe something is conceded and important enough to jump up and down about, you are leaving me to my own devices to figure out the extent to which that argument matters. The most often reason that I sit on elim panels is because I, right or wrong, often have a different understanding of technically conceded arguments than the other judges. The way to avoid this is by arguing concessions as if the other team will win full risk of every other argument and explaining why I still vote for you (this means arguing conceded links as if the other team wins link defense to the other links, theory as if the CP is better than the plan, or rollback as if the aff wins solvency). Otherwise, relative risk could come back to bite you.

What can you do change about your debating to maximize your chances of winning?

Complain about new arguments more than usual---the bar is on the floor. I think new 1AR arguments have gotten out of hand. If the block informs me of its deliberate choice not to make certain arguments because of 2AC errors/concessions/to avoid new 1AR arguments, I am very likely to obey 2NR judge instruction to ignore whatever new 1AR nonsense occurs. For example, if the 2AC says "perm do both" but does not explain why it solves the net benefit, the negative does not have to answer it. Further, if the 1AR then explains why it shields, the 2NR can just say the explanation was new. For the aff side, I willing to entertain the idea that the 1NR does not get new impacts to the DA (or even give the 1AR add-ons in response). Just call these things out when you see them, and the debate will become much simpler.

Don't pander---as much as being pandered to boosts my ego, I would much rather see people do what they're comfortable with. Debating with personality and confidence is infinitely more likely to boost your chances of winning than your argument selection. Debate is a persuasive activity, and I would be lying if I said it was possible to sever presentation from technical debating. If you debate your best, everything in this paradigm, including my stylistic preferences, go away.

Make complete arguments, and refuse to answer incomplete ones---it is not the 12-off 1NC that makes me angry, it is the 2AC that treats each off-case equally. If the 1NC doesn't even try to read a link, the 2AC does not have to say no link because fully conceding every other component of the DA doesn't matter unless if the link is zero. If the 1NC reads a link to a different aff, you should only say "no link" in the 2AC. If the 1NC doesn't say the CP solves the case, the 2AC does not have to say it doesn't unless you are afraid that once explained, the 1AR will have to overcompensate. I consistently see 2ACs that will accurately assess that a 1NC position was incomplete and then spend an inordinate amount of time outcarding the 1NC. This will make me second-guess whether the 1NC applied because it tells me that you take the argument seriously. Stop doing that.

How should I approach debates involving planless affirmatives?

Shallow debating will favor the neg---I find that teams will often repeat lines of argumentation that they assume to be true without explaining them. For neg teams, this is oftentimes asserting that fairness is an impact without any of the explanation required to prove such a claim, and for aff teams, this usually looks like asserting some structural problem with debate and/or the topic without explaining why that problem exists/why the aff solves it. This is where my bias comes in: because I am more familiar with the neg side of things, when underdeveloped, I am more likely to intervene for the negative simply by virtue of the fact that I have only been aff in these debates like 4 times roughly 6 years ago, and I do not have as much of an intuitive grasp on how the aff arguments apply to the neg ones as I do of the inverse.

You don't need to adapt---I'm agnostic towards both the "best impact" to framework and the "best" way to answer it. I don't view framework debates as distinct from anything else and try my best to maintain the same conventions of judging that I do in every other debate.

Focus on internal links---what I mean by this is that teams seldom disagree with one another about whether debate has some value. The question that each team should try to answer in front of me is how we can maximize debate's value wherever it exists. A good portion of the final rebuttal needs to be dedicated to explaining why the model that you have forwarded does that better than the other team's can. This may just boil down to "do impact comparison," but I find that framework debates are more engaging to watch and easier to evaluate when teams explicitly focus on comparison as opposed to making large, structural claims and trying to get me to connect the dots for them.

What should you know in debates where the neg goes for the K against a policy aff?

Vagueness will favor the aff---I'm a terrible judge for teams that rely on dropped tricks in order to win, especially if those tricks are vague assertions of "serial policy failure" or "ontology" or "root cause" without tailored application to the aff. I'm a great judge for nuanced link debating, competing ethical frameworks, and alternatives oriented towards changing the world in some capacity rather than simply explaining it.

Very good for the link turn and perm---I would much prefer to judge link turn/perm debates than whatever you'd call buzzword-laden 2ARs about utilitarianism. I often find myself questioning why alternatives solve link arguments. If you read a 1AC full of pre-empts, I strongly prefer you go for those rather than gesturing at the world being complex and saying the case is true as an abstraction.

Here is a list of thoughts related to counterplans.

Judge kick is my default, I guess?---does this even matter in the year of our lord 2024, where no one goes for "links to the net benefit" and very few teams have full-throated defenses of permutations against anything but the slimiest of process junk? If no one tells me to kick the counterplan, I guess I'll kick it, but I'm a very easy sell on the argument that I shouldn't.

I need to understand CP solvency---I do not presume that a CP solves the case in the same way that I do not presume the 1AC reading a plan text automatically means it solves its advantages. The 2AC cannot drop CP solvency if CP solvency is not argued by the 1NC. The same is true for the 1AR if the 2NC does not explain the CP. The neg burden here is not unreasonable, but I have seen enough decisions hinging on this issue recently that I feel the need to say this explicitly.

Not great in complex competition debates---these tend to be the debates that go over my head the most. I find myself voting neg a lot just because of technical concessions and a lack of 2AR judge instruction inviting intervention based on my general neg bias. Moreover, I am not intimately familiar with the inner workings of functionally and textually non-severance partially-but-sometimes-fully intrinsic permutations, and I require extra hand-holding in the 2NR/2AR on that particular issue.

Impacts matter---solvency deficits need connections to them. "Delay" and "certainty" only matter if the aff has a short-term impact that requires certainty. If I can't explain what impact that is, the deficit doesn't matter.

Theory ideally justifies a perm, not a ballot---I can see myself voting on most theory arguments. I don't love these debates most of the time, but I get it, cutting cards about CPs is hard work. I prefer that theoretical objections to CPs are phrased as justifications for competition, as those debates seem much less arbitrary than the latest flavor of "X CP is bad because it solves the case." That being said, this really only applies to process CPs, so I understand the utility of a theory 2AR in every other situation.

Will I vote on T against a policy aff!

Absolutely---some of the best debates I've watched, judged, and have participated in involved T. Good T speeches earn very high speaker points. I don't really care what the T argument is as long as you explain it compellingly.

What is plan in a vacuum?---seriously, someone tell me. How do you interpret the plan in a vacuum? The 1AC read evidence that informs what the plan means. This is why the aff can go for solvency deficits against CPs and nuanced no link arguments against DAs. To me, it seems untenable to suggest that the evidence the 1AC used to define plan function should be ignored when deciding topicality. This is not to say that plan in a vacuum is completely unwinnable in front me. Rather, I am not a fan of writing vague plan texts that lack a clear mandate, reading a 1AC that defends potentially untopical action, and then going for plan in a vacuum as if the 1AC deliberately read an advantage/solvency cards about something the plan didn't do.

Predictability matters vastly more than anything else---I think that the more precise or predictable an interpretation is, the less it matters how good its limits are on the topic in a vacuum. If a "bad" definition is more precise or predictable, limits are solely a reason we should've written the resolution better. This also means that I believe that precision is possible. Certain people in debate have convinced themselves that one definition cannot be more "precise" than another. Tell that to a lexicographer, and they will laugh in your face. This is what T debates should be all about. While I agree that "random court definition" is not a desirable model, there is always a debate to be had over the applicability over those "random court definitions," and the case facts, context of the definition, and outcome of the opinion certainly are relevant when reading the resolution. In past debates with insufficient impact calculus in the 2NR/2AR, I have intervened in favor of the team that more convincingly articulates predictability as an internal link because of this view.

The aff should go for reasonability---this is the ultimate conclusion to my disdain for limits. Most neg impacts to T can be taken out easily enough that offense about substance crowd-out can outweigh them.

What if I have the misfortune of needing to go for the status quo?

This is where I am the most neg biased---I am better than average for believing the world is better now than it is post-plan. I'm generally bad for structural uniqueness arguments if there's adequate link debating by the neg, and I am such a sucker for case defense that even weak DAs end up doing enough for me to win.

Evidence quality matters---this is in the DAs section of the paradigm because it is where it matters most. Far too often, teams read lots of bad cards that gesture at vague economic concepts for a few rebuttals, tell me to read the cards, and then don't look alarmed when I conclude that the cards sucked. Debates over bad evidence result in more intervention, particularly when that evidence is under-explained by the 2NR/2AR. This means that if you're going for the status quo with a DA that doesn't have the best evidence, you cannot afford to let your cards do the debating for you.

Thumpers are boring and cowardly---mostly applies to politics on this topic. "There are other bills in Congress" is not a link nor a uniqueness answer to the politics DA. You have to explain why your thumper implicates the DA or is not priced in by the neg reading a uniqueness card.

Be smart---I am not a particularly smart person but know one when I see one. Smart arguments as an alternative to getting lost in the cards will not only increase your chances of winning, but it will also boost your speaker points. Knowing stuff about the world is really cool.

How can I get better speaker points?

Be yourself---the worst form of overadapting is when serious people try to be funny or funny people try to be serious. I love debaters with personality and reward them with speaker points much more than I do anything else. Show me you want to be there, and you'll be fine.

Any thoughts on impact turns?

Impact framing matters more than impact defense---I am more than willing to pull the trigger on impact framing even with unmitigated impacts from the other side. I am not averse to stomaching a nuclear war if animals come first or risking the heat death of the universe if future generations don't matter. I think people care too much about impact defense in this debates when it rarely matters. Invest more time in explaining how I should decide the debate than assuming I can follow the implication of every technical drop exactly how you envision I shoudl.

I have no thoughts on the substance of impact turns---everything is fair game. It is virtually impossible to get me to toss an impact turn without substantive refutation. If you can't explain why spark or wipeout or warming good is incorrect, you deserve to lose because the majority of impact turns are academically ridiculous and/or philosophically inconsistent.

Why is your paradigm so long?

I like reading long paradigms when I am bored. I put a lot of care into judging and like to learn about how people think, so I try to make my paradigm reflect both of these values. Plus, I judge enough debates to be guaranteed an audience, so I might as well take advantage of it.

I also think paradigms are mostly unhelpful (this extends to my own). The best way to learn how a judge thinks is to have them judge you and to ask questions after the debate. Most judges, myself included, don't really know how they judge debates until they're in them. The length of this paradigm reflects a series of observations that, if adhered to, would make it easier to predict how I would vote.

I struggle to get rid of parts of my paradigm. I update it whenever I'm bored because that is what spending a long time on debate will do to your brain. As a debater, I hate paradigms that don't provide helpful information about why a judge thinks the way that they do. I figure that having a long paradigm is the best way to avoid being unhelpful, because the more information I include, the clearer my thinking should be to the people I am judging. It also forces me to adhere to the procedures I explain, theoretically resulting in more consistent decisions over time.

For LD.

Strike me if you go for tricks and/or theory. Do not take me high if you don't read and defend a plan. I have read some philosophy and have a decent understanding of much of what is read in LD, but I do not intuitively understand how some of it applies to debate, so I may need more explanation than the normal LD judge would for some of the more complex stuff (think: the more premises in your logic equation, the more explanation I need to understand why your argument is sound).

Matthew Heublein

Debated for Glenbrook South High School for 4 years (2016-2020)

Attending Northern Illinois University -- Majoring in Political Science and Minoring in Philosophy

2N for 3 years, 2A for 1 year

Email for chains: mattyheublein@gmail.com

A friend of mine recently told me that I should change my paradigm to describe how I think within debate rounds rather than what arguments I am comfortable with so I'll do my best to describe that here:

Notes for Michigan 2020

Please be slower -- I know it isnt to your benefit but I'd rather you be clear than have me not knowing what you said because tech makes things indistinguishable

Always add me to the chain (its above)

Limited tech time at the beginning if need be -- try to be prompt

If its clear that you know your stuff by sounding confident virtually, youre probs getting higher speaks

TOP LEVEL

I will evaluate any debate with the least amount of intervention possible under the idea of "who has done the better debating" using whatever guidelines the debaters set up for me.

AFF v K

I've read into a lot of different literature bases so I most likely will be able to keep up with whatever argument you choose to defend. If I had a preference for how you should debate the K, I think that you should avoid a massive overview with the impact work and spend more time on the link debate and explaining your impacts there instead. Debating framework in front of me is a must win if you are trying to win the K, and the more in depth you get about how I should evaluate each argument, the better off you'll be. Framework "moot the aff" doesn't normally sit too well with me (I do think the AFF should have something to weigh against a competitive alternative), but if you are killing it on the tech level, I will be convinced. Explain the alt and how it would be implemented (it makes it easier on everyone so just do it). Floating PIKs are fine with me; fiat is illusory args have never sat well with me but if you win them on a technical level, Ill vote for you.

Kritikal AFFs v Topicality

If I do find myself in these debates, I can be persuaded in either direction (although I lean towards T). To be completely honest, I do think there is a lot of aspects within T arguments that are persuasive against K AFFs. Most impact level analysis arguments will be more persuasive in my mind if coupled with a reasonable way to hedge back the aff offense. Arguments about "our aff is important" can easily be won by the neg if you are winning TVA or Switch Side. Case debate must be won if you are trying to win T. Other than any of that, I will vote either way based on who debated better.

Thoughts on DA

The more specific your link is, the more likely I vote neg.

Impact out your args compared to that of the aff -- teams that do this better will most likely swing my risk assessment in their favor

Thoughts on CP

Competition is important

Permutations must be explained -- if there isn't a picture of how advocacies would interact, then I will not simply just vote on "Perm do both." That also means that you should have somewhat of that description in the 2AC.

Taken from Val McIntosh because I couldn't agree more -- I think that CPs should have to be policy actions. I think this is most fair and reciprocal with what the affirmative does. I think that fiating indefinite personal decisions or actions/non-actions by policymakers that are not enshrined in policy is an unfair abuse of fiat that I do not think the negative should get access to. For example: the CP to have Trump decide not to withdraw from NAFTA is not legitimate, while the CP to have Trump announce that a policy that he will not withdraw from NAFTA would be.

Thoughts on T

Competing Interps are good

Limits are good. That is all.

Thoughts on theory

I will pretty much evaluate anything here as long as you impact it out and refute their warrants for offense/defense on the violations

Thoughts on evidence

In the wise words of DHeidt "Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified."

If you misrepresent or clip evidence, you lose.

Other Random Thoughts

If your aff doesn't have a solvency advocate, I will have a hard time buying a deficit on an neg advocacy because I probs will have a hard time thinking you met your burden of proof against your opponents args.

Give me pen time please

Extra .5 speaks if you insert a card from a GBS FH aff at the bottom of the doc.

Meme about GBS HR SPARK debates and you're also getting boosted speaks.

send speeches to declanhkj@gmail.com

Put me on the email chain: janice0914@gmail.com

top level:

do what you do best.

i will only vote on an argument if I can explain it to the other team.

please make sure that you speak clearly, so that I can flow your arguments.

time your own prep and speeches.

tech> truth

be respectful, don't make rude or offensive arguments, do line-by-line, flow, impact calc, signpost, be organized, and we'll all have a good time!!!!

counterplans:

sure. agent cps, pics, advantage cps are all great.

disads:

make sure to explain the specific link story.

**not a big fan of aspec, ospec, (insert letter)spec.

kritiks:

also fine, but you need to explain the k on a thesis level as well as how it interacts with the aff. k-affs: ehh.

Fourth year debater at New Trier. Feel free to refer to me as judge, Maggie, whatever.

My email is margklindebate@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

Feel free to ask me any questions before round or in email form about this paradigm and I will try to respond to you as quickly as possible. If you have a question about a technicality (i.e., what is judge-kick?)— you may also ask me those questions before round or through email.

bold = tl;dr most important things

General Things:

Before anything else, run what you like. I would like to see good debating. If you’re reading some K your varsity gave you that you have no idea what you’re doing with because you think it fits my paradigm, stop.

This is a very long and specific paradigm. That is for the sake of debaters who want to supplement/tailor arguments to the round. These are NOT standards by which I toss or pick winning arguments, they’re insubstantial biases that come into play when I thought both sides debated too equally to otherwise decide.

If you are offensive in any way to any person w/i or outside the debate, I will dock your speaker points massively.

Please do not attempt to get an advantage in any questionable ways, including: being a suck-up to the judge, deliberately making speech docs confusing, etc. It’s not cute

Also, new thought: if you are a male-female partnership and you decide to constantly speak over your female partner even when she's doing okay explaining things I will tell you to screw off in the middle of round, give you a 25, and will not be inclined to vote in your favor in the case of close debating. K thx

Good luck!

General Argumentation:

• I won't cross-apply/judge-kick, etc for you unless you tell me to. If you make an argument on the DA that’s an obvious reason why the perm can’t happen, you’re still going to have to go to the perm and say “cross apply — from the DA.”
• If your cards don’t say what you say they say, I generally disregard your argument.
• My facial expressions are fairly readable. If I look like I’m confused, I probably am. More explanation please.
• Open CX is fine. But please try to keep it to a minimum.
• If you happen to be crazy fast for a novice, slow down on the analytics/space them out.
• If any novice actually says in the 2NR that they’ll tell me what my ballot will look like and proceeds to ACTUALLY CLEARLY TELL ME WHY THEY WON MY BALLOT, automatic 30 points.

T:

• I’m not a huge fan of T but will absolutely vote on it.
• My usual problem with T lies within really cheaty and unreasonable interpretations; if you read the interpretation that arms sales is only Ukraine, I’m going to be really skeptical and you’re going to have to do some pretty good “prefer it” work to get me to vote on it.
• Please give me a stasis point. Otherwise I probably default that you’re shifting the goalposts. If you give me a caselist I will give you speaker points.
• Given equal debating, I tend aff on T.

Theory:

• I’m pretty good for framework against a planless aff (because apparently novices are reading those?); the aff should not just win that their k is NOT abusive, but also that there’s some offensive reason why it is good. Aff’s likelihood to win T also increases if they are tied to the topic of the year instead of just some generic Baudrillard crap.
• I tend to buy that debate is a game. But I believe that argument can be counteracted by well-explained and reasonable in-round impacts, i.e. the ballot is a tool to get us to more debates to spread our education.
• No one has good blocks for ASPEC, OSPEC, ZSPEC, etc. If I ever see a good debate on random-letter-SPEC, I… don’t know what to say. I don’t think I’m qualified to judge that kind of debater.
• I think condo is a little unnecessary if the Neg is reading like three off but will vote on it.
• Given equal debating, I tend neutral on theory.

K:

• If it’s top ten hits of policy oriented teams trying to garner kritikal offense (Security! Setcol!) I probably know what it is. If not, please explain it.
• Explain your alt to me and why it solves!! If I don’t know what we’re doing to solve capitalism, I’m much less likely to vote neg. I also tend to go aff on the likelihood that just pedagogy doesn’t work. With me, you’re probably better off reading a “grassroots movements” alt than “we create a pedagogy against capitalism.” Pedagogy is fine too if well-argued.
• LINK WORK. If you do not prove to me that the aff will lead to some perpetuation of what you critique, I tend to think the perm probably solves. If not properly addressed by the aff, I will vote on omission/our-epistemology-is-an-independent-voter links but I think a good K should always have a better link than “you didn’t talk about capitalism lol.”
• Aff-wise I, again, love good perm debates! I think if the aff team addresses the links well and also extends their perm then they're already pretty set to win.
• If you lose framework, I don’t think it’s the end of the world. Yes I will weigh the aff, but I will also weigh the K. UNLESS the aff wins role of the judge, ballot, etc— I default to who tells me clearly how to place my ballot.
• Given equal debating, I tend neutral on the K.

DA:

• Almost as good as counterplan debates.
• Obviously the more specific the link is, the better— having a good specific link is a great way to also get ahead on uniqueness from the very beginning of the debate (i.e., no thumpers)
• I like “turns the aff” debates where the aff turns the DA back— these are particularly interesting and convincing to me if either team does some real work!!
• Given equal debating, I tend neg on DAs.

CP:

• I LOVE a good CP. However, super generic, copy-and-paste the plan text CPs bore me. I’ll vote on them, but I much prefer a counterplan that references a specific alternate process through which the aff can be enacted without much solvency deficit/even better.
• I think if the aff wins on the net benefit they usually automatically win, but I also think if the neg wins on the net benefit they can generally outweigh a little solvency deficit.
• I tend aff on PIC or other “cheaty” CP theory unless the actor you’re consulting/process you’re adding is well contextualized and specific to the aff.
• Aff-wise, I’m most impressed by specific, well-explained, and card-supported perms.
• Given equal debating, I tend neg on CPs.

Case:

• The aff should know their case inside and out and properly contextualize it in every debate. Case on top ALWAYS. I want to hear about why I should vote for the one advocacy that this whole round should revolve around.
• The less the neg answers case, the less likely I am to vote for them. If you don't have a case neg, please contextualize your offcase to the aff.
• Given equal debating, I tend aff on case.

Speaker Points Disclaimer:

28-30 unless you're blatantly problematic (you don't care and your partner writes all your speeches, you're racist/homophobic/sexist, you treat the other team like crap and laugh or something during their speeches, etc.)

If you read this far and you’re a novice, I’m impressed. Some stuff for speaker points:

• Show me your GOOD flow and I will give you +0.2.
• If you make a FUNNY joke about a debater or coach from New Trier/that I know, I will add +0.1 to your speaker points.

please be nice :) email: lorloh2@nilesk12.org

I am cool with pretty much every argument.

Neg:

I love topicality & theory.

Aff:

Extend your advantages throughout the debate. I will vote on perms.

*Bonus points if you can make me laugh lol*

Hello! My name is Maja (pronounced like Maya) Markovic, I am a debater at Glenbrook South Highschool and am currently a senior.

I am not a fan at all of K's (especially at the novice level). DO NOT read one if you are not well versed, I typically vote down teams that run K's but OBVIOUSLY if you debate the K correctly I will vote you up.

Spreading: Y'all are novices and I do not expect you to be amazing speakers. Speak at a pace you are comfortable at and at a pace where I can understand you. It helps no one out when you are stumbling and I can not flow the debate. Take into consideration that I am the judge and I am the one who must understand (and the other team). If you go too fast to the point where I can not understand you (ie. stuttering, mumbling, talking softly, not being clear in tags vs evidence) I will drop my pen and stop flowing.

Please be kind to one another and enjoy the debate.

Daniel Melero

Solorio '20

UIUC '24

danielmelero97@gmail.com

Have not judged during the current topic. Approach debates as such.

DA and CP probably the best strat

Make sure to extend your arguments well and utilize warrants in your cards.

Make sure you have turns Case/DA analysis.

Kritiks need to be explained very well as I am not the best but I will try my hardest.

Tech over truth.

Time yourselves

Clarity is key

Have fun!

Sarosh Nagar

Glenbrook North '20 / Harvard '24

Please put me on the email chain: snagardebate@gmail.com

Top-level note: I was a pretty active debater for most of high school and did attend the TOC, so I am familiar with most debate lingo. However, for your topic-specific terminology, I may not be as familiar, so please do explain any acronyms/key terms well if you use them in the debate.

I will vote on any argument with the exception of arguments such as racism good, sexism good, etc. These args clearly don't have a place within the debate space, but you do you otherwise.

For the novices reading this paradigm: Welcome to debate! You've entered a fantastic, semi-stressful, and enjoyable community of people who share many of your interests. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round if you need assistance, or for any clarifications after the round.

Top Level;

--- Flow - for the novices I'm judging, this is particularly important.

--- Clarity first - This means both in terms of spreading and clearly explaining arguments and their implications. I will not do any work for either side.

--- Line by line is important and please do it in a coherent order so it is easy to flow you all.

--- I don't like reading ev, but I will probably end up doing it - I will only do if it is the card is flagged by a debater or the content of the card is being represented differently for both teams. If there is an insufficient amount of line by line/lack of clash on a flow, reading cards mean you've effectively put the round into my hands, which is not a place you want to be.

--- Zero risk is a thing, but it must be overwhelmingly well-debated.

--- Smart analytics > bad cards/args - if the frontpage headline this morning will take out the DA but you don't have a card, the analytic might be the best way to go if debated well. I would hope to reward out-of-round prior knowledge about the world.

--- I will try to protect the 2NR from 2AR newness, but 2NR should be explicit about this.

--- Tech > truth.

--- tag team is ok, but don't dominate your partner.

Case

Affs seriously go around reading the most illogical, irrational internal links ever (I know I'm guilty of this as well).

Neg teams should exploit these weaknesses to whittle down the case substantially.

Aff teams should attempt to explain this illogical internal links clearly and tell a coherent story; it will make my life easier when I'm thinking about it at the end of the round.

Good case debates = nice speaker points

DAs

I love them. Have a specific link or link contextualization, a logical internal link also helps, and aff specific turns case arguments go a long way towards winning the debate when combined with proper case mitigation.

Politics DAs are a personal favorite as well so don't be afraid to go for them in front of me.

For the aff, the internal links are probably silly and most DAs are non-unique so I advise that you should point out the logical flaws in arguments and make them a central part of the final rebuttals.

Counterplans

My favorite CPs are PICs and intelligent multiplank advantage CPs, but I'm good with almost all types of counterplans being run.

I do generally think fiat should be certain and immediate, but I am open to a different interpretation based on how it is debated.

I'll go either way on judge kick.

I'm a 2N so I might lean a little neg on theory, but a smart aff team can flip me to vote for them easily.

If going for theory as a reason to reject the team, please explain why rejecting the arg won't solve or I'll just reject the arg.

When aff, please impact out your deficits or links to the net-benefit args. I think the 1AR is the best spot to do this.

Topicality

**READ THE NOTE ABOVE

Topicality can go either way. I won't lean aff or neg instinctively.

I feel compelled to think that legal precision outweighs limits, but limits outweigh everything else. However, if you think some other impacts is compelling for you, go for it.

FW/T-USFG

I won't reject all nontraditional affirmatives and will vote aff if they outdebate the neg.

However, I'd appreciate the aff giving me a model of debate and clearly (simplistic explanations are always better) explain DAs to FW. I do not like cheapshot args that the 2AC makes in a blip to mess with the 2N, so if I did vote for you on that args your speaks will not be pretty.

I generally think skills offense is best vs. identity affs and fairness vs. high-theory Baudrillard nonsense but you do you.

also, i'm not super nice to debate bad args. Debate is a valuable, time-intensive, and reflective activity and because hoofd said serious online video games might be bad does not mean I will.

Ks

I will vote for them. Some of these debates can be hyper-nuanced and interesting to listen to.

For a K to get my ballot, please do the following:

--- a well-explained thesis level claim about the 1AC

--- specific link work to the aff

--- explain how the alt and !s interact with all of the 1AC and how the alt solves the link

--- If you kick the alt, explain how FW/other things provide uniqueness for the link

I'd ask you refrain from using a lot of jargon; I might get it and maybe you might, but if the other team can't clearly explain and answer your args the debate will be a lot worse and your speaks will reflect that.

When aff vs. K, the 1AR should have chosen when perm/no link or case outweighs/alt-fails is the route they'll be going, though generally soft-left affs go for the perm (albeit the links on this topic are very good) and hard-right affs should go for case-outweighs/alt-fails.

Speaks

29.5-30 --- Well done. You will be a good jv/varsity debate and should be top 5 speakers.

29-29.5 --- Nice job. You've mastered the skills of novices and need a few more nuanced. Should be top ten speaker.

28.5-29 - Keep going! You've gained a sufficient grasp of fundamental debate skills, but have a little more to work on.

28-28.5 - At least you tried! You need to gain a better grasp of fundamental debate skills as a novice.

27 and lower --- you were offensive, mean, rude, and generally not fun to watch

Jokes about the following people will improve your speak points: anybody from GBN, GBS, OPRF, or other people I would know.

Jokes about me that are good will increase your speaks by +.3. Jokes about me that are bad will just make me like you less. (jk)

"The plan is the ultimate betrayal" - + .3

"It's gg for the negative" - +.2

Not wearing shoes: -.3

Just remember --- have fun, enjoy debate, and if you have any questions feel free to email me.

Email: alyssanekk@gmail.com

I'm a current sophomore studying International Relations and Data Science at William & Mary.

I went to Glenbrook North High School and debated for four years.

Debate should be fun!!

Some things about me:

I debated for Niles North from 2015-2019. I'm attending St. Olaf with a double major in Political Science and Women and Gender Studies on a Pre-Law track.

I went to NDI two years in the Sophomore and top policy lab and UMmich 7 week K lab my senior year.

My email is hgniederman@gmail.com.

Please add me to any email chain and email me after round if you have questions.

If you are unclear on any of this paradigm's contents feel free to ask for clarification before round if there is time.

Overall things:

1. If there is any rudeness in the round that makes the debaters or myself uncomfortable I will either dock the speaks of the person or team participating in rudeness or even stop the round/issue a warning.

2. There's a difference between being competitive and cheating. Things like messing with the format of your speech docs to make them difficult to understand, being distracting during the other team's prep or speeches, or cutting people off unnecessarily will make me most likely dock your speaks or just be annoyed.

3. Please don't call me judge, call me Hannah.

4. Please don't shake my hand after round.

5. Making jokes, having strong ethos, being confident, being interesting to listen to and easy to flow will make me impressed and more likely to swing your way when I'm deciding speaks or the round overall. Also please speak loudly.

6. Racism, sexism, misogyny, or another unacceptable language is not tolerated.

7. Please try to refrain from using language that includes slurs, descriptions of sexual assault, or descriptions of suicide. Use warnings/ask for permission before doing this if you think your arguments fall into this category.

8. Flow!!! The only time you don't have to flow is if you are the 1n and it's during the 2nc.

9. Please keep time for your speeches and prep. If you want me to time prep for you I can, but you have to ask.

10. ** For novices ** Debate, especially in novice, is about fun and learning, not about being ruthless. Remember that!!!

How I debated:

In my four years as a debater, I solidly considered myself a flex debater. My range of argumentation went from the topic CP's and DA's of the year to reading an Autoethnography Settler Colonialism aff for part of my senior year. Take all this with a grain of salt however.

Argument Specific Things:

T- I will vote on T if you extend it properly with a good interpretation and a reasonable view of the topic. However, if an aff is clearly topical then don't try to make more work for yourself by going for T. You must define your scope of the topic and impact out your limits arguments in order to have the easiest time winning on T. T is not my favorite thing to watch a round on however. Also if you are incredibly fast, please don't read T args at full speed.

DA- Impact calc and explanations of the world of the DA are incredibly important. I cannot evaluate a DA that is not extended in its entirety (UQ, L, IL, !) and properly weighed against the aff.

Case- I love a solid case debate, especially one that incorporates good line by line. I am a 2A, so I always think aff teams should treat case like their baby and spend a reasonable amount of time extending all necessary parts of their aff in all of their speeches. I cannot vote on impacts that do not have an explanation attached to them (ie. if you say warming is the biggest impact in the round but don't explain how your aff is connected to this, you cannot win that you reasonably solve it). Please put both cards and line by line on case in any 2AC's and 2NC's.

CP's- I'm not a huge fan of PIC's or cheaty counterplans. I'm definitely here for a good CP debate if the neg puts in work. For the aff, focus on explaining the world of the perm and any solvency deficits, plus anything else you deem important.

K's- I love K's and watching/judging/debating in K rounds. I'm open to basically any K if you explain it well enough (especially if it uses lots of not common jargon). Please have a reasonable alt and a good link to the aff. HOWEVER I would warn that I don't vote for death good. I do love identity args and solid topic K's, so keep that in mind if that's your jam.

@novices, congrats on knowing what a paradigm is! The first team to say 'Nick Remish is a voter for deterrence,' either during or before the round, gets an extra 0.1 speaks per person.

Onto the actual paradigm:

Tech > truth, insofar as you as a debater can tell me how I should evaluate arguments. If there's a key question in the debate that's not answered by either side, I have to then answer it myself to resolve the debate, and the only way to do this fairly is by defaulting to truth. Honestly, that's not just me; pretty much every single judge will engage in some truth over tech when debaters can't resolve every argument.

The easiest way for you to lay the debate out for me is to go down the line-by-line. That means you directly engage the other team's arguments in the order they were presented, which requires **FLOWING**. Once you have the hand of that, especially in novice rounds, you should be in control of everything.

One mini-thing:

-Tag team cross-ex is fine. But it does look bad if your partner takes your entire cross-ex.

rujuta.debate@gmail.com

BACKGROUND:

gbn '20 & dartmouth '24

rounds judged on the 23-24 fiscal redistribution topic - 3. be SO clear when using acronyms or explaining concepts to me because I do not know this topic.

TOP LEVEL:

- tech over truth/personal opinion unless your argument is egregiously offensive - an argument is a claim, warrant, and an impact

- not good for k affs, ok for ks with das inside of them, good for almost everything else

- condo is probably the only reason to reject the team

- i won't vote on things that happened outside of the round. i won't assign speaker points based on in-round deals.

- i believe that my role as a judge includes the responsibility to maintain debate as a safe space for participants (especially given that most high schools are minors) and i will act accordingly in response to sexism/homophobia/racism etc.

- everything below is a personal opinion that i will contradict in my ballot if you win the flow

POLICY AFFS: framing pages have never had any relevance in any debate ive judged

T: i care a lot about evidence quality and comparison in these debates

DAs: do whatever

CPs: good for adv cps and legitimate, well-researched pics, meh for cheaty cps. i won't judge kick unless i'm told to

IMPACT TURNS: love them except for wipeout and spark - more ridiculous impact scenarios are entertaining but not compelling

K AFFS: for me to vote for your k aff you should at minimum have a connection to the topic. i refuse to adjudicate a decision in which my ballot is a referendum on identity or a survival strategy. EVERYONE IN THESE DEBATES NEEDS TO SLOW DOWN - if you choose to spam analytics without sending them I can’t catch your 20 counter interps or your 20 DAs to those counter interps.

FOR THE NEG:

- @ t/fw teams: fairness is probably an internal link not an impact but i can be convinced otherwise. i prefer limits and clash as impacts.

- neg teams that execute a well-prepared, aff-specific strategy (a pic with a small net benefit, an aff specific k...) against a k aff will get 29.5+ in speaks. i find these debates far more interesting than framework debates BUT i've found that im more likely to vote neg on fw (this information is probably not helpful sorry)

Ks: the closer your k is to a da or impact turn with a cp THAT ACTUALLY SOLVES the better it will go for you. dont read high theory.

THEORY: personally not a fan of cheaty cps but i'll listen to them. new affs warrant neg terrorism.

email: picklara4@gmail.com

- she/her

Glenbrook North '20

Northwestern University '24 (not debating)

- name chain logically (pls include name round and turney)

-- Novices/JV: if you follow my labeling advice for docs I will give you +0.1 speaks

-- if you can, pls send your analytics so I can flow better - if helps me and you, I promise

- clarity > speed (especially when online), seriously go slower or I will probably miss much of what you're saying

- impact everything out!

- no hateful language, don't clip, don't steal prep, death is not good, etc

- tech>truth (within moderation)

-- if I don't understand any part of what you said, that means you did not sufficiently explain your arguments

-- if you want me to flow every word of your analytics, send them in the chain

- Novices: don't read condo if there's only one counterplan or kritik (one advocacy)

- its probably fair to assume I'm not particularly well-versed in your kritik (especially if high theory) and need more explanation to fully understand your arguments. Be mindful of

- not read up on this topic so be sure to explain arguments fully

UMW '24

GBN '20

He/Him

Email: Nickremo2@gmail.com - please put me on the chain.

Given that both my high school and college lean heavily on the policy side of the spectrum, I similarly am a very policy-oriented judge.

For the water topic, I am not particularly familiar with the topic but I will try my best to understand everything.

Please flow

Don't steal prep

I place a high value on evidence but will only critique it if one side calls it out. I will not intervene after the round if neither side has emphasized the evidence quality.

Here are my general stances for different arguments:

Case

I love a good case debate, especially impact turns. I believe most affs don't solve their impacts BUT it is the burden on the negative to explain why. Internal link defense is much more convincing than impact defense.

Soft left affs are good with me. They're definitely more true, but I think 2As poorly develop the framing page. The more specific the framing evidence is to the aff, the more latitude I will give the aff. Additionally, applying framing arguments to disads (conjunction fallacy is a good example) make said arguments infinitely more appealing.

T

As someone who read very tiny and marginally topical affs at best in High School, I do lean affirmative but can be easily persuaded by the negative. Specifically, I think ground is the best internal link to education/fairness claims as I find limits for the sake of limits generally unpersuasive. If the neg can win the aff's interpretation justifies a category of affs that are impossible to answer that uniquely skirt neg ground, I can easily find myself voting neg in these instances.

DA

They're awesome, but I discourage the 1NC shell being a one or two card atrocity. I am sympathetic to 2As that don't feel the need to answer parts of a DA that weren't read in the 1NC (This is one of the few areas I agree with Scotty P on).

CP

Process counterplans are generally fine. I prefer process counterplans with a net benefit that is more a disad to the plan that the counterplan provides uniqueness for instead of a net benefit the aff doesn't really link to. For example, if an aff goes through congress and the counterplan uses the courts, I prefer a net benefit that says congress is bad rather than courts are good. I find counterplans with net benefits that actually link to the aff are better at testing the aff because there are infinite contrived processes that theoretically could be beneficial if used but there is only one process the aff uses.

Advantage counterplans are great. I think affs underutilize the efficacy of a perm in these instances, especially if the counterplan is a multiplank monstrosity.

K

Extreme Ks such as death bad are not impossible to win me over, but extremely difficult and likely not worth your time. I am fine with nearly any k, but it needs to do a few things. 1. The link MUST be contextualized to the aff. This doesn't have to be evidence, but some type of analysis of how the K's theory can account for the aff's scenarios. 2. The alt needs to be clearly articulated. Regurgitating the word salad from the 1NC tag is not going to do it for me and I'll be strongly persuaded by aff arguments on the alt failing and perms. 3. Answer case! Similar to the first requirement, some explanation of how the K means the aff doesn't solve is extremely persuasive to me.

Theory

1-2 condo I significantly lean neg on. 3 condo can go either way. More than 3 and I lean aff. Aff arguments about in round abuse are very persuasive for me (perf con basically).

All other theoretical violations are probably reasons to reject the argument and not the team.

K affs

I lean neg on framework, especially on the fairness debate but I can be persuaded otherwise. If the aff wins large swaths of the case page, I can easily vote aff on the aff outweighing fairness. I think switch side is generally a true argument and a nuanced aff explanation of how it doesn't solve their offense is likely required.

I am currently a medical student at the University of Miami.

• I debated at the University of Pittsburgh (2019-2022) and Glenbrook North HS (2015-2019). I qualified twice to the TOC, qualified twice to the NDT, and have cleared at the NDT.
• Assume I know nothing about the topic.
• You do you. Debate is a game but how you play it is up to you.
• I have noticed that I tend to make decisions based on the simplest way to resolve a debate. The clearer your flow, and the more you explain the implications of the arguments you are winning, the more likely an argument/claim/warrant will result in a victory.
• Please be entertaining and pretty please, do impact calculus.

Policy Paradigm

Framework and Topicality: I will happily vote on framework arguments. I have been on both sides of this debate. I think a TVA is useful but must be topical. I find myself finding the utility of TVAs mostly to filter content-based arguments about the topic. Non-traditional affirmatives must define how I ought to evaluate solvency and conversely, teams going for topicality and/or framework need to define their impacts in a tangible manner. Too common, I find myself asking about the solvency mechanisms of critical affirmatives and wanting more impact calculus in comparison to FW. Furthermore, fairness can be an impact but I find it more strategic to explain fairness as an internal link to research/argumentative refinement. I think definitions in FW debates are not the most strategic.

Kritiks: With exceptions, I generally evaluate the consequences of plan implementation versus alternative solvency unless an alternative framework for judge evaluation is won. I judge a good amount of debates about the costs/benefits of cap and tend to not prioritize framework arguments as much as other judges. A negative framework is incredibly useful as a way to evaluate links. I enjoy links that simply impact turn to the affirmative. I think more affirmative teams should impact turn links and impacts. When I vote neg, it is generally because of tricks such as impact uniqueness. When I vote aff, it is generally on an impact turn to links or impact calc. Moreover, your alt or model of debate must solve the links you go for. Please do not assume things like "heg is good" or "the game is unethical" but rather provide a reason and impact to these large claims.

Counterplans: Too many advantage counterplans link to the net benefit. I strongly believe it is useful to explain if your net benefit is a yes/no binary question or a sliding scale [ do not just say this but explain how the link to the net benefit makes this framing argument function ]. Perm "do both" means "both things at the same time". If you want it to mean more, then explain it as such.

Theory: You need a counter-interpretation that solves your offense. You need offense. You need impact calc. Please do not go for bad theory arguments if you are winning substance. If conditionality is dropped, you will lose if the argument has a claim, warrant, and implication.

Topicality: I do not like topicality debates. In short, have good evidence and explain debates under your version of the topic looks like. Limits for limits sake is not compelling. I have not judged many debates on this topic, please explain the trajectory of the topic.

Speaker Points: Please start the round on time. The email chain should be sent as soon as the round starts. It's just that easy. Be convincing, be clear, and be technical. Good luck.

Public Forum Paradigm

Please do not spread and explain your arguments as if to a lay audience. I likely have little understanding of your topic and would greatly appreciate simplicity. I do not recommend extending three million link turns to your opponents' claims as that would make the debate quite messy.

From Reed Ven Schenk's paradigm: "I'm fine with being postrounded. The debate that just happened may be static, but the ideas are not. You're allowed to be angry if I'm allowed to be cheeky - deal?"

Put me on the email chain --- reznikdeb8@gmail.com.

If you are interested in pursuing a career in science and/or medicine, I'd be happy to chat.

Ashna Rimal

Assistant Coach for Maine East

Add me on the email chain - ashnarimal.debate@gmail.com

Please make sure the tournament name, round number, and both team codes are in the subject of the email chain.

TLDR - You can run any non-offensive arg in front of me, if you run it well I'll probably vote you up. I like judging more technical debates (Theory/T/K) over the same old ptx scenario because I find it more interesting. You will probably get higher speaker points from me if your arguments are original, trust me judges do not want to see the exact same debate happen for 5 rounds in a row. Also, send analytics. if you're good, you don't have to win because they drop things.

K Affs

I like K Affs when they are well explained.

A few things I should not be wondering about when writing my ballot:

Why is the ballot key?

Why is this round specifically key for your offense?

Do you solve for anything and how (spill up, fiat, etc.)

Neg Stuff

Counterplans

I enjoy CPs, but you have to have all the key parts (Net Benefit, Perm Answers, Solvency, etc.)

Disads

Disads are fine - I'm not particularly opinionated about them.

I think DA and Case debates are good as long as the DA scenario makes sense and the line by line is properly executed.

Please don't go for a bad ptx scenario that has no internal link.

Kritiks

If you run a K make sure you really explain it to me.

If you wanna go for the K in the 2NR you must have a strong link to the specific aff, or an alt that solves for the K and/or the impacts of the Plan.

Focus on the link debate - winning the link helps you win FW, prove why the perm won't solve, as well as support the impact.

If I don't understand your K I won't vote for it, especially if it's less commonly run. I'm familiar with most of the more generic Ks, but if you pull out a more complex K, you need to understand it and explain it well. I will hold those types of Ks to a higher standard when writing my ballot.

Topicality

To win on T you have to prove that the Aff is not topical and explain why being topical matters.

Don't only say "Fairness and Education" those are just words, you need to explain what that means and why it's important to debate.

TOPICALITY IS A VOTER!

Theory

I'm from Maine East, I like Theory debates and I'll vote on them - but I probably have higher standards for 'good theory debating'.

PICs are probably fine.

Severance Perms are probably bad, but usually not bad enough for me to write my ballot on it.

Condo is good to an extent. I probably won't vote on Condo if they run like 1-2 off, but if they run 3 or more conditional advocacies I will lean Aff.

Perf Con is bad if you can prove specific instances of in-round abuse.

Don't expect me to vote on the arg that 1-2 CPs/Ks will Time Skew the 2AC, time skew is inevitable.

Don't expect me to vote on the "Err Neg" arg, yes Aff speaks 1st and last but y'all have the 13 min block.

Potential Abuse is not a voter. (Unless you prove to me otherwise)

In Round Abuse is a voter - If you can prove that they were somehow totally abusive I will vote them down.

THEORY IS A VOTER!

In the end what really matters is how you extend and frame the theory debate. I will most likely vote for the team that better contextualizes their theory arg.

I'll vote on a dropped theory arg as long as it's properly extended.

Speaker Points

Under 26: you did something offensive/cheaty

26-26.9: Below Avg

27-27.5: Avg

27.6-28.5: Above Avg

28.5-29.5: Very Good

Above 29.5: Excellent - I was impressed

If you do something interesting, funny, or out of the box in the round, and I enjoy it, I'll boost your speaks.

General Comments

• I will not vote on an argument I don't understand - It's your job in the round to explain your arguments to me.

• Don't be a jerk in round - Respect your partner, your opponents, and the judge(s).
• Do not clip cards or cheat in any way
• I am fine with tag team CX, but don't take over you partners CX, I will dock speaks for that.
• Clarity is more important than speed - If you are spreading a huge analytics-heavy block at full speed I will not catch more than 60% of what you are saying
• Send analytics. if you're good, you don't have to win because they drop things. Plus I will be able to make sure I get al your args when you decide to spread through that 8 min K block
• Time your own Prep/CX/Speeches.

• If the other team doesn't make an argument for why I should not Judge Kick, I will most likely roll with it.
• I do not like judge intervention, I will try to avoid, or at least minimize judge intervention as much as possible. I'd much rather vote based on what you all say in the round.
• I am willing to vote for any argument as long as it is not offensive - but you have to win the argument.

- thoroughly explain your arguments and don't just reread evidence, say why this happens

-refer back to others arguments

- focus on impact calc and why I should vote for you

niles west '20

4th year debating

1a/2n

yes, add me to the email chain - freskida.debate@gmail.com (+.3 speaks if u add me w/out asking!!)

preferences:

i know most novices don’t actually read paradigms—so if you have any specific questions about my preferences, feel free to ask before and after the round :) im happy to help and novice/jv year is all about learning and improving!!

don't be rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. - i'll probably vote you down and deck your speaks.

pasdebate@gmail.com

Subject the email chain - Tournament Name Round # - Aff Team AFF vs Neg Team NEG

Debated at Maine East (2016-2020, TOC Circuit) and the University of Pittsburgh (2020-2023, NDT Qual)

I will boost speaker points if you follow @careerparth on tiktok, bring (vegetarian) food/snacks, and end the debate as fast as possible.

I took most of this paradigm from Reed Van Schenck:

Career wise, my arguments of preference were more critical (Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism, and the likes). I enjoy judging clash debates, policy vs critical. Traditional policy debaters should take note of my lack of experience in policy v policy debates and rank me very low on their judging preferences.

The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.

When in doubt, referring to the judging philosophies of the following folks will do you well: Micah Weese, Reed Van Schenck, Calum Matheson, Alex Holguin, & Alex Reznik

Everything below this line is a proclivity of mine that can be negotiated through debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts, this includes procedural fairness. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic. All thing said, at the end of the day, I will adapt to your argument style.

I dislike judges who exclude debaters because of what they decide to read in a debate round, I will NOT do that as long as you don't say anything racist, sexist, etc.

Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals. I will boost speaker points if rebuttals are given successfully with prep time remaining and/or off the flow!

Public Forum Debate

The faster you end the debate, the higher your speaks.

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk." Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

Niles North '19

MSU '23

He/Him

add me on the email chain Matt.Sturt.debate@gmail.com

TLDR: I like debate a lot. Speak clearly. Speaks probs 27.5-29.5 Be Coherent. Tech>Truth most of the time

!=impact

you should do the following

FLOW
DO LINE BY LINE

you should not

BE RUDE IN CROSS-ex

BE ABLEIST , SEXIST, RACIST, or anything along those lines (I do not shy away from stopping rounds or calling people out) you will be reported to your coach and you will (hopefully) face repercussions

STEAL PREP i will also call you out for this

BE A RUDE PERSON

long version

OVERVIEW

I believe that debate is a game, but not just a game. There are extrinsic and intrinsic values to debate that come aside from winning. my thesis for deciding rounds is whether or not a policy is desirable, so things aside from that don't have a ton of pull on decision. if you do run an arg that you think is not like this, I am most likely not the judge for you. If you somehow get stuck with me, its not impossible to win these types of args, but if you can switch your strategy, i would if i were you.

T

in order for me to vote on a t arg, I need to know what is bad about the aff specifically in terms of 'breaking debate'. whether it be education, fairness ( which im pretty sure is an !, but my mental jury is still out on that one) or any other possible ! on t args. I also dont know this topic super well rn, so please explain things to me so that i know what this arg even is and am able to vote for it

Aspec is a real arg, you should flow and catch it (even if its not on the doc), but i might doc your speaks if you go for it. This should NOT be your strat going in, but if you feel that passionate about it, put it on another flow

i hope in the age of virtual debating you have the heart to at least put it on the doc. Please don’t put me in the situation where I have to vote neg bc the affs computer lagged and missed your .2 second ASPEC shell

DA

A big thing on this aspect of the debate is both the ! level, but also how one gets there. if you read a nuke war = extinction !, the amount i deem it probability of both a. happening and b. it killing absolutely everyone is intrinsically intertwined with the I/L debate. I care a lot about every part of the DA, so you better have a convincing story about your DA. Also just a side note almost every DA, in my opinion, is theoretically legit, only exception is rider (NOT Horsetrading, those are different @TimFreehan). This includes Ptx, but I do have a bs meter and if its egregiously false/lacking ev, my bar becomes much lower to vote on aff o/w with just ! analysis.

THEORY

i think most things are probs a reason to reject the arg. conditionalitY is not this way obvi. my mind can change on this, but like if you're going for theory i probs know what they are doing is abusive.

COUNTER PLANS

Counter plans were the heart and soul of my novice/jv debate career, but fell to the side as I looked forward into debate. That being said, your generic process/agent/actor/topic counterplan will still need some explanation, as to why it is a. better b. mutually exclusive and c. not too cheaty. refer to what i said above about theory, but if you go for a cheaty counterplan, and you're losing the judge kick part of the debate (more on that later), then rejecting that arg is pretty important in your stake in the debate. With aff specific Counter plans, Im gonna need you to explicitly say what the fundamental differences are between yours proposal and the aff. Do the same things as above to avoid losing to the Perm, but I will put some faith that you either wrote it, or understand it enough to know how it interacts. Again if you dont understand it, good luck getting me to.

Advantage cps are great, PICs that steal all of the aff except a word or phrase are probs abusive, but prove to me why they aren't

KRITIKS

My opinions on kritiks has changed in recent years. I think they are a useful tool, but im going to be honest, its hard to explain hyperspecific philosiphies in 3 minutes at lightning speed. I reserve my right to vote for an argument that i cannot explain to the other team. same goes for a a fw trick. if you explain your kritiks well (this includes the link), i will be much much much more likely to vote for them. I lean towards weighing the hypothetical implementation of the affirmative vs a competetive alternative very highly, but this is not unwinnable.

K AFFS/ FW

fun fact about me: i read and defended a planless aff for exactly 3 rounds during my highschool career and lost all three of those rounds, so please do not consider me an expert in the realm of planless/kritikal affirmatives. this does not mean, however, that i am against this style of debate. when debating I have gone for fw every time against a k aff except once, so I understand that offense against it the most. just being honest, i do think policy debate should be rooted in some form of policy or action, so i inherently lean towards frameworky type args, but I can and will vote for K affs, given that I understand them.

if your strat as a non traditional aff is "C/i - the USFG = the people" im not the judge for you. You will lose this arg 99% of the time in front of me

Overall, I am fairly policy oriented, but like the k when read/explained well

any questions be sure to email (it is at the top) me or ask me before the round - i am an open book and will tell you preferences that i have

Debated at GBS

PSA: I have not looked that deeply into CJR, so keep that in mind with your usage of lingo/abbreviations during round.

Top Level-I prefer DAs and CPs over any kind of K, but I am willing to vote on anything if it is explained properly. I will only vote for a dropped argument if it's pointed out by the opposite team, but it still has to be explained to me why they should lose on it. It is up to you to convince me why I should vote for you, and I should not have to do any work for any of your arguments after the last speech.

Affirmatives: I am a policy-oriented judge, and I prefer affs that are centered around USFG action and that is grounded in the topic. K Affs are not my thing, but I would still vote for them. I am more likely to vote for Policy Affs than K Affs.

Disads- I love a good Disad/Case debate, but you have to properly impact out your DA for me to vote on it.

Counterplans- Love Counterplans, but you have to provide adequate solvency advocates, as solvency deficits can hurt your chances to win on the CP.

Kritiks- I understand the generics of Ks, but I am not that well versed in the specifics of a lot of Kritiks, so it is really up to you to explain that to me during the round.

Theory- It is a hit or miss for me, Limit on condo is kinda wonky and I'm pretty open to interpretation on that. Otherwise, it is really up to you to prove to me why I should reject the team.

Topicality- Topicality I think is a great negative strategy if done right. It is up to you to prove to me why your interpretation is the best for debate, and properly extend your impacts throughout the entire debate for me to vote for you.

Remember to flow, time your own prep, and DO NOT STEAL PREP

Yes, I want to be on the email chain, and my email is k.subadedebate@gmail.com, I will add some speaker points if you add me to the chain without asking.

Yes, email chain: ju59@cornell.edu

Cornell '24

Solorio '20

I debated all 4 years of High school.

Since debate is a fairly liberal activity here are my Pronouns: He/Him as a judge Él as a Debater

Important notes about me:

• I do not like rude behavior, there are moments when you can assert dominance in a speech and during CX but it is your burden to know when it is appropriate and right.
• I am policy-oriented but that does not mean I am not versed in K lit so read what you are comfortable with
• I will only flow arguments that I hear so be clear
• Sometimes debates are learning moments to grow on our humanity we all make mistakes but be conscientious of all debaters. This means do not be racist and prejudice against other debaters
• Do not be arrogant, if you know you are better than another team this is a moment to be humble and give the other team a moment to learn. This does not mean throw the round but be aware of others ability to debate and reflect as a human
• Try your best and enjoy the debate
• Debate is about the need for change, give me the nexus question of the debate in your rebuttal and tell me why that is important
• DO NOT GO FOR T

Carlos Urquizo

UIUC'23

Solorio Academy HS'19

curquizo99@gmail.com

About Me: I debated for four years on the national circuit and in the Chicago Debate League. I used to be pure policy but I integrated the K into my negative strategies later in high school. I am open to most types of arguments and will vote for a variety of arguments. I will vote for critical arguments just as much as policy stuff.

T: Don't go for it.

Disadvantages: Disadvantages are good but I like to see a link specific to the aff if its possible. The internal link debate will matter a lot to me, if I dont understand the DA, then it doesnt matter if the 1AC links or if the impact to the DA outweighs.

Counterplans: I think most counterplans are legit, but they always need a net benefit and internal net benefits are not enough for me. I need you to win the net benefit for me to vote on the counterplan. Prove to me why the CP is clearly a reason to reject the Plan. Textual competition is not persuasive to me.

K: do good analysis and tell me what the K is, I also need specific links to the affs. This generally much easier for things like the cap K. Root cause debates are not good. Framework matters and I will not vote for the aff if you dont read it. Fairness is not an impact, but use things like that as an argument to support the impact. For the aff, tell me why the negatives kritik is bad for you and bad for debate and what that does for debate overall and why its bad for future debates not just what is happening in your round. there needs to be an intepretation from both sides - I think this debate requires proper clash or else i think it just proves the affirmatives claims. I also need to hear reasons why debate is good.

K AFFs: I like K affs, I dont like hearing arguments like the state is good but rather tell me reasons why the state is redeemable if this debate does happen to occur. I think its valuable to prove why your respective model of debate is best. For the AFF, i think its extremely important for you to be ready for things outside of framework or T. For the negative, read Topical versions of the affirmative. The best way to debate K affs is to beat the substance of the argument, and i would suggest not to go for framework because the aff will have way more offense on that debate. The K aff will usually not be bad for debate in my opinion.

Misc: I try to be a nice judge and I'll be extremely respectful to both teams. My goal during the rounds is to make sure everything goes right, while making it as fun as possible; furthermore, my goal at the end of the round is to give as much feedback and constructive criticism as I can.

My understanding of the topic: "There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11?" - Lord of War (2005)

People who influenced my understanding of debate: Tara Tate, Jon Voss, Tyler Thur, JP, Jake Lee, Cicero, Nimil Patel and DHeidt.

"Policy Debate is increasingly neither... I do not mind when it is both." - Repko

Debate is a persuasion activity - persuade me.

I am one of the few people around that am more convinced with a link overview in why the affirmative causes the link to occur rather than an impact overview. Note that impact calc still plays an important role in my decision calculus. I also put evidence quality in a high standard when looking at questionable evidence post-round.

Conditionality is probably fine, Counterplans that do the plan are probably not.

Email: anthonyvaliaveedu@gmail.com

Remember that "there are only two tragedies in life. One is not getting what you want, the other is getting it."

jvt.debate@gmail.com

---

I did Policy Debate for 8 years at Solorio HS in Chicago (2016-2020) and at Dartmouth College (2020-2024).

Debate is a research-based, communicative activity. Arguments that are divorced from external scholarship are not persuasive to me.

Answer arguments in the order presented.

I am at my best in debates where the Affirmative has presented a topical plan and the Negative strategy involves a counterplan and/or disadvantage.

I tend to evaluate impacts based on the relative probability of the internal link chain more than magnitude.

Criticisms are fine, but I generally think Links should be about the plan and/or its justifications. If your speeches sound like they could be about any affirmative, I am unlikely to vote for you.

In Topicality debates (against policy or planless affirmatives) I am more persuaded by arguments about limits than ground.

Basically no patience for debate shenanigans. The answer to "hmm,, is X a debate shenanigan?" is likely "yes." This is especially true of egregious Negative practices of conditionality.

I flow on paper, I am not following along with the speech docs so that I can understand what is happening in the debate in front of me. Please don't make a card doc for me after the debate, I will ask each team after the 2AR to send me the set of cards I need to decide the debate. (ex: "Neg can you send me the DA link cards, Aff can you send me the internal link for Y").

The men in the activity enjoy when cross-examination turns into a heated exchange between the debaters. I do not.

Random Note: Most people like to engage in small talk with their judges. I am very awkward with people I don't know, so this is actually my nightmare. I will not ignore you, but if my responses are short that is why.

I miss One Direction, they broke up right when they found their style and were finally starting to mature as a band #Zouis

---

ONLINE DEBATE:

If my camera is off, please assume that I am not at my computer and do not start speaking.