Villiger 39 St Josephs University

2018 — PA/US

Moselle Burke Paradigm

Hello!

I debated for six years, high school and middle school, on the Boston Debate League's high school circuit for Boston Latin Academy. I attended national circuit tournaments for four of those six years.

I'm currently a sophomore Philosophy major at Haverford College, and while I don't debate in college, I'm an active judge and I write files by commission (if you want to hire me to write something hmu), so I'm somewhat familiar with topic literature.

email: mosieburkebdl@gmail.com - Please add me to the chain!

****If you came here from Maryanne's paradigm, ask the other team "did y'all make a perm?" during your speech and she just might give you a 30.****

TL;DR:

-I lean K, especially on questions of accessibility and identity. I will likely be somewhat familiar with your K's lit base.

-I'm especially well-versed in literature surrounding semio/capitalism and I ran versions of the cap K throughout most of high school. Lots of teams seem to be running Dean alts now, and I know that literature especially well - that can work either for or against you!

-I was a 1N who took T in 95% of my 1NRs and I will understand and appreciate your tricks

-Evidence comparison will get you much farther than a barrage of blippy cards

-Solid development on the case pages will be rewarded

-Speed and tons of off-case positions are okay (but i might ask you for flow paper if you run a ton of off)

-I'm most likely to vote on K & case or T 2NRs against policy affs, and almost always prefer K 2NRs vs K affs

-I'll vote on a CP and politics if that's what you really want to do but I'm not too familiar with them and might not be the best at evaluating those args

******************************************

As of NSDA Nationals 2019, I have judged eight tournaments on this topic.

******************************************

Full paradigm:

I try to be Tabula Rasa, and in almost every instance will evaluate exactly what is told to me in the round. This means I won't assume Framework is a procedural issue until you tell me so, I won't assume the ballot means anything, and I usually won't default any particular way.

If it isn't on my flow, it isn't going to be in my RFD. this means you should make sure I hear your best arguments - don't bury them.

Clipping cards gets a loss and 0 speaks. If you don't know what that means, ask. I have voted on this before and will do it again if necessary.

Style:

Speed is fine, but if you blast through 8 analytics in 15 seconds, I won't get them all and it won't be my fault.

Strong, direct CX is great! (However:)

Don't be cruel, disrespectful, or belittling. This is especially true if you are more experienced/knowledgeable than the other team. If you're a senior with 4 years of national circuit experience and 3 summers of camps, don't be a jerk to sophomores who just entered varsity just because you want to flex. This doesn't mean go easy, it means that you should take your opponents and their arguments seriously.

Things like author creds and dates can be important - if you notice something, call it out.

K:

I am well-versed in a bunch of K literature (ask about particular authors if you want to know), but that doesn't mean you don't have to explain things. Sorry, Bifo teams - the things you're saying have to mean something, and if you rattle off a bunch of high theory jargon, that doesn't count as an argument. If your opponents have arguments that have thoroughly been explained, I will probably prefer them.

I am sympathetic to arguments about ivory tower positions/armchair philosophy. I debated in a UDL, on a small team, and in a program that often lacked funding. I saw the impact of teams running Deleuze, Bifo, etc. when their opponents didn't have a prayer at understanding, and exploiting their lack of experience/knowledge/educational resources (PSA: If you do this, you're causing direct harm to the activity and to fellow debaters), and that's an impact scenario I can and will vote on.

Performance is 100% fine by me. If you incorporate a performance, make sure I hear about it in later speeches.

If you run a K based around structural inequality and/or identity (besides cap because it's cap), I will do my best to evaluate it objectively. However, I will most likely not relate to your lived experiences and I admit that I can make mistakes in judging these debates. If you feel that I have done this, please talk to me after the round.

K Affs:

K affs are great but require explanation. Judge experience doesn't absolve you of the obligation to make your arguments clear and explain how whatever theory you're using interacts with other arguments.

T:

I was a 1N, and there wasn't a single neg block my senior year where I didn't take the T flow. I LOVE good T debates, and this is where all of your clever tricks will be appreciated. Make strategic concessions, go hard on "they don't meet the counter-interp", do fun things with internal links. T debates work like a very abstract, complex disadvantage, meaning that every level of a T debate is crucial and defense usually won't win by itself.

Compare interp evidence! This comparison can win you debates.

Don't make RVI arguments on these flows. They are garbage.

Theory:

If it's a time suck, and it works, nice job.

I will not vote on theory without in-round abuse. This is probably where I most differ from Tabula Rasa. Bad theory arguments will get bad results.

With that being said, if you pull a really clever trick with theory, and they fall for it, I will happily vote on it. For examples of this, ask me in-round (shoutout to Will Hutchinson).

I will not vote on condo unless there are 3+ conditional advocacies, at least two of which contradict each other, or 2 contradictory advocacies and explicit abusive cross-application of offense.

I default to reject the argument, unless you have very strong reasons I should reject the team.

FW:

As neg, you need at least one item from this list in the 2NR:

1. strong TVA

2. strong case hit

3. pre-requisite arguments in the 2NR.

As aff, you need at least one item from this list in the 2AR:

1. impact turns

2. aff outweighs

3. strong defense (reasonability, we meet, etc.) AND a counter-interp

Don't throw in arguments about "small schools" to get the moral high ground if you don't make debate accessible in other ways :) Ericson and Army Officer School aren't revolutionary cards, but nice try.

DAs:

DAs are DAs. Politics DAs are slightly more annoying DAs but still legitimate.

Links are almost always a sliding scale as opposed to Yes/No. How much of a link is there? How does that effect the impact debate?

"we win on magnitude so vote aff"=/= impact calc

CPs:

I debated K affs and K strats, so I am not very used to counterplan debates, but I will absolutely vote on them

PICs are fine if the change is significant enough to have a net benefit.

CPs are where I think theory is slightly more relevant - why are particular types of CPs bad? Don't say "x counterplans bad" in general - contextualize those arguments to the counterplan.

Case:

Good case debates are fantastic.

Bad case debates are terrible.

Neg: if you don't have OFFENSE (not just defense) on the case flow, you will not get my ballot unless you have an off-case position in the 2NR (read: don't just go for case defense.).

Aff: don't try to go for 3 advantages in the 2AR if you have other flows to get to. It will almost always be worth it to kick an advantage/scenario or two.

George Hollyer Paradigm

About Me:

Strath Haven HS '18 - 1 year policy, 2 years Extemp

University of Pennsylvania '22 - Engineering is keeping me busy

I did policy for one year in '15-'16 and then extemp my junior and senior years. What this means is that I have a reasonably good understanding of the ins and outs of policy debate but I'm by no means an expert debater. Other than judging a couple rounds when needed, I have not touched the event since.

Overview:

I would say my philosophy is generally tech over truth (within reason). Basically, its your job to respond to your opponents arguments no matter how strong or weak. Granted, a weak argument needs a lot less refutation than a strong one, but if you say nothing, the argument stands. I'm checking my own beliefs at the door.

The best way to convince me is to explain your argument and how it related the to topic well. Build a clear narrative of how your actions or events lead to an outcome and how that outcome is superior to your opponent's. This may sound obvious, but doing this greatly clarifies my decision-making process as a judge. If I can't understand a part of your argument, I can't evaluate it. The 2NR/2AR should summarize the key aspects of your argument and the main reasons why I should vote for your side.

Other little things:

I won't run prep for flashing evidence as long as you are being reasonable with the amount of time you take.

Open CX is good

Some speed is okay, but I probably can't keep up with full on spreading. If I can't understand you, I'll yell "clear"

Be courteous to your opponents. Especially if they are less experienced than you. I understand there is a competitive drive to win, but if you're being overly aggressive/rude, you will lose speaker points. We debate because we like to debate, make your opponents want to debate you again.

On Specific Arguments:

Case, DA's, Counterplan's - Should be the meat of the debate. Just make it clear how what you are doing furthers your side in the debate and counters the other. CP's need to have good justification as to why they are distinct from the plan.

Topicality - With good grounds and compelling reason, you can absolutely win on it. However, you need to show why the violation is actually a violation in addition to why the voting reason is relevant and important to activity.

Kritiks - I never utilized these as a debater so my understanding of them in a debate is limited at best. I have read postmodern and marxist philosophy so I could probably follow if you there, but queer theory and psychoanalysis are beyond me. If you do go for them, make sure to explain them very clearly.

Theory, Critical Affirmatives - Basically no experience. I likely cannot follow you if you go for this. Read at your own risk.

Queen LouAllen Paradigm

I am a versatile judge as long as the argument is well articulated. I have no real preference for arguments but it is a requirement to run the argument as it was intended to be ran. I need a clean cut story as to why you win, meaning there should be some type of summary in your last few speeches somewhere I do prefer global over views instead of overviews on each argument but I will still flow the overviews as to where you put them regardless. I do no work for either team meaning if its not there, it will not be evaluated so if you are going for an argument and haven't put in the work for it, depending on what the other team does, you will be voted down. Other than that I don't judge upon ethos but keep it cordial during the debate, have a great time and good luck to you.

Patrick McCleary Paradigm

Last updated - Fall 2018

I debated from 2006-2010 at Loyola Blakefield HS, then from 2010-2013 at the University of Mary Washington. Coached at George Mason University from 2014-2017. I've been out of debate since then, so don't assume I'm super familiar with the topic.

Short version - do what you do. I’m not here to tell you what debate is supposed to be about or what arguments are best, so I won’t judge in a fashion that assumes I know the answers to those questions. Do whatever you were going to do before you saw my name on the pairing. Treat the following as proclivities that break ties. In other words, if two sides debate an argument as perfectly (or as poorly?) as humanly possible, this is how I would probably err in a given situation.

Top level stuff:
I enjoy fast, clash-heavy, policy debate. I think there are benefits to all three of those descriptors (though I am open to well-argued critiques of “policy” – see below). That necessitates certain things about the way I judge:
- I like to flow. I will evaluate arguments that tell me not to flow in order to determine if not flowing is a better model for debate, but I need to flow the arguments to make that determination in the first place
- Line by line is important in my decision-making. I have a tendency to reward direct clash over embedded/holistic argumentation. That doesn't mean I adhere strictly to the line by line, but keep in mind that it can be a tiebreaker, and that good line by line debating can only help your points.
- Clarity is crucial. A lot of “bad judging decisions” are the result of miscommunications between judges and debaters
- An argument is a claim and a warrant. A good argument is a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Phrases such as “fiat solves the link” or “infinite regression” are not arguments. Teams are only responsible for responding to arguments.


Paperless prep - I took a decent amount, so I'm pretty lenient about it. I also think that the whole "when the email is sent/when the jump drive is out" standard reduces the quality of debates by forcing debaters to take prep when they aren't actually prepping. I think prep time stops when you are no longer prepping your speech. But you should know that the more prep you take means the less time I have to decide the debate. There's also a limit to the dead time I can allow because I do like having time to decide.

Speaker Points:
I give speaker points based on how effectively students articulate their arguments, regardless of the type of argument. Above a 29.5 deserves to contend for top speaker, 29-29.5 is a speaker award, 28.5-29 is good/should be clearing, 28.1-28.5 is on the cusp of clearing, 28 is average, 27.5 is below average, 27 needs work. Any lower and you are probably either in the wrong division or did something offensive. Given what I've seen from people who compile the data on this stuff, this seems to be somewhat close to the community norm.

One more note on speaks - borrowed from Hester's philosophy:

"Debaters who have used the opportunity afforded by annual resolutions to learn about the topic and are able to apply that knowledge in the round will be in position to receive higher points than debaters whose speeches are lacking in this category. Debaters whose speeches reflect little to no effort at having learned about this season's topic may win the debate, but will not receive good points.

This does not mean the AFF must read a plan text...nor that the NEG can only debate the case (rarely a wise strategy). It simply means i am listening for proof that debaters are taking advantage of the opportunity to learn about a different topic area each season."


Topicality
I think it’s one of the most underutilized tools in the neg arsenal. I also think 1ARs don’t give it enough credibility. It’s a voter and never a reverse voter. Limits determines everything. I view topicality as a battle between functional limits for the aff and predictable limits for the neg. That’s also what determines whether or not an aff is “reasonable” or not. I frequently find myself caring very little about what government definitions or topic framers think, especially compared to arguments about debatability (for either side).

ASpec is a nonstarter unless you ask in c/x, and even then it’s probably an uphill battle. As a 2A, I respect the aff’s choice to refuse to give PIC ground in 1AC c/x, but affs need to understand that a mishandled vagueness argument can lead to an outcome, however unlikely, that they don’t want. Effects and extra T could just be reasons to reject the nontopical parts of the aff (I could be persuaded otherwise), but negative teams would be wise to point out the ways that the aff fails to solve/function logically without those parts.

DA
I’m most familiar with these kinds of debates. Here’s a laundry list of random advice and thoughts.

- I think DAs can have a tendency to be a series of strung together cards – it’s important to articulate a story to the DA that makes sense. Note - this is also an opportunity for you politics 1NRs out there to prove to me that you have some topic/current events knowledge and to get a nice boost in speaker points.

- I think there can be zero risk of a link, especially if your DA is one of the ones described above. That being said, going for a link turn can still be more strategic than terminal defense because controlling the direction arrow of the link/internal link chain necessarily zeroes the link.

- Link precedes uniqueness.

- Start impact calculus as early as possible.

- Cards should never be tagged “more ev.”

- Just respond to arguments instead of saying “uniqueness (or link) debate – group it.”

- In many instances (especially picking apart opponents’ cards), smart analytics are just as effective, if not more so, than cards.


CP
The absolute best thing the last rebuttals can do in a CP debate (and pretty much all debates) is to assume that the other side is going to win some part of their argument - whether that be case defense or a solvency deficit. That means you need to quantify the risk of the solvency deficit versus the risk of the DA/case. Affs should be smart and creative with permutations and explanations of the perm. Negs should lock down what the perm is early to avoid aff shiftiness.

If nobody says anything about it, I’m willing to kick the CP for the neg because of implicit assumptions of it being conditional. But I could definitely be persuaded that presumption flips aff/the neg should get one world in the 2NR. Caveat - if the block says "2NR choice checks" when answering conditionality in the block, I will almost definitely hold the neg to one world in the 2NR. Another caveat - if the 1NC response to the status question is "status quo is always a logical option" (or some functional equivalent) AND the block rearticulates that the judge can kick the CP for the neg, it would be too late for the 2AR to make an argument about sticking the neg with the CP.

***ADA/NDT 2015 Edit***

I think I'm more in the 1%/any risk camp than I initially thought I was. This is especially true with a 2NR that includes a CP that solves the case. A tiny net benefit lowers the bar for a perm/solvency deficit, but it seems logical to me that there needs to be a perm/solvency deficit to beat a CP.

Theory
Again – these are inclinations. Nothing is set in stone and I can be persuaded either way.

Conditionality – fine within reason. I personally believe more strongly in the justifications for 1 CP, 1 K as opposed to 2 CPs or 2 Ks. Neg debaters would be well-served making arguments that reflect that distinction.
Dispositionality – I would be surprised if I voted against a team on it
CPs that do the whole aff (consult, condition, etc) – probably not reasons to reject the team. Perm do the CP is probably a winner though.
PICs – probably good, especially the more aff specific and germane they are.

As a rule of thumb, smarter arguments like “conditional PICs bad” are generally better than reading your “conditionality bad” and “PICs bad" blocks.

K
I may be more familiar with these than my UMW background might suggest. Persuasive aff arguments revolve around attacking the alternative, answering root cause/link turns solvency, and winning the case. The best neg arguments are the classic tricks – root cause, value to life, serial policy failure, etc.

I’m much more familiar with the standard –ism Ks: capitalism, feminism, imperialism, etc., but I’m willing to hear whatever K you’ve got if you do it well. But if you think there’s a chance that your K might be over my head, please label and describe it by the argument as opposed to just the random author.

Planless Affs/Framework Debates
I’m open to hearing types of affirmatives that criticize the topic or norms/structures/discrimination within the community. I have voted for these in the past, though more often than not this is due to poor execution by the neg. Some things about me that I think can influence my decisions in a “clash of civilizations” style debate:

- Debate is a game. It is highly unlikely that you will change my mind on this point.

- I believe that evaluating consequences matters when forming an ethical stance #Isaac02
- The more related the aff is to the topic, the less uphill the framework battle is for the aff - see above
- Nebulous terms like fairness, education, and x-ology are not impacts in and of themselves
- I am more likely to reward teams who do line by line analysis than those who operate more holistically. This is both because I believe in the value of direct clash (see above) and because it seems to disincentivize that sort of clash if I reward embedding clash when the other team is doing the work to create clash directly.

[Post Coast 2015]

- I'm starting to realize that I think I'm better for the neg on theoretical framework than substantive framework, but I think this is a divergence from most judges who see clash debates as often as I do. I think aff teams in clash debates have way better answers to a 2NR that focuses on substantive framework args, whereas it is less likely I will be compelled by their answers to theoretical framework args. Neg teams would probably be best served using substantive args to limit aff offense, but get most of their offense from theoretical args.

This is obviously the most controversial area when it comes to preffing judges. So if you read a planless aff or are facing one with me in the back and you have questions, please ask them.


Case
Almost every single 2NR should address the case. Case debates are awesome. Please do them and do them well.

Tyler Minton Paradigm

Big-Picture Stuff:

I will listen to and evaluate basically anything that's not blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, so long as it contains three things: a claim, a warrant, and an impact. If it’s missing one of these, it's not an argument, and I'm unlikely to vote for it. More than anything, I believe that the end-goal of debate as an activity is education, meaning that I will reward in-depth analysis, specific research, and clever tactics. It also means that I will react negatively to shallow warrants, generic evidence, and cheap, "gotcha" strategies. Furthermore, I will NOT tolerate rude or abusive behavior toward teammates, opponents, spectators, or myself, and will begin docking speaks the moment it happens.


Specific Arguments:

Topicality/Framework-I have a relatively high threshold for T/FW, and have tended to default to reasonability in the past. Winning T arguments need to be specific to the affirmative, reference specific ground lost, and do substantive impact work in terms of my ballot. Proving topical version of the aff is also likely to earn my ballot.

Counterplans/Disads-Under-highlighted evidence with one or two word tags (e.g. "Nuclear war" or "Extinction") will be given relatively little weight at the end of the round.

K's/K Aff's-K's were my favorite arguments as a competitor, but will likely lose my ballot if executed poorly. Depth is much more important than breadth in these debates, and even generic links should be contextualized in terms of the aff.

Theory-Most of the time it can be resolved by rejecting the argument, not the team. If you feel that it’s important enough to stake the round on, please put it on a separate flow.

Conditionality-If you do not think there's a chance you'll go for an argument in the 2NR, DO NOT READ THAT ARGUMENT. Sandbagging teams with 8+ small, underdeveloped, and/or contradictory arguments is uneducational, uninteresting, and incredibly frustrating to judge. In these instances I am highly likely to vote for 5 minutes of condo in the 2AR.

Ashley Murphy Paradigm

Head coach at Unionville High School. I mostly judge policy but spend a significant amount of time in PF and some in LD.

TL;DR:

· Don’t be sketchy (as debaters or as people)

The Long Version:

1. Framework/Narrative: If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume a cost/benefit analysis. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, warrant it (with cards). I appreciate debaters who are able to make clear strategic choices in the second half of the round. You’d do better to use the back half of the round to present a cohesive story with a few key answers on your opponents’ case rather than to fly through a blippy line by line.

2. Argumentation: Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate that I need to vote for you.

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink. Don’t try to oversimplify your response by telling me how your opponent literally didn’t respond to anything you said (unless that is actually true… then you should probably bring it up). I'll listen to cross but I don't flow it; if it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Weighing is key and the earlier you set it up, the better. Terminalize your impacts and spend your time on the analysis, not card dumping. Also, for the love of all that is holy, give a roadmap before you start/tell me where to place arguments as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

For PF: I don't require 1st summary to extend defense, but link/impact extensions should be in summary for me to evaluate them in final focus.

3. Evidence (PF): Having evidence ethics is a thing. I see debate as an educational activity and using sketch evidence/miscutting cards to prove an argument that is inherently untrue isn’t great for you or for the activity at large. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Rounds where someone calls for a card and you spend 15 minutes trying to find it only to realize it doesn’t say what you said it said hurt my soul.

4. Why yes, I would like to be added to the email chain (CX/LD): AMurphy@ucfsd.net (Side note: As Gen Zers, I have faith in you to successfully hit "reply all" when continuing an email chain. Don't let me down.)

5. A Final Note: This is a debate round not a divorce court and your tone should match accordingly. Additionally, I appreciate wit and you will probably earn higher speaks on average if you are able to use humor effectively.

Nick Petaccio Paradigm

General Paradigm: Do what you do best, Tech>Truth, Speed is fine.  

     Experience: I did policy debate at La Salle College High School for four years.  This is my first year judging.

     Aff: I typically went for a soft left policy aff but I enjoyed running big stick offs too.  I think affirmatives without a plan are an important and educational part of the activity as well.  What ever you option you choose just make sure that at the end of the round I know what the 1AC is supposed to do, how it is supposed to do it, and why what it does matters.  I'm probably not the best person for a No-plan vs. K debate purely because I wasn't in a ton of those debates and thus haven't seen as many of them.  

      Framework: If the affirmative doesn't defend a plan Framework is the strategy I am most familiar with.  When executed poorly Framework debates are boring. I think Framework debates are really interesting and often the best negative option.   I'm personally like fairness and education standards.  Only go for fairness if the affirmative really does make the round unfair (which they sometimes do). I think Topical versions of the affirmative are important and can make it hard for the negative, especially if you can find an actual solvency advocate for the T version, but I appreciate quick thinking too. 

     Ks: I went for security and Neolib fairy often.  The same rules apply to the Alt as apply to the Aff; at the end of the round I need to know what the alt is supposed to do, how it is supposed to do it, and why what it does matters.  I think the link debate is very important, I think the turns case analysis is important.  I can be sympathetic to aff claims that the alt is vague but that's easily mitigated by: 1 not having a vague alt, or 2 making the affirmative seem like such a bad idea that a vaguer alt is a better idea.  I find that in rounds where the Affirmative doesn't defend a plan and the Neg goes for a K the role of the ballot debate gets really messy, the cleaner that is the easier my decision is.  If there are role of the ballot and role of the judge arguments explain why: 1 they are the same thing and competing, or 2 they are different and how they interact. I'll be hard pressed to believe that the affirmative doesn't get to weigh the 1 AC in some capacity.  

     DA: The more specific the better.  I think probability, time-frame, and magnitude are all important.  I believe a DA can have zero risk.  If the affirmative wants to go this route they're best off reading something that says "low risk = no risk." At the end of the round make sure I know why the DA matters more than the 1AC.  

     CP: An Advantage CP(s) with impact turns are awesome debates(but who didn't already know that). CP solvency is important. If the affirmative makes a theory argument on the CP it's a reason to reject the argument, probably not the team.  

     Topicality: I'll buy reasonability but it's fairly easy for the neg to beat it. If the affirmative can win reasonability they probably could have won the CI/we meet debate too, reasonability is just an easier route.  T is just another argument, it needs a claim, warrant, and impact. It's easy to convince me that a term of art definition beats two words defined separately.  

 

Jose Rivera Paradigm

1. I hate spreading slow down if you want me to flow your arguments, if its not on my flow its not a part of the round. It doesn't matter how well its explained or extended. At best depending on speech it will be a new argument and will be evaluated from then forth. I do want to be part of the email chain, my email is thehitman.310@gmail.com, note that just because I am part of the email chain that does not mean I flow everything I read, I only flow what I hear so make sure I can hear your arguments. Beware I will be following along to make sure no one is cutting cards and I will call out teams for cutting card so be sure to do things correctly. I will drop cards before the team and continued cutting will result in me stopping the round and contacting tab.

2. I hate theory, and have only voted on it once. Also I don't like arguments on Race don't run them, the chance i will not vote on them is very high. Every Other argument is fine and long as they are well articulated and explained(See 3). In order to vote on an argument there needs to be an impact to it and I need to know how we arrive to the impact. But I want to know more than A + B = C, I need to know the story of how we arrive at your impact and why they matter. I will not simply vote on a dropped argument unless there is no other way to vote an I need to make decision, I consider this Judge intervention and I hate doing this. You as a debater should be telling me how to vote I will have to deduct speaker points if I have to do any work for you.

3. At the beginning of each round I am a blank slate, think of me as 6 or 7-year-old. Explain arguments to me as such. I only evaluate things said in round, my own person knowledge and opinion will not affect. For example if someone in a round says the sky is purple reads evidence the sky is purple and it goes uncontested then the sky is purple. I believe this is important because I consider anything else judge intervention which I am highly opposed too and again will result in speaker point deduction. That being said I default to a a standard policy making framework at the beginning of each round unless I am told otherwise.

4. Last but not least be respectful to me and to each other, and I would appreciate good show of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of a round. Any disrespect of any kind will result in speaker point deduction on a per incident basis. Continued disrespect will result in notifying tournament staff. Although I do not expect it will go that far.

Peter Susko Paradigm

If you are starting an email chain for the debate, I would like to be included on it: psusko@gmail.com

Default

Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

Most topicality debates come down to limits. This means it would be in your best interest to explain the world of your interpretation—what AFFs are topical, what negative arguments are available, etc—and compare this with your opponent’s interpretation. Topicality debates become very messy very fast, which means it is extremely important to provide a clear reasoning for why I should vote for you at the top of the 2NR/2AR.

Counterplans

Conditionality is good. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, unless told otherwise. Counterplans that result in plan action are questionably competitive. In a world where the 2NR goes for the counterplan, I will not evaluate the status quo unless told to by the negative. The norm is for theory debates to be shallow, which means you should slow down and provide specific examples of abuse if you want to make this a viable option in the rebuttals. The trend towards multi-plank counterplans has hurt clarity of what CPs do to solve the AFF. I think clarity in the 1NC on the counterplan text and a portion of the negative block on the utility of each plank would resolve this. I am also convinced the AFF should be allowed to answer some planks in the 1AR if the 1NC is unintelligible on the text.

Disadvantages

I am willing to vote on a zero percent risk of a link. Vice versa, I am also willing to vote negative on presumption on case if you cannot defend your affirmative leads to more change than the status quo. Issue specific uniqueness is more important than a laundry list of thumpers. Rebuttals should include impact comparison, which decreases the amount of intervention that I need to do at the end of the debate.

Criticisms

I am not familiar with the literature, or terminology, for most criticisms. If reading a criticism is your main offensive argument on the negative, this means you’ll need to explain more clearly how your particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. For impact framing, this means explaining how the impacts of the criticism (whether it entails a VTL claim, epistemology, etc.) outweigh or come before the affirmative. The best debaters are able to draw links from affirmative evidence and use empirical examples to show how the affirmative is flawed. Role of the ballot/judge arguments are self-serving and unpersuasive.

Performance

In my eight years as a debater, I ran a policy affirmative and primarily went for framework against performance AFFs. The flow during performance debates usually gets destroyed at some point during the 2AC/block. Debaters should take the time to provide organizational cues [impact debate here, fairness debate here, accessibility debate here, etc.] in order to make your argument more persuasive. My lack of experience and knowledge with/on the literature base is important. I will not often place arguments for you across multiple flows, and have often not treated an argument as a global framing argument [unless explicitly told]. Impact framing and clear analysis help alleviate this barrier. At the end of the debate, I should know how the affirmative's advocacy operates, the impact I am voting for, and how that impact operates against the NEG.

Flowing

I am not the fastest flow and rely heavily on short hand in order to catch up. I am better on debates I am more familiar with because my short hand is better. Either way, debaters should provide organizational cues (i.e. group the link debate, I’ll explain that here). Cues like that give me flow time to better understand the debate and understand your arguments in relation to the rest of the debate.

Notes

Prep time continues until the jump drive is out of the computer / the email has been sent to the email chain. This won't affect speaker points, however, it does prolong the round and eliminate time that I have to evaluate the round.

Mira Toth Paradigm

I am a parent judge - make sense and I vote for you :).

I have judged a few Policy Debates, Public Forum.

Yes, I would like to be included on the email chain. myrantoth@gmail.com

I will vote you down if you show disrespect towards your opponent.

Be kind and have a great debate.

You may speak as fast as you wish. If I will have any difficulties to understand you I will raise my hand.

Jan Wimmer Paradigm

I did policy for 4 years in high school at Loyola High School in Los Angeles and competed nationally. I've judged bid rounds and final rounds in policy and LD. I did parli at Tulane and was an assistant coach at Isidore Newman in New Orleans for a couple of years. I judged a lot between 2011-2015, both in the Louisiana area and at a good few national tournaments.

Tell me how to vote; paint me a picture in your last rebuttal and it will make me very happy. I like being told where and how to vote.

I was a fairly well rounded debater in high school, so I probably have familiarity with most arguments you're reading. My senior year, we went for States CP+Politics most rounds, would read the Cap K almost every round on the neg, and went for conditionality bad about once a tournament on Aff. I also read a Deleuze and Guattari aff before. However, if you're reading a weird K like Badiou that nobody reads, I'm probably not going to know it intuitively. That said, feel free to go for these arguments! I just won't know the lit for more obscure Ks.

If I don't get world of alt or a clear try or die/turns case on the K I'm probably not going to vote for it. Tell me how and where to evaluate pre-fiat impacts and how they interact with the role of the ballot if relevant.

I love good T debates. I love good theory debates. I will not just vote on theory or T just because it is dropped. Impact it like any other argument. I have a lower threshold than most for rejecting arguments due to theory than most. Either in-round abuse or why potential abuse in this specific instance, if you want me to reject team is almost always going to be needed.

Slow down on T and Theory. I hate if I can't flow it.

I think RVIs on theory are generally dumb but will vote on them if impacted well; I think RVIs on T are probably never true but I've voted on them in the past. I have a very low threshold for answering most RVIs.

Don't be that team that spends 6 minutes on case reading defense. Please read offense or some framework-esque reasons why defense should be enough to win. Disads probably shouldn't get 100% risk of link just on the nature of them being dropped, but if you're not calling them out on it, it's way easier for me as a judge to give them more leeway than I perhaps should.

I'm going to be able to understand spreading at any speed, but if your opponent can't understand spreading, slow down so that there's actually a debate so they can actually understand what's going on. Nobody is impressed that you can outspread a novice from a lay circuit; just win on the flow if you're better than them.

If your advocacy has exclusive impacts, a role of the ballot, or solvency based on who you are, I am going to look for any and every way I can to drop you. Links based on personal experience are fine as long as personal experiences or conditions are not solvency mechanisms or ways to access the ballot in and of themselves. I think it's great when people use personal experiences into the debate space as an impetus or motivator for change, but I get incredibly bothered when anyone tries to exclude others from the ballot because of a lack of doing X thing outside of the debate space or hold a given person's positionality against them in being able to access solvency on a given position in said debate space.


Ask if the above is confusing, I tried to make it as clear as possible.

I'm fine with tag team and flex prep if both teams are.

Flashing is off time. Don't prep during flashing or I will either dock speaks or take off prep time, depending on circumstances. Include me in any email chains; jan_wimmer@yahoo.com

I default to:

Competing Interpretations
Policymaking
Util
T before Theory before K

It is very easy to convince me to vote under some other paradigm though. If you win that I should be a stock issues judge, then I'll be your stock issues judge.

I dislike (but may still vote for):

Really Generic Politics DAs (I love intrinsic perms on politics because I dislike this argument)
Disclosure Theory
Speed Theory debates unless there's a clear need for it
Consult CPs
Tons of AC spikes
Shitty K debates where no one knows what's going on
Severance Perms (I probably won't reject team off of one, though)
People changing their alts or advocacies mid debate without a really good reason (ex: a team dropped reciprocity of conditionality means the aff can read a new plan at any point)
People saying that the opponent dropped an argument when they didn't (I will give you a look and it will affect speaks)
People reading Ks on case and not telling me they're reading a K on case in their overview

Tamera Yost Paradigm

I have a strong preference for well-constructed arguments that follow a logical framework.

 

Some specifics:

-       Make sure I understand your framework

-       Minimize the use of vague references; they can be interpreted a variety of ways

-       Spreading is fine.  However, if your presentation suffers then your speaker points will as well.  I will not vote on anything I cannot flow.  So provide clear signposting and clearly structured arguments

-       If you’re going to run a Theory argument, it should be warranted and I won’t vote on it unless there is clear abuse.

-       A successful round is a good clash on central arguments

-       If you’re going to use abbreviations be clear to define them before using them

-       Be very clear about your internal link chain

-       Don’t steal prep time.   I’ll deduct speaker points

-       Most likely to vote truth over tech