13th Schaumburg Saxon Invitational
2018 — Schaumburg, IL, IL/US
Fatima Ala Paradigm
Do not spread and please signpost.
Umman Ali Paradigm
Baraa Alkhani Paradigm
Hi! My name's Baraa Alkhani, I debated in LD for 3 years at Stagg High School and was the 2018 IHSA state champion. I debated traditionally and never went to the NatCircuit. Though, by Illinois standards, I guess you can say I was a bit progressive in that I valued cards and was a bit faster as a debater.
The round's yours and I want to analyze it through the weighing mechanisms you provide for me. With that said, be sure to clearly articulate what you want me to analyze so I can do it. If you don't give me a weighing mechanism, then I may have to draw the connections myself, and that might not be to your advantage. I agree with Zachary Mellow, so I'll quote him here, "To me, the value debate isn't as important as it is to a lot of other judges. If you have the same or even a similar value to your opponent, do not spend too much time clashing at the value level if there's nothing to clash about. For example, if your value is morality and your opponent's is justice but you define them in similar ways, to me that doesn't mean there is a need for clash. But if your values are different and you think it's important to distinguish this difference, then, by all means, spend time on the value debate. Moreover, the value criterion debate is substantially more important, as it dictates through what lens I will be weighing impacts from the contention level in the round. On the contention level debate, make sure you're explaining clearly why your impacts outweigh your opponent's, and also make sure to link them back to the value criterion debate."
Speed is fine, per traditional standards, but if you start spreading like on the NatCircuit, I'll just give up on flowing it. I usually flow on paper, but sometimes on a computer. So if you see me switch up from time to time don't worry because I'll always flow. Be sure to be clear and signpost effectively so that I know where you are on the flow. If I don't catch something, it's probably your fault. Sorry.
I analyze the flow holistically, meaning you should establish a clear framework and then link back your contentions and impacts through that framework. If an argument is dropped be sure to call it out in your next speech and then I'll take it into consideration on the flow. You can extend cards, but that's not always necessary, but be sure to EXPLAIN IT if you do. Don't say, "Extend the New York Times analysis," and then move on cause that's not a real extension. You're better off extending 1 card and impacting it than 20 with no real elaboration.
I love clash and debate on the warrants and contention levels. Numerous responses, weighing, turns, nonuniqueness, risk of offense, impact calculus, comparative analyses, etc. I love to see. Fill up your rebuttal with meaningful attacks and defense and the ballot will write itself.
Finally, as I've learned through my experiences, have fun. If I give you the L, it's not the end of the world. Trust me it doesn't mean I hate you. Rather, it means that you can still learn and improve in your journey as a debater. Same with if you win. Always strive to improve your game, your speaking, and case writing. If you choose to be complacent with how you're doing, you'll never get to the next level where you want to be.
Be respectful, professional, and confident. I'm pretty outgoing so never hesitate to ask me questions or reach out to me at a tournament. If something here hasn't been addressed, then ask me prior to the round :)
Emily Carroll Paradigm
I view debate first as an educational activity. My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained. I spend most of my time in traditional LD/PF circuits.
My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.
My background- I debated policy in high school. I now coach public forum and LD for Homewood Flossmoor HS, a suburb south of Chicago. I am comfortable with a reasonable amount of spreading and will let you know if I cannot understand you.
Good luck and have fun!
Chris Caton Paradigm
Gabrielle Cervantes Paradigm
OFFENSE OFFENSE OFFENSE!
I weigh turns and whatever offense you extend very heavily. Make sure you also do some work in terms of weighing impact if both you and your opponent are impacting to similar things. In LD, I'll only weigh impacts under the established VC. Also, make sure you sign post throughout and give voter's issues in your last speech. Utilize whatever AT files necessary to answer your opponent's evidence because I don't weigh unwarranted claims (unless I know it's empirically true) as heavy as warranted claims. That being said, make sure your evidence is cited and cut properly.
Regarding speaker points, make sure I can understand you and that you SIGN POST. I mentioned it twice because it's that important.
Andrea Chelist Paradigm
Brittany Chhutani Paradigm
Michael Convey Paradigm
Former national circuit policy debater that can be best summarized as a "game judge". Everything is up for debate as they say; K's, CP, debate theory, AD, DA, T, anything.
*Minor hearing loss please project*
Elliot Davis Paradigm
I'm a debater for Evanston township HS. I'm mainly a K debater, but I'll evaluate any argument that you run (given that it isn't sexist, racist, transphobic, ableist, etc.). I'm also very familiar with pomo and other metatheory K's, and I love to see them run well (key word being well). I'm good with traditional kinds of debate too, as well as K AFF's and basically anything you want to throw at me. If you have some new crazy shit that you want to try out, pref me a 1! Quick note, humor will boost your speaks significantly.
Yes. Be clear.
Kind of a point fairy. Speaks usually start at 28.5. Anything below and you've done something wrong. I'll disclose speaks (as long as they aren't horrendous), just ask.
I'm super open to traditional V/VC contention styles of debate. I don't run them very often, but I feel like they're one of the truest arguments that can be ran in debate. If you provide me with solid factual evidence and analysis, I'm reasonably likely to weigh this above a metaphysical framework that doesn't engage at all with what you're saying. I'm a good pref for traditional debate.
Sure. Why not.
I'll sit through a framework shell, but just please don't make me listen to 7 minutes of it in your NC. I personally don't run T or framework, but I think that if you can articulate abuse in your standards then you might as well. However, I don't think that the only way to engage with T is through reading a counterinterp. Impact and link turns using the rhetoric of the AFF go a long way, and you'll have trouble convincing me otherwise. That being said, I'm also very open to a debate on competing interps, as long as the entire debate doesn't just become T (that pisses me off). Last thing I'll say is that I'm much more inclined to give the AFF RVI's than not and I'm also more inclined not to buy the TVA. Not the best judge for T, but I'll vote on it.
Kritikal debate is my domain. Generic K's like cap and security interest me, but I'll usually think of them as traditional nonunique NC's with alts. Love identity K's, specifically performance identity K's. I believe that this is the truest form of debate. Quick note, a white person running afropess against a black person with a destroy the world alt is probably a red flag. LOVE love pomo, I run Baud and Deleuze mainly, but very open to Bataille, Hegel, etc. That being said, if you run a complex K, I want you to give me a clear overview at the top of your next speech. If I feel like I don't understand anything you're saying I'm likely to vote you down. I'll evaluate Kant, but begrudgingly. Keep in mind, though, that if you choose to run the K, I'll hold you to a higher standard of explanation. Don't just assume that because I already understand it I'm fine with a shitty explanation.
I read almost exclusively K AFF's, so I am the perfect judge for nontopical debate. BUT, I weigh T more on nontopical AFF's. This means two things. One, if a T shell goes conceded in the 1AR and is extended and contextualized in the 2NR, it will be hard to come back from. BUT, if the AFF turns T very well and extends that throughout the debate that is likely to be a huge voters issue (if of course they win RVI's).
Very open to theory if it outlines legitimate abuse. Not a huge fan of frivilous theory, but if you run it I'll simply have to evaluate it.
Tricks fucking suck. Please don't pref me for tricks. Using tricks or floating PICs is an uphill battle and I'll hate you, but that being said I will not flat out reject the argument.
Jackie Dickens Paradigm
Craig Dowden Paradigm
Renee Endress Paradigm
Speed needs to be a reasonable. Too fast is not acceptable. I will NOT weigh anything I can't hear, understand nor if your going too fast so I can't keep up. A good indication is if I put my pen down I'm not flowing.
Sources as well as statistics need to be explained well and how it ways into your case. Clash to your opponents case with evidence of how I should weigh it to your side with how it fits into your framework/impacts.
Joseph Erpito Paradigm
Nicholas Gerjol Paradigm
Angela Hamann Paradigm
Haley Hamann Paradigm
Lauren Hince Paradigm
In a nutshell
I'm a former LD, PF, and Congress debater from Minnesota. I now work for New Trier High School in Illinois alongside a full-time non-debate job in Chicago. Since I don't cut cards or teach debate for a living I won't come with deep knowledge on every topic. I'm familiar with jargon and by no means a lay judge, but don't expect me to come in with a huge background on topics. I say this so you don't assume anything when making arguments. I come into rounds with a pretty blank slate and that's how I will evaluate your arguments.
To win my ballot I will need to see some sort of framework/calculus/VC/standard/observation on how to evaluate the round. I will need to see arguments weighed through that framework. I will also need strong organization with the flow. If I don't know where you are, I won't flow your argument. Other than that everything else is pretty straight forward.
tl;dr: I try to approach every round with a blank slate since I'm judging on the side and not coaching full time. The most organized and persuasive debater who takes care of the flow will win my ballot. Oh, and PLEASE WEIGHT. It's that simple.
Please Don't Do These:
-Forget to signpost (This is #1 for me)
-Argue sexist, racists, or homophobic points
-Shake my hand or call me judge
-Card Clipping (looking at you PF)
-Extend without analysis or impacting. It's not enough to tell me to extend a card.
-Ignore the framework debate if it is applicable
-Turn the last speech of the round into a second rebuttal.
-Excessive off-time road maps, especially when there is only an aff/neg flow to worry about.
-Look at me for facial expressions and validity if you think your opponent is being dumb or whatever. I I usually have a poker face while judging and won't give any indication to validate you. The best way to tell if I'm getting everything you're saying is if my head is done and flowing.
1. Are you ok with speed?
Yes, but I am a bit rusty since I judge debate on the side. If this is PF speed, no problem. LD speed, you might have to slow down for me, but I'll let you know.
2. Can I add you to the email chain?
Yes, firstname.lastname@example.org, but you still need to be clear and organized. Just because I have your case doesn't mean I'm reading it. I process through hearing the arguments better than reading them.
3. Where do your speaker points start?
27 is an average speaker. 28 is you were a good debater but maybe didn't win the round. 29 is you were amazing and did everything I need to see. 30 is rare and reserved for debaters that have amazing strategy, prioritization, argumentation, and delivery
4. Do you disclose?
Yepp, but not speaks
5. Do you care about the flow?
Yes. Very much so, but that doesn't mean you should neglect the bigger picture happening in the round.
6. How do you feel about CP, Ks, theory, etc.?
I don't have a huge background in this but that doesn't mean I won't listen. Like I mentioned above this is a side activity for me and I never ran these types of arguments as a debater which means I might not have the depth of knowledge or understanding of structure to properly judge this type of argumentation. But, I'm super open-minded if you are willing to risk it.
Kyle Joseph Paradigm
1. Conflicts [as of 09/01/2019]
• No Chen & Weiss
• No D'Alessandro & Sharda
• No Univ Of Chicago Lab
• No Iowa City
• No Homewood-Flossmoor
2. Short Version
- tech over truth
- strong analytics/analysis can beat carded evidence
- prioritize your impacts
- have fun!
3. Some Detail
I've been meaning to do this for a while, but have not really had the time. My hope is that I end up judging better debates as a result of this updated philosophy. I am now changing to a more linear philosophy, it is my hope that you read this in its entirety before choosing where to place me on the pref sheet. I debated for four years at Homewood-Flossmoor High School in the south Chicago suburbs from 2007-2011. During that time I debated, Sub-Saharan Africa, Alternative Energy, Social services and substantial reductions in Military presence.
In college, 2011-2012 [space topic] I started out at the University of Northern Iowa, Where I debated the Arab Spring resolution while judging a few debate rounds throughout the midwest. After my freshman year I transferred to the University of Iowa, where I started coaching at Iowa City High School. This year, I will continue to coach the City High Debate team.
Framing, Issue choice and impact calculus are in my opinion the most important aspects of argumentation, and you should make sure they are components in your speeches. Late rebuttals that lack this analysis are severely.
I preference tech over truth. Your in round performance is far more important to me, as it is what I hear. I greatly attempt to preference the speaking portion of the debate. Increasingly, I've found that my reading evidence is not necessarily an aspect of close debates, but rather results from poor argument explanation and clarification. The majority of 'close rounds' that I've judged fall into the category of closeness by lack of explanation. In some limited instances, I may call for evidence in order to satisfy my intellectual fascination with the activity. Anything other than that--which I will usually express during the RFD--probably falls upon inadequate explanation and should be treated as such.
I feel my role as a judge is split evenly between policymaker and 'referee' in that when called to resolve an issue of fairness. I will prioritize that first. Addressing inequities in side balance, ability to prepare and generate offense is something may at times find slightly more important than substance. In short, I consider myself a good judge for theory, THAT BEING SAID, rarely do I find theory debates resolved in a manner that satisfies my liking - I feel theoretical arguments should be challenged tantamount to their substance based counterparts. Simply reading the block isn't enough. Though I was a 2A[≈ High power LED current, peak 2.7 A] in high school I have since found myself sliding towards the negative on theoretical questions. I can be convinced, however, to limit the scope of negative offense quite easily, so long as the arguments are well explained and adjudicated.
I consider reasonability better than competing interpretations, with the caveat that I will vote on the best interpretation presented. But topicality questions shouldn't be a major concern if the team has answered.
I have a long and complicated relationship with the K. I have a level of familiarity with the mainstream literature, so go ahead and read Capitalism or Neolib. Less familiar arguments will require more depth/better explanation.
John Kackley Paradigm
Jessica Keller Paradigm
Saurim Khan Paradigm
Steve Kroepel Paradigm
Name: Steve Kroepel
School Affiliation: Belvidere North High School
Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 8
What is your current occupation? Data Analyst
Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:
Speed of Delivery - brisk conversational - no faster
Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Big picture
Extension of Arguments into later speeches - If you want me to vote on it, yes
Flowing/note-taking - I am a flow judge as long as the round takes place at a reasonable pace and I am able to keep up, if you go faster than I can flow, and something does not end up on my flow, I will not vote on it
Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? As far as the W or L is concerned, 100% argumentation. If you can't articulate your warrant, don't expect to win on it.
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes
If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes, if the round is happening at a reasonable pace, if one team sounds like an auctioneer so the other team is not able to get to all of their arguments, debating at a reasonable pace, I will not be as firm on this.
Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No.
Nicole Kroepel Paradigm
I have been coaching and judging PF for ten years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged national circuit tournaments, including the ToC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.
I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me. I will stop flowing if you are speaking too fast, so please pay attention to that.
I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.
If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do.
I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.
As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.
Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.
I expect that extensions are clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact withtout warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.
The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist. I am tech over truth, so I go based on the round and what is true in the scope of the debate.
For February specifically:
This topic needs weighing; you will have to weigh your argument against that of your opponent. There are people at the heart of both sides, so that should always be part of your calculus in the back half of the round. Interact with your opponents' case as much as possible. This topic is economic in nature, so make sure you understand the economics you are running or using to respond. Poorly done ecconomics contentions/responses can be blippy and hard to follow. If you are going to engage in the policitcal climate/policies/elections in the United States, these arguments need to be warranted and explained and must be logical and realistic.
Monica Lani Paradigm
Brian Matthews Paradigm
Amy McQuiggan Paradigm
Traditional LD judge
Speak clearly. Speed is not an issue as long as you speak clearly. If I can’t understand you, I will put down my pen. You will not get credit for saying anything that I cannot understand.
The value and criterion is the essence of the round; don’t forget that. LD is a value debate, not strictly an evidence debate.
Signpost clearly throughout with contention numbers/letters, and refer to evidence clearly (include topical content, not just the author name in your reference).
No K cases.
Remember decorum, and have fun.
Be diligent about keeping track of your own time.
In your final speech you should be clear about voting points.
Ryan Mulye Paradigm
Value (V) & Value Criterion (VC) Debate:
The decision-maker & breaker is based on whichever side BEST upholds their Value / Value criterion. Essentially, the winning debater will be able to showcase that in his/her world his/her value is superior and is better upheld. It is always beneficial to attack the logic of the other side's Value / Value Criterion to demonstrate this. For example, say the affirmative has a value of Justice and a value criterion of Equality. A successful attack on the logic here would be to show how Equality and Justice are in conflict such as if we set hiring quotas, affirmative action, etc. (everything will be equal but it is not always fair). Of course, bringing this up in the context of the resolution will bolster the argument (for example, if we are not debating affirmative action). Logic and reasoning hold a lot of weight and can substitute for traditional evidence (statistics, studies, quotes, etc.)
Value criterions are there as such: a weighing mechanism. This is often lost / falls on deaf ears amongst debaters. A weighing mechanism is just that -- a method to determine what is the best determinant for a specific value. Let use this crude example illustrate that. Say we are debating what makes a great UFC fighter. In an LD context, our Values are "Successful MMA Fighter." Well, what determines their success?Is it heart? Is it experience? Is it youth? Speed? Strength? Striking? Wrestling? Resilience? Whichever criterion you think best allows for a successful UFC fighter should be the "VC" in this example.
Burdens and Case Logic:
Obviously, the Affirmative has the burden of proof, the negative the burden of initiating clash. I would prefer that AT LEAST SOMETHING is said for each of the contentions and sub-points, even if you are running out of time. It can be something minor.
That being said, just because someone misses a contention doesn't mean that it can make or break a debate. The debater must demonstrate WHY that particular contention matters. Of course, the other extreme is not appropriate either (i.e., a particular side fails to attack anything or misses major parts of the case but has a strong case of their own).
In addition, I like when the contentions relate in someway to the value and value criterion. It clarifies the logic in the case and in general makes it easier for the side to argue their Value/VC.
The Negative's case can be flawed yet still win if the attacks on the affirmative are strong enough. Conversely, the negative can have a much better case than the Affirmative but if it never initiates clash, then I will defer to the affirmative (this hasn't been a problem).
Evidence is great, but evidence is not an argument. Debaters need to explain how/why that piece of evidence matters and relates to the resolution. In addition, debaters need to explain the source and why this person's opinion matters in the context of the resolution. Just throwing cards at me, will not sway my decision.
Speaking can be a little quick but if you speak too fast and I miss contentions/sub-points it will negatively affect you.
Cross-ex needs to be used strategically. It only matters if you refer back to it in a subsequent speech.
Clear, specific and unique arguments for each contention and sub-point is superior. Repeating the same argument over and over again is not a strong strategy for success.
Voting issues are best at the end and it helps when the debater provides a clear reason why I should vote for a particular side.
Patricia Muscato Paradigm
Megan Nubel Paradigm
I am a special education teacher and coach debate for New Trier Township High School (IL). I debated Lincoln Douglas and some PF at Valley High School 2008-2013.
Long story short: Debate the way you know how in the best way you can. Clearly explain your arguments, impacts, and interactions in the round. Articulate what my reason for the decision should be. Here's how I evaluate the round once it ends: (1) Look at the 2ar, decide whether there's anything the aff can win on, (2) if yes, consider neg interaction with that/those argument(s) and consider comparable neg offense then decide what wins, (3) if no, look at the NR and decide if there's anything that the neg can win on, (4) if still no, ???
General/neither here nor there:
-Sit wherever makes sense. I don't care which side sits in which place in the room, and feel free to sit or stand at any point in the debate.
-Flash before your speech but you don't need to use prep time to do so. Please flash analytics.
-I think brackets are fine in evidence if they are used *properly.* Please line down cards honestly and include full citations.
-The value is not particularly important to me; the value-criterion is how I evaluate the framework if it’s relevant in the round.
-I judge on the national circuit a few times tournaments year, so please don't expect me to know the general happenings or stock arguments.
-I don't flow off of speech docs but I will look at cards after the round (sometimes prompted, sometimes unprompted)
-Please disclose. There are some exceptions to this that are more lenient (local debater and you're not sure what that means, wiki down, etc) but if your opponent asks what the aff is, don’t leave them on read. You probably don’t have to disclose >30 min before the round but I’m open to hearing otherwise.
-I don't default to anything on theory or T, I just sit there very confused when things aren't explicit and justified. If you justify the argument once and it's dropped, then it becomes my default.
-I'm familiar with most types of arguments (traditional, disads, advantages, plans, theory, topicality, critical, types of counter-plans, types of perms). I have heard of and judged most frameworks used in debate but I'm not deeply knowledgeable about any.
-Sometimes I’ll get questions like “are you ok with...” or “will you listen to...” and the answer is yes. There are no arguments I feel so strongly about that I’ll reject them outright. I don’t even really have arguments I prefer. It’s my job to judge the debate so I do.
-Complete extensions are a must. Claim, warrant, and impact. Please do your impact analysis for me and address all aspects of the debate in your crystallization. If I don't clearly understand your side and ballot story, you might not get my vote because of confusion or misinterpretation on my end. Pre-correct for my potential judging errors in your speeches.
-I have high-frequency hearing loss so my ears ring. If you anticipate your speech will include very loud noises or high-frequency pitches from music, etc, please let me know.
-I'm not going to flow what I don't hear or understand. Sometimes I say clear or slow or louder if necessary. I don't always look at my keyboard or computer when I'm typing, so if I'm looking at you it doesn't necessarily mean I'm not flowing. I can type very fast so sometimes I’ll just flow extensions verbatim to sort them out later.
-If I'm flowing on paper you probably need to go about 60% of your top speed. If I am flowing on a computer it’s all good, just work up to your top speed and slow down on tags, transitions between offs, etc. If I miss the author name I just write “CARD/“ on my flow.
Please feel free to ask me about anything not mentioned here that might be pertinent to your debate. I can't say I have many strong opinions in any direction way when it comes to debate styles, arguments, etc.
Dhyan Patel Paradigm
I use the VC to filter offense through the round, make sure you're extending your impacts and any pieces of offense that you plan on using in your voting issues.
I'm OK with speed, but if your opponent can't understand it, then I'll ask you to avoid spreading.
I'm fine with any arguments.
Keep the debate civil, be polite, and be friendly. If you do, I'll give high speaks.
George Peternel Paradigm
Ania Pierga Paradigm
I’m big picture focused. So I favor well-explained links between contentions and framework as well as real-world impacts and crystallization over straight line-by-line debate. Most importantly, understand your constructive arguments and know your evidence; speaker points will reflect when a debater clearly is not familiar with the case she’s reading. I’m a parent judge but have a couple years’ experience judging LD and am an attorney.
Kalina Pierga Paradigm
Email for questions/clarifications and chains: email@example.com
update for georgetown: i've never done pf nor have i seen a pf round prior to this tournament. just make sure you send as much prewritten stuff as you can in the email chain and make your argumentation clear.
Debate background: I debated for Barrington for 3 years, 2 on the nat circuit. I ran mostly fem/queer theory and other similar K stuff. I'm super familiar with traditional LD-- that's what my school did most. I'm currently starting my freshman year at NYU, and am debating on the policy team.
For the most part, do your thing. Just make sure you do it well.
If for any reason you feel unable to continue the round, feel free to stop time and let me know. This is ~supposed~ to be a fun learning experience for every debater–– I understand how bad it can get. In the case that you feel unsafe, uncomfortable, or otherwise unable to continue, don't hesitate to stop round. No pressure.
Trigger warnings please! Also, do not misgender your opponent. If this continues past one clarification, I'm docking speaks and we're having a serious discussion after round. See more info below on bigotry in round.
Be nice. Don't be an asshole.
Don't shake my hand.
This applies to everything I'm about to elaborate on, so if you read nothing else, read this: I really think the most valuable skill you can learn from debate is the art of synthesis. Being able to explain, extrapolate, and impact your arguments is the most important thing to me as a judge for LD rounds. If you do nothing else in round, make an effort to give me good analysis and weighing of your args.
My threshold for adequate responses to theory is extremely low, especially in the context of argument weighing/analysis of topical-layer arg dynamics. That said, I'm quickest to vote off reasonability.
Send all speech docs in the email chain.
For the tricky framework/high theory stuff, be ready to actually give good warrants on the nuances of your stuff. I'm not well-versed in it, so spell it out.
High theory: explain it well.
Misgendering and slurs are voting issues and will tank your speaks. No bigoted args and discourse.
"Decorum" standards low––swear, perform, get passionate about what you're talking about.
Asking questions during the RFD is a great idea, but continuing the debate after time stops is not.
If you have any questions regarding any of the above, let me know before round. I'm happy to answer any other questions/concerns after round as well :)
Stefanie Portillo Paradigm
Raphael Portillo Paradigm
Background: I'm a freshman at UIUC majoring in Information Systems and Accounting. Broke to semis in IHSA for both Lincoln Douglas and Congressional debate (Senior, Freshman year respectively).
I did Congressional and Lincoln Douglas Debate for four years at Schaumburg high school. Although I didn’t compete nationally I’m fine with whatever policy-ish arguments you run in any tournament, somehow linking court clog into a topic will make me very happy (that being said bring in any pre-read or pre-written shells and spikes into a round and I will for sure drop you, so strike me if that’s your way of debating).
Points: High Speaks aren’t going to be given to people who only “speak pretty” or to anyone who’s probably reading off every argument their varsity member wrote for them without knowing each nuance behind the argument they’re making. Knowing that, I generally give 27s-28.5s. I’m probably going to be the only one who ever says this, but I like Jargon - it shows specialization in the event. So saying “extend” or “turn”, and doing them properly will get you good speaks. I’m fine with spreading, but do it smartly (e.x. If you spread an AC and you have a minute left after then that wasn’t really necessary).
Judging Calc: To have a value that isn’t morality and justice requires lots of explanation on your part. I don’t vote off the flow (I.e. whoever extends the most things wins). If you’re winning off an argument, and you know dropping is strategic - go for it. Also links to framework literally write my ballot for me. I despise evidence debate , like arguing whether the correlation existed or even a refutation saying the card was made by professors so it’s better won’t do anything.
Points: Speaking ‘pretty’ will at most get you a 5. 6’s are for people who refute, analyze, and offer some rationale for the side. I don’t set aside 6’s for specific people, if you do what you’re supposed to, then you’ll probably get it.
Noms/Ranks: Participation in chamber is pivotal, so getting good amount of speeches and barely standing up for a question will get you a High score from me, but you’d be in the bottom of my preferential ballot or you won’t be nommed. If you aren’t the first speech (I.e. sponsorship), then have a refutation (an actual one, not some superficial refutation where you just say “representative” and not really do anything), if I don’t here any then you didn’t do any part of the debate. Just because you said x,y,z names before your claim doesn’t mean you refuted. Presence in chamber is a good indication - this doesn’t mean being aggressive and loud, rather people who motion and people who ask a lot of questions are preferred higher.
Lastly, the “perfect speech” doesn’t exist so if you make your entire two-three hours about one specific speech on one specific side and then refuse to switch or prep other legislations, then the likelihood of getting a nom/rank is very unlikely.
If you have any questions, email me: firstname.lastname@example.org
Moira Quealy Paradigm
I am lazy and stupid, please treat me as such: tell me exactly where to flow, how to weigh, and why you won this round. I am a coach, but I am not a former debater. So if you would like to run ks, plans, theory or whatever, you can. However, you need to break it down to a fairly basic level, and they should be used to enhance the debate space, not to limit it. I'm fine with speed as long as you annunciate. If I am not getting what you are saying, I'll make a face like ðŸ˜¬.
I judge a lot, and I hear the same thing over and over so many times. If you have a non-stock case, I'd love to hear it. Run something weird!
Pet peeve: Making debate an exclusionary space in any way.
email chains to email@example.com
Clinton Sanchez Paradigm
Speaks: I will disregard anything I cannot completely understand, so do no prioritize speed over clarity. Be respectful of your opponent. Uses of derogatory language or any 'attacks' on anything that doesn't have to do with their argument will not be tolerated.
Signposting: Will almost always help me to keep track of your arguments and points
Extensions: I will not consider extensions of cards, authors, or any sources, but I will consider extensions of arguments.
Timing: Do not depend on me to keep time for you. I will let you know when your time is up, but I expect that you will be able to time your own arguments.
Besides those things above, I tend to let the debaters utilize whatever techniques are at their disposal. I am open to theories, kritiks, disadvantages, and counter-plans etc. What you should know though, is that I almost always value legitimate evidence over pure theory or conjecture. I follow Tabula Rasa, so my choice is about the current argument being given rather than preconceived ideas regarding morality.
I do not tend to give any oral critiques. Any feedback will be given on the ballot.
Kyle Schmitt Paradigm
I was a 3-year LD debater for Fremd HS and 2005 IHSA LD Varsity State Champion. I have been judging for over ten years now, almost exclusively LD but some PF.
Speed: Do not go faster than the rate at which you can clearly enunciate.
The framework debate is important to me. I want to know which V & VC I am looking at to weigh the round.
Give me reasons to believe your claims.
Tell me why it matters if your claims are true, usually tying directly to the framework(s) in the round.
Tell me why you won with good voting issues. If I agree, I'll just transfer those right over to the ballot.
Do Not: 1. Ask me my paradigm when it is on Tabroom.com 2. Take an inordinate amount of time between when you claim your prep time is over and when you start speaking - I don't need your 'off-time' roadmap.