Potomac Debate October ESMS Debate Tournament
2018 — Thomas S Wootton High School, MD/US
Savon Ayodeji Paradigm
Zoe Cantor Paradigm
Sreejato Chatterjee Paradigm
My grandfather picks up quartz and valuable onyx jewels. Send 60 dozen quart jars and 12 black pens.
Edit: Apparently I have to actually put a paradigm, but I deleted it since no one wants to read a long paradigm.
So here are a couple of things you should know. You can ask me more before round.
-I’m not that good to be honest. Never qualified for any division of TOC yet, but I’ve debated Varsity a decent bit with ok success to say that I can judge pretty well.
-You can speak fast but make sure it’s clear and also DON’T SPREAD!!! Spreading no bueno. If you spread, I will yell clear and tank your speaks.
-Novices: Please try to use all of your speech time. It is very valuable.
-I don’t flow cross, in fact I don’t like it that much anyway, however it can be very entertaining. If something is said that you think is important bring it back up in a speech.
-Make sure to extend your important contentions and weigh. “If nobody actually weighs, I'm going to flip a coin”-Isabella Wu, 2019 TOC Quarterfinalist
-I prefer that second rebuttal should frontline, but if you got a good strat, then sure do whatever.
-On that note, please signpost so I know where you are.
-I know that you MS kids were taught theory. I’ve never debated theory before, but generally I’ll probably evaluate it, but I don’t like it that much. Just run it for a good reason, like if your opponents were actually abusive, then run it. I can tell if people are running it just to win (ex. No terminalization)
-Don’t be abusive, it’s bad. I will end the round and drop you immediately, no questions asked.
Lastly, let me just say that the MS national circuit has done you a disservice. The judges on that circuit are either lay judges or high school flow judges who don’t know better and intervene in round. There are a few good MS teams (I hear there's this school called Potomac, very good:) ), but overall I don’t think MS kids are prepared for HS debate. I will try not to be a bad judge. If you disagree with me, you can ask. I do this so that you can learn and prepare for HS debate, my speaks & decisions reflect that but also take into account your skill and what you do/say in round. If you want to get better, I suggest watching some god rounds from TOC/other tourneys or camp lectures.
Dheeraj Keshav Paradigm
Anything I think is out of the flow judge norm/important to read if you're skimming through will be asterisked (***blah blah blah).
Background. I'm going to be a senior in a few months, which will be my 5th year of debate, mostly with Montgomery Blair and all PF. If anything in this paradigm confuses you/there's something missing, shoot me an email (email@example.com) or hmu on messenger.
Tech > Truth: This is what that means for you.
1. ***I am super committed to not intervening. I am judging at the plastic TOC so I don't have to do work. This isn't a "don't make me weigh for you" situation, it's a "if you don't explicitly weigh, I'll presume" sort of deal (I'll also presume if both sides win case and weighing and neither does metaweighing). The only exception is if you win defense/link turns on what they're extending, because then the weighing isn't really needed.
a) I presume whoever lost the coin flip.
2. David puts it best when he says "Run whatever argument you want...HOWEVER, I WILL INTERVENE in instances where the safety of debaters in the room is compromised. That could be through making blatantly discriminatory arguments or not providing a content warning for a sensitive topic."
Speed: I'm shit at flowing.
1. ***Ok, I'm not that bad, but I would say my inability to handle whatever VIP BL calls "PF speed" is one of my biggest flaws as a debater. I can get arguments down, but if you want me to catch nuance or not miss one of your responses, don't push it.
2. If I get real lost, I'll clear you, but also, sometimes I'll just think I'm the shit at flowing when actually im catching like 2/3 of the responses sooo.
3. Idk where my threshold for starting to drop stuff is but it's probably somewhere around 225-250 WPM.
4. If you wanna go fast-fast, and you're reading cards, send a speech doc.
1. ***Generally, I don't care if you extend card names. In fact, I would much rather you just said "Extend the C1 about Iran, that it would expand and lead to nuke war" or something like that. As long as I get your links and your impact, I'm good. I don't see the point in making y'all repeat yourselves for 30 seconds in each speech in the back half. This means I fully expect this to be in your speech. I'm making this easy on y'all. If you miss your impact, that's not my fault.
2. When extending responses and turns, keep in mind that my flowing is shitty. I still don't think you need the card names, but it'd help me on the flow a lot if you just told me the number of the response and the gist of it.
3. ***If your opponents extend case/turns/defense through ink, just say its through ink. If I don't have that ink on my flow, that's a big yikes.
4. ***I just lifted a lot of the regulation PF burden off of the summary/FF's shoulders. If you somehow still go 300 WPM in your summary, expect me to be very unhappy. If you blip through the 1 sentence extension, I might not catch it and think you dropped case, so slow down when you extend. Or just be slow the whole time.
Speech Stuff: Responding
1. 2nd rebuttal only has to frontline turns. Conceded contentions/turns have 100% strength of link, which is NOT the same thing as 100% probability of impact.
2. 1st summary needs to backline any frontlines that the 2nd rebuttal put on their defense if they want that defense in final focus. Dropped defense only needs to be "extended" in 2nd summary.
3. Turns have to be in summary. If you extend a dropped turn and frame it as defense in 1st final focus, I'll allow it.
4. No new responses to case/turns in summary. No new frontlines in FF.
5. Signpost. Ideally, list # of responses to each argument.
Speech Stuff: Weighing
1. *** Only do real weighing please. I'll still evaluate it, but I die a little bit inside everytime someone tells me their two reasons they outweigh are probability and clarity of impact.
2. ***No new weighing in final focus. This is for 1st FF too. I think weighing should start in 1st rebuttal imo.
3. *** If both sides win case and weigh and nobody interacts with the other weighing/does meta-weighing, I'll presume.
4. *** I weigh on a separate sheet of paper, so I'd prefer if you didn't weigh on the flow, but rather if all the weighing was separate from the line-by-line in your speech.
1. I'll probably be listening. If you're funny or smart in cross, your speaks will go up, and if you're rude or dumb in cross, your speaks will go down. A few more things on that:
a) Any sort of question or comment in the crossfire that has to do with you seeing evidence after the crossfire will annoy the shit outta me. You could be fantastic in round, but if you keep doing that in cross, your speaks will not reflect your impeccable speeches.
b) Inserting speeches into cross makes me sad.
c) My favorite crossfires happen when teams have multiple quickfire lines of questioning, even if nobody concedes anything in the process. Understanding when you're circling or when you're not going to get a concession and moving on is a goddamn talent.
2. ***Nobody is obligated to talk during cross-x. If you and the other team want to prep for 3 minutes, I'll allow it. If either team wants to ask questions, though, the other team's gotta answer 'em.
2. ***If you wanna use flex prep to ask questions, go for it.
Progressive Argumentation: I didn't run a lot of progressive arguments as a debater, but I did help write a cap K for this topic, and my school (david included) has won several rounds on paraphrasing theory, so I'm exposed to the argumentation.
1. *** For ALL debaters considering running progressive args in my round: I think that progressive arguments do belong in PF, but NOT in the way that they do in CX/LD. They should a) be read at the pace of a normal case, and b) be well-tagged so that the case itself is understandable OR paraphrased. If you spread me a semiocap K straight out of the backfiles, and your speech doc is extremely confusing, then I'll still evaluate it AS BEST I CAN, but your speaks will TANK. Debate, progressive or not, should be accessible and comprehensible. I also prefer paragraph theory when judging, even though I think that the shell format is better-organized, because I think that shells are more exclusionary.
2. You should extend theory and K's more rigorously than case, because it may be harder for myself/other debaters to grasp initially, so repating it and explaining it well is helpful.
3. ***I default no RVI's, CI > Reasonability, DtA > DtD, but this is only if neither side tells me what to do. If you don't know what this means, maybe don't run theory (or ask me before round, I don't know that much more but I'll do my best).
4. ***By default, I will evaluate Theory and Ks before case, but since both have a ROB, if neither side tells me whether I go to Theory first or K's first in a debate where they're at odds with each other, I'll just kick both and go to the case debate. PLEASE do this weighing.
5. ***I'll evaluate tricks but I don't particularly like them. I'd easily take a paragraph theory argument about why tricks are bad because they reduce clash or arguments about why the spirit of the resolution > text of the resolution. ALSO DON'T HIDE TRICKS. Put them in a contention (or 5), or in a subpoint (can be in an unrelated contention) or in an over/underview.
1. I'm not calling cards if nobody tells me to/there are no evidence conflicts.
2. ***I think if your evidence doesn't have a warrant but you do, I have no problem with that warrant/evidence combo. If your evidence and you have different warrants, that might be a problem.
3. If someone miscuts evidence and it's called out, I won't evaluate the card. As David puts it, "If you expect me to drop a debater for miscut evidence, read theory."
1. I'll generally just gut-check how good you are. That includes how well you speak and how smart the things you say are. If you concede defense/a contention and then spin it to work for you, I'll be super duper impressed.
2. ***If you get really passionate and curse in a speech, I'll probably laugh and boost your speaks. If you curse at someone, I will probably frown and tank your speaks.
3. ***I like sass and humor. Don't be rude.
4. ***Me and my old partner used to turn our team name (Montgomery Blair JK) into a cringy joke at the end of our cases. We'd say "Judge, we may be Montgomery Blair JK but we're not just kidding when we tell you that.." Anything less cringy than this is appreciated.
Other Important Things
1. Wear what you want. Be comfortable, whether that's dressed up or dressed down. Just make sure you wear something.
1. Worldstar rules apply. See them here (bottom of the paradigm, speaker ceiling doesn't apply): https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=53657
2. At the request of both members of both teams (agree before the round), I will vote for whomever LOST the debate (presumption will then go to whomever WON the coin flip) OR we can debate an entirely different topic (previous NSDA topic or otherwise, hell if y'all have prep for pancakes v. waffles, I'm down).
3. AJR Lyrics boost speaks, unless they're poorly inserted. If I don't catch em, oops.
^This paradigm is heavily influenced by David Kinane, whom you can check out here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=40974.
Jennifer Lin Paradigm
I currently debate on the national circuit for PF (HS).
Make sure to have cohesive summaries and final focuses. I won't drop you if they aren't but its a lot better when you go for the same args as your partners. Offense in ff should be in summary.
If you want me to vote for you, do a lot of comparative weighing and tell me why your impacts are more important or why your links are more sound.
I'm generally tech>truth, but that doesn't mean you can make extreme arguments that just don't make sense. I will essentially vote off of anything as long as it isn't offensive or absurd.
I don't flow cross. If you want me to vote on it, say it in a speech.
I'll give you a 30 in speaks if it's almost flawless. This includes your argumentation, speaking, and strategy.
Ishanvi Malayanil Paradigm
If you can make a good topical joke during CX, I might bump your speaker points slightly :)
Speed: I'm ok with fast or slow speed, as long as what you're saying is enunciated and emphasized properly. Measure your speed based on your own comfortability, but make sure you are clear and understandable.
Clash: I like seeing a lot of clash. Be sure to emphasize how your arguments interact with your opponents, it makes it a lot easier for me to judge the round. I prefer offtime roadmaps and going down the flow.
During speeches, make sure to signpost and warrant extensively! Lastly, please be sure to weigh and collapse as clearly as you can! The burden rests on your shoulders to assure to me why you should win the round, so be very clear about it!
Remember debate is a fun activity, so don't get too discouraged by some of your results, make sure you're rnjoying the experience!
Lawrence Tang Paradigm
not black debaters reading afro-pess is sus
Peter Zhang Paradigm
(Last Updated 5/30/20)
Hi I'm Peter (he/him) and I debated LD and PF for Montgomery Blair HS. Reached TOC Quarters in LD my senior year.
- Please set up docs ASAP. Especially if I'm late to round.
- Put me on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Don't steal prep! I will manually time you and penalize egregious violations
- Speech times are hard set. I will stop flowing when time ends.
- Bigotry is unacceptable, I'll intervene against atrocious arguments
- I will give one team the win and assign them speaker points at my discretion
- Flex prep is fine, using CX for prep is unstrategic and unimpressive
--- PF ---
- Tech > truth
- Defense is sticky
- Weigh early, preferably in rebuttal
- Speed is fine but you must be clear, I will call clear up to three times
- You don't have to explain everything in extensions (e.g. if the impact is dropped, say "extend the dropped impact")
- I presume for whoever lost the flip, but presume first when inapplicable
- Please don't misconstrue! I will call for sketchy cards
- I will reward good understanding of your evidence with speaker points
- I really like it when you indict evidence and am open to evidence ethics theory
- Theory/Ks are fine, but please don't butcher them
- Reading frivolous theory as a cheap shot is terrible
- I hate dumb Ks, they should be clearly explained and contextualized
- Disclosure is good, you should do it
- Paraphrasing fine, but you should have cards ready
- Not listening to "but this is Public Forum!", make real arguments for why progressive arguments are uneducational/unfair
Double or Nothing Game
- Do you think you're efficient? I offer the following gamble. If you don't say the following phrases/words, I will give you 30 speaks. If you trip up and use one of them, you will get 20 speaks. Here's the list: "um"/"uh"/filler words, "literally," "but then/second/third/etc.," "I/we (would) say/think/assume/tell you that..."
--- LD ---
- Tech > Truth
- You do you, I can probably evaluate anything
- In order of familiarity: Phil/LARP > T/Theory/Tricks > K
- In order of enjoyability: Cool Phil/K = Good LARP > T > Boring Phil/K = Bad LARP > Tricks/Theory
- Case debate good, clash good
- Recycled tricks bad, creative tricks good
- Expectations for extensions depend on contestation (if the aff is dropped, "extend the aff" is fine)
- I'll vote on anything with a claim, warrant, and impact, but dumb arguments have a lower bar for responses
- I do not vote on out-of-round violations (except disclosure, with screenshots) or ad homs
- I presume neg unless the neg reads an advocacy, don't make me have to presume
- Ethics violations = stop the round, violations include misciting, cutting in middle of a paragraph, clipping
- Zero risk depends on type of defense, e.g. "bill has passed already" = zero risk
- I don't judgekick unless told to
- I care about evidence, this means I like recutting evidence, indicting authors, comparing evidence, etc.
- Perms are tests of competition
- Politics is cool
- Please explain links and answer the case
- Familiar with Deleuze/psyche/most identity args, err towards overexplaining
- K affs fine, but I think fairness/framework is probably right
- Line-by-line > Cloud 2NR Overviews
- Shorter, clear tags good
- Read definitions / counter-definitions
- Not evaluating paragraph T shells, flesh it out
- Amenable to Nebel T
- Disclosure definitely good, o-source probably bad, I don't like friv disclosure shells (round reports, analytics, etc.)
- Small schools: I think the skew is real, I'm open to and persuaded by small school flex esp against disclosure
- One condo probably fine, 3+ probably bad, midway on PICs, consult CP/cheat-y CPs probably bad
- Spec shells are probably dumb, you better at least have a card
- Default DTA, no RVI, CI, do not make me default
- Dumb shells are dumb, you will get bad speaks
- Weigh between standards/offense
- Don't read theory as a crutch, strategic shells are fine
- I'll vote on it
- You better explain it. If I didn't understand it when they were first presented, I'm not voting on it.
- Tanking your speaks
- If you're debating tricks, answer it, the bar is low!
- I'll try to average 28.5, speaks are relative to pool, I'll probably inflate
- Speaks for innovation, smart strategy, technical proficiency, good evidence
- Ethos is good, being rude is bad
- Don't exclude novices, good speaks for accommodating