Lexington Winter Invitational

2019 — Lexington, MA/US

Nirmal Balachundhar Paradigm

6 rounds

2018----Update:

I no longer care what you read, as long as it is not oppressive in any matter. I only ask that you explain your arguments and their impacts well.

Add me to email chain: nirmalb@u.northwestern.edu

Also, if you can sit down early in a speech, please do. That way we can all just go home and be happy a little earlier.

***old stuff**

LD:
General:
- Speed is fine, please be clear, I'll call it as many times necessary but I will get frustrated and dock speaks
- I won't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, it is your responsibility to explain that
- Prep stops after you have compiled your stuff into one document. If you're flashing- it stops after the flashdrive leaves your computer
- I'm comfortable with most arguments as long as you can explain and weigh them explicitly and clearly
- Disclosure is good norm- if you don't disclose or disclose insufficiently and it's brought up in the round, I will dock your speaks by 1-5 speaker points (based on how I am feeling about this violation) from whatever I would have given you, but I will still evaluate the theory debate and the rest of the round.
- You must make your evidence available
- I enjoy policy debates the most, please weigh
- I also enjoy theory debates that are well executed

Policy-esque arguments:
- Impact comparison and weighing is crucial, otherwise i have no idea where to look first
- Utilize argument diversity
- Framing is very important, if you don't explain implications of winning arguments, then i don't know their use even if you have won them
- please compare evidence
- i personally think that hard work should be rewarded, so well executed strategies will increase your speaks

Phil:
- I understand the basics of most theories/general responses. If this is what you're good at- feel free to go for it.
- Explanation is crucial, your framework should be organized in a well explained syllogism, and your explanation should follow from that
- A lot of people just don't cut evidence that warrants their philosophical arguments or use big buzzwords when going for philosophical arguments- don't do that
- Be comparitive: reading dumps on their ethic is insufficient, explain why your ethic is better

Kritik:
- Please have good evidence and diversify/nuance your kritik and when you respond to it
- Tech and ethos are both very important on the K debate, make sure that you can do both
- Long dumps and generic responses aren't that great, make them better by tailoring it to the round and explaining the 2NR or 1AR against these very well
- I am pretty convinced by policymaking arguments against these, that being said, be super responsive and err on the side of overexplanation against these
- Not well read in high theory, my understanding will solely depend on your ability to explain it.

Theory:
- Default to competing interps, no rvi, drop debater- will still be convinced by arguments for other sides
- Frivolous theory: I will listen to it because it is strategic but if it's clear that it's used as argument avoidance and just for strategy rather than actual abuse, I probably won't be too thrilled and that might reflect in your speaks
- Good theory debates are better to watch especially when they are utilized well against tricks and abuse-
- Weighing and framing is important

Tricks:
- Not a fan of- they prioritize gimmicks over hard work which isn't what educational activities should do
- I will still listen to them but they will reflect in your speaks
- Implications need to be clear in the initial speech
- these include: a prioris, triggers, INCOHERENT framework applications, etc.
- If you come up with some very nuanced and interesting applications against various scenarios, then I'll probably be more receptive to it.

Evidence Ethics:
If you are caught clipping, it will result in a Loss 0. That being said, if you accuse someone of an evidence ethics violation and you are proven to be wrong, the same punishment will be given to you. Accidentally skipping 2 words in a card is not clipping.
Clearly miscut evidence or misrepresentation should be brought up by opposing debaters in round as evidence indicts.

Kaushal Balagurusamy Paradigm

6 rounds

I Lexington LD ‘17

Cal Berkeley ‘21

General: Debate is a communicative activity where truths are contingent on your justification

and construction of them – that said I’ll vote off of whatever is justified. Debate is a testing space

for arguments – this means that whatever paradigm you justify whether that’s poetic

performance or reasonability – that’s how things will work. *I reserve the right to make

particular judgements that go against the paradigm or choices in specific issues not listed based

on new circumstances that arise* I’m impartial but understand psychologically people will be

biased towards arguments that are well explained and clearly explicated because I can

understand your intentions and framing better – that’s the only way ethos impacts things but it

matters. Persuasion, research, presentation are all crucial for debate to make you all great

reasoners, researchers, and talkers – those will help you in career and make the world a better

place – I’ll do my role as a judge to regulate practices like so. Big picture framing is important so

long as it resolves the line by line – pathos alone is insufficient but required

PF:

- I’ve talked to PF people on my team and debated it for fun a couple times within my team, and

since I did LD I’ll evaluate things similarly to a mutually agreed implicit framework or

framework/contention duality

LD:

General:

- Speed is fine, please be clear, I'll call it as many times necessary but I will get frustrated and

dock speaks

- I won't vote for an argument if I don't understand it, it is your responsibility to explain that

- Prep stops when your flash drive leaves your computer – making speech docs is part of prep

- I'm comfortable with most arguments as long as you can explain and weigh them explicitly and

clearly

- Disclosure is good norm- if you don't disclose or disclose insufficiently or it's brought up in the

round, I will dock your speaks by 1-5 speaker points (based on strength of this violation) from

whatever I would have given you, but I will still evaluate the theory debate and the rest of the

round impartially – I just need to deter undisclosure

- You must make your evidence available

- I enjoy policy debates the most, please weigh

- I also enjoy theory debates that are well executed

Defaults

- *I’ll only use default paradigms if both debaters don’t assume a common paradigm or explicitly

argue for one, or implicitly justify one – I try to keep my defaults the least interventionist as

possible so even if you don’t know about it, it won’t affect your strategy

- Theory: Competing interps, RVI’s, Drop the Debater

Comparing Worlds

- Framework – syllogistics over floating justifications, epistemic confidence

Policy-esque arguments:

- Impact comparison and weighing is crucial, otherwise i have no idea where to look first and

will read your cards because that’s the only non interventionist understanding

- Utilize argument diversity

- Framing is very important, if you don't explain implications of winning arguments, then i don't

know their use even if you have won them

- please compare evidence

- i personally think that hard work should be rewarded, so well executed strategies will increase

your speaks so will being well researched

Phil:

- I’m well read on analytical philosophy, I’m less well read on postmodernism and continental

philosophy but as long as you can clearly articulate them syllogistically – it’ll be super easy to

evaluate, just don’t throw buzzwords around because then I’ll just think you’re recycling

backfiles and trying to confuse everyone

- be comparative

Kritik:

- Very familiar with cap, ID ptx, antiblackness, CLS, security, and other policy kritiks – less

familiar with postmodernism

- Please have good evidence and diversify/nuance your kritik and when you respond to it

- Tech and ethos are both very important on the K debate, make sure that you can do both

- Long dumps and generic responses aren't that great, make them better by tailoring it to the

round and explaining the 2NR or 1AR against these very well

- I am pretty convinced by policymaking arguments against these, that being said, be super

responsive and err on the side of overexplanation against these

- Not well read in high theory, my understanding will solely depend on your ability to explain it.

Theory:

- Default to competing interps, rvi, drop debater- will still be convinced by arguments for other

sides

- Frivolous theory: I will listen to it because it is strategic but if it's clear that it's used as

argument avoidance and just for strategy rather than actual abuse, I’ll destroy your speaks to

reflect your pathetic strategy

- Good theory debates are better to watch especially when they are utilized well against tricks

and abuse

- weigh and frame – pure line by line just shows me your ignorant to the overall picture

Tricks:

- Love intelligent and unique tricks with interesting applications because they show the creative

research that debate should value – don’t recycle, because it just shows your lack of unoriginality

and research

- I’ll nuke your speaks to deter old recycled tricks like rodl indexicals and the standard

LHP/scarsdale 2012 stuff

- Implications need to be clear in the initial speech

- these include: a prioris, triggers, INCOHERENT framework applications, etc.

Ethics:

- If you are caught clipping, it will result in a Loss 0. That being said, if you accuse someone of

an evidence ethics violation and you are proven to be wrong, the same punishment will be given

to you. Accidentally skipping 2 words in a card is not clipping – record your speeches but not

your opponents – they should do that to avoid law violations

- Clearly miscut evidence or misrepresentation should be brought up by opposing debaters in

round as evidence indicts – evidence can be interpreted in various ways, don’t think it should be

required to drop them but you can read a theory shell, I just don’t think it’s a smart strategy

- If your opponent says some really messed up stuff like racism is good or something I’ll nuke

their speaks to mess them up for the tournament, but if you can’t beat such a pathetically racist

argument it shows your lack of skill – I need kids and the new liberal generation to be able to

stand up and justify, tackle the most bigoted of speech so that you are informed and ready to

destroy the racists of the real world, you will not get by in the real world expecting people to “be

liberal” – which means I won’t automatically vote against them but will dock their speaks

Grant Brown Paradigm

6 rounds

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

Millard North ’17, Swarthmore College ’21 (Studying Philosophy)

Instructor at the National Symposium for Debate and the Texas Debate Collective

Assistant Lincoln-Douglas Coach at Lake Highland Prep

Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com

Conflicts: Millard North, Lake Highland Preparatory

A spreadsheet, for your reference, with my decisions can be found here.

Last Updates: 2019 Bronx

The Short Version

As a student when I considered a judge I usually looked for a few specific things, I will answer those here:

1. What are their qualifications?

I qualified three times to the TOC, cleared twice, and reached semifinals my senior year. I have taught seven weeks of camp for three summers and am in my third year as an assistant coach at Lake Highland.

2. What will they listen to?

Anything - excluding discourses and practices which exclude other participants.

3. What are they experienced in?

I coach a wide variety of arguments and am fairly comfortable adjudicating any style of debate. I am most familiar with kritik based arguments, particularly those which are invested in critical-theory and continental philosophy. I find myself to generally be the least certain of my decisions in debates involving dense amounts of theory and tricks.

4. What do they like?

I don’t have any predetermined notion of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like and I greatly enjoy when debaters experiment within the space of the activity. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate I will enjoy whatever you have to present.

5. How do they adjudicate debates?

I generally have a fairly systematic way of adjudicating debates. I begin by attempting to discern the priority of the various layers of arguments presented, examples include frameworks or weighing arguments which specify which types of impacts matter, a theory argument which contests the fairness or education of a position, a kritik which indicts the performance of the affirmative, etc. Once I have determined the priority of layers, I proceed to evaluating the different arguments on each layer, looking for an offensive reason to vote, accounting for defense, bringing in other necessary layers, and whatever else is necessary to find an adequate resolution to the debate.

Longer Version

General things to note:

I flow on a computer in an excel document.

Speed is great so long as you’re clear – I will call “clear” or “slow” a reasonable amount of times – I have a very high threshold for clarity.

I’ll do my best to be tabula rasa and be “tech over truth” but these concepts are vague at best. Smart technically work can make up for weaker truths and pinpointed truths can overwhelm technicalities.

I find the evaluation of embedded clash to be inevitable. This isn't to say I ignore the line-by-line of the flow, but that what I determine to be relevant parts of the flow for a particular portion of the debate - the pieces that make up the arguments I'm evaluating - tends to be based on a fairly holistic and interconnected view. This is not something I prefer, I'd rather not have to do any embedded evaluation, but I find it to be a necessity in many debates which have lackluster weighing and explanation by debaters.

There must be an explained and impacted warrant to an argument in order for me to vote on it. I have a high threshold for explanation. If they entirely concede a theory argument and you extend it with no warrants, I will happily refuse to vote on it. It is impossible to resolve a set of competing claims and I refuse to do that work for you – warrants are an unmovable threshold. I don’t care if the warrant is a misunderstanding or perhaps even false, for example: “Dogs can fly because they have legs which enable movement that could allow them to ascend vertically.” That is sufficient if it is conceded, but there must be some potential justification/reasoning for your claim.

I prefer not to have to use defaults to make important judgements about a debate, as hopefully they’ve been explained by the debaters, but in the cases where they are required, I’ve listed my general views here. I default to a comparative worlds paradigm in which I weigh the desirability of the affirmative versus the negative based on provided impact framing. I default to presuming negative, unless there is an alternative advocacy (counterplan, kritik) in the 2NR without the choice of the status-quo, in which case I presume affirmative. Furthermore, I presume that the status-quo is always an option for the negative, but I will only evaluate it as such if the 2NR explicitly does work on this question. Lastly, I default that layers can be weighed against each other on the same level (theory, topicality, kritiks).

I’ve decided that absent thorough explanation of what arguments such as “evaluate the theory debate after the 1AR/2NR” mean I am not going to evaluate them. If you can explain which layers and arguments in the debate this applies to when you extend it, feel free to go for it, but otherwise I’d recommend against it.

As my time in the activity steadily increases, I find myself more frequently compelled by arguments which are positionally defended, well researched, and grounded in educational content and less frequently compelled by arguments which are frivolous, poorly justified, and used entirely for technical advantage. This stands as a general rule of thumb, but in practice has led to a real distaste for cheap-shots, tricks, and frivolous theory arguments, as I find the ones that I frequently judge to be at least intuitively pointless, unnecessary, and unoffensive. After these types of debates, I almost always find myself asking “Why couldn’t they have just responded to the substance of their opponent’s argument?” Though I imagine I will still vote for those positions, this certainly effects my distribution of speaker points and threshold for responses to certain positions and is something to keep in mind. Practically, this just means that I’d prefer to see, regardless of your preferred style of debate, a few well-developed and defended positions, be it a theory interpretation, kritik, counterplan, or otherwise, rather than a random smattering of underdeveloped and unjustified ones.

Kritiks

I’m most familiar with this style of debating, usually from the poststructuralist and continental philosophy angle, and they are my favorite debates to judge when done well.

I really value clarity of explanation, especially in the context of dense philosophy. The most common concern I find myself raising to debaters is a lack of through development of a worldview. Working through the way that your understanding of the world operates, be it through the alternative resolving the links, your theory of violence explaining a root-cause, or otherwise is crucial to convey what I should be voting for at the end of the debate.

I find that a large number of alternatives are either not competitive or are poorly explained but the affirmative fails to articulate a solid permutation. Similarly, explain your permutations - one sentence in the 1AR and 3 minutes in the 2AR won't cut it.

"Kritikal" Affirmatives

I'm a fairly receptive judge to these positions. I don't really care if you defend the topic entirely, a little bit, or not at all. You should just advocate what you can justify and defend. It generally holds true that the further the affirmative is from the topic the more topicality’s concern for fairness becomes persuasive, but well developed arguments on either side can shift this greatly.

You should forefront an explanation of what you defend, be it a methodology, implementation of a plan, theory of approach or analysis, or otherwise. It is usually shiftiness in conjunction with a lack of clear story from the affirmative that results in sympathy for procedurals such as topicality and other negative objections in these debates in front of me.

I generally find negative tricks against these positions (switch-side debate, topical version, truth-testing, fairness first) to be fairly weak but I end up voting on them quite frequently due to lack of a forwarding of a different vision for the debate from affirmatives.

Theory

I am least comfortable adjudging intricate theory debates; however I enjoy these debates when there is a lot of clash and weighing on one or two shells. I do not enjoy these debates as much when there are multiple shells, meta-theory, or a lack of clash and weighing. A majority of my decisions on theory come down to either dropped arguments or weighing in an otherwise extremely messy debate.

I default to no RVI, drop the argument, and competing interpretations. I default to a pretty modest understanding of competing interpretations in which a risk of offense isn't "game over" - if you disagree you ought to explain your version.

I am profoundly unpersuaded by any claims that appeal to a constitutive nature of the activity/judge and jurisdiction claims. So unpersuaded that if it is anything less than dropped I'm unsure if I would vote for it. It seems logically incoherent.

The later in the round the shell is read the less likely I am going to feel comfortable voting on it. That's not to say I won't vote on 2NR or even 2AR theory, but I'd really prefer that I didn't have to, plus you're basically putting the debate in my hands in that point - it's a big risk.

I will vote on disclosure theory and brackets theory, though using either, especially increasingly specified interpretations, for purely technical gain is yucky.

I have a voting record that is fairly favorable towards theory, however I have become increasingly aware of my bias against theory "tricks". This includes things such as "must read a counter-interpretation," arbitrary independent voters (e.g. strategy skew, I'm fine with things such as resolvability), etc. These are usually extended without a warrant and are dependent on either intuition/prior interpretative beliefs about the nature of theory or a purely technical evaluation that will vote on mere claims - in these instances I am likely to refuse to vote on these arguments. I will however vote on these arguments when they actually have a warrant.

Topicality

You should have a clear interpretation and violation that explains your vision of the topic. The affirmative should either defend the violation or have a counter-definition or competitive counter-interpretation.

You should isolate the ground that you lose, the limits that are broken - reference case-lists and be specific.

I enjoy T debates that include carded topic-lit evidence to support their impacts and interpretation.

Everything in the theory section applies here as well.

Policy Arguments

I enjoy these greatly and wish I judged them more.

Good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence - I'm a good judge for strong "spin" and extrapolation outside of the evidence itself.

Explain your scenarios in later speeches - advantage/disadvantage overviews are great.

I'm mostly neutral on multiple condo, though I suppose I slightly lean affirmative if its more than two or three.

Ethical Frameworks

I've gotten significantly better at judging these debates and I spend pretty much all my time in college reading, studying, and discussing philosophy.

I'd implore you to give overviews and slow down to explain the main points of clash in later speeches. These debates can get very messy with a variety of preclusion claims, hijacks, etc. and a clear explanation of the implications of your extensions and arguments can sway the debate in your favor.

I'm a fan of frameworks interacting with kritiks, theory, and otherwise.

Tricks

I have voted on these arguments frequently when they are well explained in the context of the rest of the debate in terms of both their content (the claim and warrant) and function (their impact). You should therefore explain how your trick interacts with other layers and arguments in the debate if you want to go for it.

Being honest with your sketchiness is in your best interest - for both strategic reasons and for my own comprehension. I'm okay with voting for an argument I didn't see coming, but if I can't logically put together from the pieces you explain in the later speeches how the argument functions i.e. why it affirms, takes out theory, etc, I'm probably not going to vote on it.

Ethics Questions

If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused.

If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C.

Questions of misrepresentation/miscutting should be addressed in the round - in whatever form you determine to be best.

Speaks

I disclose speaks. I believe it helps students learn what they can do better and helps discourage bad practices.

A thirty requires an affective component – passion and exceptionality – that is what distinguishes it from a very high 29.

Here is a rough framework I will attempt to follow – I assign speaks relative to the pool so a 29.5 at a local tournament is different than a 29.5 at the TOC:

<25-26: Unethical; offensive, clipping of cards.

27-28: Significantly below average, unlikely to clear.

28-29: Slightly below, at, or slightly above average, potential to clear but won't make it far (I try to average a 28.5)

29-30: Significantly above average, most likely to clear and will be competitive in late elims.

Camille Caldera Paradigm

6 rounds

I debated Lincoln Douglas at Walt Whitman High School from 2014 to 2018 on the national and local circuits. I qualified to the Tournament of Champions in 2017 and 2018. I am currently a freshman at Harvard College and a member of the Harvard College Debating Union.

I debated a bit of everything, but I have the most experience with theory, topicality, and framework debate.

The debates I enjoyed the most involved semi-topical affs about identity and/or oppression. Tricks were also fun. I love good (read: creative, well-researched) disads or counterplans, but I also love hearing k debates and have so much respect for the style.

I need to hear clear, explicit extensions and weighing on every layer of the debate. Tell me where to vote and why I should vote there. Simple is better.

Basically, read anything in front of me, try not to be boring, definitely don’t be a jerk (be extra nice, because I am sensitive), and please don’t spread too fast—I will not have judged on the circuit or heard spreading prior to Lex and Harvard in 2019, and I debated last in semifinals of Harvard in 2018.

Email me at camillegcaldera@gmail.com or message me on Facebook with questions, cases, etc. (Yes, I want to be on email chains!)

Panicked Afterthought: I don't understand high theory/post-modern philosophy so maybe don't read that in front of me? I will do the absolute best I can to sift though it but no promises.

Chris Castillo Paradigm

6 rounds

I am the LD coach at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx. I've been involved in debate since the year 2000. I judge a lot. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo at gmail dot com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.

Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments. D

Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity.

Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during cx. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip.

Preetham Chippada Paradigm

6 rounds

I debated LD for Lexington High School for four years and graduated in 2015. I qualified to the TOC twice and now coach LD at Walt Whitman (MD).

I believe tab judges are an urban legend. I certainly have preferences that make me more susceptible to vote for specific arguments but I will be as upfront about them as possible.

General Preferences:

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I will say clear as many times as necessary but I will get frustrated if you don’t slow down and make an actual effort to be clear. Don’t start your speech at full speed because it takes me a solid 15 seconds to get used to your voice and be able to understand your spreading. I don’t read your speech docs while I flow, so be clear on advocacy texts, interpretations, tags, and author names.

I am very comfortable not voting for an argument because I could not understand it in the first speech even if it is crystal clear in your final speech.

If you are going to flash a document, prep time stops when you take the flash drive out of your computer. If you want to email a document, prep time stops when you save the document. Flash/email only one compiled document. Don't save documents onto the flash drive, compile speech docs, or pull up files outside of prep time.

I went mostly for policy-type arguments in high school so I believe they are the debates that I am best at evaluating. I enjoy in-depth plan debates. Impact calculus is essential if you want to win my ballot in a debate like this.

I am not the most well-read judge for a lot of philosophical debates. That said, I think that I can understand most frameworks as long as you present them clearly. Framework debates have to be comparative so don't just make arguments in a vacuum - weigh warrants for your standards against theirs.

I enjoy good theory debates, but I think most of the theory debates I have ever seen are a form of argument avoidance. A lot of generic shells frustrate and bore me. I really like T, especially when you actually read evidence to support the standards. I don’t think textuality makes any sense as a voter on topicality because as long as both debaters have a definition, they both are textual. From there, topicality is a question of whose interpretation is best for fairness, education, or advocacy skills. I won’t vote off of an offensive counterinterpretation unless you provide an RVI or have standards that justify the offensive plank of the interpretation.

I like kritikal debates and encourage you to read Ks in front of me. I don’t care if your aff isn’t topical.

Defaults:

In the absence of any arguments otherwise, this is how I will evaluate debates. This, however, is not an indication of preferences.

-Theory is an issue of reasonability.

-Aff does not get an RVI on theory.

-Theory is a reason to drop the argument.

-I will evaluate debates through comparative worlds.

-Neg defends the status quo

-Counterplans are conditional and judge can kick the counterplan for the neg

Arguments that I am not a fan of (but I will still vote on):

-Presumption

-Skepticism

-Meta-theory

-Affirmative framework choice

-Theoretically justified frameworks

-Theory about case order (ethical frameworks first, role of the ballot first, etc.)

-Spikes that deny the neg CPs or Ks

-Spikes that claim neg may only have one route to the ballot

-Spikes that claim all aff theory should be evaluated before neg theory

-Spikes that claim the neg must concede the aff role of the ballot

-Spikes that claim the neg must have a countersolvency advocate or a link chain advocate

-Spikes that claim debaters must weigh abuse against side bias

-Most spikes tbh

-Wrong forum arguments

-Polls affs

-A prioris

-Contingent standards

Arguments I won’t vote on (even if dropped):

-All neg theory arguments are counterinterps

-Evaluate the round after the 1AR or 2NR

-Resolved a priori

Speaker points:

Here are the things you can do to get higher speaks:

-Provide a clear ballot story

-Be respectful

-Use all 3 minutes of CX asking questions. I’m okay with using prep time to continue CX, but I prefer that you don’t use CX time to prep.

-2NR and 2AR overviews

-Word economy

-Proper prioritization of flows

-Don’t read obviously frivolous theory.

I don’t like disclosing your speaks while your opponent is present, but if you find me individually or email me (email given below) I will tell you what your speaks were.

Evidence ethics:

The round stops when an accusation of evidence ethics is made. This includes card clipping and misrepresenting evidence. I will evaluate the accusation to the best of my ability. If I find that a debater has cheated they will be given a loss and zero speaker points. If a debater makes a false accusation, they will lose. I have not yet figured out what to do for speaks in that scenario.

Contact Info:

If you have further questions or want to know your speaks after the round, message me on Facebook or at preetham . chippada @ gmail . com (spaces removed)

Abhilash Datti Paradigm

6 rounds

Bronx '19 Note: Haven't judged since the NSD Camp Tournament in July, so do not go top speed, at least starting out. I always sucked at flowing, so if you want me to get your arguments down, 75-80% of top speed is probably a good place to be.

Read whatever, have fun!

Speaks: I don't inflate speaks. To get high speaks, make good strategic decisions and be funny. To get low speaks, make poor strategic decisions and be mean.

Notes: Random thoughts I have about debate.

- Be efficient about flashing/emailing/etc. It's super obvious when people are stealing prep and I'll lower speaks for it

- I think you should flash/email/etc. pre-written analytics, if you don't I'll lower speaks

- For disclosure violations, make sure all the screenshots have time-stamps and are on one document

- Prep stops when the doc has been compiled, it should be flashed/emailed/etc. shortly after

Akhil Gandra Paradigm

4 rounds

I'll listen to anything but am generally not a great judge. Especially bad with philosophy and kritiks. 

Good luck and don't be late for rounds. 

Chetan Hertzig Paradigm

6 rounds

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students.

If you're in high school, please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

PRACTICES I LIKE & WILL REWARD WITH HIGHER SPEAKS:

- Starting speeches slowly and building speed as you go (rather than starting at top speed)
- ENUNCIATING and INFLECTING throughout
- Speaking slower than average circuit speed
- Providing an explicit decision-calculus/voting issues
- Explicitly linking to a standard or ROB in speeches, especially rebuttals
- Telling a clear and coherent ballot story
- Weighing between your extensions and your opponent's (not just giving me two non-clashing sets of extensions)
- Reading a whole res aff that defends the topic as a principle
- Having a layered NC and responsive/specific turns off the aff
- Making topical critical arguments/reading Ks that are grounded in the topic lit
- Comparing evidence and weighing
- Giving structured speeches
- Using good word economy

PRACTICES I DISLIKE & FOR WHICH I MAY DECREASE SPEAKS:

- Using profanity in the round. I don't care what your purpose is; it's not necessary.
- Using ad homs of any kind against your opponent (e.g., commenting on their race, clothing, or practices as a debater). Find a non-personal way of making the argument.
- Reacting non-verbally when your opponent is speaking (e.g., violently shaking your head, making faces, waving your arms, etc.). It's rude, unpersuasive, and unnecessary.
- Indicting or insulting an opponent's team or coach in round (e.g., "It's no surprise [team name] is going for T this round")
- Sitting during CX and/or speeches unless you're physically unable to stand


GENERAL:

For the most part, I want to see a substantive round about the topic. My conception of what counts as topical argumentation is based on what's in the topic literature.

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

Speed: Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary. I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds.

Theory: I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will intervene against theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on theory. I will vote on theory that is actually justified (as in, you couldn't have answered the position without it, or there was something about the opponent's strategy that made it impossible for you to win without theory). Is that subjective? You bet. Is there a brightline? Probably not. Don't like this view? Don't pref me.

Framework: If you and your opponent agree on a FW, great. If not, make the FW debate relatively short (i.e., not 4 minutes of a 7 minute speech). Also, please explain the philosophical concepts you're using instead of assuming that I know them. I probably don't.

Policy Arguments: I dislike generic politics DAs and extinction impacts on topics that clearly don't link to them. If you want to run those impacts on a topic about nuclear weapons, go for it. If the topic's about compulsory voting, I'll be very receptive to good defensive answers from the aff.

Ks and Non-T Arguments: I generally prefer TOPICAL critical arguments, but I'm okay with non-topical affs if you make it super-clear why you had to be non-topical to read them. Otherwise, I tend to think a TVA will solve.

Disclosure Theory: I'll vote for this if I think it's won on the flow, but I'm not a huge fan of rounds that come down to this.

Tricks: Shut the front door! Who are you?! (In other words, "no.")

Extensions: I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

"Flex Prep": Different people use these words to mean different things. I am fine with you asking clarification questions of your opponent during prep time. I am not okay with you ending CX early and taking the rest of the time as prep time.

Other Stuff: Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. Be nice. And stand up.




To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Jeffrey Huang Paradigm

6 rounds

*Updated for Big Lex 2019

Its been a while since I've judged/attended any natcir tourneys, so I probably won't be able to handle your top speed but moderate spreading should be fine. If you want a really tech judge that's up to date with current norms, I probably shouldn't be at the top of your pref sheet.

Debated for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in LD for 4 years, mostly running k's on the national circuit during my varsity years.

Email me at jeffreyhuangdragon@gmail.com if you wanna send me speech docs

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me over FB messenger, I go by Jerfy Huang

Basic stuff

Don't be rude. any racist/sexist/ableist etc. args and/or inappropriate behavior will be punished accordingly. I will give L0s if I feel like it.

Tech over truth. Its like reading the fine print of a contract: its on you if you miss any of that shit. However if there's an arg over what a card says word for word or any issue related to such matters I will call for evidence and pass judgement.

Please disclose, disclosure debates are for pussies

Speaks

Since speaks are usually inflated, I give them as follows:

30 = I think you'll win the tournament

29 = I think you'll do well in elims

28 = I think you'll go positive/break

27 = average

26 = going negative

25 = you fucked up horribly

K's

Kritiks have always been my favorite argument, with phil being the next best thing, because I've always loved the spirit of the kritik and creating a separate and distinct space apart from theory and policy. HOWEVER, there are 2 things that I despise about the current practice of running critical arguments in the LD community:

1) running a kritik purely as an argument that you've recycled from past topics

2) being inconsiderate of your situation/circumstances and/or contradicting the kritik

Kritiks should be read like a good story: I should be enjoying it in round instead of zoning out to the same cards I've heard countless times, and when I evaluate it at the end of the round I should be able to understand what its purpose was and how its made debate a better place.

Also, concise overviews at the beginning of speeches and explanations of how the K functions and how it applies to your opponent are key to successfully convincing me to vote for the K, especially with denser lit, since otherwise you're probably doing a bad job of showing me why it even matters for me or the debate. This means that you should have convincing arguments as to why the ROB matters first and foremost for the round, and how you're doing the better job at upholding that standard with the body of the K.

Bonus points if you're running Nietzsche and actually know what you're doing.

THEORY/T

A lot of my qualms about K's actually cross apply here. I'm fine with theory, and I truly believe that they have an important role in shaping the debate space, but at the same time so much generic shit gets read that it makes me question why the person even wants to debate.

Make sure you make clear how all parts of the shell link together: slow down on interps, read an ACTUAL violation instead of just the opposite of your interp, standards should actually prove why and how SPECIFICALLY YOUR OPPONENT is abusive, and voters should tell me why the shell matters.

On disclosure, be considerate of who you're hitting and the circumstances, if your opponent is clearly a novice or they disclosed 20 mins before the round instead of 30, don't just run disclosure for the sake of putting more ink of the flow. Maybe actually debating the topic would be a nice change of pace eh?

POLICY/LARP

Literally just do your thing, make sure you weigh and all that stuff, imo its as basic as it gets.

If you're LARPing make sure your arguments make sense and that you know the policy like the back of your hand, don't just bullshit some facts or spend half of CX scrolling through your case saying "i think [some random author] says it somewhere in the case"

Also please try to read unique and fully flushed out arguments, I don't want to listen to the same heg DA 6 times in a row

If you're hitting LARP, reading good evidence is great, case turns/plan flaw are greater

PHIL

Next best thing after K, just make sure to know/explain your lit and actually have logical warrants in cards. I'll know if something's off and I'll call for cards appropriately

TRICKS

Not too familiar, just a meme in my books, don't run these unless you're trying to be funny or if you're confident enough that you can explain how I should evaluate them

Vikram Kalghatgi Paradigm

6 rounds

Debated LD on the Local and National Circuit for Ridge High School. I now do policy in college.

Ridge '17
Northwestern '21

General
- Provided that the argument isn't offensive/discriminatory I'll vote on anything - debate is your activity do what you do best

Kritiks
- Reasonably familiar with most K args employed in debate; however, there's a huge amount of K lit so a clear explanation of how your kritik functions can only benefit you
- Links should be specific to the AFF
- K affs with a topical plan were my favorite positions in high school

Policy Esque Args
- These debates when done well are my favorite to watch
- Impact framing/comparison makes it more likely you get the decision you want
- Evidence comparison is crucial

Phil/Framework
- If this is your thing go for it
- I Know the basics of most philosophical positions but these were not my go to arguments in high school
- Clear explanations of claims and warrants for those claims are especially important in these debates
- I'd prefer that fw debates not become a bunch of preclusion arguments for me to sort through

T
- Defaults: Competing interps, Drop the debater, no RVI - Defaults can be changed

Theory
- Defaults: Competing interps, Drop the Arg, No RVI - Defaults can be changed
- Be Clear - theory analytics are hard to flow

Tricks
- Go for it
- Innovative and well thought out tricks are a plus

Speaks
- Im probably a speaks fairy - if I think you should clear your speaks will reflect that

I'd Like to be on the email chain: vkalghatgi@gmail.com

Jungwan Kim Paradigm

6 rounds

I debated LD at Lexington High School for 4 years and graduated in 2015. I don't have specific preferences on what kinds of cases you read, so you should feel free to run what you are most comfortable with. I will go by what I have written on my flow. That being said, I have also been out of the activity since 2015, and only have judged at a few local tournaments since then. As a result, I am now only about to understand around 25-50% speed. I will tell you to be clear or to slow down, however, if it becomes a problem in round. My other weakness is in theory and tricks. If you read a case with a million tricks embedded in it, don't expect me to catch the nuances of it. I also have a pretty high threshold on theory. Of course, run it if there is real abuse going on in round, but I'd rather not vote on frivolous shells. Other than that, go for whatever arguments you want, whether that be Ks, policy style arguments, etc. Also, by your last speech, give me good voters so that there should be no question why I should vote for you.

If you have any specific questions, don't hesitate to ask me before the round!

Brianna Lavelle Paradigm

6 rounds

I graduated in 2014 from Lexington High School, where I was on the debate team for four years. I stopped debating my senior year and transitioned to being an assistant teacher in the novice class because I didn't like the highly technical/esoteric nature of LD.  

I don't have a problem with speed, but it is probably in your best interest to slow down. I've been out of the activity for a while and the faster you speak, the more likely it is that I will miss something important. 

I'm a really conceptual, big-picture person, so take the time at the end of your rebuttals to explain to me where each of your arguments fall in relation to other arguments in the round. If both debaters extend a bunch of separate arguments and do zero weighing then I won't know what to do and you will probably not be happy with my decision.

I would really rather not vote on blippy/tricky/dumb arguments, but I will if I have to, as long as you have clearly extended them. I won't vote on something that I do not understand. I also don't appreciate frivolous theory - I would much prefer a substantive debate. If you do decide to read theory, be slow and clear.

I have zero tolerance for offensive arguments. It's easy in debate rounds to forget that you are casually mentioning the real suffering of real people. I also really dislike rude or arrogant debaters, so please just be nice. 

Mina Lee Paradigm

6 rounds

important:

- tricks/friv theory/a priori/skep/racism good/other bullshit is out, Ks and performance stuff/policy is in, philosophy/high theory is eh (it's interesting, i’ll try my best but if I don't understand it then I don't understand it and I won't vote on itttttt), traditional debate is fine

addendum: T is fine i guess. like i am much much much more willing to listen to a T debate than a theory debate

addendum #2: if you can win a ~compelling abuse story on theory then sURE i'll vote for it i guess

addendum #3: fun fact i have almost a 50-50 voting record on t v k affs so stop reading half-assed k-affs/neg k strats in front of me bc u think i will like them better it is soooooooooooo annoying

-disclosing is good

-email chains are good (minaslee00@gmail.com)

-debate is about education if you just treat it like a game, treat other debaters like your enemies, and treat your arguments like cheap shots at winning, i will be sad and so will you when the round is over

-bc of the above point, i do like answering questions about things you think you could have done differently/other learning opportunities from the round so feel free to ask or to hit me up on facebook/email

-idc who your coach is or who you think you are, if you think i made a bad decision and you and your ~ posse ~ decide to yell at me for the sake of trying to prove me wrong as opposed to trying to understand the decision i will just leave the room lmao

-i don’t really care that much about things and i am usually very tired

-be nice

-i don't care if you sit or stand please stop asking me

-please don’t shake my hand

-please start slow especially in the morning i am so tired spreading is so fast i do not know why people think it is a good idea to scream at me at 40000 wpm at 8 in the morning :(

Quick thoughts because I’m too lazy to write a real paradigm:

0) An introduction: hello I debated for Edgemont LD (2018) and now I go to Princeton where I don’t do debate because hahahahahahahaha. I was coached by Brian Manuel, Rodrigo Paramo, Jack Ave, and was heavily influenced by Aurelia Williams, Chris Randall, Eli Smith, Jacob Koshak, and Sydney Pasquinelli. Put me on the email chain: minaslee00@gmail.com

1) IMPORTANT: I like sass but don’t be mean! I almost quit debate on three separate occasions in my senior year alone. I also almost quit debate after my second tournament ever because I was laughed at for not knowing deontology. People suck. If someone is clearly not as experienced as you and you read 7 off I will give you a 25 and you may also lose! So! Don’t! Be! A! Dick! As much as this activity can suck sometimes there are things I have learned that I wouldn’t have been able to learn anywhere else in high school and I will always, always be grateful for that. Don’t be the reason someone feels like they need to walk away from those opportunities.

1.5) Evidence ethics/other out-of-round issues: a) dont be shady with your evidence b) if you're going to make accusations, then be willing to stake the round on it. i'll stop the round, look at the evidence, and decide the round based on whoever I think is right on the question. but tbh there are so much unnecessary politics and personal/ad-hom attack brought into rounds whenever this happens and they make me uncomfortable and sad and angry please treat debaters like people thank you

2) I'm honestly pretty expressive, just read my face and you'll have a good idea re: how I feel about the round

3) Arguments I read: I mostly read policy-esque arguments with critical impacts and then second half of senior year I said “fuck it” and went really hard for ID politics K debate. I finished out my career reading a performance aff that I also ran as a neg K in outrounds. That being said, if you can explain an argument really well to me I will probably vote for it. Don’t assume just because I was a “K debater” I know all your warrants and I’ll just make the arguments for you when you blip through them. In fact, if you do that and you’re missing warrants I will be EXTRA sad and so will you when you hear my rfd. My favorite neg strat my senior year was one-off K where most of my case arguments were just links to the K so if that tells you anything about how much I enjoy the explanation of complicated critical (or even philosophical) arguments, there ya go

4) JUST BECAUSE I READ AN ARGUMENT DOESN’T MEAN YOU SHOULD READ IT IN FRONT OF MEEeee. Do what you’re good at (for the most part) and if you explain it well to me I’ll probably vote on it. I don’t hate philosophy, I was just never good at it so I never read it in high school. But if you think Kant is a cool guy and you can get me to understand his nonsense, then sure! Go for it! I’m telling you right now though I have no problem just being like “I did not understand this argument so I did not vote on it”

5) EXCEPTIONS: If you read tricks/frivolous theory/a prioris/whatever etc. etc. in front of me I will just pretend I didn’t hear you and not flow it and just doodle some flowers on my flow and also kill your speaks (see: Rebecca Kuang)

6) Flowing and analytics: I’m going to flow what I hear so if I say clear and you don’t slow down or get clear and if I miss 25 of your 30 analytical arguments and any of your post-rounding includes “but it was in the speech doc” I will just shrug my shoulders, pack my stuff up, and go get myself a coffee. NOTE: I’ll say clear/loud/slow twice and then your speaks will probably go down, but I’ll keep saying clear to keep the round going

7) T v K: I know I read a performance aff but tbh I think I’m pretty 50-50 on the T v K aff debate. I am definitely not 50-50 on the K v frivolous theory to answer Ks because people don’t actually know how to answer Ks, and if you try to randomly up-layer to answer a K that you handled poorly, I will be sad and so will you when you see your speaks and probably also the results of the round

8) Fairness is not a voter lol it is an internal link to education I don’t care about your fairness voters I don't care about your fairness voters

9) More on theory in general: if there's actual abuse then obviously go nuts with theory but in general theory debates really bore me and so if you must run theory I will likely be very lazy in evaluating the debate and if I can find something easy to vote on or a simple reason to default to other flows where there’s more interesting offense, I will probably do so. I was also never particularly good at really detailed theory debates, so my evaluation of intense line-by-line argumentation will probably be shit. Sorry :)

10) disclose lol.

Kevin Li Paradigm

6 rounds

kevinli35@berkeley.edu

Hi I’m Kevin! I debated LD for Stuyvesant High School from 2014-2018. I primarily debated on the national circuit, qualifying to the TOC my junior and senior year. I was coached by Paul Zhou, Ananth Panchanadam, and Dino De La O.

Conflicts: Stuyvesant, Mission San Jose, William Enloe AC, Poly Prep DB, Bergen County Academies MS, Westlake AL

*pleaseplease try not to have a full out larp v larp debate in front of me-- I'm not gonna be great at judging it. If that's what you do it's fine, but I don't feel super confident at resolving those debates when they are close.

*Note for more traditional debaters: do your thing, just wanna make a note that I am receptive to arguments about why progressive debate is bad and why traditional debate is better, and will vote for them if you win them.

To give a little context, as a debater I read a lot of nonT/K/Performance Asian American affs, Wilderson, Weheliye, Barber, and a lot of frivolous theory. I was probably least familiar with phil debate.

Tech > Truth. I don’t think there is such a thing as a tabula rasa judge because experience in debate affects how I view and interpret certain arguments, but I will listen to anything (with the exception of arguments that directly make debate unsafe and alienating.) The most important thing is impacting and explicit implication work. Especially if the content is something I'm less familiar with, I will be pretty dependent on you doing the work to tell me what I should do with what argument.

If you need me to make note of something that was said or conceded in CX please explicitly get my attention even if it looks like I'm listening because I space out a lot.

If it is clear that your opponent is debating at a significantly lower level than you are, you should be able to win in a way that allows them to still understand what's going on and engage with you. I think that indicates familiarity and flexibility with your style of debate, which is an important skill debaters should have, and that will be reflected in speaks.

Defaults (these 100% change when arguments are made in the round):

Truth Testing

C/I

DTA

No RVIs

If I need to presume and no argument has been made either way I will do a fancy coin flip

Literally anything is fine as long as whatever you extend has a claim warrant and impact

Have fun and read arguments that are important and interesting to you!

Speaks Boosts:

Creative Strategy

Making debate fun and enjoyable

Being really knowledgeable about your content

High Uber Ratings

30s are for pleasant and wholesome surprises

These are my views on debate as of now. If you wholly disagree with my paradigm I am open to criticism and I'd be willing to have a conversation about I should change it.

David McGinnis Paradigm

4 rounds

POLICY DEBATE
I spent a bunch of time before New Trier 19 writing a policy paradigm and in the one round I got the aff read "queer eroticism" so I am done trying to explain to policy teams how to adapt to me. Those of you who would strike or otherwise depref me because I am an LD coach: good call. Those of you who would refrain from striking me and then read "queer eroticism": please reconsider.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

I'm most familiar with philosophical framework debating, but you can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing.

UPDATE JUNE 2019: AND IMPACTING!

Casey Meyer Paradigm

6 rounds

Hi, I'm Casey! Did both speech + debate events as a youngin'. I now work in special education.

Most of this paradigm is for LD- that being said, if I'm judging you in PF: Don't spread. Theory really shouldn't be in PF. Stick heavily to the resolution. Link your points. Have fun.

I'm a big believer that debate is a place where anybody from anywhere can come, view the debate, and understand a decent chunk of what is being said.

TL;DR of this paradigm: Don't spread. Run whatever argument you want as long as you link it to your case (yes, this means be topical (on the resolution)). I'm not opposed to theory debates at all but I heavily feel like theory is abused just for the heck of it. Have fun.

I've known kids with speech impediments that feel that they simply can't participate in debate because certain people think spilling out 300 WPM is a smart thing to do. IMO, spreading excludes a whole bunch of people from a space that should be pretty darn easy to access. (I work in special education, if you can't tell) In other words (hot take time, kids!): Don't spread, I feel it's ableist and I'll drop you. (Woohoo, strike me!) Yes, I can understand people when they spread. No, I don't support it. You and I both know that a well worded and well spoken argument that is concise is better than a long winded point that's being spread. Run anti-spreading theory (hey, say it's ableist for all I care) and I'll love you forever and all eternity. I'm fine with people speaking faster than normal. You know what the difference is.

I don't care how you access your criterion, I just care that you actually access your criterion. Run any K, CP, or what have you and I'll happily flow it as long as you've linked to the resolution and framework. If you're running a K, assume I don't know what you're talking about in the slightest and go from there. It is not my burden as a judge to flow a point in LD that doesn't link back to your criterion/value/philosophy.

Disclosure theory is usually not good to run with me, unless you really, really feel like the case is abusive. I usually don't think that a basic K is abusive in round, assuming it's topical and doesn't put too heavy a burden on the opposition. Topicality (especially relating to not directly debating the resolution) is spicy goodness. I usually see right through trick debate and hate it with a passion. My bias for this won't be overcome by you running heavy theory on it, trust me. 'Progressive debate = bad' as theory is decent territory, but your shell should show me a very clear reason as to why I'm probably voting almost solely on this point.

Weigh your points (give me them sweet sweet voters), especially in your final speech. I'll be the first to admit that I get caught in side arguments, so show me what points matter. I won't vote a point down because you don't extend it, but I'll be a lot more skeptical that you just gave up on the point somewhere along the way.

I usually judge on a scale of 26.5-30. 28.5-29 is my normal score for a 'win', 26.5 to 27(.5) for a 'loss'.

Finally, have fun. Bring a sense of humor. Bring some sarcasm. Bring some water. Water is good. Always. In fact, change the resolution to 'Resolved: Water is good.' if you want. That'd be fun. (Update: show your opponent who the superior debater is by starting off your case by saying this is the resolution. I'll laugh and you can show your paradigm-reading superiority. Win-win tbh)

And yes, I'm 6 foot 9. I don't play basketball. The weather is fine up here. I hit my head on doors and go ouchie owwwww wow that hurt. Thanks for asking.

Spencer Orlowski Paradigm

6 rounds

Email: spencer.orlowski@gmail.com

TLDR: K/Policy style Coach, getting better at phil, won't vote on oppressive arguments, prefer clash and depth to tricks and blips. I reward hard work and passion for the activity. -2 speaks for "welcome to ______" tag.

Pref Cheat Sheet

1: Topical K Debate

2: Policy Debate/ Non-T Ks

3: Topical Phil Debate/ Topical Tricks & Theory

4: Generic Tricks and Theory

5/Strike: Jerks

I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments. No exceptions.

I try to intervene as little as possible and will look for the easiest route to the ballot. Speaker points are calculated by the quality of argumentation and the strategy of the collapse. I give a lot of low-point wins as a result. I am super sick of voting on unwarranted blippy args though and I am feeling more comfortable ignoring them every round.

I default to a logical decision-making paradigm. As a result I prefer topic-centered debate but I am totally open to warranted reasons as to why that is a bad metric for debate.

I think the link (or violation or mutual exclusivity, same concept different name) is the most important part of every position and debaters who get good speaker points and win regularly in front of me have robust discussions on the link.

I place a high value on quality evidence and think preparation is the cornerstone of the educational aspects of this activity. I think that extensions of evidence should be more than just blippy tag extensions. If you aren’t extending warrants, I am not going to find them in the evidence for you after the round.

Speed: I think clear speed improves debate. I am cool with any clear speed that isn’t being used to intentionally exclude your opponent or other judges on a panel. I will say that it seems like a lot of HS LD students rely on the email chain for judges to get their warrants: this practice will likely result in diminished speaker points and possibly a poor decision on my part. It is probably a good idea to slow down a bit on tags and make it clear when a tag starts and a card ends. Flying through theory shells at 400 wpm just seems like a bad idea if you want me to flow it all. If you can only beat a lay debater by spreading you are going to get low speaks.

Collapse!!!

Specific Arguments

Topicality: I generally believe it’s a voter but the neg needs to explain why and I will listen to reasons why it shouldn’t be, extra and fx are up for debate, abuse is just a marginally more persuasive standard, standards are reason to prefer an interp, I don’t like to vote on RVIs unless they are well warranted. I will probably ignore jargon that is unwarranted like just saying reasonability or competing interps without explanations. It feels like H.S LD conflates theory and topicality a lot. I think if you are saying someone isn't meeting a word in the rez, you need to define it.

DAs: I will vote on linear and unique Das. I don’t believe a negative needs one to win a round. I am usually very skeptical of politics but still vote offence/defense paradigm on it.

Phil: Explaining the argument helps. Compare your frameworks. I'm ok with TJFs. I generally find long frameworks really boring and prefer substantive topic debate. Stuff like Skep and Monism are super boring. The more specific the ethic to the topic, the better. I haven't seen many burden affs.

Theory: Most spec shells are just defense to solvency for me. I definitely get they are a valuable part of a strategy for time and fairness reasons but I find them generally unpersuasive. I will vote on them though if mishandled by the affirmative(or negative) . All that said if you have a really interesting super spec procedural I’ll listen to it with an open mind. 5 off all procedurals = 25 speaks. I am super persuaded by alternative punishment arguments (i.e. the impact to a spec is don’t accept no links based on clarifications of the agent in the AR). I generally think there are ways to resolve theoretical objections that don’t necessitate a ballot on theory. "6-7-4-6-3" does not constitute an argument. Plans bad is a super boring arg IMO.

Ks: Ks are probably my favorite part of debate, but bad K debate is super frustrating. As with every other position I want the link to be specific and prefer the literature to be in the context of our topic. I think the necessity of framework depends on the nature of the alternative and the presented 1AC. I generally view links as a DA to the perm. I think you need a stable alt text. The more performative, the better.

Counterplans: I don’t think conditionality is a problem but you can read whatever against the CP. I don’t think you have to establish ME in the NC but I think it ends up being more persuasive if the AR concedes it. I prefer if they have an advocate, but not a deal breaker. You should have a stable CP text. Open to perm theory, same concept as other theory shells though.

Defense: I’m predisposed to believe it’s not a voting issue but if someone concedes some fwk that says it is I guess I would vote for it. This applies to answering neg positions as well.

Performance: I am totally fine with it, but again I think it’s important to explain how it relates to an affirmation or negation of the resolution. That being said, I am completely open to arguments about why resolution centered debate is bad.

A2 K/Performance AC/NC: ENGAGE. Just framing your way out the debate is super boring to me. Cut cards answering their method. If they give you links, use them. It is insufficient to assert Ks are unfair. I really don't see a distinction between Hume vs Kant and Reed vs Wilderson

FOR PF: I did PF for 4 years in HS and I currently coach it. I flow a lot. Any argument you want in the second FF should be in the 2nd Summary. The first summary doesn't need to extend defense as long as the second rebuttal didn't respond to it. I think the 2nd rebuttal should probably respond to the first, just seems strategic. I read a lot on each topic and will hold you to a standard of accuracy for the most part. Speaker points are based on skill in crossfire, strategy of collapse, and quality of evidence. If it takes you longer than a min to produce evidence, it doesn't exist. If I think you inappropriately paraphrased I will ignore evidence. I will vote on theory and Ks. See above for notes on those positions.

Bob Overing Paradigm

4 rounds

Keith Pelletier Paradigm

2 rounds

I don't have a lot of experience as a judge. As might be expected from that, I'm not a fan of rapid-fire, out-of-breath, spreading-type approach. I feel like I can and should only judge what I can hear and comprehend from the current discourse. And when someone is speaking at 10x normal speed, I'm not really going to comprehend a lot. So, you'll find I favor thoughtful, well-reasoned, well-argued, and normal-speed discourse.

Nina Potischman Paradigm

4 rounds

I debated LD for Hunter College High School for four years and currently attend Pomona. My email is ninapotischman@gmail.com -- put me on the email chain!

I’ll vote on anything as long as it is warranted. Although i debated a certain way, I would much rather see you do what you do best than try to adapt to what you think I want. I’ll try to evaluate the round in the way I think the debaters see it, so I’ll do my best to avoid defaulting either way on any particular issue. That said, here are my preferences:

General

  • Please please please do not be late :(
  • Full disclosure: if you send me your Aff, I'm probably just gonna back flow it later and zone out during the AC ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . So if you're exempting things in the aff (idrk why people do this...if ur opponent will have a hard time flowing, I will too) give me a heads up
  • Prep time ends when your flash drive leaves your computer or when you email your opponent
  • I have a high threshold for extensions if your arguments are contested or if you're doing any interaction between the arguments you're extending and your opponents. It’s not enough to say “extend the aff” or “extend advantage one” — you need to articulate some warrant so I know what specifically you’re extending. If you don’t explicitly extend offense in the last speech, I won’t vote for you.
  • I reserve the right to vote for arguments that I don’t understand/that are not warranted. Your opponent shouldn’t lose for dropping an incoherent sentence with no justification
  • I won’t vote for any responses to arguments that are new in later speeches, even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
  • I’ll vote you down if you say anything actively racist/sexist/homophobic etc.
  • I’ll time your speech — if you go over time (besides if you finish a sentence), I’ll discount your arguments even if your opponent doesn’t point it out
  • I think embedded clash is good — you can make arguments that say otherwise and I’ll evaluate them, but that’s my default

Theory

  • if paradigm issues are conceded, you don’t have to extend them
  • I strongly dislike offensive spikes, but I’ll vote on them if there’s a warrant and the argument is conceded
  • Slow down for interps/counterinterps
  • If someone reads theory in the 1a/1nc without an implication it’s enough to say “don’t vote on it — there’s no implication” and I won't — you can't then read voters in the next speech. However, if there's no voter and no one points that out and acts like theory is drop the debater, I'll vote on it

Framework

  • I prefer well justified syllogisms to super blippy fw preclusion arguments
  • Please weigh

Ks

  • This is probably the area of debate that I’m least familiar with, so please go slower if you’re reading something super dense (especially anything postmodern). If I have no idea what you’re talking about, I won’t vote for you.

Speaks

Things that will get you high speaks

  • Innovative and interesting arguments that you’re clearly knowledgeable about
  • Good strategies
  • Using CX effectively
  • High argument quality
  • Generally being smart
  • Being funny (but please don’t try to be if you’re not)
  • Good overviews/crystallization
  • Good case debate — so many people just drop the Aff which doesn’t make sense to me

Things that will get you low speaks:

  • not disclosing
  • tricks
  • being shifty
  • lots of spikes/blippy arguments
  • super generic dumps (especially on K v theory debates)
  • clearly not understanding your own positions
  • being mean to a novice/someone clearly worse than you. You don’t have to debate down, just don’t be rude and go slower so that the round is educational for everyone
  • academic dishonesty
  • excessive inefficiency. (Also randomly rly irks me when people say "in the first place")

Fariha Rahman Paradigm

6 rounds

My name is Fariha, I’m a freshman in college and I debated at Brooklyn Tech. I did policy debate in HS but am very comfortable in LD. I read a K aff and Afropess and don't particularly enjoy Framework, but if y'all win on Framework I'll vote for it -they just aren't the most fun debates to watch. Love K debates, not the biggest fan of high theory but I'll vote on it.

I do not care what you read as long as it isn’t offensive but please don’t get caught up in jargon that I won’t understand as I don’t debate anymore.

In the end, just do what you’re good at because those are the debates that will be the best.

On spreading - spreading takes some getting use to and because I haven’t debated in a very long time, I’ve lost a little bit of my ear for spreading, but as long as you start off at a decent speed and build up we’ll be good - just PLEASE be clear

This is very brief but if there are any other questions you have please feel free to email me at frahman8965@bths.edu and yes please put me on the email chain.

Please be nice, don’t be overly snarky to your opponents and make jokes and engage with one another!

Carly Rieger Paradigm

6 rounds

email: cr30505@gmail.com - yes, add me to the email chain. please feel free to reach out by email/fb (i'm more likely to respond on fb) if you have questions.

i debated circuit LD at WDM Valley for four years and qualed to the TOC, receiving four bids, during my senior year. i have taught at NSD Flasgship (2018,2019), NSD Philidelphia (2018,2019), and TDC (2019). i coach for WDM Valley HS.

tl;dr - it's your round, debate it how you want to.

I will evaluate the round on the flow, everything here explains my defaults but if you make arguments as to why the round should be adjudicated in a particular way I will evaluate debate through your lens. please make the round as clear as possible - weighing is your friend, give clear overviews, justify everything, and explain. tell me the implications of your arguments.


I have the most experience with framework debate, identity K debate, and theory debate.

defaults: (this only matters if no one makes arguments to the contrary)

  • epistemic confidence
  • competing interps, no rvis
  • theory > k > substance
  • pragmatics > semantics
  • truth testing > comparing worlds

misc:

  • i’ll say ‘slow’ or ‘clear’ if necessary.
  • i am fine with flex prep.
  • i love a good framework/identity k debate, it makes my heart happy (you will probably get good speaks).
  • i very much think you need an impact mechanism (a standard text, a ROB, etc.) -- otherwise, i will be left to evaluate impacts as i see fit which probably won't make you happy.
  • extensions need warrants and impacts, even if you are extending a conceded argument. If you are extending a case that is conceded, it isn't sufficient to say "extend my whole case."
  • if you are debating a novice or someone who lacks a lot of circuit experience, please make the round educational and inclusive. this does not necessarily mean go full on traditional (although that's definitely fine), but it does mean don't go full speed and a bunch of offs (your speaks will go way down).
  • please be ready to debate when you walk into the room – this means pre-flowing during your opponent's prep if you need to and having the AC speech doc ready to send.

theory:

  • theory violations need to be verifiable. just provide screenshots please! if someone makes an i meet to an unverifiable shell with no verification (i.e. a disclosure shell without screenshots or a coin flip shell that's just word of mouth), i will default to the 'i meet' being true.
  • feel free to read theory for strategic reasons (i.e. friv theory) or because there’s actual abuse.
  • if you go for reasonability, please provide a brightline. if you don't provide a brightline, or provide a brightline of gut check, i will probably gut check to competing interps.

Tammie Ruda Paradigm

6 rounds

I competed as an LD debater when I was in high school over 30 years ago. I now coach LD debate, but my preference remains for traditional LD cases that actually debate the resolution and allow your opponent to do so as well. I strongly dislike spreading, because it is hard for me to understand. If I don't hear your contentions or evidence, then they can't help you win the debate. Plus "winning" a point because your opponent didn't catch it is a pretty hollow victory. Both of these preferences link back to my perspective on the activity of debate--it should be an educational experience and provide you with skills that you can apply throughout your life. I haven't seen any evidence yet that spreading is of use anywhere in the real world.

Bailey Rung Paradigm

2 rounds

Updated 12.12.2018

Hey y'all, I'm Bailey. I'm the LD coach at Ridge HS (NJ), and help out with CX as well. I competed successfully in NFA-LD (1-person policy) & limited preps @ Western Kentucky University, and in a multitude of formats for Blaine HS (MN). I'll be graduating in 2019 with a B.A. in Communications Studies. I also minor in Phil.

tl:dr/general -

I consider my self as tab as possible, and familiar with the conventions of all debate events beside PF. I judge around ~100 rounds of LD a year, ~25 rounds of CX a year, and occasionally find myself watching Congress and Extemp.

Treat others as you would want them to treat you. Stand up for yourself and others when others violate that expectation. I'll do the same. Forensics should be accessible and comfortable.

Performance skills matter and boost speaks/determine ranks, but of course it's different what that looks like in each event. Speed is fine, but be cognizant of your opponent, other judges, and which event you are actually competing in (Policy is policy, local LD is not circuit LD, and congress & extemp require public address skills). If you can't/don't want to stand, go for it.

Strategic execution (tech) always comes first, but any page can only be won with superior warrant analysis (truth) under an offense/defense paradigm. After that, weigh everything. Weigh dropped arguments, don't just extend them. While clearly dropped arguments can be devastating, if it's simply a poorly constructed argument then it probably won't factor heavily for me.

Don't advocate for fascist, racist, sexually violent, ableist, or otherwise bigoted arguments. I don't want to hear death good, skep, or religion. Other than that, you do you - Mearsheimer to Moten, I'll listen - but it's still your prerogative to properly articulate your argument. T/Theory is fine.

I read/went for the following most often (in order): big advantages & topic DAs, politics, impacts turns, T/Theory, advantage & agent CPs, post-structuralism, cap, a range of environment literature. I'm academically experienced (in order of depth) on semiotics, discourse theory, normative ethics, Marxist theory, post-structuralism, and existentialism. I pursue a personal reading interest in IR theory, criminal justice, environmental issues, and the milieu of national politics.

Event specific -

CX --

Aff

Specificity of plan text and quality of solvency evidence matter to me. If the neg ultimately defends the status quo but doesn't have good case args, it's likely the neg will lose. It's surprising I have to say these things, but it happens more often than one might expect.

Kritikal and Performance affs are fine, topical or not. This does not imply I won't vote on framework if won by the neg. That, however, does not imply i automatically vote neg on framework every time. I hold the advocacy to the same scrutiny I would for a plan.

I enjoy framing & weighing out of the 1AC.

Disads

I most often see DA debate as a question of who controls the direction of the link offense. Obviously weighing is a must, but I put a lot of stock into this - that or impact turns. Solely defensive strategies, even with impact framing tend to be non-persuasive. Some terminal defense exists (like bill already passed, etc.) - definitely an exception.

I went for politics A LOT, and really enjoy these debates.

Counterplans

I'm open to most strategies.

It's pretty uncommon for me to vote on condo bad. I'm more open to positions like PICs or States bad.

Presumption doesn't necessarily flip to the aff - specifically if the 2NR has good case arguments with DA/Turns.

CP solvency/text should be at least as detailed than the 1AC's, if not more. That said, the CP doesn't necessarily need to solve 100% - whether on probability or scope, if CP has a high risk of solving the most of the aff that can be sufficient if the DA/Turns outweigh.

Kritiks

I enjoy good K debates the same as any other strategy. As a judge I end up seeing this debate a lot, and have no real preferences for or against any given strand of literature or in-round execution.

I'm most familiar with literature stemming from the continental branch of philosophy. Some of my personal favorite authors include Baudrillard, Bookchin, Butler, Deleuze, Debord, Foucault, Luxembourg, Marx, Morton, & Zizek. That said, the majority of K debates I judge tend to be questions of identity and security (respectively) - which I also enjoy. I feel comfortable evaluating most anything.

I don't think the neg must absolutely go for/win the alternative, so long as the neg has good framing. Really, though, the neg should always be winning framing.

I generally find pure theory to be unpersuasive as an aff response. Perms are usually the best route, so are researched defenses of contemporary policy-making.

I've been finding lately that really close K debates have come down to who better presents empirical examples of the link and alt to contextualize theoretical warrants.

T/Theory

I particularly enjoy good topicality debates. I default to competing interps & jurisdiction voters.

I like theory debate so long as it relates to a Plan/CP/Alt/RoB text, or another theory text (a good RVI is rare but persuasive). In other words, ASPEC is cool - bracket theory is meh. Strike me if you're going to complain about your opponent's attire.

I'm neutral when it comes to FW debates - I'll vote for performance/sans-plan K affs as much as I vote for Framework. I generally place a high value on arguments over the academic & personal value of one's scholarship. Fairness is important, but I see these debates as ultimately a question of who wins (in the context of the round) that their educational/pedagogical praxis is preferable.

Clear & specific wording of interpretations is critical. Same with contextualized violations. If you're going to go for it, make it clean.

Great 2NRs/2ARs go all-in, and put voting issues at the top of the speech.

I don't like abstract reasonability arguments - my likeliness to vote for reasonability is entirely based on either the strength of a legitimate I-meet or the counter-interp's ability to resolve a substantial portion of the neg standards.

Outside of framework, I generally think fairness comes first.

Misc.

Please use speechdrop. Prep stops when everything is put in your document. Don't steal prep.

Flex prep is fine.

CX is binding. I pay attention to CX. Excellent CX will boost your speaks.

Always weigh everything. Excellent weighing will boost your speaks.

Always collapse the debate. Excellent collapses will boost your speaks.

If the round is left unresolved, I will intervene and do my own comparison. I will be as fair as I can do each side and will let you know if this happens.

I'll always disclose unless told otherwise. More than happy to answer questions.

Bonus speaks for 'Good' Anarchism, DeDev, & Extraterrestrials arguments.

LD --

Progressive

You can really just check my CX paradigm for most of my substantive preferences. Here are some event specific thoughts:

Aff -

>Please justify your framework.

>I have a low threshold for 1AR/2AR extensions given the time, but warrants are still a must. I hate tag fights more than anything. 2AR impact weighing is fine.

>spending ~2:00 extending the aff card-by-card will likely lose you the round and tank your speaks. Part of the game is parsimony and efficiency. Have an overview for a page and do line-by-line.

>I will evaluate and occasionally vote on 1AR theory, but the stupider the argument, the less likely I am to vote on it. Things like CP theory, and RVIs against super abusive T/Theory NCs are infinitely better than, say "pre- or post-fiat, but not both" or "my opponent is wearing a tie". Even when 1ar theory is good (rare), there's usually not enough time to develop and win.

Neg -

> The 1NC should have framework comparison - waiting until the NR rarely pays off. 2NR impact weighing is fine.

> Please collapse in the NR - don't go for everything. Winning/high speaks NRs usually go all in on T/Theory or the K, or go for case and/or CP with a DA. Leaving yourself multiple outs is smart, but this should be done in reference to whatever you go for ('case or CP' or 'turns or DA') - not wildly extending everything in the NC.

>80% of my rounds end up being Policy-making or K debates, and I don't have any event specific thoughts here. K framing work should be done in the NC, though this seems obvious.

>'Phil' debate: I think ethics debates are super fun, and really enjoy the literature. I will evaluate these debates, though I have two thoughts: (1) Just because it's LD doesn't mean I have to/will automatically default to ethical theory over policy-making or the K (2) extending 5-second blips you label 'a prioris' without warrants and spewing jargon without explanation is not a winning strategy - understand your ethic and interact it.

> Again, T/Theory is fine, but the dumber the argument, the less likely I am to vote on it. I enjoy actual T debates over words in the res, and theory debates over writing of the plan (ASPEC, Vagueness, etc.). I can't stand 'formal dress theory' or 'bracket theory' - do some prep and make real arguments.

> I'm slightly more likely to vote on condo bad in LD than CX. Same thing with reasonability - though this is all relative.

Traditional

Do your thing - I'm super tab, keep a good flow, and am fairly well read. I've invested a lot of time into this style of the event as a coach and really enjoy it. I don't have many thoughts here - I'd check my tl:dr section for general debate things.

> Please justify your framework - it's shocking the proportion of debaters who don't or do so poorly.

> Warrant and weigh - the earlier the better.

> Don't take excessive prep for early speeches (NC/1AR).

> If you want to kick framework and go for case, go for it. These debates are often the most fun.

Extemp --

Congress --

Stephen Scopa Paradigm

6 rounds

PLS DON'T PREF ME IF YOU LARP - this has been in my paradigm forever and I still continuously judge these larp rounds so it's at the top now.

Email: Stevescopa23@gmail.com

I debated at Pines Charter on both the national and local circuit and went to TOC my senior year.

General: I am very much a tech > truth person who will vote for any argument you make no matter how seemingly ridiculous or bizarre, all I need is a warrant. I also have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. My goal is to evaluate rounds with as little intervention as possible- that being said I was a debater too and understand when students disagree with my decision so feel free to grill me on the condition you aren’t hostile about it.

- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read in the round.

- I am not exactly the best at flowing, so when you are making analytic arguments you should label them and sign post as clear as possible. Also maybe take half a second after author names.

- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.

- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC- making an argument in the 2n that says something like “this was just a dumb blippy argument” is not sufficient. This goes for 2ar responses to NC arguments as well.

- Believe it or not, I will vote on disclosure theory. I would however, strongly advise against this strategy because I have an extremely low threshold for responses because I absolutely hate the argument. Honestly if you’re reading disclosure in front of me you should reevaluate your life because I can guarantee there’s a more strategic option.

- Don’t need to flash analytics to your opponent but I would like them

-Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such. This is becoming slightly annoying L

Theory: Go for it- this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced. I don’t “gut check” frivolous shells but obviously if you are winning reasonability then I will evaluate through whatever your brightline is. If neither debater makes arguments I default to the following:

- There is no impact to a shell without drop the arg or drop the debater warrants so I will just eval substance

- Competing interps

- Norms creation model

- RVIs good

- Fairness is a voter

- Education not a voter

Also, for counter inteprs “converse of the interp” is not sufficient, if your opponent says “idk what the converse is so I can’t be held to the norm” I will buy that argument, just actually come up with a counter interp.

Tricks: This was favorite style of debate when I competed and clever tricks are entertaining but that doesn’t mean I will instantly vote for you if you read them without winning why they are relevant (aka you are winning truth testing). The more clever your arguments are, the higher your speaks will be. Despite my old love for them, I usually have a low threshold for responses since the arguments are usually fairly weak. If you obviously just included an a priori because I am judging you and don’t extend a conceded one, your speaks will probably suffer. I also prefer you be more up front with them in CX if your opponent catches them, I have a lot more respect for people who are straight up about their sketchiness. If you are not the best at answering these arguments I wouldn’t worry too much, I will be more than happy to disregard them if you are winning a role of the ballot that excludes them or a shell that indicts them. Also, calling something a trick doesn’t mean anything to me -- tell me what the implication of the argument is. It also bothers me how tricks debaters have become reliant on the same resolved a priori every debate - I'd much rather listen to an interesting phil or K round than watch u extend the same a priori people have been reading for years. Think of new and clever arguments.

Ks: I really enjoy a good K debate. Despite my reputation, I read Ks quite often because not all judges were good for my preferred style, so I know quite a bit of K literature and how interactions work. The one caveat is that I won’t vote for arguments I just cannot understand at all (Shout out to Grant Brown<3). Otherwise I am totally down to judge a K debate. I have read Deleuze, Butler, Wilderson, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Edelman, etc in rounds before so I definitely think Ks like these are interesting and strategic. I occasionally enjoy judging these debates the most because of how interesting and unique the arguments are. However, I cannot stand unwarranted “this is just another link” arguments, you need to explain or give a warrant as to why what you say is a link actually is one. I also am not a huge fan of identity K's, and I may vote on some responses you disagree with, just as a fair warning. Additionally, I prefer to see line by line debate, and it seems as though a lot of Ks begin/consist of long overviews without much specific reference to arguments in previous speeches, which can be difficult to flow, so you may want to consider this when going for the K in the 2n/1ar/2ar. Ultimately if this is your favorite/ best style, you should go for it.

Larp: I was never a larper, never judged a high level larp round, and am probably not qualified to judge a really good DA v Util AC debate. I don’t particularly enjoy these debates, and you most likely will not enjoy me judging you but I will do my best to evaluate the round. If you can’t defend util against a dump or well justified framework you shouldn’t pref me, because “the aff is a good idea” will not get my ballot. (Update: For some reason people still stand up and larp and read disads in front of me so PLS don’t pref me or change up the strat, trust me it is best for both of us).

Fwk: I enjoy a good framework debate, and it is probably my favorite thing to judge, but it can become fairly difficult to follow at times. As long as you clearly label arguments and make sure to weigh I feel very comfortable evaluating these rounds. However, these debates can often become muddled and devolve into a chicken and egg debate, which makes it near impossible to resolve so be careful of that. My major has given me a new passion for interesting frameworks so I would love to hear whatever unique positions you got.

Speaks: I am generally high in my speaker point assignments for some reason, apparently I am pretty easy to impress. I average probably a 28.8. I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy- I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. I am also somewhat expressive when I think about how arguments interact so don’t mind my face. Also, if I can tell your 2n. is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.

How do I get a 30?

I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following

1) A trick I haven’t heard before

2) A good analytic PIC

3) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting

4) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before

5) Execute Skep really well/ trigger skep

Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time- win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes.

Martin Sigalow Paradigm

Email chain: msigalow61@gmail.com

I'm out of debate and unwise to pref!

Conflicts: Lake Highland.

  1. No new arguments or arguments that are the exact opposites of a previously made argument.
  2. Severely mislabeling arguments is extremely bad.
  3. No arguments contingent on the identity of the other debater will be evaluated.
  4. I will not evaluate the debate at any point before its end.
  5. I default to offense-defense, competing interps, durable fiat, perms test competition, and that the aff defends implementation.

Jon Sreekanth Paradigm

4 rounds

Hello, I'm a parent judge, so please debate accordingly. Meaning, no spreading. And try not to be excessively technical.

Sudhakar Srinivasan Paradigm

4 rounds

 Hi. 

I am a parent. Pref accordingly. 

John Staunton Paradigm

6 rounds

UPDATE FOR SCARSDALE: Typing is pretty difficult for me right now, so I'm going to flow with pen and paper over the weekend. If you can bring me computer paper, I'd greatly appreciate it.


I debated for four years at the Bronx High School of Science. I primarily debated on the national circuit and I got a bid in my senior year, while competing in many bid rounds during my sophomore, junior, and senior years. I didn't debate much in my senior year. Since then, I worked at NSD and VBI for 2 summers, coached multiple independent debaters and coached Bronx Science. So far, I have coached 7 bids and 3 kids to the TOC.

Email: john.staunton1011@gmail.com

Conflicts: Bronx Science, NCSSM AM, Westview/Beaverton Independent RS, American Heritage BG, Sage Hills TG, Lake Highland SL

Short Version: I ran almost all types of arguments throughout my career, so I'll be fine listening to anything. Make sure you weigh back to some sort of framework and compare your arguments. I take the route of least intervention. If you're running a confusing position, please explain it well. Spreading is cool and I will yell "clear." If you have any questions, my email is at the top.

Long Version:
1. Theory/T: I read this extensively during my sophomore and junior years and enjoyed having these debates a lot. I don't default to any voters or paradigms, meaning you will have to justify those yourself. If no voters are read and there are no arguments that tell me to evaluate the shell otherwise, I will evaluate it as a response to whatever argument violated the shell. That being said, if paradigms and voters are conceded in the following speech, it is not necessary to extend it, but at your own risk. If your opponent points out that you didn't extend it and makes arguments as to why that means theory is no longer a voting issue, I will then move on to the next layer. I would prefer it if these debates are based on weighing offense back to each interpretation. I also don't care if you use it as a strategic tool or not. However, if you hit a K, I would prefer you read it as a link to the role of the ballot rather than something that just excludes any and all discussion on their issues. Lastly, asking me to gut check frivolous theory isn't a response to theory, so I will not do that, absent some mechanism telling me what theory shells to "gut check" and why said theory shell fits that description.

2. Kritiks: I read Ks a lot more often later in my career, starting junior year, and I also enjoy these debates a lot. I probably enjoy listening to K debates more than anything else, granted there is comparison and weighing. You should start your later rebuttal speeches with the role of the ballot or other framing arguments. I try to be well read on as much literature as possible, so I know and understand most of the common K arguments on the topic (from identity politics to high theory). However, that does not necessarily mean I, or your opponent, will understand your particular position; so, be sure to explain it well. That does not mean repeating what your tagline says; rather, it means you should explain it in a different way, using simple terminology and concrete examples. These examples don't even have to be real historical occurrences, since you can often relate an argument to some physical scenario (I know what yellow is because it is not any other color). When it comes to making a decision, it is necessary that I understand how each argument functions in round: why it answers your opponent's argument, the relevant advantages and disadvantages, etc. In other words, you should aim to explain your positions in the best way possible, but I will be primarily concerned with the interactions I see on the flow. Non-topical ACs are cool, but I think it's better if they're disclosed. It's hard to have a debate against a case you had no idea would be run and it is impossible to expect that you'll have prep against it absent disclosure. You will not be penalized for not disclosed your non-topical cases and I will not have a bias for disclosure theory in this instance.

3. Framework: Framework debates can be very interesting and have some of the best interaction. Not many debaters opt to do framework debate anymore, which is sad. Make sure you explain how offense functions under your framework and what the arguments in your framework mean with complicated philosophy. I enjoy cases that use non-utilitarian frameworks with a plan. I am also open to hearing framework arguments against Ks. You can make arguments for why your framework comes first, but you can also read your framework as a counter method. Just don't make arguments for why your framework means their issues don't matter, as the other option is not only more interesting and involves better interactions, but it also ensures that debate remains a safe space. Impact justified frameworks aren't great either. The only impact I assume is bad coming into the round is oppression.

4. LARP: Unique plan texts are fun to hear and they should be disclosed. However, I prefer plans in the context of non-utilitarian frameworks. I think politics DAs, and most extinction scenarios are rather ridiculous, but that just means if your opponent loses to these arguments, that's completely their fault. I also will not automatically prioritize evidence over analytics, absent reasons to do so.

5. Tricks: I enjoyed running this a lot - just not against Ks involving issues of oppression. Those debates are uncomfortable for everyone else in the room, and if you use tricks to conclude that oppression is permissible, then you should expect to be dropped with low speaks. That being said, I will definitely evaluate tricks and will enjoy rounds with interesting and unique tricks - even if they are straight up ridiculous. I'll probably laugh, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Also, tricks don't necessarily mean just "skep" or "presumption." They can be topical and substantive too. Putting substantive tricks inside your T and theory shells is something I'd find cool too.

6. Speaks: I will generally follow the guidelines for calculating speaker points in the document under "Speaker Points Calculation." Your speaks will automatically go to 0 if you are offensive or violent in the round. Additionally, I do not think it is under my jurisdiction to evaluate arguments about speaker points in round. Clearly, they are not a source of contestation or impact my decision calculus, and so I will ignore arguments that ask me to change your speaks.

7. Miscellaneous:
a. Sit or stand - I don't care. Just be clear (and yes, I will yell "clear" or "slow.")
b. It would be nice if you slowed down on taglines, author names, interps, plan texts, and important stuff like that.
c. I want CX to start right at the end of the speech and prep to start right at the end of CX. Don't waste time asking "Is everyone ready?"
d. I think disclosure it good for debate, but I also think forcing your opponent to disclose is bad. In general, I prefer seeing disclosure.
e. I personally don't think flashing should count as prep, but I don't think that is under my jurisdiction. If both debaters want flashing to count as prep, then it will.
f. Spreading is good. I will yell "clear."
g. I tend to not evaluate embedded clash, unless I cannot logically come to a decision without evaluating it. If the aff is winning an argument for why pineapple pizza is terrible on one part of the flow and the neg is winning an argument on another part of the flow that pineapple pizza is great, I will have to evaluate embedded clash in that instance, even though the aff is probably correct.
h. If you have any questions you can ask me in round or email me. My email is at the top.

Decision Calculus:
Generally, I try to evaluate rounds by making the most logically consistent decision, while also intervening as little as possible. First, I look at all of the framing arguments that tell me how I should prioritize layers in the round. For example, which comes first: substance or theory? Once I sort through the layers in the round, I start from the top. If a debater wins that layer and wins that it is a reason I should vote for them, then I will vote for them. On a particular layer, I have to have some sort of framework for how I evaluate arguments on that layer, so I evaluate those framing issues first. Then, I need impact calculus for how to evaluate arguments under that framework on that layer. Lastly, I determine who wins the best impacts under that framework. For example, say that fairness is a voter and theory is drop the debater with competing interpretations and no RVIs. Then, the impact calculus is that impacts to strategy come before any other standard no matter what. So, I have to determine which interpretation is best for strategy and I determine who wins on the theory flow there. If the person responding to theory wins, then I simply move on to the next layer below that since there is no RVIs. This is a very simple example, but the same logic applies for any situation. This describes how I view the round at a macro level.

At a micro level, things get a little bit more complicated because we have to consider questions such as whether I evaluate embedded clash, whether I can even evaluate arguments that I don't fully understand, etc. The general way I go about evaluating arguments on the micro level is to compare the claims and see which person has the best warrant. Of course, what counts as the "best" warrant is subject to the judge and is why judge intervention is inevitable, but to minimize the risk of intervention, you should tell me why your warrants are the better warrants. This is just basic warrant comparison. Given this, I do need to understand the argument's premises and how it interacts. I find that in most rounds, only one debater will be doing warrant comparison on any given issue, so resolving that is easy. I evaluate arguments primarily on the place of contestation. Physically speaking, this would mean where the arguments are on the flow. Therefore, I will not freely evaluate embedded clash, unless I'm told to. If I'm told to, then I will just cross apply whatever arguments you are making to the correct place on the flow. However, after I draw a conclusion from a specific place on the flow, it needs to be logically consistent with every other part of my decision calculus. Therefore, I will evaluate embedded clash if and only if conclusions I draw from two different parts of the flow contradict. For example, consider a round where the aff wins on the AC that material strategies are good because the state is inevitable. Say this argument was conceded. However, on the K flow, there are arguments for why the state is not necessarily inevitable and those arguments are won. It would be logically inconsistent to say that material strategies are good since the state is inevitable if I can also say that the state is not inevitable. The way I resolve this is to take the arguments on different parts of the flow and see what comparisons exist.

There are three categories of arguments that I find to be paradigmatically outside my jurisdiction, and so I will not evaluate these arguments even if you make arguments as to why I should. The first category of arguments are offensive ones. If you make a claim that someone needs to warrant why oppression exists, or if you make a claim that is outright offensive or violent, then I will not only ignore the argument, but I will also drop you and give you a 24 (or lower depending on the degree of violence I find in the argument). The second category is arguments about speaker points. Clearly, your opponent is not going to focus on disproving your argument for why I should give you 30 speaks and so it is not a source of contestation and is not relevant to my decision calculus. Therefore, I will just ignore these arguments. The third category of arguments are new arguments in the last rebuttal speech. I will not evaluate new arguments in the 2AR, with the one exception that you criticize an egregious form of violence in the 2NR. This means I will not vote on 2AR theory in almost any circumstance. I will only evaluate new arguments in the 2NR if you explicitly justify why that is allowed (allow new 2NR responses to spikes). So, while I generally follow a specific path to deciding the round, this outlines the few exceptions to that.

Judging Record:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m7jyhz92n6dwyre/Judging%20Record.xlsx?dl=0

Speaker Points Calculation:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uiw9hvdy5yl0t1h/Speaker%20Points.pdf?dl=0

Judging Statistics:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/epbimew2a3syy56/Statistics.pdf?dl=0

James Stuckert Paradigm

6 rounds

I sort of debated PF for a year and LD for three years for Strake Jesuit. I qualified for TFA State and TOC in LD, and I have instructed at TDC and NSD. I am conflicted with Strake Jesuit and Walt Whitman. Contact me/add me to docs at jpstuckert@gmail.com

· I like to think my preferences are highly flexible. I am generally fine with debaters doing whatever they want in the round, and if two debaters seem to implicitly agree on a point I will take that as an assumption even if it isn’t explicitly warranted (e.g. both debaters implicitly assuming competing interps on theory or something like that).

· That being said, I will not allow the following things when deciding a round:

o Going back on an agreement made in CX – obviously you can change your mind within a few seconds if you misspoke or make a point to clarify something later but once CX is over if you’ve taken a clear stance on something you’re stuck with it.

o Reversing a stance from an earlier speech without conceding responses to that stance. E.g. you can’t go back on weighing arguments you made if they have been conceded. Of course, you can kick conditional advocacies if you want to and your opponent hasn’t made condo bad arguments.

o New arguments in later speeches which are not responses or extensions. This includes extending an argument which was not in your previous speech but was made in a speech before that. Sometimes new weighing or extending something that you forgot to extend is necessary to resolve an irresolvable flow, but I’ll be unhappy about it.

o Arguments that say I should not select one winning side and one losing side on the ballot for myself. This includes arguments that say you get to steal the ballot and sign it yourself (ballots aren’t even paper anymore so idk how you’d do that), or arguments for double wins or double loses. (You can tell me to give higher or lower speaks, but I’ll most likely ignore you and do my own thing.)

o An argument with a premise which is supposed to be confidential to me as a judge. The main example of this would be references to strike sheets or prefs.

· Other things about me:

o I place a greater weight on CX than most experienced judges. I typically flow it, I am strict about not letting you reverse a position you took in CX, and it weighs heavily determining speaks. However, arguments cannot be extended out of CX – you must make them in speeches.

o I determine speaker points with equal weight on each speech including CX. The two factors I care about the most are strategy and the quality/creativity of arguments. Spelled out positional arguments tend to make me happier than blippy arguments, but I am fine with blips as a strategic choice.

o All else equal, I think topical affs are preferable to non-topical affs. But this is merely a personal preference – I will try and remain impartial in a debate with a non-topical aff.

o I remain agnostic about whether disclosure is a good or bad thing for the community. I will vote on disclosure theory; however, I am somewhat sympathetic to the notion that theory should only have in-round violations.

o I’m not sure why you’d want to read overtly offensive things, but I’ll be heavily biased against them. However, most of the time when debaters say offensive things it is unintentional and while they are trying to articulate a more nuanced view. I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like strict means-based theories), but I will readily listen to Ks of these sorts of theories.

o Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.

o Avoid rhetorical appeals which aim to exclude particular styles or arguments. You can make arguments and engage in strategies which exclude these styles but respect that all types of debate carry some legitimacy (I don’t wanna hear references to “bad theory debaters” or “stupid analytic framework” or “annoying pre-fiat args”)

o When adjudicating framework debates I think that there are arguments which proactively show a framework to be false and arguments which are defense to specific warrants for a framework. This means if the reasons a framework is false “outweigh” the reasons a framework is true then the framework goes away. This is does not imply that I think framework debate is comparative; terminal defense can happen on both frameworks. If someone argues epistemic modesty or for a risk of offense model I will shift to that model.

o On theory I default to reasonability and drop the argument. The threshold is demonstrating abuse in round. Under reasonability my assumption is spirit of the interp, but if competing interps is justified I assume text. I also think it is at least conceptually possible for there to be terminal defense on a theory shell even under competing interps, but it’s probably a very rare occurrence.

Drew Thorburn Paradigm

6 rounds

I debated for two years at Strake Jesuit High school in Houston, Tx. I've competed at TFA, Nationals, and the TOC. I worked five weeks over the summer with NSD and coach a handful of kids independently. I agree with my old coach Chris Castillo on most things so I'm just going to paste his paradigm below (Matthew Chen's paradigm is another good jumping off point). My email is thorbura@bc.edu, feel free to email me any questions and include me on the email chain.


I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.

Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments. D

Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity.

Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during cx. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip.

Linnea Warburton Paradigm

6 rounds

I debated LD for four years at Lexington High School, attending both circuit and local tournaments. I graduated high school in 2016, so its my third year out. So at this point, I have no idea what you kids are up to these days.

As a debater I ran mostly kritiks, but feel free to run what you are most comfortable with. However, I never enjoyed theory as a debater so I cannot promise that I will be able to make the right decision in a convoluted theory round. Here are some other things to keep in mind.

1. Evidence integrity is very, very important to me. If your opponent abuses evidence and you run theory against them, I will be very convinced. If your evidence is bad and the entire round hinges upon it, that will not look good for you.

2. Please no frivolous theory. But if there is actual abuse I will vote for it.

3. Please speak clearly and enunciate. Spreading is fine but if I cannot understand it I will not be doing work for you on the flow.

4. I love kritiks. I especially love a kritikal framework with a plan.

5. I am absolutely fine with non topical advocacies, as long as they are not abusive. I like when they are disclosed, and have a specific methodology, and other things that make them positions that can be engaged with in the round.

6. I do not love tricks or spikes. The aff can give reasons for why they should get the Rvi in the aff, but other than that I would try to limit them. How about for just this round you take out your spikes and add another card or framework justification instead?

7. You must be respectful of other debaters in the round. You may yell loudly, but please do not spit.

8. I think that trigger warnings are probably a good idea. If you think one may be necessary, I would suggest giving it.

If you want high speaker points, have a good strategy, speak clearly, and be respectful.

Jack Wareham Paradigm

4 rounds

I debated LD at Oakwood School in Los Angeles for four years and graduated in 2017. I am now a second-year student at UC Berkeley.

I am not very good at understanding spreading anymore, so please slow down a bit and enunciate clearly. I don't have a problem calling "Clear" but if I have to do it a lot and you don't fix your clarity I might be a little annoyed.

I like kritiks! But if you are just recycling old policy cards you don't understand, I would prefer you did not read one.

I attempt to be objective, however, like every judge, I have certain biases. It might benefit you to align your arguments with my biases, but I'll still be happy if you persuasively convince me to depart from them. Here is a short list of some things I believe:

-terminal defense is rarely a thing

-the negative should prove the proactive desirability of a competitive option to the aff

-jurisdiction isn't a real theory standard

-disclosure is good

-fairness is a voting issue

Things I will probably raise your speaker points for:

-talking at a fast conversational pace instead of spreading (!!!!)

-clear knowledge and passion for a specific issue

-creative arguments

-really good tech

-tasteful film references

Things I will probably lower your speaker points for:

-not disclosing

-being unnecessarily rude (although occasional sarcasm is appreciated)

-strategies designed to minimize clash (tricks, spikes, blips)

Debate can be really fun and I hope you are having fun doing it! It will make me happy if it seems like you are enjoying yourself.

Reed Weiler Paradigm

6 rounds

Hey, I'm Reed. I did LD for four years at Lexington High School ('14-'18), went to TOC my junior and senior years, and reached elims at a bunch of bid tournaments & round robins along the way. I taught at NSD flagship over the summer and currently attend American University, studying public affairs and philosophy.

I don't want to waste your time with a huge, comprehensive explanation of every opinion I have regarding debate rounds, so if it helps, I try to model my judging after people like Sam Azbel, Jack Wareham, and Kaushal Balagurusamy.

I'll try my best to be objective and will evaluate pretty much any argument as long as it is properly warranted and implicated, with the exception of arguments that are actively exclusionary/racist/homophobic/ableist/etc.

I read mostly policy, philosophy, and theory my senior year, but have experience with and am totally comfortable voting on Ks and tricks. I don't think my preferences as a debater carry over a ton into how I evaluate rounds. I'll be just as happy watching a dense deleuze v. kant debate as I will be judging plan v. counterplan debates. Regardless of the content of your positions, all I really care about is whether you can execute your arguments well, demonstrate strategic vision, and explain things in a clear & understandable way.

Things that will get you higher speaker points:

-good CX

-persuasive abuse stories on theory

-good ev comparison

-genuine clash in framework debates

-smart/tricky LARP strategies

-demonstration of topic knowledge

*I will not make a decision that procedurally excludes any of the 5 LD speeches. What this means is if you ask me to "evaluate the debate after the 1ac/1nc/1ar/2nr", i will most likely ignore it, as I've found that doing so would create an incredibly arbitrary decision procedure that I don't feel would benefit anyone in the way they are hoping.

Do your best, have fun, and please ask questions if you have them. I am always willing to discuss my reason for decision/give comments after the round. If you feel the need to ask me anything before the round, shoot me an email: rw9427a@student.american.edu

Brian Wiora Paradigm

6 rounds

Background

I am an assistant coach for Harrison High School. I debated for four years in LD at Greenhill from 2009-2013. I was a philosophy major in college and now teach Poetry at Columbia University. I judged semis at the TOC in 2019.

General

Debate is fun! I enjoy judging good debates full of a lot of nuanced clash and weighing. The best debaters, in my opinion, are clear, well versed on the topic and, above all, persuasive. I think unwarranted arguments, tricks/spikes, and unnecessary/multiple theory shells are bad for debate and an unpersuasive strategy. Feel free to run what you want in front of me, but I am more likely to drop a claim than add a warrant or impact.

Things I like

-A philosophical framework debate (with standards as opposed to ROB).

-Plans/Counterplans/PICs/Disads

-A good topicality debate

Things I don't like and won't vote for

-Fairness as a voting issue. Fairness is not a voter because A) Debate is an inherently unfair activity B) Fairness is not an intrinsic reason why we do debate and C) If fairness were a voter, I would flip a coin to decide the round. If you are interested in running a fairness voter in front of me, I would suggest playing a game of Chutes and Ladders or Tic-Tac-Toe instead.

-Unwarranted arguments. Again, I am more likely to drop a claim than add a warrant

-Any argument appealing to the Role of the Ballot/Role of the Judge as an A priori. In general, I do not think any argument in debate is an A priori, but especially not arguments that rely on my status as a judge or educator.

My Default Assumptions (unless proven otherwise in the round)

-I operate under an offense/defense paradigm.

-The Role of the Ballot is to decide which debater better justified their side of the resolution.

-Debate is good. Philosophy is good for debate. Policymaking is good for debate too.

-Education is a voter, but less persuasive to me than Advocacy Skills, Critical Thinking, etc.

-No RVIs on T.

-Performance debate is fine, but the best performances link back to the topic.

Any other issue should be resolved by the debaters

Pacy Yan Paradigm

6 rounds

NYU ‘22

Stuyvesant High School ‘18

She/Her Pronouns

Conflicts: Stuyvesant High School, Cambridge Rindge and Latin AG, Cambridge Rindge and Latin MB, Quarry Lane SK, Needham ZL, Success Academy TR, Charlotte Catholic DE, Charlotte Catholic LS, Charlotte Catholic LC, Blair Academy AC, All Saints Episcopal School GL, The Hill School NL, The Bear Creek School ML, St Bernard’s School DT, Summit CW, Westview RS, Hunter MN

Please do email chains, flash drives are obnoxious (pacy.yan@gmail.com)

If you have questions about my paradigm/preferences/whether or not I would tank speaks for certain things, message me on Facebook or email me about it.

harvard update: “let’s steamroll these bowls”

emory update: "let's seize these keys" - david basile edwards (Charlotte Catholic DE), 12/03/18

apple valley update: "let's grapple these apples" - david basile edwards (Charlotte Catholic DE), 10/29/18

Short Paradigm for Those Who Are In A Rush:

1) Do whatever. I ran whatever as a debater, you should too. Don’t be oppressive. I like tech, efficiency, strategic vision, arg gen, and flexibility in debaters. Being mean for the sake of ethos advantage will at the very least not get a speaks boost in front of me and you will almost definitely lose points. Generally not impressed by debaters that rely on ethos. I will give speaks based on the round and potentially adjust to the tournament. I will also adjust speaks based on how well I think you did based on context. I won’t evaluate “give me speaks bump” arguments. I also will not evaluate “oppression doesn’t exist” or “oppression doesn’t matter” arguments. You lose if you endorse oppression actively.

2) I am functionally a total nihilist when it comes to adjudicating debates. That means you can run whatever you want, with the caveat that your arguments do not actively endorse oppression. This doesn’t mean you can’t go for your cap/heg good arguments. Read whatever position you want, I’ve done every form of debate, though obviously not every instantiation of those forms. Err on the side of explanation if your argument is phil based (critical or analytical). I disagree with the commonly held notion that if something is run less, it needs more explanation because I think that confuses actual truth with in round truth – regardless of what I know about things out of round about the actual philosophy at hand, that’s separate from how it’s applied in round.

3) If it matters to you, I started policy this semester and am the 2a/1n

Longer Version:

1) In terms of myself, I did LD for four years and ran whatever my sophomore year, Ks my junior year (I affirmed the topic about four times the entire year except for traditional rounds and my main 1n strat was either 1 off or 2 off and one was always the K), and a bunch of stuff (including phil, some policy, theory, etc) my senior year.

2) I aim to be as least interventionist as possible – I’ll only do it if the round is irresolvable otherwise and no one (including me) wants that to happen so please debate well.

3) I’ll be annoyed if I ever have to resort to a default about something

4) I’ll probably try and not make faces although I might sometimes. Hopefully they’re helpful. I generally don’t look too happy but I’m pretty sure that’s just my face.

5) I don’t flow off the speech doc and I’ll only check it if a) I messed up on my own and missed something or b) it’s a round where the quality of evidence matters.

6) I suck at flowing author names so reference to conceded cards by their function in round/what they say.

7) I don't really pay attention during cx because I find most of them very boring. If there is an important concession, just let me know.

8) Weighing/Framing Defaults

- Tech > truth

- Fairness > Theory Education Impacts = ROB/FW (only if a voter-esque argument is made on both sides – e.g. if you read theory and don’t ever warrant why fairness is a voter, I will not default that it is one)

- K = Substance (unless there is a real prefiat argument made)

- K ROBs = FW (unless prefiat arguments are made)

- T = Theory

- Perms are a test of competition

- Truth Testing (unless there is a model that is assumed by both debaters that I can tell is being assumed)

- Lexical Priority > Strength of link (this just means if a claim that “aff theory outweighs neg theory” or something of the type is made, I evaluate aff theory regardless of what is won on neg theory. I also think strength of link/modesty weighing is strange when it is different layers, so if you want to go for that weighing, please justify it.)

- I'll presume neg if I have to but most debates are probably resolvable

- Generally probably low threshold for warrants if they are conceded, but if the argument is directly interactive with other warranted arguments and you are light on your warranting in extension, I will probably be receptive to “no warrant was extended” and not be super persuaded by that argument. Light warranting is also at your own risk because if the debate gets muddled, my threshold for warrants rises as I sift through arguments in an attempt to make the debate more resolvable and if the opponent points out that there isn’t a warrant for the extension of the argument that might hurt you.

- You don’t have to bother extending paradigm issues if they’re conceded, but this might harm you if the opponent makes it an issue.

Specific Arguments

Overview Note: I think debate is a game and that’s the only thing that is conceivably true about the form of debate. Everything else is just different forms of content. Even though debate is a game, I think that respecting people comes before that and also that we should respect that people play the game differently. Additionally, the stuff in this section is just mainly my thoughts on debate, if that helps you adapt to me or whatever, not actual things that would really affect how I judge a debate in round.

T/Theory

- Defaults

· Fairness and education are not voters by default – caveat here is that I have a very low threshold for what counts as a warrant for making them voters. If you say something that comes close to alluding to fairness and education having an implication on my ballot, it will most likely qualify as a reason why either are voters. I don’t think education conceivably makes sense as a voting issue. The same applies to other silly theory voters. But this is just how I think, not how I judge so just justify your voters normally.

· Competing interps - this means please read a counterinterp. I’ve found that the text of the counterinterp is rarely incredibly important, but I would prefer if you wrote it out. If you don’t read a counterinterp, I will not grant you one. I’m willing to entertain the idea of not an explicit counterinterp being read but you win offense on the interp itself justifying a ballot for you (if the RVI is won), but if your opponent makes an arg that says that not having a counterinterp is bad (and it is warranted) I’m way less willing to grant that argument.

· No RVIs

· Theory = Meta theory

· Don’t default drop the arg or debater. If you don’t make an implication to the shell, that’s a no implication on the shell. As with fairness and education being voters, I have a low threshold for justifications for DTD or DTA.

- Friv theory is fine but if your shell is unnecessarily frivolous (i.e. there’s an obviously better shell to be read and you read one that is way less strategic) or so frivolous that it takes away strategic value, I’ll be mildly concerned about your ability to formulate strategy and that might reflect in speaks

- Theory/Spikes heavy affs are fine with me. If I don’t flow it, I probably will act as if it doesn’t exist though.

- Disclosure is cool, but I’ll only evaluate it if I can verify the violation (i.e. screenshots, something about the wiki, etc). However, if the violation goes uncontested (i.e. not denied nor a “not verifiable” arg made) I will evaluate it like a normal theory debate. I think full-text disclosure is silly and not an actually good practice, but I’ll evaluate it no differently than any other shell.

- I won’t stop the round over ev ethics claims if I can avoid it

- I don’t know what gut check is (not literally) and I won’t do it (literally)

Phil Framework

- I default ethical confidence – please justify modesty

- I have a low threshold for warrants on framework when they’re conceded, but warranting in FW v FW debates are necessary

- Non-circular framework explanations make me happy

- People who know what they’re talking about make me happy

- Good framework debates with lots of arguments makes me happy

- These debates are best when efficient and tech

- The NC, AC 1n is cool and I think it is incredibly underrated

- I like framework debate

Ks

- These are fine, I read them a bunch

- NonT affs are fine

- K tricks are awesome and what make K debate fun for me – that means can’t weigh case, VTL, floating PIKs, alt solves case, etc. Make these args

- Word PIKs are fine when they critique non-resolutional words and words that are actually really problematic. Otherwise, it seems kind of frivolous and silly. That said, still free game.

- Links of omissions are silly to me but I will evaluate them if they are made

- The one off K strategy is cool

- The one off K strategy that answers the aff is cooler

- Knowing what your K says is cool

- I’ve observed a lot of K debates are becoming super redundant and also don’t have many warrants, which is not true for every debater who goes for the K, but just something to take note of. I think debaters and judges alike give K buzzwords/rhetoric too much credence and are too willing to buy claims made by Ks which leads to tons of people knowing just a baseline level of what certain pieces of K literature say.

- Ks need to be explained, regardless of how common they are run or what they are. Some just need higher levels of explanation because the theory is more complex

- Don’t need to know the entire lit to vote on it and don’t expect me to if I vote you down against a K. I vote technically on arguments I understood to have implications in the round

Policy

- These debates are cool, but I will preface this by saying that coming from the Northeast means that I come from an area that really sucks at case debate and substance.

- I like this kind of debate

- PICs are awesome. Extemping turns case arguments in the 1N are awesome

- Making creative solves case arguments is awesome, especially against affs that one wouldn’t think solves case (i.e. phil affs, K affs).

- Weighing is cool! I think LDers should utilize more of some of the weighing mechanisms and rhetoric used in policy (uniqueness args, sufficiency, etc)

- Creative plans are great

- Structural violence kind of makes me sad as a framework, but you do you.

Non-T/K v Fwk/Theory

- I am willing to vote on either side of the debate, but if you had to ask my what I think is capital T true, I think fwk is true. This shouldn't really change how you debate in front of me; I don't think the way a lot of people go for fwk is persuasive and that non-T affs should take advantage of that through utilizing the aff.

- If you do not have an answer to fairness/engagement link turns the aff, you should probably frontline better

To Do:

1) Be nice

2) Know what you’re talking about

3) Line by line stuff

4) Explain arguments

Not To Do:

Problematic things

- Endorsing oppression

- Being demeaning to people who are obviously not as experienced as you

- Being demeaning

Not Necessarily Unsafe But Still Obnoxious Things

- I absolutely hated it when people disregarded me over arguments I read or looked down at me or didn’t take what I read seriously (with the caveat of references to frivolous theory being run as a joke)– it’s a pet peeve. If I see you doing it, your speaks start at 28

- Saying annoying things that are said in an attempt to gain ethos

Technical Debate Things

- Spreading faster than you can

- Saying “gut check”

- Shadow extensions

- Putting case on the bottom of substance

- Not giving roadmaps by flows but instead by arguments

- your mom

Yan Yuan Paradigm

6 rounds

I'm a parent judge who's been judging for 2 years on the nat circuit

Please don't spread - add me to the email chain: yyan5221@yahoo.com

I try my best to make decisions off the flow, not based on rhetoric, although speaker points will obviously reflect a mix of both

That being said, please make my decision as easy as possible - I protect the 2NR from shifty 2AR's, and weighing + clear ballot stories are a beautiful thing

Feel free to run any relatively stock positions like CP + DA, etc. - substantive debate should be fine if adequately explained

I've voted on progressive arguments before, including one off K's, performance affs, etc - but these are always a tossup and I don't trust myself to evaluate them very well

I understand basic util/deont (Kant mostly) syllogisms but don't hit me with the a. action theory b. bindingness stuff - just explain it thoroughly and make interacts

Speaks average out to a 28.5 and I'll try to keep it reasonable