Debating the Discord Part 1
2018 — Online, US
Ronak Ahuja Paradigm
Email - Rahuja1@binghamton.edu Pronouns - they/them
I debated for Chaminade and then Futures Academy in high school, and now debate in college at Binghamton.
Qualifications - I did Policy and LD, cleared at the toc twice in LD (doubles, semis), and got twelve total bids. I qualified to the NDT last year.
I'm down to listen to any style of debate- just do you.
Respect people's pronouns and do not be racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. Don't attempt to try to take my or your opponents flows/computers. Speaking during your partners speech is okay if there's a valid reason, ill flow you.
speaks - I think I'm a point fairy.. but it really just depends on my mood ig
Yes, I will vote for framework. I went for it a bunch my senior year.
K - be interesting!! a lack of enthusiasm or obvious disregard for the theory you are reading from is always really upsetting. I prefer if you have links to the plan action, but don't let that deter you from doing what you do best. Using the same language the other team uses to make link arguments is crucial in these debates.
*Unless told otherwise, I tend to decide these debates by asking the question of what impacts a ballot for either team would solve and filtering other arguments through that.
DA's and CP's - The more specific, the better. Well researched pics and advantage counter-plans are some of the best debates. Im open to cheaty counterplans, just be good at the theory debate.
T - I like these debates. I think about it similarly to a cp/da debate. Win that the da's to their model of debate, outweighs the benefit. I'll evaluate these debates by first resolving the competing interpretations/reasonability debate.
Unwarranted arguments even if dropped, are still not arguments. Tech>Truth but I'll likely be tired and if the debate is irresolvable, i'm more likely to do work for the team making more logical arguments.
I'm susceptible to good humor and will probably give you high speaks if you make laugh.
I don't default judge kick - but can be convinced either way.
1nc contradictions are usually okay, double turns are not.
The side advocating for less change gets presumption.
Saied Beckford Paradigm
I attend and debate for Rutgers University-Newark. I’ve ran both policy and K affs.
Influences In Debate
David Asafu – Adjae (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.
Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!
If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the winner based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED.
In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging.
I live for performance debates.
I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average.
The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth!
You can run theory/ T/ Framework. I think they are great pocket arguments to have especially when an in round abuse has been committed, but if you plan on making this your full neg strat at a super advanced level, I am probably not the judge for you. Ensure to impact out your shells and extend that impact! Fairness is not a voter. Do not go for it as one in front of me. It is an internal link to something.
Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.
I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.
I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points. Literally!
Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once)
For My LD'ers
It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!
Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.
Den Den Paradigm
Hey-o, I'm Den!
I did four years of policy debate in high school (2015-2019) and regularly competed in the Chicago Debate League (UDL) circuit. Currently debating in college. Additionally, I participated in Nat circuit tournaments so I'm familiar with both Lay/Circuit styles of debate. Nevertheless, I default towards a tech over truth style of judging unless said so otherwise in-round.
As for what I prefer judging (K or Policy), I have no preference. However, I'm very experienced in judging critical rounds since 1) I used to go for the kritik (security, cap and biopower) in high school 2) The Chicago circuit is very k-oriented 3) K teams pref me for some reason. Nonetheless, I volunteer for a team that is very policy-centered and judge a lot of policy v policy rounds in debate discord servers (shout-out to the Forensics Debate Discord).
Overall, I'll do my best to judge rounds fairly and apologize in advance if I miss certain things due to my faulty ears.
Disadvantages: Specific links to affirmatives recommended but generics are fine as long as it's still applicable.
Kritiks: Always have specific links to the affirmative. Links predicated off the topic itself doesn't lead to any meaningful educational debate specific to the case being ran. However, that doesn't mean I won't vote for Links of Omission if the opposing team fails to answer them.
Counterplans: CP debate is pretty awesome. Multiplank Counterplans are good. Planks that are supported by 1AC authors are even better.
Topicality: Highly recommend to impact/flesh out the standards debate. Seen too many rounds where the negative team extends defense rather than actual offense that comes from that specific section of the debate. Additionally, explain thoroughly why your model of debate is better than the opposing team's model and you're good.
T-USFG / Framework: I highly believe they're two totally different arguments but y'all have to make that distinction. To illustrate, negative team runs T-USFG while the affirmative team in the 2ac reads a block titled FW answers. The negative team can't simply just state "this is t-usfg not fw disregard their block". Foremost, the 2AC FW block still includes answers to standards/things that might be in your T-USFG shell. Especially, limits, ground and clash. Also, probably includes turns that can be applicable to the model of debate you're endorsing that requires the use of the USFG. Anyways, I prefer the debate to be framed similar to topicality (better model of debate). However, teams going just for the impact turn(s) are welcome to do so. Note, negative teams providing TVA(s) under their MoD are cool.
Things I Will Not Tolerate:
Blatant racism, xenophobia, sexism, ableism ---> Loss / Low speaker Points
Please be accountable for your actions if either the opponents or myself call you out.
Nezzarah Discordian Paradigm
Hello, I'd prefer to remain anonymous but I would like to contribute. If that's a disqualifying issue then it's no problem but I figured the tournament might need some help.
I think debate is a game but if there are structural problems with the game they can be pointed out and discussed. I am best at evaluating policy debates but I can evaluate more kritikal debates as well. I've read a lot of different K literature and am pretty well versed in it save for Bataille. Basically, if you want to run a specific strat, go for it. I'm a pretty flexible judge ideologically and will attempt to evaluate what is put in front of me and nothing more. However, like every judge, it's impossible for me to be tabula rasa and I have predispositions I should inform you of. I don't hold to these however. I want to see debaters that adjust to the debate more than they do the judge. This is a competitive activity first, not a solely performative activity a la forensics. You should win because you're a good debater, not because you gave me a better intellectual handjob than your opponent.
See above. My philosophy on these isn't actually that complicated. My beef with K affs is that they either defend nothing, their offense isn't tied to debating, or both. I'd prefer if you defend spillover but if there's a disadvantage to policy debates on this topic that you think outweighs topicality, go for it. Generally though I lean toward T being good but I have no problem evaluating these debates. I'm inherently turned off by performative hostility for reasons I don't feel comfortable disclosing here.
I like well-developed, clear link stories that clash with the affirmative and turn the case. You won't have to explain your theory of power to me so much as you have to explain how it applies to the affirmative specifically. I'm not a huge fan of critical debaters who attempt to garner non-unique links to the affirmative but I'm not gonna throw them out either. If that's your strat, go for it. Another thing is that if you can find a way the action of the plan triggers your impact you will be immensely far ahead. That's my favorite part about kritik debates if the debaters set it up correctly. It will also mean the aff will be much harder pressed to win impacts outweigh once you have a case turn and a big impact the aff directly contributes to. I understand that's not a lot of kritikal debates, so if you plan on going for the K you don't need to do this and I've no problem with evaluating a "plainer" (for lack of a better term atm) K debate.
Please don't read Fem IR in front of me. That's all I ask.
Side note: I generally get lost in super long overviews during the 2NC. Make it easy for me to follow along - help me help you. Do your explanations on the LBL. Also, if I don't know what your alt does and you haven't kicked it, you're probably going to lose.
I think T-LPR and T-Tasoff are both really stupid, but since they are meta I will treat them as well as any other judge. Although I enjoy T debates, I think almost all of them on this topic are just excuses not to engage in the affirmative. I think Tasoff limits out too many affs while allowing really stupid ones. I'm persuaded by both reasonability and competing interpretations so the debating will have to be done there. Don't assume I default to either one. I'll decide based on the work the aff and neg do during the debate which one is more important.
Conditionality is necessary for the negative to test the affirmative - I'm hard pressed to find a 2AC that was hurt by a bunch of conditional advocacies. This doesn't mean I hate theory debates - I don't - but the affirmative needs to do a good job explaining why they were hurt in this debate by conditionality. I'm more prone to agree with extremes because there is an aspect to which reading a bunch of CPs and Ks and then spending 8 minutes on one in the 2NC basically starts the debate after the 2AC.
Please, please have solvency advocates for your planks. I don't care if you the individual debater thinks UNCLOS will solve international law. Find a piece of evidence that says that. This is a competitive research activity. You the individual debater does not have the education or experience to just make shit up out of thin air. There's a reason you can't even vote yet. I lean heavily toward affs that go for solvency advocate theory as reason to reject the team and I will almost always default to rejecting the argument at worst. This topic I've noticed tons of adv CPs pop up without advocates and it's really frustrating to watch the negative do warrant analysis on cards while the aff goes "generic solvency deficit" and the negative spins it however they want because there's no stable basis to hold them to. I'll end my rant on that here.
PICs, int'l fiat, 50 state fiat, process CPs are all up my alley and theoretically fair in my opinion.
If no one says anything, I'm gonna judge kick the CP and evaluate the DA if the negative loses the CP but wins the DA. The disadvantage is still a reason the aff is bad, and if it outweighs the affirmative then as a policymaker there's no reason I should do the aff if it's worse than the status quo. Just because someone introduced a counterplan to solve it and it turns out it actually doesn't solve it doesn't make the DA suddenly untrue.
Don't be afraid to sit teams down on a DA/Case 2NR. These are easier wins than most 2Ns think. Have the balls to go for these and put the onus on your raw skills. That said, there are 3 critical components you need to do, especially on immigration, to make it as easy as possible to win my ballot. First and most important is impact calc. MAKE TIME TO DO IT. Do comparative analysis about why the consequences of the DA are worse than the status quo and outweigh the affirmative's positive changes to the status quo. This strat is the biggest brain and is highly persuasive. Second, don't forget to turn the case even if the other guys have solid impact defense, a case turn functions similarly to a counterplan in my risk calc in that if you win the case turn, even a low risk of the DA's impact means the disad outweighs. Third, go to case. Make the 2AR's life hard. If the 2AR has to spend time explaining the affirmative, that's less time telling me about how stupid the disadvantage is. I'm also 100% comfortable with voting negative on presumption. Do not be afraid to go for that in front of me.
My threshold for understanding how a DA functions is pretty low. There's an astonishing amount of judges who get easily confused by internal link chains. This isn't high theory, so the storytelling burden shouldn't be that high when accessing your impact. Your case turn storytelling, however, matters. Internal links don't confuse me and case turns don't either. This doesn't mean you get to be lazy about your analysis.
I'm predisposed to extinction first and consequentialism.
Highly technical argumentation is good. Judges often feel too much social pressure to reward 2As for making good analytic arguments in the 2AC. The "normal means is that the house doesn't meet again until after midterms" should have nerfed every midterms 2NR ever. Not even super techy, but a solid example I think. Don't be afraid to be smart while also reading your block of cards.
None of the advantage CPs solve your aff - make solvency deficits and please always perm the cp even if you know it's dumb.
See solvency advocate rant above. Applies just as much here. Don't be scared of T interp debates.
Do impact calc. Your aff almost always solves the DA. If it's a soft left aff I'm already questioning your strategic capabilities with you reading one in the first place but obviously go for framing.
Prep stealing: obviously I can't see you, but practice not doing it. Honestly though, little prep stealing here and there is really not a big deal because everyone does it and if you say you don't you're a liar.
Don't clip cards. Big duh. I will drop you if I notice it.
Pronouns - call me whatever. You'll never see me IRL so don't worry about misgendering or anything. Whether it's "she" or "big dumb jackass" I've probably earned whatever you're calling me so dw about it. Let me know what you want me to call you though so we can get that record set quick. I'd rather not hurt anyone. Help me help you.
Russell / Raelynn Hanson Paradigm
Debated for 4 years at Moore High School, and going into my third year of college debate at the University of Oklahoma.
Do whatever. It's come to this point where my paradigm is too many words and has no bearing on how I evaluate rounds. I'll give you a detailed 'roadmap' if you prefer.
My pronouns are they/them.
The following things below were written in March at 3 AM. This'll probably be confusing for you as it is for me, so defer to the words I said above.
Speed: I'm cool with it... given that clarity is always better than speed. This being said, you should emphasize certain words in your taglines and analytics to not only give you ethos, but establish certain things I should look for in your arguments. This being said, I would much rather you slow down on your taglines and distinguish them from your cards. Train effect for bonus speaks.
Kritiks: I've spent most of my debate career reading these arguments in a one-off style. Specificity is key especially to Affirmatives. Quote-pulling would be my favorite, as long as they are contextualized in your speeches before the 2NR. I've read a lot of literature whether it be cards, articles, or books, but that doesn't mean I know all of the nuances even in my best studies. I think the best strategy regardless is to win the framework debate on either team.
K AFFs: Do it. You certainly should have justifications for your method, such as reasons they're good or whether your scholarship is key for debate, the round, or even external forces. Topic ties would be better, especially to hedge back against framework teams. That being said, use case as offense.
Framework: Framework is the best example that contests two models of debate. Each team should have reasons or net-benefits as to why these models are better. What makes framework even more convincing as a strategy is to also have a Topical Version of the Affirmative (please give a plan text)... bonus if there's a solvency advocate. Otherwise win reasons as to why your model creates the best way to adjudicate fairness and/or education or why institutions like the USFG are good.
Dis-Advantages: I think generally as a negative strategy you should have a specific and/or contextual link strategy to the affirmative. That being said, general links will probably not suffice, unless the link goes conceded. Disads are most certainly the best offensive policy strategy to outweigh the advantages of the affirmative so please do the dying art: impact calculus.
Counterplans: Counterplans are pretty cool. You should always have a net-benefit (internal and/or external) so it gives me an offensive reason that I should vote Negative. Otherwise, it gives me more of a chance to vote Affirmative either on the permutation or solvency alone. I would much rather prefer functional competitiveness on a counterplan only because I have to evaluate policy options.
Topicality: I believe the same thing goes for topicality debates: why is your interpretation a better model of debate? How does(n't) it explode or over-limit? Do I default to competing interpretations or reasonability? This is definitely a debate more about tech than truth.
Tech > truth in most instances.
I will NOT ever vote for racism/sexism/transmisogyny/ableism/etc. You'll either lose the debate round or all of your speaks... or most likely both.
Wyatt Hatfield Paradigm
Strake Jesuit Class of 2020
Email - firstname.lastname@example.org
Debate is a game first and foremost.
I qualified to the TOC Junior and Senior year frequently making it to late Elims
Summary of my debate style - I was a memer who just enjoyed the activity while reading all types of arguments but with a twist. I think debate is often boring with debaters just reading blocks and not being innovative.
Please note that I have strong opinions on what debate should be but I will not believe them automatically every round they have to be won just like any other argument. Tech>truth no exceptions unless under extreme circumstances which I don't think will happen, if they do then I will update this.
I am not a fan of identity based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponents identity.
How to get good speaks
- be entertaining either with good music good jokes etc
- explain something to me really well
- in order to get super high speaks 29.5 + in front of me you really need to do something new or innovative, reading your 2NR doc on something will never get you this high no matter how good it is. A new meme or strategy is almost a guarantee of this speaks range.
- making arguments that I really like or agree with, this includes Catholicism and Monarchism.
do any of these things and you will for sure get above a 28.5
How to get low speaks
- Having bad strategy choice
-being really rude or mean. Aggression can be a part of a good strategy but being aggressive to the point of making your opponent uncomfortable is what I mean.
- Swearing or cursing, try to keep it professional and respectful please.
Styles of debate -
Before I get into every style just know that I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them, this is just to say what my bright line for winning the arguments tends to be.
K - If you are one of the 10% who actually knows really well what you are talking about and you can show it to me, you will get very high speaks. Just make sure to explain it super well as I think well done explanation allows you to use the K in a more strategic way on other flows. I will not vote on something I don't understand. Be warned I will not walk into the round thinking an impact is true, I will vote on impact turns to any argument, you need to be ready to defend the impact of the K as I'm not going to accept it as true automatically.
Larp - This was my main Strat when I couldn't read theory and I do enjoy a good larp debate. Being a good larper requires knowing your evidence more than your opponent and CX is where this becomes clear. If you know your Aff and you have good evidence you will get good speaks.
Tricks - If you just blip storm a ton of aprioris I will probably miss some so please be clear with what you're doing. That being said if you are just reading some stupid generic aprioris or skep I will not be impressed and you will not get higher speaks. please be innovative.
Theory - Make sure to be clearly extending and weighing your standard and please read paradigm issues. I don't get this new trend of not reading voters it really makes me sad. I will vote on anything no matter how frivolous if its won. If the round becomes a messy theory debate with little to no weighing done I will be leaning towards fairness impacts first.
Phil - If you have skep or permissibility triggers make sure to do a good job explaining why they are triggered just saying "extend this card it says trigger skep in the tag gg" does not do it for me. Side note I really enjoy theological debate if it’s possible. I promise good speaks if you make the debate interesting. Do with that what you will.
FinalsAt Inactivity Paradigm
Last Updated - pre-Greenhill RR '20
Because everyone seems to have one of these sections these days - will update as time goes on.
Policy 2020-21 - CJR - unfamiliar with the actual meta since I mostly just cut K cards and weird affs, so interested to see how right/wrong my predictions are as I judge. I think BLM being a heg DA is astoundingly hilarious and want to see 2NRs on it. I can see the same abolition K v policy aff or abolition aff v framework debates getting stale fast, so innovative approaches to these strategies (or innovative strategies outside of these) are appreciated. Would like to see more PRF affs - they seem exceptionally good on this topic. My desire for examples in K debates is amplified by the fact that this topic has amazing examples (Assata's trial? Anyone?). I have a lot of personal interest in dense court precedent debates on this topic, and will reward good evidence and debating on this subject. Also super interested in forensic science debates (mainly because I haven't seen many), so same rule applies. My usual "topic ed is the worst framework impact" stance is still somewhat in effect, but I think it is far better on this topic than others. Not really sure how I feel about general topicality questions yet, which can most definitely be exploited by aff teams going for reasonability, but can also be exploited by neg teams who have good evidence even if it goes against community consensus. I see a lot of frankenKs while doing my scouting work and while I'm certainly no purist, some of this is really pushing the line - 2As that creatively exploit the contradictions in these sort of 1NCs will earn my respect, possibly the ballot, and most certainly extra speaker points.
LD SO20 - CV - yes, blank ballots are normal means. Australia is probably normal means in general. Already tired of bad settler colonialism debates, and would very much like to see some good ones. Gut feeling is that Nebel is bad on this topic, since the "diff countries have diff circumstances" arg is very true, but I've already voted on Nebel like twice, so c'est la vie.
"Who is this guy?"
Jack C Hays '19
UH Debate '23
Conflicts 2020-21 -
I am a consultant for Westside High School's policy team, mainly working with Westside SK and Westside RY.
In addition, I currently coach Trinity Valley KK, Coppell VS, Plano West DJ, Lindale PP, Garland LY, Memorial DX, Newsome DB, Westlake AK, *inhale* Mount Pleasant RP, Cooper City NR, Cardinal Gibbons RS, and George Ranch NS in LD.
I have previously coached Lovejoy KC.
I have a personal friendship with Plano West NG, so I conflict him too.
I graduated from Jack C Hays HS in 2019.
Don't call me "judge" or any other honorific please. Patrick is fine. Fox is fine if you don't wanna call me Patrick.
"Sure, but like... who is he debate-wise?"
I started debate under Yao-Yao Chen at Kealing Middle School, and debated for four years at Jack C Hays HS for four years (two in policy, two in LD). I read a mix of policy strategies (mostly this) and the K throughout my career, moving more heavily towards the latter my senior year (lots of Brodrillard 2NRs and a weird cybernetics aff that nobody understood but me and JD). My coaches were JD Sanford, Adam Tomasi, and Aimun Khan, and my thoughts on debate reflect theirs (although not as perfectly as a mirror would). I'm a sophomore policy debater at the University of Houston coached by Ricky Garner and Rob Glass, and I mostly go for the K these days while reading a policy aff (reluctantly). My favorite judge in high school (and still) was Phillip DiPiazza, and some judges I pref highly in college are Scott Harris, James Allan, and Alex McVey (D3 baby). I coach policy for a school in the Houston UDL and coach LD for various lone wolves and small programs across Texas (plus some Floridians). I study English and journalism, and am working on (loose term) research pertaining to psychoanalysis, disability, the anthropocene and capitalism, which I may even get to publish someday - the joys of academia!
"So how should I pref him?"
My paradigm used to be absurdly long (yes, even longer than this) and full of a bunch of weird prescriptions and distinctions between policy and LD that I realized were both somewhat inaccurate and needlessly contrived, as many paradigms are. If you wanna read it, here's a link - https://drive.google.com/file/d/17FJi69MGvvfIAR_vt5W6zihuYuX-WkUY/view?usp=sharing - but I only recommend it if you're extremely bored and/or get some sort of masochistic enjoyment from subjecting yourself to other people's ramblings on debate.
I think the answer to the above question is predicated on a lot of different things depending on who you are and how you debate, so while its kind of a cop-out, the most honest answer is "it depends." That being said, overall I tend to be mostly tech over truth, in that my threshold for a complete/coherent argument is very rigid (and probably higher than the current LD meta, lol), but if what you say meets it, go off I guess. In general, robust explanation of good arguments and explicit comparison is a safer bet with me than blippy nonsense that relies on stuff going unanswered.
I'm very expressive. Read my non-verbals.
"Okay well, should I pref him..."
"...if I'm a policy kid?"
Yeah, but your ordinal 1 spot is better given to someone else. I can't say I judge a lot of these debates (although I'm finally getting more of them, thank christ) but I've certainly had them frequently enough to know my way around them. I'm a journalist, so I genuinely enjoy dense and technical research and I value good evidence very highly, but none of that matters if you can't do the work to explain why it matters. As such, I care a lot about explicit and deep evidence comparison, and I will most likely read key cards after the round (although it's ideally because I'm just confirming the 2N/AR's explanation of evidence, not just to figure out what it said for myself).
- I think my ideal policy 1AC is two well constructed advantages with robust internal link evidence to 3-4 different impact scenarios. Fewer big impacts with better internal links > 9 extinction scenarios that make no sense and are terribly warranted. I expect case debate as I expect the sun to rise - 0% risk probably isn't a thing but I still think that if there's negligible risk of the aff vs the DA I'm inclined to just not vote for you. Impact turns are underutilized, as debaters are a cowardly people. Policy: Err on the side of overexplaining some stuff - I don't judge here as much and while I cut a lot of K stuff and impact things, I'm not super well versed in the CJR meta.
- My ideal 2AC/1AR/2AR to the K is one that gives concise, technical arguments and contextualizes offense to the aff's internal links - you may not know the K better than the 2N, but you should definitely know your aff better than them; use it. Some evidence is probably essential, but moderate cards + aff explanation and spin > The Dump (TM). Impact framing/comparison is sometimes lost here - the 2AR solely on Framework + case o/w is not only welcome, but appreciated.
- I think my ideal 2NR on a DA is one that can articulate a clear warrant for DA turns case as well as/or an external impact, and does a lot of work on comparative risk. Politics is a fine and dandy argument, but the Rider DA is a godless abomination. Uniqueness > link, because nothing else makes sense. Not much to say here. Do it.
- CPs are very cool and well-researched process CPs in particular are very impressive to me (which means ConCon and consult Japan don't count, lol). Default to sufficiency framing because why wouldn't I? Condo and negation theory are good and probably infinite (LD: its still good but less infinite, after like 2-3 condo I become more sympathetic), but I think judge kick is a mistake and will very much try not to kick the CP for you (basically unless the 2AR straight drops judge kick, don't count on it).
"...if I'm a K person?"
Absolutely. These are the debates I think about the most these days, and I do a lot of reading and research in this area both inside and outside of debate. Outside of debate, I'm a disabled Marxist. In debate, I have experience going for and/or coaching afropessimism, Baudrillard, Deleuze, psychonalysis, settler colonialism, Agamben, and a bunch of other things. I say this not to discourage you from reading non-disability/Marxist/etc positions, but to let you know this is where I come from. We all have biases, I'm just being honest about mine. Good K debaters are (imo), no matter what their literature base or background, organized and technical, with lots of contextual and specific explanations/examples.
- K affs should be coherent in the barest sense of the term i.e: if I don't know what the hell your aff does after the 1AC my threshold for neg answers goes way down and my threshold for voting for you goes way up. I think presumption is often underexploited by the negative but affs are also bad at answering it - the same standards of having clear impacts and internal links/solvency I'd apply to a policy aff apply here. Overviews are cool but as time goes on, returns diminish. I don't have any illusions my ballot does anything but indicate a decision, but this doesn't mean I don't think debate has liberatory potential (quite the opposite), and explaining why voting for/debating your aff is valuable is crucial. Case debate is, as in any round, crucial here - I think the aff should be able to explain to me what it does and why it's good, and 2ARs that fail to do so run the risk of losing my ballot. Floating PIKs should be set up explicitly in the block (LD: if it's not set up in the 1NC, the 2AR gets new responses - you don't have a block! When does it "float?"), and if I miss it, that's your fault for trying to cheat.
- K neg blocks/2NRs vs policy affs should be highly organized, with overviews kept to a minumum and most of the explanation done on the lbl. Organizing your 2NC/1NRs to mirror the 2AC order is good. Link debate on the permutation, framework on framework, etc. The closer your 2NC interp is to letting the aff have most of their aff, the more convinced I am that it's legit. Links should be contextualized to disprove why I should vote for the plan unless you have an alternative framework of offense, and even then should always be impacted out to some sort of turns case or external piece of offense. Again, examples - lines from aff ev, references to CX, etc. I also like knowing what the alternative does, and if I don't by the end of the 2NR my threshold for the 2AR goes way down. I think impact framing and comparison is sometimes forgotten in these debates, and should be present in the block/2NR.
- K v K debates - possibly my favorite debates to be in, although I get them way less than clash rounds. Stuff gets very muddled very fast in these debates, so, again, examples + organization + clear impacting out of your arguments is the winning move here. I'm sure I could be convinced "no perms in a method debate" may be a good argument in the abstract, but it certainly doesn't rise to the level of one in most debates I hear it in.
"...if I expect a lot of clash debates?"
Most definitely. I am very far from both "Framework is genocide" and "no plan no ballot" types, which makes me a pretty ideal mutual pref for these rounds imo.
- Affs - I think some form of dialogue/role for negation is good and there should be a general telos and stasis for discussions - my ideal affirmative articulates a model of debate that has both but impact turns the negative's specific stasis point/telos i.e: not "debate is bad" but "their model of debate is bad, ours is better." There is a value to debate and I intuitively think it's important to be able to preserve and explain it, even if there's disagreement over what said value is.
- Negatives - yes I will vote on Framework lol. TVAs and SSD don't need to solve the content of the aff, but they do need to solve the aff impact turns/telos to debate (or at least most of it - I think of this stuff through sufficiency framing too). 2NRs lose when they don't collapse and explain a terminal impact or comparative internal link work on the limits/ground DA. They also lose when they don't allude to the aff at all. They win by doing all of the above. I tend to think clash/arg refinement > procedural fairness > topic ed. Debate may be (probably is) a competition, but what does that mean?
- All of the above can be changed by good enough (or bad enough) debating. I've voted aff on impact turns to debate itself with no counterinterp (cringe), and voted neg on "topic debating is good because we all should be lawyers someday" (also cringe). To me, Framework (and good 2ACs to it) are about the process of debate over the course of a topic/season rather than the content of individual rounds/arguments. As such, "state good/bad" or even "topic good/bad" doesn't really make sense as a response to/argument for Framework.
"...if I'm a phil debater?"
Maybe. Not the most well versed in these debates (although I do coach them some), and there are just better judges for these rounds you could pref.
- Clear explanation and explicit interactions are good. I find these debates are simultaneously too blippy and also too top-heavy, and making sure you avoid both will help your chances a lot.
- I'm well versed in certain philosophies of ethics, but my issue is I have an issue with explaining how that translates to an impact metric in a debate round, so explain this stuff like I'm a decently well-read non-debater I guess?
- If you're going for phil affs vs the K, pref me a bit higher - I find these interactions interesting and actually do like these debates, provided they don't devolve into blippy nonsense and there's genuinely robust contestation.
"...if I'm a tricks machine?"
Please god no. I despise these debates and post-Loyola my threshold for these arguments is gonna be substantially higher. I will (begrudgingly) vote on them if a clear claim/warrant/impact is asserted and won (which is rare, but happens), but these debates are legitimately emotionally exhausting for me to judge because of how banal and infuriating I find them and I'm seriously gonna start tanking speaks moving forward for a prioris/TT/skep/logcon/etc. Also not voting on condo logic/tacit conditonals.
"...if I'm a topicality/theory monster?"
At your own risk. Lower for tons of spammy shells, higher for more policy-esque topicality debates, between the two for Nebel. I've been told my evaluation of these debates is erratic when interactions aren't very clear in very dense 2NRs, but I also did coach Aditya, so it's not like I know nothing. The wonkier the shell, the greater my threshold for winning it is.
- Topicality is a question of predictable models of the topic, which I personally believe is determined by research and literature. As such, I value evidence with intent to define terms of art more than good limits in the abstract. LDers: This doesn't mean semantics, it's actually the opposite - I care much more about topic literature consensus than grammar, because the latter has much less to do with how topics play out. You can go for semantics, but tread carefully. Offense/defense because why wouldn't I. Reasonability and competing interps could go either way in these debates, but reasonability is a question of the aff's interpretation, not what the aff did. Saying "the aff is/n't reasonably T" makes no sense to me, because it's about whether their model of debate is reasonable. Generally speaking, linguistic descriptivism > prescriptivism.
- Paragraph theory good, RVIs bad, disclosure good. These are predispositions I have (along with the condo stuff above) that are quite difficult (but not impossible) to debate out of.
- LDers: Not voting on any sort of shell about clothes or people's behavior. It's worthless and annoying at best and violent at worst. Stop it.
- LDers: 2NRs on shells should focus less on lots of blips and more on sitting down and explaining internal links with explicit comparison. Treat it like a topicality 2NR in that regard and your chances of winning go way up, otherwise I may intervene to resolve unclear parts of the debate in ways you dislike.
- LDers: 1AR theory is fine, but again, impact out stuff very explicitly and don't leave it in my hands to decide.
- LDers: I'm evaluating every part of the debate after the 2AR. Trying to change this loses you 0.1 speaks for every speech you exclude.
"...if I'm an LDer doing policy and want to read tricks and Kant on the policy topic?"
Weirdly specific, but it happened. Your speaks are capped at a 28.5 and I'm not flowing half your aff.
"What about the weird pet peeves and thoughts every judge has but always forget to put in their paradigms?"
This will be updated over time, but...
"Perm, do both" isn't an argument by itself and if this is all you say I will treat it as a new argument in your next speech when you explain it.
Inserting rehighlighting of opponent's cards is fine imo, but debate it out. But inserting whole cards from different parts of an article is a no-no.
Not okay with cards written by active debaters at the time of authorship. Non-negotiable. Won't flow them. Sorry.
The best way to make me want to claw my eyes out is overly semantic debates over Role of the Ballot/Judge. I vote for who wins. These arguments are cop-outs for actual framing arguments 9/10 debates. No clue why people pretend these arguments are magically above any other framing argument in the debate because you used a cheeky four-word phrase.
Mich KM hasn't been funny for years (if they ever were) and I only recommend showing me your shitty Will Morgan impression if you want a 28.
That being said, debaters who display the true Poster's Spirit will be rewarded handsomely.
Stealing prep annoys the hell out of me. Don't.
Extra points for authors/args and cards I haven't seen before in K debates - I like rewarding original research over backfile recycling.
Long "framing contentions" are not good ways to answer DAs.
I enjoy small talk, actually,
"Wow, that was certainly, uh, thorough. Anything else?"
Debate should be a safe space for everyone. Respect pronouns, respect people's personhood, and be conscious of social positions.
Debate should also be fun! Jokes, charisma, and being interesting to judge (even if it includes some pandering, lol) will all boost speaks. At the bottom of my old paradigm, I have a list of things you can do to bump speaks - they all still apply.
Stolen from Yao-Yao: "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck." You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that.
Finally, a wager, as I am a gambling man at heart - if the 2AR/2NR sits down early, +0.3 speaks for every 30s saved if you win, but -0.3 speaks for every 30s if you lose. Your move.
Good luck, and see you in round!
Dopa Maskey Paradigm
Varsity Policy Debater — UNLV (2019-Present)
Varsity Policy / LD Debater — NWCTA (2017-2019)
-Put me on the email chain (email@example.com).
-I won't intervene unless someone says obviously hateful terms or are intentionally excluding someone
-tech > truth
-I'm more likely to vote on T then most policy judges - theory is what I have a higher threshold for
-Don't run a DA or 2AC add-on's on case - put them on a different flow. Same for long K overviews
-I don't like K's and don't know much about them. I wouldn't suggest running them in front of me. I won't not vote on them, BUT don't be displeased if I misunderstand it. TVA's and SSD with fairness and education impacts makes it hard to win non-topical K-AFF's.
-I'll boost speaks if you show me post round that you disclosed + posted cites and round reports beforehand
-If you are forced to use Google Docs, please send out a downloaded copy on the email chain.
-I'm chill and don't care if you wanna step out or need a second to load a doc or email
-I enjoy creative positions as long as they aren't dumb
-Try to organize the debate if it gets messy / make efforts to ensure it doesn't be that way - I'll dock speaks if you intentionally obfuscate the flow. Same if you rely on implicit clash instead of doing a line by line
-Provide trigger warnings if you intend on speaking about sensitive subjects
-Don't call me judge or sir
-If you have any questions about my paradigm / RFD, please email me or just ask in person.
-Signpost when you go from an overview to the line by line if you have a long overview
-Have relevant U/Q evidence in the 1NC shell
-Utilize DA turns case and link turns case arguments more
-Prefer to have functional and textual competition
-I think CP's with case turns as a net benefit or internal net benefit are neat
-Intrinsic and severance perms are more acceptable if the CP isn't as theoretically legitimate
-Wouldn't suggest running them in front of me
-Perm do the plan and the alternative in every other instance works out paired with a double bind are neat
-Perm do the CP solves 99% of word PIKs unless the word is in the plan text
-Alternatives almost never solve the case or honestly solve the implications of the K - point this out
-Don't obfuscate and intentionally make the debate confusing to get an edge on your opponent - try to heavily explain everything how everything works in the block
-Tell me before the 2NC / 1NR if I need another page for the K overview
-I default to competing interpretations as reasonability culminates in a bright line of what is reasonable
-Functional limits isn't convincing if the plan is able to spike out of DA's
-Slow down on theory and T
-I will not vote off an RVI
CX Specific Notes
-Fill-In decks solvency for 90% of cases but isn't a solid DA with the Turkey F-35 / India BMD thumper
-Circumvention makes no sense - durable fiat solves
-Defense industrial base DA and the NPT Credibility DA are trash
-Assurances DA is dope and underutilized
-QPQ and Offset CP's are probably some of the better CP's
LD Specific Notes
-I don't care if it's a lay debate or not, setup an email chain.
-I know a lot about the topic even though I do CX - don't over explain stuff
-If you're second flight, I'm down if you come in a watch first flight. Otherwise, please be there when first flight ends, and know who your opponent is in case I don't know where they are.
-Asteroids PIC and No ICBM's are probably the best CP's on the topic - I like the ban treaty aff
Matthew Moorhead Paradigm
he/him, appleton east ‘19, wisconsin ‘23
email chain or questions: firstname.lastname@example.org
2020 update - not super involved with debate anymore, please over-explain dense topic positions for great speaks
tl;dr - good debate is what keeps me in this activity - in the abstract i am incredibly opinionated about debate, but judging i try to hold your ability to debate your position well over my personal beliefs on those positions - pref me if you can explain your argument well, regardless of what it is - i think i can judge any debate fairly well, but the better you collapse, explain, and impact out arguments, the more you will understand and/or like my decision.
the best debates involve well-researched positions, rigorous line-by-line contestation, and strategic argument development - regardless of how you debate, i have found this model always has the best outcome
1. i did ld and dabbled in policy for 4 years at appleton east in wisconsin - i broke at the toc, got a couple bids, cleared at nsda twice, taught at nsd flagship, and have previously coached locally and nationally for appleton east and other independent debaters - my small school history makes me have a lot more respect for hard work and dedication to the activity
2. ishan says this better than me, but not all arguments come into round at 100% risk - it should take more to convince me that something like suffering is bad than good - the strength of your argument is correlated with how well warranted your justifications are for it, it's incredibly difficult to win arguments that contradict all common sense when they're warranted by blips - the easiest way to not worry about this is to read fleshed out and truthful arguments
3. random points: internal links and impact calculus are where any debate is won, no judge kicks unless you tell me to, affs must defend a change from the status quo, i won’t try to understand deep literature buzzwords without explanation, “independent voter” rarely actually means anything
4. i appreciate positivity - being inclusive/wholesome and making me laugh will help your speaks and being a bad person or speaking over gender minorities will definitely hurt them
have a great day and best of luck! :)