Debating the Discord Part 1

2018 — Online, US

Ronak Ahuja Paradigm

Chaminade High School (2015-2018)

Futures Academy 19 (Previously Halstrom)

I was a "K debater" in high school, but I am open to any style of argumentation.

be smart, passionate, and hold nothing back (except personal attacks maybe).

"Every idea one defends is presumed guilty, and every idea that cannot defend itself deserves to disappear."

techy truth > truthy tech > tech > truth

Unwarranted arguments even if dropped, are still not arguments.

Framework is a true argument.

Debate would be worse without K aff's.

Do what you are best at and you will be more likely to win.

Respect people's pronouns please.

Trolling without being an asshole is a skill. Being an asshole will doom your speaker points.

High speaks if you roast my friends. (if it is funny)

My understanding of debate is slightly better than carolyn's

*extra thoughts*

Absent a judge kick arg, I will stick the neg with their advocacy.

1nc contradictions are usually okay, double turns are not.

The negative gets presumption, it flips aff if there is a cp or alternative. However, it flips back neg if the aff makes a permutation.

Saied Beckford Paradigm

About Me

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 debating coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy and Christopher Kozak

The Basics

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.

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.

You can run theory. Just be good at it, because if you provide a lackluster attempt at it in a round, it is not going to be a heavily weighted when deciding the winner.

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!

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!

Den Den Paradigm

TKHS '19

Email chain-

tech > truth

I'm alright with voting for anything as long as there's a detailed/fleshed out explanation of it than just shadow extending it and expecting me to vote for it just because it was conceded/dropped. Tell me why certain arguments have value. I won't do the work for you. Also, just frame the debate clearly and I'll probably vote for you.

I'm a flex debater so i'm comfortable with voting on Ks, CPs (unless abusive if called out by the other team and will usually believe them if enough explanation is given against it), ptx DAs, no plan-text affirmatives, etc.

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.

K Affs

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.

Random stuff

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 second 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.

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

email -

Debate is a game first and foremost.

Summary of my debate style - I am a memer who really enjoys debate so just remember debate is supposed to be fun and be creative with what you do.

Please note one 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.

Speaks -

If you want good speaks in front of me you can do a couple of things

- be entertaining either with good music good jokes etc

- explain something to me really well

- be very strategic and just smart the whole round

- 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 Wilderson 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.

do any of these things and you will def get above a 28

how to get low speaks

-making bad jokes

-doing really stupid things

-being really rude or mean. I will put here that being aggressive to the point of making your opponent uncomfortable is what I mean here.

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 -

the only K I ever really read was Baudrillard, but I know a decent amount of the lit here. just make sure if your reading Lacan or something like that to explain it super well or else I will have no idea what your talking about. I will not vote on something I don't understand. Side note if your the type of person wondering whether I will like cap good or other impact turns to standard Kritiks I will.

Larp - not much to be said here Larp is about being tech and having good cards. if you have both of those things you will win the debate in front of me

Tricks - I really like tricks and don't have a bias against them like most people. that being said if you just blip storm a ton of aprioris I will probably miss some so please be clear with what you're doing. also I do not think CX is binding, so if you wanna be really tricky go for it just make sure to justify why CX isn't binding.

Theory - this is my favorite type of debate because it requires the least amount of prep. 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 mad. I will vote on anything no matter how frivolous if its won. My mentality is if its so frivolous it should be super easy to beat back.

Phil - same as k just make sure I know what the syllogism is and you will be good. if you have skep or permissibility triggers make sure to do a good job explaining why that triggers it 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

8 rounds

Jack C Hays '19

U of Houston '23

#PoolHeg, #TomasiSwag

Conflicts: Jack C Hays, Hebron AS, Garland IR, Village AI, McMillen/Independent NG, Episcopal School of Dallas ZH.

I debated for Kealing Magnet and Jack C Hays for two years in policy, then three in LD at Hays. I debate policy at UH now. #GoCoogs.

Pref Shortcut

K - 1

Policy - 1

T/Theory - 2

Phil - 2-3

Tricks - 3-4

5 Mins Before Round


Short version - you do you. Obviously that's very generic, but it rings true - I'm comfy with any and all args, albeit some will need more explaining than others. Do your thing the way it should be done and I'll vote for it.

Big thing - I have hearing issues in my left ear + I have always been just above mediocre at flowing - as such, slow down on important warrants. I should be able to catch it all anyways, but there are times when I miss things - I will never flow off the doc unless I have to for my own sake.

If it's a bubble, tell me. I'll adjust speaks up a bit if I think you deserve to clear.

Skimming the specific sections for whatever args you plan to read is probably smart.

I'm very expressive, but in weird ways. If I look confused, it doesn't mean you aren't making sense, it means you're saying something that hadn't occurred to me. That could be good or bad depending on if I seem to be happy or frustrated after you say it. Read my non-verbals.

Overview/General Things

Bolded = important snippets.

This is an overview of my defaults and preferences, not my list of debate "truths". A friend of mine read this paradigm and said it feels like a checklist - it's not the end-all be-all of how I will vote, I try and keep a good flow and vote strictly based on that. I say "probably" a lot when talking about stuff because I think of debate as competing risks of arguments, and this paradigm is my default on the risks of certain arguments being true, all other things equal. Aside from the section "things I will never vote on," I will vote on any complete argument. However, there is no such thing as a judge who is impartial, and rather than pretend that I have no personal thoughts on debate/I'm a blank slate, I feel like I should explain them so you can get a feel for how I conceptualize debate. If you execute an argument I say I don't understand (see: Nebel T) in a way I do understand, I'll probably be impressed and your speaks will show. If you can perfectly execute an RVI debate and dazzle me with your nailbomb aff and 1AR theory, do it. If you win, you win.

An argument is a claim, warrant, and impact. If these three things are not present, I will not feel comfortable voting on it, regardless of technical concession. I would consider myself tech > truth, but with caveats - stolen shamelessly from the mighty DML: "If I am uncertain about whether or not an argument is explained enough to merit a ballot, I am unlikely to vote on it even if it's technically dropped by the other side, because I believe arguments have a burden of proof to meet before they require rejoinder. Thus, I often make decisions in terms of relative certainty; that is, how certain (or uncertain) I am about any given argument."

I consider myself a much better judge than debater, because my understanding of arguments is much higher than my ability to execute them was - as such, I value well executed strategies and clear understanding of your arguments. I will enjoy you going for whatever you do best.

I do not flow arguments without a warrant. This somewhat includes extensions - regardless if it was conceded in an earlier speech, if I don't hear the warrant for why what was conceded is true at least hinted at or parroted, I'll be skeptical. I have a very long-winded explanation of this and justification as to why I feel like this is justified, but just short version is you aren't going to change my mind. If your strategy/style relies on shitloads of vacuous techy blips without warrants that will inevitably be dropped and become the 2NR/AR in it's entirety, strike me.

- This also means I don't flow the tags of your evidence, just the warrants - if you try to read shitty cards and spin them as not shitty I will know, and so will your speaks. Serial power-tagging and lying about warrants will cause you to lose speaks.

I feel my job is to adjudicate the debate. That job requires me to adhere to the procedural constraints of speech times, ethical practices concerning evidence, and flowing arguments made. CX is always binding. Anything beyond the kind of "no shit" rules is fair game though.

Some people I agree with: Adam Tomasi, JD Sanford, Aimun Khan (my former coaches), Arun Sharma (just the anime parts), Philip DiPiazza, Yao-Yao Chen, and Nick Malanga.

Speaks - As I judge I find I'm less generous with speaks than I expected to be, but I'm still not super stingy. I adjust speaks based on the pool and tournament. If I think you're one of/the best debater in the pool and should win the tournament or be in late elims, you get a 30. If you get below a 27, you probably fucked up in a big way or did something unethical. I like smart CX, I like being amused, I like good strategy and clear ballot stories, I like good evidence and explanation of why it's good. If you do these things, expect a high 29 from me. If it's a local where everyone arbitrarily gets 30s tho, I got you chief. If you debate in a way that makes me think you've taken advice I have given in a previous RFD or explicitly adapt to my paradigm, I'll notice (so will your speaks :D).

Things I Will Not Tolerate

- Morally abhorrent things

- Stealing prep - if a timer isn't running, you aren't prepping.

- Evidence cheating

- Useless ad homs/personal attacks

Stuff I Will Never Vote On

I think this is important as there are certain args I just don't feel okay voting on ever because it'd be too interventionist or ethically dubious. I am happy to explain these things, but I will not change my positions on them. I may add more things to this as I judge more.

- Stuff that happened outside of the debate/in other rounds - exception is disclosure, which is probably good but I won't hack.

- Any argument that tells me to evaluate the debate in any way before the end of the 2AR - I feel like "evaluate theory after the 1AR/2NR" or something like that is too interventionist.

- Arguments that directly contradict what you said in CX - it's binding, and the other side won't have to point it out for me to throw out these arguments.

- Cards cut from "Suicide Note" by Mitchell Heisman. I won't vote you down for it unless the 2AC/1AR tells me to, but I'm definitely not comfortable voting on that evidence and I refuse to flow it. You can read death good, just not that author/card. Sue me.


Good evidence > good spin - I find that I'm very convinced by analysis on the quality of evidence as well as the content of it - things like methodology comparison and statistical analysis coupled with good weighing of warrants will be rewarded with high speaks and probably the ballot.

I like big 1ACs with super tight internal link chains. Good articulation of your specific scenarios are fantastic.

Impact debates are a lost art - I believe there is such a thing as 100% defense and will happily vote on it. I also love impact turn debates - heg bad, dedev, and warming good are some of the funniest things ever and you will be rewarded for doing them well.

Soft left affs need to answer the DA - fuck outta here with Cohn 13, that isn't a coherent DA answer. It may affect my impact calculus, but it isn't a whole answer. Indicting overall positions with "ahhhh low probability doesnt matter" isn't really something that makes much sense me if they have a strong link chain. I think the best way for soft left

Impact calculus. Do it.

Links are risks, not yes-no - I find that internal link comparisons on case v DA debates are good - this is where 2NRs on case are important for me.

UQ controls the link unless I'm told otherwise.

I won't judge kick unless you tell me to explicitly in the 2NR.


Yes. I think that good, contextual evidence on T with clear intent to define is a winner in front of me - obviously things like limits and ground under a topic model matter too, but all things considered equal I think predictability is marginally more important than limits.

LD: Topicality is probably never an RVI - sorry. But whoever is winning substance gets an implicit extension of it from me - if the 1AR covers substance and the T flow, and the 2NR just goes for 6 mins of T, I will not force the 2AR to re-extend substance to win. If the 1AR concedes substance and goes for 4 mins of T+RVI, winning no RVI is a sufficient reason for me to negate and I will not let the 2AR re-extend substance. I do this because 1. it makes most sense to me and 2. to deter RVI debates and get 1ARs to cover things better.

Competing interps is my default. Reasonability brightlines don't make sense to me - I will vote on them obviously, but I don't understand why they aren't more arbitrary than good=good enough.

LD: If you don't have a carded counter-interp for a T debate, you lose. T is not a theory shell, it's a model of the topic based in topic literature and research. As such, you need an evidence-based claim to support it. This also means that "Counter-interp - their shell unless we disclosed/have a solvency advocate/etc" isn't a real counter-interp.

I don't understand Nebel T - to me, semantics is just a very specific predictability warrant. I don't understand what a "litmus test" for T is. I find that in these debates it makes more sense to go for a limits + predictability argument than whatever the fuck semantics first means. Obviously if this argument is conceded or not answered well I'll vote on it, I just legitimately have never been able to wrap my head around it. I am very stupid, forgive me.


LD: Contrary to my reputation, I enjoy judging a good theory debate. Clear abuse stories are good, I think that much like DA links violations aren't necessarily always yes/no, but they exist on a sliding scale (especially for all you LD nerds with your weird-ass spec shells). As such, I value good clear explanations of the abuse story. Paragraph theory is probably good. Weighing makes it easier for my small brain to resolve these debates.

Policy: 90% of the time I'll remain unconvinced that drop the arg doesn't solve the abuse (the exception of course being condo).

For policy, two or less condo I lean neg, three condo I go either way, four or more I lean slightly aff (for LD, subtract one). Exception is if it's a new aff, that probably bumps everything up by one. This isn't set in stone obviously.

CP theory stuff is wonky because its very much like a case-by-case basis - as a general rule, I think PICs are good. However, I think PICs that compete on certainty/immediacy are probably illegitimate. I have a really intense love of well-researched process CPs and if there's clear precedent in the literature for what the CP does differently I'll be less sympathetic to theory args - you should contextualize your interp to what the specific 1NC CP did that was bad, rather than just a generic "no PICs" interp. Generally speaking, my view is that if there's good clear literature on the CP and precedent for competition, it's fair game.


I know like Pettit and virtue ethics super well and then literally nothing else. Explain this shit like I'm 5.

Explicit interactions and hijacks are good because it makes my small brain have to work less. Explain the syllogism, talk about what impacts matter/don't, and do work on how your theory explains theirs best. Why are ideal/non-ideal theories good/bad? What is violence/"bad" things?

I default epistemic confidence but I'm not super religiously tied to that. If you go for EM, make sure you explain it and do the explicit weighing.

I cannot express this enough, I am dumb here but I will understand it if you understand it and explain it.

Don't drop Bostrom. :)

K Shit

Probably what I go for most. Yes, I have read Baudrillard a lot. No, saying "The 1AC is characterized by simulacral proliferation and the overcoding of otherness - frame your ballot..." is not an overview. Obviously some amount of jargon is acceptable, but I think there's a gut-checked threshold on what I'm willing to accept. Generally speaking, if its not something that has been clearly explained in an earlier speech/CX, err on the side of more clear warrant explanation and analysis of your concepts.

In clash debates, I actually vote aff more often than neg. This is due to 1. no explanation of how the alt resolves the links and 2. lack of explicit impact calculus in 2NRs. Do both and your chances go up dramatically.

I generally believe preventable suffering is bad (not to say all actions taken to alleviate it is good), the cessation of mitosis against one's will is bad (not to say that continuation of mitosis above all else is good), and that we can know certain things (not to say that how we come to know them is good). If your K disagrees with these three things, I'm probably not an amazing judge for it.

Stuff I Know Best:

- Cap and it's many variants (Badiou 8 >>> all other alt cards)

- Agamben

- Anti-blackness - that includes pessimism, optimism, little bit of futurism, etc

- Baudrillard/Semiotics

- Heidegger (I read a cyborgs aff all senior year)

- IR Ks (Security, liberalism, Schmitt, Spanos)

- Settler Colonialism

- Whatever fascist bullshit one of my kids is reading right now.

Stuff I Know Least:

- IDpol/performance lit - I've never been on the cutting edge of these things - I'll listen, but you better explain this to me like I'm 5.

- Pomo goo not mentioned above - what is a rhizome? How do I expenditure?

I value good 2NR link collapsing and specific articulations of what my ballot is - how does the world work? Why is that good/bad? What does the 1AC do to feed this? What is the 1NC's alternative model? Is it subject formation, solidarity, refusal, etc. These arguments are what I look for most in K debates.

Big overviews and lazy lbl will make me, you, your speaks, and my RFD very sad.

Reading back lines from the 1AC ev and quoting CX is a criminally underused practice. Do it and I'll bump your speaks by .1

I assume I am judging the 1AC vs a competitive alternative. As such the aff probably gets to weigh their aff. Saying otherwise is a hard sell because it makes minimal sense to me - if the aff and alt are competitive, I believe it is functionally impossible for me to evaluate the 1AC's method without considering the plan as a part of that method - you would better spending time explaining why epistemology/ontology means the aff's impact calculus is bad, rather than saying "no 1AC 4 u nerd"

Big thing: Saying "The Role of the Ballot..." is not an argument. I don't evaluate buzzwords, I evaluate warrants. I will flow those 4 words just as a framework argument on my flow, and I expect the 2NR to impact them out coherently. Likewise, just because the aff doesn't say "...which answers their RotB" doesn't mean they haven't answered your RotB. A 1AR Framework dump on "Debate should be about the consequences of the plan" is probably an answer to the RotB. Treat it as such, don't be spikey. If you engage the K debate and don't say "Role of the Ballot" once I'll give you more speaks.

K Affs/Framework

Procedural fairness is probably an impact because debate is at least partially a game. I don't think it's the only impact, nor is it automatically preclusive, and 2NRs should do explicit weighing on it. If they drop fairness first tho, gg. I actually went for Framework a lot in my career, I was pretty good at it, so I think I'm a good judge for clash of civs debates. Negatives often lose when they forget to explain what the terminal impact to Framework is. Most aff counter-interps to T don't resolve neg offense or link back to their own impact turns, 2NRs should point this out.

Affs should probably have a coherent vision of the topic/debate and have some relationship to it. The farther you get from the topic, the more likely I am to be sympathetic to the 1NC. Impact turns to Framework are probably terminal defense/non-unique unless the aff can articulate a model of debate that resolves them. T probably isn't genocide, it probably isn't denial of your subjecthood. It's an argument.

Carded TVAs are deadly. TVA's shouldn't solve 100% of the aff - a TVA isn't a counterplan, it's a question of being able to have a discussion of the aff's content within the form of policy debate. Reading a case neg to the TVA as a response loses to "that's neg ground + proves SSD solves" - 2NRs should extend TVAs as defense to the content-based args of the aff's Framework responses.

I think these debates are where ethos and persuasion is really important - I'm not saying I'll abandon tech just because of my affective response to the 2NR/2AR, but I think its good to have both in these debates because I find that big picture questions of "what does debate look like in the aff/neg world? why is that good/bad?" can't necessarily be reduced to singular issues of dropped arguments and tech alone. I guess I'm marginally more truth-y than tech-y in these debates, but I still keep a tight flow and carefully look over it, just be aware that I'm a bit more holistic in clash of civ debates.


Do your thing. I can't promise I will understand it, but if trolling with a bunch of nibs is your thing, go for it I guess. See Nick Malanga's paradigm for a more extensive explanation of how I feel, I say put me lower than him because I understand these things less, but I feel about the same way he does about them.

Side Quests

You made it this far, here's your reward - if you do one of these things I'll either nod and smile or shake my head depending on if I decided you got it.

- Use of the word "bamboozled" in the last speech in a way that makes sense - +0.1 speaks.

- Making fun of a kid I coach or one of my friends in a way that makes sense in the speech/is funny and isn't too mean - +0.2

- Making a reference to one of Tomasi's Soundcloud raps that makes sense and I get - +0.3

- Making fun of me in a way that makes sense + is funny - +0.4

- Finding a way to do a little dance during CX that makes sense - +0.5

- In the event both debaters do the same one of these things, I'll default to whoever made me more amused getting the bonus speaks.

- Doing all of these things in one round and making me laugh at all of them - 30.

- If you can go for Petro 74/the coercion K (not a lib NC) OR "must wear sunglasses if consequentialism is true" theory in the 2NR and execute it perfectly, 30. If you go for it and fuck up in any way (i.e: if I take any serious pause after the 2AR ends before voting negative), 28. Your move.

Dopa Maskey Paradigm

8 rounds



Last Updated 12/28/18

Put me on the email chain ( If you have any questions before round on the paradigm I wrote in 5 minutes, please ask. I'm fairly open to whatever argument you want to run but I'm disfavorable towards K's and performance pieces unless they are warranted like if your opponent says some ableist or racist rubbish (though if it is on accident I'll forgive them). I ran Sprite Cranberry theory my last tournament so I don't really care if an argument is frivolous or not as long as it is debated. I like tricks. No spreading but keep it fast paced. I'll almost always vote off the flow

Matthew Moorhead Paradigm

appleton east 19'

this used to be longer, but i'm going to make this nice and simple. i have a lot of opinions about debate, those opinions rarely factor into my decision. i do not like intervening and will listen to arguments as long as they have a claim, warrant, and impact. i won't vote on arguments that i am required to warrant with background knowledge. my paradigm = a way to get better speaker points, not an all-or-nothing interpretation of debate.

here are my opinions that will guide your strategy:

1. i debated for four years for appleton east. i did national circuit ld and dabbled in policy. i broke at nsda nats, qualed to the toc, and will be teaching at nsd flagship this summer. i mainly read policy arguments and kritiks, but i have experience with every kind of debate.

2. my favorite judges were tom evnen, danny frank-siegel, nirmal balachundhar, and brian kunz.

3. my favorite arguments included but weren't limited to - all impact turns regardless of how stupid (anything from dedev to food security bad or terror good), cheater counterplans, and 1 off k with a shit ton of k tricks

4. i like when people have clearly put time into understanding their position. i am more cognitively biased towards enjoying rounds with arguments that i have historically enjoyed, but reading arguments i didn't like as a debater is not the brightline for good speaks or the win/loss.

5. voting on truths is easier than voting on lies, but debate is cool because we play devils advocate. maybe nuking russia to take out their nukes is better than waiting for them to nuke us.

6. theory debates often lack a defense of your model of debate. just because something is good in that round doesn't mean it's good in every round. this is why i find myself voting neg more often in framework debates. i love k affs, i love voting for them, and if you read one don't be afraid to pref me, just please know that your model of debate is important.

7. my ballot rests on your ability to explain your argument. you should assume i'm not well read in your literature, whether it be in a phil debate or a cp/da debate.

8. phil debates usually are bad impact calc. epistemic modesty prolly makes the most sense and i find it hard evaluating phil debates absent hijacks.

9. organization is very important and i won't vote on arguments that you know you sped through too fast for me to catch the warrant. similarly, judge instruction is under utilized, rebuttals are for convincing me to vote for you and picking battles you think you can win.

10. your speaks will probably be fine and if you're really curious, i'll tell you them.