Debating the Discord Part 1
2018 — Online, US
Ronak Ahuja Paradigm
Futures Academy 19 (Previously Halstrom)
Binghamton 23 - Probably debating in college
I was top seed and in semi-finals of the TOC
"Disclaimer: I will be a first year out. I trust myself to debate but I have little experience judging so I am unsure about my capacity as a judge. I will work hard over the summer to gain some experience and practice judging through camp/drills, but I thought I would let you know." - From Ishan's Paradigm
Don't try and over-adapt to me based on what I did in high school. Read whatever (plans, no plans, performance, heg good, wipeout, theory) idc
Im relatively well read on things like - baudrillard, psychoanalysis, black nihilism, foucault, and vattimo - I will try not to let this effect how I make my decisions technically, but it does mean that I will understand the words you use.
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.
I will vote for framework, I went for it a bunch my senior year.
Respect people's pronouns please.
High speaks if you roast my friends. (if it is funny)
30’s if you successfully roast Carolyn’s debate ideas.
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.
Niko Battle Paradigm
yes put me on the chain (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Pronouns: black/black or they/them
+1 speaker point for 5 well executed West Wing references throughout the debate - tell me what they were after your speech so I can keep track.
-5 speaker points for saying "I'm not racist but..." or any variation.
I debated for Kamiak HS in Mukilteo, WA and currently debate for Wake Forest. I started debate in middle school, and throughout my career, I have earned 17 total TOC bids, qualifying in both LD (3 times) and Policy (1 time). I have experience in both policy and LD debate on both the local and national circuit. I primarily read kritikal arguments, but trust and believe I can follow you and have experience in policy, phil, and theory stuff.
THIS PARADIGM IS WRITTEN FOR POLICY BUT MOST THINGS IN HERE APPLY TO LD TOO. LD SPECIFIC THINGS ARE NOTED AS SUCH.
performance/id pol k - 1
structural k - 1
theory - 2
larp/policy - 2
(LD) phil - 3
(LD) trix - 3
tech > truth, but tech without some truth is rarely enough
(LD only) good tricks debate makes judging easy bad tricks debate makes judging hell
if you're gonna larp (straight up policy) please for the love of God weigh impacts
A dropped argument is a dropped argument, but it's up to you to tell me the implications of it.
I'm a bit of a speaks fairy unless you do something blatantly offensive in which case speaks will go down down down down down faster than Jay Sean can sing it. And, if you don't get that reference then strike me ;)
sass and shade are fun...apparently people think I'm a rude debater, but who cares. If sassy/"rude"/shade is your thing then feel free to do you when I'm in the back.
tl;dr - do you. I like to think I'm pretty tab and can evaluate any type of debate. Tech and the flow are probably more important to me than others who debated like I did in HS. I'm a pretty simple judge so if you weigh your impacts and tell a story in the 2nr/2ar you'll be fine.
TOPIC KNOWLEDGE: After debating this as basically the LD TOC topic my senior year and coaching a PF team on a similar topic, I would put myself at about an 8/8.5 on the current topic
Current LD topic - n/a
we love that. If this is your thing then go for it, but if it isn't please don't make me sit through 2 hours of a bad k debate. I don't think that the negative (for most Ks) needs to win an alternative if they can prove that the aff sucks or that their structural analysis of the world is both preferable and incompatible with the 1ac. Also, chances are I understand and am familiar with your buzz words, but that doesn't mean you should rely on them to win the round. If I can't explain to the other team why their aff, performance, or implicit assumptions in the 1AC/resolution are problematic then it will almost always be an aff ballot. For the aff, I never understood why debaters don't go for the impact turn strat against certain K's. Obviously, I don't condone teams standing up and saying things like racism/sexism/etc. good, but going for cap good, fem IR bad, etc. is fine. Lastly, sometimes I feel as if 2as get so focused on answering the K that they forget to win that their aff is in some way a good departure from the status quo.
For K aff teams, if you are losing my ballot to cap you are probably doing a lot of things wrong. I think most fwk/cap teams I've seen and most of those rounds I've been in has been underdeveloped on the cap side. The 2ac, if done correctly, should pretty much shut down the cap route. There's should be almost no way the 2n knows more about your theory and it's interactions with cap than the 2a does, which should make those debates pretty easy for you to get my ballot. Framework on the other hand...I feel like k aff teams need to do a significantly better job defending a model of debate, winning debate is bad, winning the aff is a prior question to the resolution, or etc. I tend to vote for framework in clash rounds (not because I enjoy or ideologically agree with it), because the ^ things are often not executed well. Framework teams, please make sure the arguments the 2nr goes for are somewhere in the block and not just the same tired canned 2nr. Carded TVAs with proper extensions are pretty damning for the aff and your good research/engagement will likely be rewarded (either with speaks or the ballot).
k v. k rounds
I got u.
policy: weigh weigh weigh weigh! I think more than any other stylistic approach to debate, policy teams NEED to do more comparative weighing. You will likely be unhappy with my decision if I can't point to specific points on my flow to weigh between your competing nuke war/extinction/etc. scenarios. I love watching policy teams who have nuanced, fun and creative impact scenarios. Some personal preferences for policy rounds are below -
Judge kick/choice is just not a thing. I'm still baffled how teams win arguments on this; its always seemed like lazy debating to me, and you are probably better off investing that time on other parts of the flow.
Live by the flow, die by the flow...I think I'm a pretty well-informed person when it comes to politics/IR, but I probably won't know enough to fill in the gaps of actual nuanced scenario analysis which means you need to weigh and make the arguments you want to here in the RFD.
I'd much rather watch an engaging 3 off policy strat then sit through watching some poor 1nr try to kick 12 of the 14 off read.
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 debating coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy and Christopher Kozak
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!
Ninth Cat Paradigm
- I probably don't know jargon specific to your K.
- Extend your warrants.
- You can flex prep or whatever.
- I prefer substance to theory and tricks. I probably won't vote for a shell if it doesn't have good voter/paradigm justifications.
- I don't like blip storm.
- If you don't tell me otherwise, I assume textuality matters. You'd probably benefit from giving me the text of an advocacy/plan/CP/perm/interp (and make them well-written and so on).
- Very high speaks are awarded only based on entertainment value.
Lord Farquaad Paradigm
Discord: Whyfi #4921
Use that for the chain
Whatup, I did LD for 4 years in HS and am currently working on CX at Purdue. Boiler up.
I'm tab, go for whatever you want. That said, you're not going to have a good time if you spread but don't flash. Make my life easy and weigh, if neither side weighs, you will be making your life just as hard since I will have to inject my own weighing mechanisms - nobody likes that.
MOST IMPORTANT THING: I AM NOT ABOVE RESEARCHING YOUR EV IN ROUND IF I THINK ITS SKETCH.
Specifically for this discord tournament (12/28/18):
General: This is a practice tournament; but if you're cool, you'll treat it like a real one.
Disclosure: Its fairly unreasonable to expect people to disclose when the topic hasn't even started on the circuit.
Stealing Prep: Take time before rounds to make sure your setup works: mic check, headphone check, etc. If you try to pull some shady stuff, especially in later rounds, its going to make me sad.
Tricks: Tricks are for kids. Take that as you will.
Alan Fishman Paradigm
TL:DR for LD: Theory is my favorite type of debate, and I'm most familiar with util and critical positions because of my background in NPDA-style college parli. I am also willing to listen to phil, nibs, and anything except lay/traditional debate.
I am open to all types of plans and frameworks, and also to theory against them. I am open to all theory arguments, including RVI's, OCI's, metatheory, and arguments that are unique to LD. I try not to be predisposed for or against any particular theory position, and I enjoy listening to unusual theory arguments.
Please include me on the email chain if there is one. email@example.com
I give high speaks to everyone who does tech/circuit-style debate unless they say something truly offensive, and I give lower speaks to lay/traditional debate.
TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. Make the debate technical and tell me why you're winning. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. I don't like value rounds and I literally hate fact rounds, run policy or a K aff on every res. Please DO NOT make arguments in POI's by saying things like "don't you know" or "isn't it true...", every time you make an argument in a POI instead of asking a question I'll drop a speaker point and I'm very open to voting on theory against it. Don't shake my hand after the round.
I am in my fourth year of collegiate NPDA debate and my second year of college NFA-LD. I prefer flow or circuit-style debate and I'm easily bored by lay case debate. My main priority when judging is to approach the debate objectively and leave my personal opinions out of the round. I will listen to all arguments and also to reasons why any type of argument shouldn't be included in a specific debate format. I try to be a blank slate when possible, but I don't believe any judge is a complete blank slate. DON'T watch my nonverbals - I think that deliberately giving nonverbals is interventionist and if I give them unintentionally you might read them wrong. Focus on the arguments that are being made in the round, not my body language. I hold the unpopular opinion that parliamentary debate is NOT a public speaking event, but a game that happens to use public speaking, and as such, I do not care about presentation and delivery. I do not think that your speaking style or presentation is part of your actual skill as a debater - as long as I and your opponents can follow what you're saying you've communicated well enough. I do not care about politeness, just don't be cruel or dehumanizing to your opponents. I like procedurals, kritiks,and elaborate policy neg strats better than traditional case debate. I do not time roadmaps, but I DO time thank yous. I do allow debaters to give content warnings off time before their speeches, and I ask that they do so if they have reason to think that something in their speech could be triggering - I know of many people in the forensics community with PTSD who have been affected by competitors who did not, though I do not need them for myself, I believe in making debate more accessible.
CASE/DA: I am fond of good substantive debate. Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the game of debate. I like you to have strong impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why the economy matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of a link. While I think defense is useful for mitigating the other side's impacts so you can outweigh with your own, but I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. I often read econ and heg arguments, and I also think advantages and disadvantages with specific links to the actor can be quite useful. Politics was never my favorite DA but I think it's often strategic and I'll vote on it if you win it on the flow - I am not eager to hear the same midterms scenario every round but I won't intervene against it.
SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. In all forms of carded debate, I have a very high threshold for abuse on speed theory/K for arguments that were included in a speech doc that was shared with me and the other team. I do not give a flying F-spec about clarity if I have a speech doc I can follow along with. In general, if I am going to vote on an argument against speed, you need to prove that you asked your opponents to slow down and they did not. If you do ask your opponents to slow down, NEVER say "Clear", always say "slow" instead. As hard as it is to establish a brightline for speed, it is impossible to establish a brightline for clarity. I do not mind if you exclude lay/traditional judges from the round with speed though - judges are paid or have other motivations to be here. If you do run an argument against spreading, I want to hear why spreading is unfair or exclusionary to you, in this debate round, or why refusing to slow down when asked is a bad norm for the activity. I'm unlikely to vote on the idea that one way of speaking is inherently "better" than another, and I actively HATE the argument that debate should be held to IE/speech-style standards of communication. I also believe that it doesn't matter whether debate is understandable to laypeople in the audience - your words only need to be understood by the other team.
THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I will even vote on PMR/2AR theory if there is an egregious violation in the MOC/NR that did not happen in the LOC/NC. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation. I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them, and I will not intervene against a dropped RVI. I do not need reasons why fairness and education matter unless you are comparing them to something else or to one another. I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. I default to drop the debater if you read voters and drop the argument if you don't. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. On extra-topicality, I am very reluctant to allow the aff to sever out of extra-topical parts of the plan.
Rules are NOT a voter by themselves, and I rarely read the rules of events that I judge. If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate. In cases of rules violations, I will almost always prefer not to get anyone kicked out of the tournament - even if the rules of the event recommend that as a penalty. Also, if you threaten to report me to the tabroom for not enforcing the rules I will instantly drop you.
COUNTERPLANS: I think that CP's are legitimate in most forms of debate but some CP's are abusive and I have no problem voting on theory against them. PIC's are okay as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. Delay bad is a true argument but I'll probably vote on delay if the AFF doesn't read theory. I’m neutral on conditionality as a judge. Tell me in round whether it's good or bad. I hate dispo in parli and I expect you to provide a detailed definition of it if asked in cx in other forms of debate, and even then, I'd rather see you be condo or uncondo. However, I do not like to "judge kick" counterplans and if the neg doesn't kick the CP/alt in the block I will assume they're going for it, and I like to see them pick whether to go for it.
IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. Timeframe is more of a tiebreaker to me - unless you show how the timeframe of your impact prevents the other impact from mattering. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).
KRITIKS: I’m fine with kritiks of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, and cap. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that framework informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.
REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow. If your opponents make a new argument it is your responsibility to call point of order. I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.
PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it.
DELIVERY/SPEAKER POINTS: I don't care about delivery in debate. I think that there is a place for judging people based on their delivery and that place is in IE's. I will give speaker points based on how good you are at debating and the choice of words you use, not based on who stands up or makes eye contact with me. I will sometimes add speaker points if someone says something really clever or funny (note: I love puns) or take them away if someone says something really offensive or acts disrespectful to their opponents (such as by refusing to take any questions or blatantly insulting them). Also, if you knowingly misgender your opponents I will tank your speaks and very open to reasons why it is a voting issue. I believe politeness is an oppressive social construct, so I don't care about how well teams follow social norms, and I dislike performative displays of politeness like asking "how are you?" in cx. I think that "thank yous" are a waste of time, especially at tournaments that are running on a tight schedule - we are all here because we want to be. I am completely fine with partner communication, even if you "rudely" interrupt your partner during their speech. However, I will only flow what the current speaker says.
In lay vs. flow debates, I will almost always vote for whoever is debating flow-style, so if there is a lay judge on the same panel as me in a round with multiple judges, the best way to get my ballot is to punt the lay judge, and even if you don't put the lay judge completely I'll likely reward the team that uses the most tech and jargon. If there is another flow judge and another lay judge on the panel, debating in a fully lay style would basically be punting me (since there are possible compromises between the two extremes). I do not change my judging style based on the other judges in the room - they have their own ballots and if I was do so I would be establishing a panel with unequal voting power. I'm not saying this to be insulting to the preferences of other judges - I'm saying this because it would be a disservice to the competitors if I did not accurately represent how I judge.
Also, I believe that debaters should not wear professional clothes to tournaments because professional dress is a social construct that reinforces privilege. I won't vote you down on my own initiative for it, but I am receptive to arguments about why debaters should not dress professionally. This article describes how I feel about professional dress in speech and debate: https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/02/professionalism-and-oppression/
On a related note, I think that handshakes after the round are a part of harmful politeness norms and I choose not to participate in them, so please do NOT shake my hand after the round. Also, handshakes can spread disease and most of us have a card somewhere that says disease causes extinction.
Some of my pet peeves as a judge:
- When the AFF says they "believe" in the res or the NEG says they "don't believe" in it. You were assigned your side at random.
- When debaters act like they're in an IE/speech event
- When debaters start their speech with a quote
- When NEG says that Trump will roll back the plan
- When anyone calls the debate round a "day" or talks about "today's debate" - it's annoying because there are usually multiple rounds in a day
- Please do not set the criterion to net benefits for one particular country or region (especially in parli). I have a very low threshold for letting NEG win that net benefits should include everyone, and if I have to vote on this kind of criterion your speaks will go down like Bitcoin did last December. However, I am fine with other parametricized forms of net benefits, like structural violence first or extinction first, I just don't think that whether someone's life matters should be dependent on lines drawn on a map.
If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.
Also, if you find me after the round, I'm always happy to explain my RFD in more detail or answer general questions about debate if you have the time. I enjoy giving back to the debate community by helping others learn about the activity.
I feel like the value of debating the topic should be determined by the arguments that are made in round. If the aff is not topical, I will not care unless the neg reads topicality. I do try not to intervene, and I think poorly worded and/or problematic topics are a real problem in parli. If both teams agree to debate a different topic I will allow them to.
If there is no flex you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument I will take away a speaker point. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of a counterplan or alt. Anyone who asks or takes an unnecessary POI in a round with flex will lose a speaker point - I think that keeping POI's intact in a format with flex is rooted in problematic notions of politeness. I don't care about "protected time". I think it's a silly and unnecessary rule. I have no problem with people asking questions in protected time but I won't punish you if you choose to follow protected time.
I think that parli structurally favors MG theory so I believe that MG theory should have a higher threshold than LOC theory, but I won't judge it any different unless the negative tells me why I should, because I dislike intervening.
I do not protect the flow
I do not believe in the trichotomy. I prefer policy rounds to fact and value rounds, and I would rather see you defend a policy than a fact or value statement. If you must avoid debating policy, use value instead of fact. I am much better at judging policy rounds, and I have often felt less confident in my decisions in fact and value debates than in policy debates. I particularly hate fact rounds and I think they have no unique educational benefit because you can debate facts within a policy or value debate. If I have to vote aff in a fact round it will probably be a low point win. If you are going to have a value debate, I prefer you do it in a style that resembles circuit LD, as most people in parli don't do value rounds well.
PUBLIC FORUM ONLY:
I judge PF similar to parli. I do acknowledge that the 1NC doesn't have to refute the 1AC directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments (though you can answer them anytime before FF to have the answer on my flow). I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, topicality, and kritiks. I think there are good arguments for why these arguments should not be in PF, but I won't make them for you - you have to say it in round.
Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. If you want a theory argument or an argument about the rules to be a voting issue, please tell me. Just saying "they are cheating" or "you can't do this in PF" is not enough.
I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
David Griffith Paradigm
Every speaker position
TLDR: Do what you're good at, be yourself, tech over truth, and have fun!
Email chain please (+.2 for adding me without having to ask): email@example.com
Great - do it. Impact calc please. Why does the DA outweigh the case?
Rider DAs/Horsetrading are fake news - if you want to run these, know that they are my single LEAST favorite argument in the history of debate. I will vote on them, yes, but I will be very angry and give you faces during speeches. I will look angry. I will be angry after the round. I may groan very loudly during the 1NC. All of these are likely - do not be surprised.
Great. Explain how it works. Explain the net benefit. No problems, or anything tricky here. I will only judge kick if I'm told to by the 2NR and the 2AR makes no substantive defense of not judge kicking the CP. Process CPs MUST be explained. Reading an essay as your CP text will make me audibly groan, although I'll be happy to vote on them if you debate them properly.
I would like to add that solvency IS NOT a net benefit to a CP. I've seen a few rounds already this year where teams have decided that the 2NR should go for a CP and case defense. Sorry, that means you haven't negated the aff. I'm voting aff on presumption since the neg team hasn't met their burden to prove the CP as a competitive policy option.
Do it. Negs need to engage the case more. I am the type of judge to vote on presumption based off of a really specific and well explained solvency takeout, if the 2NR goes for a presumption claim on that flow. Impact turns are also amazing, I think that there are tons of underutilized tactics for neg offense on the case. For affs, I think that your case can get you a long way in impact calc debates. Use the impacts of the aff to refute DAs and Ks. It is an underused tool that makes you look really good when you know how arguments interact on the flow. Did I mention I love impact turns?
I am not the best judge for aff's with framing contentions which do not allow the negative to negate the affirmative. Arguments like that Nate Cohn everyone reads which decide that all negative arguments are unlikely are generally unpersuasive to me. For framing contentions to be successful in front of me, teams need to explain the value of their impacts in the face of a high risk of a disad rather than saying that the disad doesn't matter. This means making arguments like probability first instead of consequentialism bad. You should frame impacts, not refuse to debate them.
I am not too well read on most K lit. I choose to spend my time cutting PTX updates rather than obscure postmodernism. This, however, does not mean I dislike the K. I think a K debate can be educational, and provides good insight on how the world works from a different perspective. I also think it gives people room to express their beliefs within what I consider to be an accepting space (for the most part). I will not connect the dots for you. I need link contextualization, impact debate, and alt debate. I do not think Ks must have an alt. I think that kicking the alt in the block or the 2NR can be very strategic for the neg. I'm of the mindset that 4 minute overviews can be easily integrated into the line by line. I hate having to get a new sheet for an overview, especially when I don't feel the overview needs to be there at all. Short overviews are great, but beyond a few lines, I'd rather just hear it on the line by line. When I read Ks, I read Security and Neolib. With a few exceptions, these are the only things that I actively read and cut evidence about when it comes to critical literature. Security, when done correctly, is my favorite argument in a debate round. I find it to be true, but I will gladly listen to any aff that refutes that claim, because there are certainly holes in that K. As the TLDR said, I don't care what you do as long as you do it well.
I hate theory debates with a burning passion. I do hold some pre-determined views on theory that can be shifted, but know this: condo is good for up to 3 condo advocacies, 50 state fiat might be bad but it might not be, consult CPs are really bad when they don't have a case specific advocate, international fiat is kinda silly, negs get fiat (I will dock speaker points if you go for no neg fiat, although I'll vote for you), PICs are good but Word PICs are bad, severance and intrinsic perms exist and this is a reason to reject the argument. Most theory is a reason to reject the argument (condo is the exception).
I'd like to think that I'm a good judge for T, but sadly, I'm probably not. I like T to be debated as a DA. I want to see impact calc just like any other flow. I think that clash in the context of interps is an underutilized tool. I evaluate these debates under a paradigm of competing interpretations but I can be swayed to default to reasonability pretty easily. I am willing to grant the aff terminal defense if the we meet claim is strong enough. Counter-interps help, but if you have loads of defense on an interp, go for it.
I generally lead neg in these debates. I think that K affs can be pedagogically valuable, but I would like them to have some relation to the topic. I think that T/FW are generally good when there is good impact work and a TVA. I think that aff teams can utilize the aff to thump back on framework pretty easily too, however. Read my T section above if you're wondering how I will evaluate that kind of debate. I do not want to hear: FW is genocide, fairness isn't an impact, and Antonio 95. I will vote on the arguments, but you will lose speaker points because they're all terrible arguments and there is more substance to be had in a K aff vs. framework debate than these arguments provide. I evaluate competing models of debate, so you have to win that your model of debate is net better than either the sqo or the opponents model of debate.
Extra speaker points for persuasive rebuttals, smart cross applications, and anything that would make me go "wow, I didn't think of that." Make jokes, have fun. Not being so serious made debate a less tiresome and more enjoyable activity, and it will make you friends as well. Bonus points for making fun of any OPRF, GBN, or GBS debater/coach. Extra bonus points if it is about Sam Shafiro.
It has come to my attention that people ask "what card did you get to?" or something similar before starting their CX time. Guess what? You asked a question. CX started.
Don't call me judge or shake my hand. PLEASE. I will not shake your hand.
I've decided to be one of those cool judges who gives you a subject to make jokes about, so bonus points for dad jokes in CX, even more if a dad joke is the top of the 2NR/2AR.
It has come to my attention that a certain Matty Heublein wants people to make fun of me in his rounds. I will fight back. If you make fun of Matty, you know him, and it is funny, you will get a .5 boost or boost to 29 if your points are already above a 28.5. Game on Mr. Heublein.
I try my best to keep a running clock when I'm judging, but it is always recommended that debaters time themselves when I'm in the back of the room. I make mistakes, and it is good practice so you can allocate time in your actual speech.
Wyatt Hatfield Paradigm
Wyatt Hatfield Strake Jesuit Class of 2020
email - firstname.lastname@example.org
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 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.
How to get good speaks
- 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.
- making arguments that I really like or agree with, this includes Catholicism and monarchism.
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.
- 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 - Lets be real 90% of people who read this stuff have no idea what it actually means. I was one of those people, if your like me and just read the 2Nr doc and make sure to not drop anything and you should be good. If you are one of the 10% who actually knows really well what you are talking about if you can show it to me like basically just outsmart your opponent in CX and really demonstrate you know what your saying, you will get very high speaks. 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. Be warned I will not walk into the round thinking an impact is true, I will vote on impact turns to arguments, you need to be ready to defend the impact of the k I'm not going to accept it as true.
Larp - This was my main Strat when I couldn't read theory and I do enjoy a good larp debate. Other than that 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. 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 - 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. please note that I am very biased towards fairness first education not a voter type arguments. I personally read these a lot and do think they are true. That being said you still need to win the argument just like anything else I'm just saying if its a messy theory debate with little to no weighing done I will be leaning towards fairness impacts first.
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. Lastly is that I really don't know any literature at all besides theological stuff so don't expect me to know anything about the framework you read. the burden is on you to prove it to me.
FinalsAt Inactivity Paradigm
Jack C Hays '19
U of Houston '23
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.
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.
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 affs to win is specific defense to the 1NC + good explanation of impact calculus - either/or probably isn't enough.
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. :)
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)
- Anti-blackness - that includes pessimism, optimism, little bit of futurism, etc
- 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.
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.
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.
Matt Moorehead Paradigm
he/him, appleton east 19'
no i don't hack neg, three of those rounds were concessions
hi! i'm matt. i really like this activity so 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'm probably more tab than you think i am, i really don't have the audacity to say that x argument can't be read in front of me. i don’t like intervening and put the baseline of argumentation at not cheating and having a claim, warrant, and impact. 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 in wisconsin. i did national circuit ld and dabbled in policy. i broke at the toc among some other things and will be teaching at nsd flagship this summer. i have experience with every style of debate.
2. my favorite judges were tom evnen, jasmine stidham, danny frank-siegel, nirmal balachundhar, and brian kunz.
3. my ideal round in high school involved: impact turns (anything from dedev to food security bad), cheater counterplans, policy tricks (case o/w, framework, methodological pluralism, etc) on the aff, and k tricks (root cause, floating piks, etc) on the neg.
4. i like when people have clearly put time into understanding their position - obviously i like rounds more when they have arguments 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 should involve a defense of your model of debate - this is especially true in the context of fw, it's easier when k affs defend their model over particular disads to neg offense.
7. err on the side of over-explanation, i will not correct your theory for you - this does not mean that you have to explain what an rvi is, but that you can't just say "there is desire inherent in the lack".
8. phil debates usually are bad impact calc - epistemic modesty prolly makes the most sense and hijacks make it way easier for me to evaluate non util debates.
9. your speaks will be fine - they may be better if you make me laugh or give me a good music recommendation.
have a great day!
Aniruth Narayanan Paradigm
Aniruth Narayanan (He/Him/His)
C. Leon King High School '20 - still in high school at the time of writing this
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
*this is attempted to be similar to Grant Brown's paradigm in layout - I think the way he judges is really good
I don't know why but people keep on reading Baudrillard at this tournament. My knowledge of this is very, very limited. You need to give me an overview and explain it to me like I'm 5 years old for me to vote on it - I will only vote on arguments that I understand.
You need to respond to all arguments even if they are completely absurd - if they have some semblance of some warrant you should at least mention that it is unwarranted.
I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I have some defaults (see long version) but these are easily changed if you just bring it up in the speech with a warrant. Take what you think debate should be and what you are good at it and explain it to me as a reason to frame the debate in that way and vote for you. Regardless of my personal opinions, I will vote on arguments that are won as long as they are not exclusionary and don't advocate things like oppression is good.
Debate is a game for me. Strategy is the most important thing in what you do - that is what really impresses me when I look at the round holistically when trying to make a decision.
To ensure the round goes the way you want it to, do a good job explaining stuff.
Your round is about to begin, so let me address your most pertinent questions.
I will listen to any argument except those that are exclusionary - if you find yourself asking "is this exclusionary?" it probably is. Give trigger warnings - again, use the same thought process.
I don't have a preference for what I like really as long as 1. you understand what you are saying and 2. you explain it to me. I need you to explain and extend the claim, warrant, and impact coherently for me to vote on something - if something is entirely conceded, you still need to do work extending it, although not as much. Everything needs to have a warrant for me to vote on it.
I normally read philosophy - the exception being that I don't read Deleuze for some reason - so this includes Derrida, Habermas, Nietzsche, Laruelle, Glissant, etc. I also go for Wilderson as well, and I occasionally larp and read analytic frameworks. Basically, as long as you understand what you are saying and I can repeat that, you should be fine.
I will say "clear" and "slow" as many times as need be - but it might get annoying after a while. If you don't clear/slow when I say it, your speaks will reflect that. Go as fast as you want - I don't really care about speed - as long as you are clear. Please be clear.
I think that the biggest thing, if you want my ballot, is to do comparative analysis and weighing with even if situations. For example, if there's a lot of arguments on some irrelevant part of the flow, you should tell me that. But if there's a lot of clash on the one thing that's deciding my ballot, then you need to tell me a macro-level story with micro-level arguments to support that story.
Overviews should be used with a purpose of some sort.
I don't really presume to a side.
I default to comparative worlds.
I default that layers can be weighed against each other if you don't give me a reason why they can't. I don't know "embedded clash" if you don't bring it up - I won't do the work for you. I may realize it and bring it up later, but I won't cross-apply some extension to some other part of the flow if you don't bring it up.
I like theory. I think that theory can be very strategic and some shells simply don't have offense to a counter-interp. That being said, if you go for reasonability, you need to give me a brightline or it's entirely up to me. I default a little weirdly. If the shell is a question of norm-setting, which I will determine based on the interp, then I default RVI, education as a voter, and competing interps. If the shell is a question of in-round abuse, then I default No RVI, fairness is a voter, and competing interps. I will only use these if and only if - and this is not something you should do - no one brings them up at all.
Unfortunately, I will vote on disclosure theory. I think it may be strategic sometimes.
I also think 1AR theory is legit, 2NR theory is not really legit, and 2AR theory is definitely not legit except in the most extreme scenario. These are all defaults - just mention your side of the issue and these go away.
Phrasing things as "voting issues" such as when reading condo bad need to be clear theory arguments for me to evaluate them as theory for uplayering. You need to do some work to get me to vote on these. Blips, however short as long as they can be caught and are explained with a warrant and implication are great for me to vote on especially if you explain them in the context of the entire debate.
I like tricks. They're great. My favorite thing is when people trick out phil or LARP or something else. Creative tricks are good; bad tricks are bad. If someone catches you being sketchy, be upfront and honest about it. New implications are great, but I need to see the pieces come together in the round about what it does for you.
This is probably my favorite kind of debate. I read this most of the time, and I think it's blatantly clear when you're spreading off stolen prep from the wiki or from backfiles and when you cut the argument yourself. In CX, if you can't explain your theory coherently, I'm going to keep that in mind for speaks. If it's really bad, it'll be hard to win off that ethical framework.
Go for it - just make sure if you use big words in the tagline that the average high school English teacher would not understand, I probably won't either. Give me clear overviews and go through the 2NR in a systematic manner for high speaks.
Engage in it - I default epistemic confidence but if you mention epistemic modesty with a real warrant and win it I will use it. I never really LARPed, but I understand how to.
I'm good with these but I don't really read these. Articulate a clear ballot story of why you should win. I've always read T-Framework against these so keep that in mind, it's not unwinnable in front of me bt you need to do some explaining.
Read it if you want - perfectly fine with it.
Prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer or when the email has been sent. Putting the document together is prep. Again, it is prep. Stealing prep is a no-no, just take some prep - it looks much better for your ethos.
This is kind of sketch for me. I've only read this once, I personally don't really know its position in debate, so really think hard if you're reading this in front of me.
I'll disclose speaks - ask me if I forget.
Scale depends on the tournament.
If there is an accusation of clipping cards, the accuser needs to let me know. I will stop the debate and render a decision - if the accuser is correct, they will win the round; if the accuser is incorrect, they will lost the round. Keep this in mind before accusing someone of clipping. If I see it, I will automatically drop you.
If you have any more questions, ask me before the round.
I really don't know why it's this long, but if you made it this far, then you made it this far I guess. gg
Alex Pluto Paradigm
do whatever the fuck you want, im just here to say who won. I go off the flow and will accept any argument, just explain it. I mainly run set col. And i Hack vs Matthew Moorhead
Julonni Washington Paradigm
Bio - Former CUNY Debater (2013-14) and current high school coach
For the e-mail chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
For PF: You're getting a judge with some policy background and policy (let's just face it) is a more rigorous form of debate. This means you have liberty to run more than the CBI and debate blog vetted positions in front of me. You will be better off taking advantage of that. However, I don't appreciate the mental gymnastics it takes to understand many policy positions and you folks get less speech time to spin arguments so please keep it relatively simple.
For Policy: I'll try my best to be a fair judge and vote based on the merit of the arguments presented in a given round. That being said, I think that debate (at least the way it's done at tournaments) is a game and thus do not appreciate teams who try to avoid being topical or enjoy running far left identity arguments. Beyond that, what you would deem as wise strategy and advice from most circuit judges applies for me as well. Some side notes though....
- I lean generally on the side on Condo good in theory debates.
- Any type of competition works for a counterplan. Explain the net benefit clearly if you plan to go for a CP
- Affirmative teams should spend as much time as possible on the case debate explaining why the aff is a good idea and outweighs the negative
- Good impact calc is necessary to resolve close debates and can clean up messy link clash on the off case flows.
- Politics DA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nearly every K
Carolyn Zou Paradigm
[last updated June 2019]
Pennsbury -- 2017 - 2019
Binghamton -- 2019 - present
the thing you came here for:
"identity" kritiks: sure
"high theory" kritiks: yes but i get bored and/or confused easily
philosophy: yes but i get bored and/or confused easily
theory: meh why not
disclosure is good, and more disclosure is better (with the exception of disclosing things you haven't read) -- if you think you practice good disclosure let me know sometime before the round and if i agree i will reward you with up to +0.5
not what you're here for, but:
I once heard someone talking about a friend of mine and criticizing them for "caring too much about making good arguments." I do not understand why this is a bad thing. I am tired of shenanigans and especially tired of people winning without debating.
I feel that if I am forced to adjudicate a round where neither debater knows what's going on but have to vote for whoever was better at picking up keywords and ctrl+f'ing for them in their block file, I will be unhappy and you will be unhappy once you see your speaks.
Regarding my preferences and everything here, I will never ever vote you down for making a bad argument, only a losing argument. However, my disposition towards the goodness or badness of arguments may influence if I think it's winning or losing.*
-- idk how i feel about clash debates yet
-- idk how i feel about reading ev after debates yet
-- idk how i feel about perms in methods debates yet
-- against affs whose advantages are an effect of something not topical, I will not enjoy evaluating T debates with a "plan text in a vacuum" mindset. This doesn't make sense and you can read either T or solvency arguments. e.g. the aff defends the text of the res but their advantage is about a subset of a word in the res that isn't t
-- arguments need warrants and implications. If the other person says "vote aff because the sky is blue" or "make them contextualize this to OUR argument" without any explanation you don't have to answer it. i will not change my mind on this lol
-- i'm willing to vote on out-of-round stuff (disclosure agreements, etc) but u need screenshots. if you don't have them, i might ask you for them after round since i understand u might not be able to screenshot during the wrong 1ac.
-- lying and academic dishonesty are bad and grounds for insta-loss. clipping stops the round. disclosing the wrong aff is high sus even if u win debate is bad on the flow.
-- presumption = burden of proof, burden of rejoinder, etc not least change from squo
-- lean aff on policy v k: they get to weigh the content of the case but maybe not the form, lean aff on cheaty cps but condo is fine.
-- jurisdiction isn't a voter, the ballot is mine to fill out, i am a real person that exists
-- perms vs fpiks goes aff if a 1ar perm is extended in the 2ar (whoever says they can coexist first)
-- ground on t is about quality not quantity. u can read t in a large 1nc and make a ground claim.
-- the cite box is not for fulltext
-- reasonability doesn't need a brightline and there's an intrinsic topic education disad to reasonability v tiny shells
-- cx is binding, i listen to it and flow it
* don't be offensive. this is your only warning.