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.

Niko Battle Paradigm

pre round:

yes put me on the chain (emailnikob@gmail.com)

background:

I debate for Kamiak HS in Mukilteo, WA and will be doing college policy. I'm in my senior year and 5th year of debate. 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.

quick prefs:

performance/id pol k - 1
structural k - 1
theory - 2
larp - 2
phil - 3
trix - 3

random musings:

tech > truth

good tricks debate makes judging easy bad tricks debate makes judging hell

if you're gonna larp please for the love of God weigh impacts

k debate is bae debate

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 is fun...apparently people think I'm a rude debater, but who cares. If sassy/"rude"/shade is your thing then do you.

actual stuff:

tl;dr - do you. I like to think I'm pretty tab and can evaluate any type of debate

k debate: we love that. If this is your thing then go for it, but if it isn't please don't make me sit through 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. :/

to be continued...

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!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu

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. a.fishman2249@gmail.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). 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.

PARLI ONLY:

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.

POLICY ONLY:

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 a.fishman2249@gmail.com

David Griffith Paradigm

8 rounds

David Griffith

OPRF 2020

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): griffithd2002@gmail.com

DAs

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.

CPs

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.

Case

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?

Kritiks

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.

Theory

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).

T

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.

K Affs

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.

Misc.

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

email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

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 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

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

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 for the love of God 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

Yo whassup, let's have fun.

My name's Patrick, I debated for Kealing Magnet and Jack C Hays for two years in policy, then three in LD at Hays. I say this knowing it's meaningless to you, but oh well.

Short version - you do you. Obviously that's like the most basic bitch judge paradigm ever, but it rings true - I'm comfy with any and all args, albeit some will need more explaining than others.

Big thing - I have hearing issues in my left ear + I have always been just above mediocre at flowing - as such, I would greatly appreciate you sending the full text of theory shells and any giant dumps - 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.

Overview/General Things

I consider myself a much better judge than debater, because my understanding of arguments is much higher than my ability to execute them - 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 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, I don't flow it. 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 - I promise you 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. Anything beyond the kind of "no shit" rules is fair game though.

Some people I agree with big-time on debate: Adam Tomasi, Brennan Young (my coaches), Arun Sharma, Philip DiPiazza, Yao-Yao Chen.

I'm a speak fairy - I believe if you executed the strategy you chose exactly how I would like to have seen it executed, you deserve a 30. If you get below a 27, you probably fucked up.

Things I will not tolerate:

- Morally abhorrent things

- Stealing prep

- Evidence cheating

- Useless ad homs/personal attacks

- Indifference to making debate unsafe - e.g: I have accidentally misgendered people before, and that's bad but to me not a game over issue - what I will not tolerate is you not caring about it or refusing to admit you did something wrong. This goes for everything of the sort.

Policy Strats

I was taught to debate by Yao-Yao Chen - of fucking course I wanna see a politics and CP debate.

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 fucking things ever and you will be rewarded for doing them well.

Impact calculus. Do it. Heathen.

T Debates

Yes lol.

LD Topicality is probably never an RVI - sorry. But I default to the policy debate paradigm when the 2NR goes all in on T and concedes substance - I spot the 2AR an implicit extension of the 1AC just cause like I see no reason to make the aff extend substance when this is just a T debate now.

Competing interps is my default.

Reasonability brightlines are stupid.

Good, contextual T evidence with intent to define wins debates with me.

Very important for 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. LDers are fucking stupid about topicality. If you disagree with this, you are literally just wrong about what topicality is.

Don't really know what else to say here. Good T debates are fun. I also love what Brennan says, there's nothing ballsier than like going for T when it's a really contested sheet. Definitely some big dick energy.

Dumb Fucky LD Theory Debates

Please don't. I'll listen and judge it well as I can but like. No. God.

Phil

I know util, Pettit, and virtue ethics super well (#TeamTomasi) and then literally nothing else. Like Alan George tried to explain Kant to me and then just. Gave up. Explain this shit like I'm 5.

Interactions and hijacks are good because it makes my small brain have to work less.

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

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. I (probably) can and will vote on anything, but in the interest of transparency I believe I should prob include some pref shortcuts.

Stuff I Know Best:

- Cap and it's many variants

- Agamben - I know this probably too well to be impressed by you going for it sub-par, but try it and we'll see

- Baudrillard/Semiotics

- Heidegger

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

- Settler Colonialism - if you go for settler psychoanalysis in front of me and execute it perfectly you will hands down get a 30.

Stuff I Know Least:

- IDPol/Race lit - this in particular, I've never been on the cutting edge of these things - this is especially annoying in LD with these "theory of the week things" - no, I haven't read the new Warren book (I need to), or Weheliye, or Barber - I'll listen, but the 2NR overview better explain this shit to me like I'm fucking 5.

- Pomo goo not mentioned above

- Psychoanalysis - exception is settler psycho and Dean's stuff on cap and desire. Never read straight Lacan or like the other identity-based readings.

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.

Reading back lines from the 1AC ev and quoting CX is a criminally underused practice in LD. Do it in the 2NR 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.

Big thing: No, 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.

Matt Moorehead Paradigm

appleton east 19'

i want to be on the email chain: matthewrmoorhead@gmail.com

~short version~

tl;dr: he/him. tech > truth on most issues. be a good person, bring me food, give me a good music recommendation, and make jokes for higher speaks. everyone says this, but no one means it: seriously do what you want, i love debate and you should too. my favorite judges were tom evnen, danny frank-siegel, nirmal balachundhar, and brian kunz.

i'm in my senior year and have been debating for four years for appleton east. i mainly did national circuit ld and dabbled in policy. i broke at nsda nats and qualed to the toc if that means anything to you. i mainly read policy arguments and kritiks, but i have experience with every kind of debate.

~top level notes~

1. everything in this paradigm is merely a stylistic preference from when i debated, the only thing i will not put up for debate is that a claim cannot be voted on until it has a warrant and an impact - i won't vote on arguments that i have to warrant with background knowledge. this doesn't mean that you have to explain what an rvi is, but that if you're going to say that there is desire inherent in the lack, you need to give me something to work with.

2. i am a firm believer that debate is all about hard work - as someone who never hired a private coach or flew to a tournament, it took a shit ton of work to see results at the limited number of tournaments i had the ability to attend. i have immense respect for people who are incredibly knowledgable of their arguments.

3. seriously, you do you, i love when people have fun - i have learned to respect and appreciate whatever kind of debate you choose to engage in given it is not actively exclusionary. whether that be a k aff with zero connection to the topic, consult counterplans, or the resolved a priori, i will listen and fairly evaluate nearly everything.

4. if you ever feel unsafe in a round or feel like the round needs to be stopped, just knock on the table a few times and make eye contact with me. i will stop the round and take whatever action needs to be taken to make the round either safe for both debaters to continue debating or end the round and take appropriate action

5. here is a list of arguments i have a lot of love for - all impact turns regardless of how stupid (anything from dedev to food security bad or terror good), cheater counterplans, 1 off kritik with a shit ton of k tricks, the politics disad, and advantage cp + impact turns

~long version~

i don't have many paradigmatic preferences besides the stuff above, here are my thoughts on kinds of debate that most debaters go to paradigms to look for - if you have any questions on things that aren't in here just email me

kritiks:

i know the basics of most lit, but the lit i am most familiar with is weheliye/wynter, winnubst/queer theory, berlant, and a bit of bataille, deleuze, baudrillard, and various afropessimism authors. don't use this as an excuse to not explain your argument

i love k tricks, whether it's basic ones like vtl, root cause, or alt solves case, to more hard to execute ones like floating piks or complex rotb takeouts, i think that they really show a good k debater from a great one

critical affirmatives:

you can defend them however you want, i think affs are best when it is clear if you are defending the topic or not

i do not have any predispositions on fw vs k affs. i feel comfortable evaluating technical fw debates or k v k debates, i went for both an equal amount (mainly berlant/psychoanalysis)

framework was arguably my favorite 2nr to give my senior year. i'm more of a predictable limits/procedural fairness than topic ed kinda guy, but i can obviously vote on either.

ethical framework:

util/soft left is my bread and butter, but that does not mean that it's the only thing i understand. some of the easiest debates i will understand are technical impact calc debates, however, if you love reading phil heavy positions, go ahead

i understand a lot of ethical frameworks, but probably don't know as much about them as you, paint me a picture and know that most of my experience comes from debating against them

theory/tricks:

i enjoy disclosure as a norm and will take most disclosure counter interps with a grain of salt, full text and open source will be evaluated fairly

i like quantifiable examples when extending impacts, if you can tell me what ground the aff specifically excluded from you or how significantly they have made the debate unfair, i will be more likely to vote on it

reasonability is underutilized, i dont understand why you would concede competing interps against friv theory

read tricks if you want to, i only ask two things in return: for the love of god please go slower and extrapolate the argument more than just a blip. if you want to tell me the word resolved means firmly determined or read condo logic or some shit just make sure you warrant it.

speaks:

i’ll disclose them if you want me to, i’ll try and average around a 28.6

you will probably not be too fast, just make sure you're clear

no matter how many times i call slow and clear i will never dock your speaks, but if i say it please try your best to fix it

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: nsaniruth@gmail.com

*this is attempted to be similar to Grant Brown's paradigm in layout - I think the way he judges is really good

For the Discord Tournament:

This is a practice tournament. I will take disclosure shells with a grain of salt. Try to interact with the arguments if you want good speaks. My discord is the_anitruth#3675 but still use my email for the chain.

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.

Short Version

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.

Long Version

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.

Theory

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.

Tricks

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.

Philosophy

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.

Kritiks

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.

LARP

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.

NonT Affs

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.

Topicality

Read it if you want - perfectly fine with it.

Flashing/Emailing/Stealing Prep

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.

Skep

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.

Speaks

I'll disclose speaks - ask me if I forget.

Scale depends on the tournament.

Clipping Cards

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: julwash@gmail.com

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

[updated march '19]

can't judge: pennsbury, debatedrills.

i did debate (mostly ld, some policy) for two years, qualled to toc (ld), invites to lhp/newark/av/cal/quarry lane rrs, lost too many bid rounds, blahblah.

short:

i am a fascist but violence and cheating are still bad

not short:

I read a little bit of everything from policy affs to pomo k affs to paradoxes but I'm more policy-leaning now. plz no tricks.

Here is a growing list of random things I am ideological about, ctrl+f if needed:

-- 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'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.

-- idk how i feel about reading ev yet

-- presumption = burden of proof, burden of rejoinder, etc

-- lean aff on perms (in methods debates too), they get to weigh the content of the case but maybe not the form, lean aff on cheaty cps but condo is fine

-- idk how i feel about clash debates yet

-- 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)

-- I will not vote on arguments that force debaters to explain why violence is bad.

-- ground on t is about quality not quantity. u can read t in a large 1nc and make a ground claim.

-- not a fan of fulltexting in the cite box

-- reasonability doesn't need a brightline and there's an intrinsic topic education disad to reasonability v tiny shells