NSDA Middle School Nationals
2019 — Dallas, TX/US
Rashad Ali Paradigm
I am judging Congress so my judging criteria will determine to see if Speaker
- follows Congressional Debate Rules
- is clear on Claim Vs Warrant Vs Impact
- Arguments and reasoning is clear
- Provide clear evidence especially if your opponent's ask for it
- Speed for the sake of speed is big no. if I can't flow I don't follow
- Be Clear. I come from engineering background, so I am keen on logic and reasoning in your content. Present your case with clarity.
- Be respectable and have empathy. Your rebuttals should not be just attack on the opponent, you need to defend rationally. In crossfire, don't waste words in stupid arguments please show humility. Do not be rude or condescending.
- Stay focussed, summarize quickly to remove any vagueness, don't digress
Needless to state again, please follow the Congressional Debate Rule to the dot.
Jonie Antonio Paradigm
Isaac Appelbaum Paradigm
Collin Baker Paradigm
I prioritize arguments and clash over basic speaking ability. However, I also require clarity when speaking. That means roadmaps, transitions, and no spreading. Professionality and efficiency look great, especially for Presiding Officers.
Anish Bathwal Paradigm
I debated in the Congress circuit for four years. I value content over speaking skills but still need to see a healthy balance of both. Don’t be afraid to give authorships, they don’t drop on my ballot if delivered well. Stay active in cross-ex. Please refute past 2nd cycle or will be reflected in ballot. Don’t be afraid to PO; they do NOT drop on my ballot.
Tiara Bergquist Paradigm
Sabrina Briceno Paradigm
Trinity Brockman Paradigm
4th-year debater @ Manhattan High School
Everything is up for debate.
I am a heavy flow critic. I find myself looking towards the arguments and how they function in the debate over the inherent “truth” of an argument. I will vote on an argument I know is not true (many economy arguments, for example) if this is not refuted. Basically, I am tech over truth in most instances.
However, I will not vote on arguments such as racism good, patriarchy good, transphobia good, ableism good, colonialism good, etc. Give content warnings for graphic content!!! (I will vote you down and walk out IF NOT DONE) If there are any of the aforementioned violence practiced theoretically or materially in round I will vote against your team immediately. These types of injustices kill education and means that no ethical pedagogy can occur. Zero tolerance here. Debate space should be a space to act without fear of oppression - I will make sure that is reflected in my judgments and comments.
Avoid getting in a conversation about credibility in order to run around debating the argument at hand. I will hold claims true until proven otherwise in the round.
Don't take too long with flashing - Be quick and honest with how you transfer files. I love a solid closed cross-ex. I default to whichever style the debaters are comfortable with, ya'll make that decision.
I am fine with any speed you choose, you will not go too fast for me. However, do not spread just to push the other team out. That is an accessibility issue and if they are pushed out of the round and make an abuse argument or criticism of your practices I will most likely vote against you.
Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. T is always a voter because it taps into the performative aspects of debate and how this education can be effective. They are always about competing interpretations and the reasons as to why that interpretation is more beneficial than others. You must weigh the offense based on your standards/voters vs. the C/I and their subsequent standards/voters. You have to win your interpretation is the best for the debate. This applies to all theory arguments.
***Topicality is just an agreement between two teams on what is to be debated. If there is/are more pertinent issue(s) that the teams wish to discuss (e.g. anti-blackness, transphobia, colonialism, ableism) of a particular event that is proximal to the debaters then that is okay. Do not think you are stuck to the topic if there is a general consensus on what should be debated.
Framework: I also love framework, but your blocks better be updated and stop using arguments from 2005 that K affs collapse high school programs and that this is the wrong forum. The debate has evolved since then. I believe framework is a criticism of the affirmative’s method, but it also can be utilized as theory or a counter-advocacy if paired with the correct arguments. I'll keep this around throughout the round and will flow it through at the will of the teams.
Counterplans: Read one, please. If you don’t, you need status quo solves. If you read a perm text, please give SOME explanation on how the perm functions. I don’t view perms as advocacies (no one does anymore) because the CP is just opportunity cost to the affirmative, so don’t act like you suddenly have an amazing new net-benefit because you permutated the CP. Presumption never flips aff. Presumption, simply put, is that the existing state of affairs, policies, programs should continue unless adequate reasons are given for change. I believe condo is good, I'm going to have a hard time listening to anything else.
*also i LOVE delay and pic cp's...so have some fun with that
Criticisms/Performances: I do run Ks as a debater. (I have argued neolib, cap, security, fem, gender, set col, and queer kritiks) It should be an advocacy. Additionally, I do not think white debaters should run anti-blackness. I do not think non-queer individuals should run queer theory. This runs the line of commodification and you cannot work within that position if you do not belong to it, meaning that you will never truly understand what you are running and operating form a position of privilege to do so. I am okay with whatever criticism or performance you so choose to run, just make sure you can explain it and how it solves the aff.
It is much more important to me that you find an educational gain from this activity and adequately express the things you care about greatly than hitting all the stock issues or being a policy maker. Debate is about the debaters, make the round what you want. ANY attempt to push the other team out of the debate will result in a dropped ballot.
Any other questions just find me and ask.
Lillian Broughton Paradigm
Monique Cauley Paradigm
Sara Cavicchi Paradigm
I'm a graduated high school this year, and competed at NCFL and NSDA in Lincoln Douglas debate.
LD- I like more traditional style of debate but won't count off if the style is not how I debate. I want to be able to hear you so don't speak too fast, but also get in all you need to say. I take intensive flows and will pick a winner based on who won the most arguments in the debate.
Congress- I have done and won in state congress, and like the speakers to be charming but still taking the session seriously. A joke or two is fine but making the whole session one is not how congress should be done. The PO should keep the chamber as under control as possible.
I'm so excited to be judging and I'm so happy that y'all are starting so early.
Mitchell Chapman Paradigm
Noah Clapacs Paradigm
Christie Conde Paradigm
Caden Cox Paradigm
The best thing to do is ask my before round so I can easily explain everything. However, for the basics, I consider myself a tab judge. You tell me how to evaluate the round, and that is what I will do. I do not want to do the work for you, so if it is not on the flow it doesn’t exist. Speech is a communication event so make sure you are clear and able to be understood. You may spread, but I must be able to understand tags and other important information. I prefer offense over defense in a debate round because defense can become wishy washy. Be respectful and courteous to your opponents.
For specific events, ask in round so I can clarify my stance on each specific nuance of debate events.
For Congress, I prefer debate that actually uses different points and refutation of the different ideas presented. I do not want to hear the same thing over and over again. A PO should make sure they are fair and transparent in everything they do so that the room moves efficiently. I want congressional debaters to respect their peers but also provide clash that moves the debate forward in a good manner.
In CX, I vote more on quality than quantity. I want to see debaters analyze cards instead of just reading. Make sure you sign post. I am ok with any argument as long as it is presented properly. If you don’t present it properly then I will not do the work for you.
Khanh-Vy Do Paradigm
Makayne Favor Paradigm
Nora Flynn-McIver Paradigm
I have competed in Congressional debate on local and national circuits for three years, and I value clash and well-polished arguments. I also highly consider presiding officers when looking at rankings. If you preside well, I will likely put you in my top 8.
Glenda France Paradigm
Juliet Geffre Paradigm
My experience includes dong every type of debate except policy. I have gone to nationals twice for Congress and once for World Schools. I have been involved in forensics since 7th grade and I love the activity.
I just want to see a good debate on both sides. Signposting is preferred so I can follow along. Agressivnesss doesnt look good on your part but I cant stop you, so keep it friendly and nice. Good Luck to everyone
Erin Guiney Paradigm
I have experience competing, judging, and coaching both Congressional Debate and Public Forum Debate and have judged a handful of Novice LD rounds.
60% presentation, 40% content. There MUST be refutation in every speech after the authorship. If you speak twice on the same bill I will drop you. If you refer to male competitors as 'representative' and female competitors as 'Ms.' I will drop you. Please give me impacts.
I'm not going to time you. I'm not going to flow CX. You will not be able to speak faster than I will be able to flow. I need impacts, please, and clear taglines. It is not my job to weigh the round for you, so you need to be doing impact calculus and giving me key voters all the way through. If you are rude in CX I will give you low speaks and I will want to drop you. Also I do not care who the authors of your cards are so if you refer to cards by the author only I am not going to know what you are talking about.
I'm new to this, so please speak clearly, give me impacts, and use your value and criterion throughout the round. I won't flow CX and I won't be able to keep up if you go full spread on me. Weigh impacts and condense the debate for me more and more every speech so it is clear what the main issues are.
Heba Haq Paradigm
Carter Henman Paradigm
TLDR: You do you. I do what you tell me.
I strive to judge like a "blank slate" while recognizing that I will never actually be one. Keep this in mind as you read the rest of this paradigm.
If there is an email chain I will want to be on it. I would be glad to answer any questions you have.
Disclose as much or as little as you want to me or anyone else in the room. Either way, I am committed to making the debate rounds I judge safe and accessible.
I competed in LD in high school (2009-2013) in Wyoming and northern Colorado with some national circuit exposure.
I competed in policy at the University of Wyoming (2013-2018) and qualified to the NDT twice. I loved reading complicated courts affirmatives, bold impact turns, and Ks with specific and nuanced justifications for why they are competitive with the aff. I wish I had had the courage to go for theory in the 2AR more often. I studied (mostly analytic) philosophy and some critical disability theory to earn my bachelor's degree.
All debate is performative. I can be persuaded that one performance is contingently more valuable (ethically, aesthetically, educationally, etc.) than another, but it would be arbitrary and unethical on my part to categorically exclude any particular style.
That being said, I am not agnostic when it comes to form. An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I do not care how you give me those three things, but if you do not, then you have not made an argument and my RFD will probably reflect that. This cuts in many directions: I hate K overviews that make sweeping ontological claims and then describe implications for the case without explaining why the original claim might be true; I equally detest when anyone simply asserts that "uniqueness determines the direction of the link".
Organization matters. However, I do not think organization is synonymous with what a lot of people mean when they say "line by line". It means demonstrating a holistic awareness of the debate and effectively communicating how any given argument you are making interacts with your opponents'. Therefore, when adjudicating whether something is a "dropped argument" I will parse between (a) reasonably predictable and intelligibly executed cross-applications and (b) superficial line-by-line infractions. Giving conceptual labels to your arguments and using your opponents' language when addressing theirs can help you get on the right side of this distinction.
Evidence matters. A lot. Again, I do not mean what a lot of people mean when they talk about evidence in debate. It is about a lot more than cards. It is also about personal experience and preparation, historical consciousness, and even forcing your opponents to make a strategic concession (by the way, I flow cross-examination). I read cards only when I have to and tend to defer to what was said in the debate regarding how to interpret them and determine their quality. Thus, I will hold the 2NR/2AR to relatively high thresholds for explanation.
I flow on paper. This means I need pen time. It also magnifies the importance of organization since I cannot drag and drop cells on a spreadsheet. Because I flow the "internals" of evidence (cards or otherwise), you will benefit enormously from clarity if you are fast and will not necessarily be at a disadvantage against very fast teams if you are slow but efficient with your tag lines.
Substance: mostly agnostic.
Hate and disrespect are never conducive to education and growth. I presume that the need to disincentivize abusive speech and other behaviors overrides my desire to reward skill with a ballot, but it never hurts for debaters to remind me of why this is true if you are up to it. This includes card clipping and other ethics violations. In general, I will stop the round if I notice it on my own. Otherwise, you have two options: (1) stop the round, stake the debate on it (you may lose if you are wrong, but they will certainly lose and receive no speaker points if you are right), and let me be final arbiter or (2) keep the issue alive throughout the debate, but leave open the option to go for substance. I think this is the most fair way for me to address this as an educator, but please do not think option two gives you license to go for "a risk of an ethics violation" in the final rebuttals or to read a generic "clipping bad" shell in every one of your 1NC/2ACs. That's icky.
There is no right way to affirm the topic. There are wrong ways to affirm the topic. I can be sold on the notion that the aff did it the wrong way. I can also be convinced that the wrong way is better than the right way. It may yet be easiest to convince me that your counter-interpretation of the right way to affirm the topic is just as good as, or better than, theirs.
Theory is mis- and underutilized. You get to debate the very rules of your debate! Current conventions regarding negative fiat, for example, will inevitably make me smirk when you read "no neg fiat." Still, if you invest enough thought, before and during and after debates (not merely regurgitating somebody else's blocks at an unintelligible rate), into any theory argument I am going to be eager to vote on it.
Sarah Henry Paradigm
Stevan Jechura Paradigm
Francis Kim Paradigm
Kaleo Lee Paradigm
Lindsay Levine Paradigm
Divya Lobo Paradigm
For congressional debate, I believe structured, concise speeches are imperative for success. I focus heavily on the content of the speeches over the presentation of the speech. However, being clear, and personable will help ur rank significantly.
Moral arguments have little weight with me unless you can directly prove that the legislation impacts it. I look more for a economic or technical impact with your arguments. Focus more on the impact a source has than stacking your speech with 15 sources. Anyone can copy and paste stuff. One thing that will severely harm your score is rehash. No one wants to hear the same idea 16 times in a row. I understand that it’s hard to keep unique points by the 8th affirmations speech so pointing out small nuances in each argument won’t hurt you. Crystallization is greatly encouraged. Making funny or memorable intros inclines me to listen more intently to your speech. This doesn’t mean make jokes about topics like genocide or refusing to take the speeches and chamber seriously.
Presentation wise, speed only becomes an issue when you talk so fast that I can’t follow your argument. Speak audibly but don’t debate so loudly that your yelling at the chamber. Yelling your points at me isn’t persuasive on any level.
Lastly, don’t be rude or attack other people in your chamber. For POs, if I notice your dropping people for recency I will drop your rank immediately. When asking questions or calling out speakers in your speech, attack the argument not the competitor.
Your questions should be clear and short. Don’t waste the time of the chamber by rambling for 30 seconds to ask a 10 sec question. Similarly, answers should be short but answer the question and event the argument. One word “yes” or “no” answers don’t do anything for your argument. POs, don’t spend 20 seconds of a one minute questioning period trying to figure it which speaker to call on.
In the end, as long as you can give coherent speeches with good content and not be a rude person your ranking will be fine.
Tim Lohrfink Paradigm
Hailee Martin Paradigm
Tim Martindell Paradigm
I was a speech and debate coach twenty years ago and this is the first tournament I have judged since then.
I will be expecting clear articulation and logical presentation.
i expect logical, well thought out affirmative and negative speeches. I don’t expect to hear rehashes of earlier. I will be expecting clear and precise sponsorship speeches and logical class refutation.
Meena Marwaha Paradigm
Zain Masri Paradigm
Trent McKenzie Paradigm
Kayla Mercure Paradigm
Mason Moore Paradigm
Olga Mora Paradigm
Ulises Ordunez Paradigm
Sandy Parsotan Paradigm
I am a completely new parent judge. I'm not very clear on how a Congress chamber is supposed to run and I do not have much experience with parliamentary procedure. Generally, I am looking for a clear speech with refutations. No REHASH. Eye contact and fluency is important. I am looking for strong argumentation and good use of evidence.
Rupal Patel Paradigm
Walter Paul Paradigm
Faiza Rahman Paradigm
I have some experience competing in this event but it is by no means my main event.
Make sure to clearly signpost and speak clearly. I prefer that you do NOT cross the line into spreading. In cross, don't be rude and don't interrupt others (unless someone is going on for longer than they should)
For POs -- Make sure you keep speech recency and precedence, otherwise you should not preside. For regular questioning, keep precedence for sure, and make sure to track recency as best as you can. I WILL be keeping track. If you keep a fair and fast round, expect to get a good rank from me.
For speakers -- After the 1st speech, try to incorporate clash as best as you possibly can. After the 1st cycle, it is REQUIRED for a good rank. I don't care too much about a a fluency break or two, but make sure to speak clearly and loudly. Crystallization speeches will look better to me near the end of the round if they're done well. Please (!!!) avoid breaking the cycle. Make sure to have fun, and the round will go by a lot faster.
Mukund Rao Paradigm
** PF Paradigm**
I debated and did alright. This should be generally listed in order of what I see as important. Email for speech docs/flows/questions you have later is mukundrao9 at gmail
Tech > truth. Exceptions are obvious. Don’t be a terrible person.
Turns must be frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. Turns must be extended in 1st summary. If defense is frontlined in 2nd rebuttal then it also has to be extended in 1st summary.
Please Weigh. I won’t listen to new weighing in 2nd ff unless there’s no other weighing in the round.
Please signpost. I expect you to go line by line in every speech. If narrative debate is your thing then please tell me very explicitly where to flow everything.
I am not perfect. My goal as a judge is to understand and flow every argument you make. Your goal as a debater is to make good arguments and make it as easy as possible for me to vote for them. If you do this, you’re more likely to get a ballot that you like.
Pf evidence is atrocious but I don’t have the time to check back for all of it. If your opponents call you out on it, I’ll call for it.
Penalties for misconstrued evidence range from auto-loss to dropping the argument and tanking your speaks. Don’t take that chance.
Paraphrasing in case and not having a cut version available is -.5 speaks. It’s so easy to read cut cards in case that you should just do it.
- Pull up evidence quickly.
I’m receptive to logical arguments and default to treating carded and logical arguments the same. However, I think “prefer us because our argument is carded” is a really easy argument to win in front of me.
That being said, “prefer us because we warrant our arguments” is even easier, so make sure to warrant your arguments when you read evidence, especially in later speeches.
1st summary/final focus
1st summary needs to extend all turns you want me to vote off of.
1st summary needs to extend defense if your opponents frontline it in 2nd rebuttal.
1st summary doesn’t need to weigh but if it’s really clear what the other team is going for then you should.
If you’re conceding defense to get out of a turn, it needs to be done in 1st summary.
If you’re going for a turn on for an argument your opponents don’t go for, you need to extend the entire link story in 1st ff (ie if you’re extending a link turn, you need to extend their impact as well), but not in summary. Basically, I need the full argument in final focus.
2nd rebuttal/summary/final focus
2nd rebuttal has to respond to all the turns on your case.
If you’re conceding defense to get out of turns, that needs to be done in 2nd rebuttal.
No new evidence to frontline in 2nd summary. Read it in rebuttal.
Your “turns” in rebuttal have to actually turn their case. Please don’t read independent offense in front of me.
Weighing should be done in 2nd summary.
2nd summary needs to extend everything you’re going for.
If you’re going for a turn on an argument your opponents aren’t going for, you need to extend the entire link story in 2nd summary (ie if you’re extending a link turn, you need to extend their impact as well). Basically, I need the full argument in 2nd summary.
I’ll drop speaks for new args in 2nd ff.
Extend arguments not authors. If I don’t have well warranted arguments in summary and final focus, I won’t vote for them.
My threshold for extensions of conceded arguments is pretty low.
You have to extend impacts in summary if you want me to vote for them in ff (exceptions are turns for 1st summary)
Extending author names will make me happy but it’s not necessary.
I think disclosure is good for debate. If you disclosed, tell me before the round. I’ll give you +1 speaker points.
I won’t hack for disclosure theory. You still have to win the arg.
Don’t run disclosure theory in a round where you know you’ll win anyways.
I have a pretty high threshold on theory. I’ll probably vote for anything but I might not be happy about that and your speaks might reflect it.
Your best bet is to ask before the round if I’ll be receptive to a certain shell.
If you run theory on novices, I will tank your speaks.
Default is no RVI, but I think in pf it’s really easy to win an RVI so don’t be afraid to go for it.
Other Progressive Args
I’m a fan, but I don’t really know how to evaluate these args. You’ll probably have to do more work on framing in front of me than you would for some other judges.
Most pf rounds don’t have good frameworks. Don’t read a framework just for the sake of reading one.
Warrant framing well.
Good framing debate is fun, don’t be afraid to go for it.
Default cost/benefit analysis.
I’m a pretty new judge. I can keep up with pf speed, but If you go fast you are taking a risk that I miss something. I will clear you if I can’t understand you and your opponents can do the same.
If I don’t understand an argument the first time you read it, I will not vote off of it.
Send speech docs if you’re going fast.
If you go really fast on paraphrased evidence, I won’t be happy.
Weighing must be comparative. If you have a big magnitude or high probability impact, cool but you need to explain why the other team’s arg has comparatively less of whatever.
If your weighing is “you know our argument is true but you don’t know about theirs,” I won’t evaluate it.
I will make serious efforts to not intervene on weighing. If I’m left with arguments on both sides that aren’t weighed, I’ll just vote for the team that I thought did the better debating. Don’t take that chance and weigh your arguments.
I won’t listen to new weighing in 2nd final focus unless there isn’t any weighing prior in the round.
Don’t be rude. Talking over your opponent will not impress me at all. If I think you’re being condescending I will seriously tank your speaks.
Take speaker points with a grain of salt. Low speaker points does not mean you’re a bad debater. It’s one judge’s opinion about how you performed in one round.
My speaks are based off of general strategy. They’re not based off of speaking skills or presentation (except if you’re mean)
Pointing out an argument doesn’t have a warrant is terminal defense. I’ll be less likely to disregard an unwarranted argument unless you point it out. Don’t take that chance.
Flex prep is cool (especially after 1st rebuttal). Dodging questions during prep will result in lower speaks.
If you roast my RFD in front of me I’ll be fine, but if you do it behind my back I’ll be annoyed. I want to be a better judge so feel free to tell me if you think I made a dumb decision.
If I don’t understand an argument the first time you read it, I won’t vote for it.
- Explain why non-responsive arguments are non-responsive.
I’ll try to make it clear with facial expressions if I don’t understand an argument, so you know to re-explain it.
If you have any questions before the round, don’t be afraid to ask.
If there’s anything I can do to make the round better for you, please tell me.
Pause when you switch flows please!!
Clarity of impact is not a weighing mechanism.
I think impact turns are super under-utilized and strategic.
Implicate your responses well. Explain why your defense takes out the argument that they’re going for.
For the love of all good things in the world, please be nice to your partner. I was definitely guilty of being a bad partner a lot of times and I still regret stuff from years ago.
If the tournament doesn’t let me disclose for some reason just email me and I’ll tell you.
I’ll disclose speaks too if you ask.
Speaks might go up if I see you’re on the bubble and I think you should break.
Debate is fun so make sure to enjoy it!
I’m really sorry if you get me as a judge.
Please put me on the email chain.
I’ll vote for anything I can understand. Wack arguments are fine but keep in mind that I have not read anything on the topic or any k lit.
Stop short of spreading.
I have some experience with LD. If we’re at a Texas local, I can probably keep up.
Generally, use your best judgment.
**BIG QUESTIONS PARADIGM**
Neil Schleifer Paradigm
Jana Shih Paradigm
Tanya Singh Paradigm
For Congressional Debate, I believe speech structure is very important with speaking, and I also believe that being a clear, concise speaker is integral for competitive success.
In session, I value clash and non-repetition. Especially refuting the points of specific representatives and showing how your point and theirs fundamentally differ. If I hear a speech that repeats everything that has already been said in the debate and adds nothing new, along with avoiding direct clash, I will vote down, regardless of how brilliant of a speaker you might be.
I believe that with this structure you must give a thesis in which you "preview" your points before actually going on to give your speech, otherwise, it becomes unclear as to what you are going to say and becomes harder to judge/examine clash.
With argumentation, you must present a claim and a CLEAR warrant to support the aforementioned claim. Don't assume that everyone in the room knows what your statistics mean, explain to them if necessary, but make it short and sweet.
There also needs to be a real-world impact for your argument, nothing you say actually matters if you don't explain how this will change global geopolitics or demographics for better/worse. Then, you are just saying things to say them.
In the cross-examination/questioning period, don't let the questioner ramble on with a half-coherent question for fifteen seconds or longwindedly give an answer that lasts for twenty. This is where I especially value being clear and concise.
I will be especially tough on the PO, parliamentary procedure can be arduous and difficult so I will be lenient on that, but being fair and kind to the representatives in the chamber is important, as you have been given the duty by your peers. Respect goes BOTH ways.
I value sportsmanship very highly. Do not be rude to the other representatives in your chamber or subordinate them to yourself. Do not be bigoted or disrespectful. We are here to have an intellectual debate and it would be inappropriate for it to devolve into disorganized chaos where nobody is treating each other correctly.
With Policy Debate, I am slightly more lenient on speech style and I find myself fixating on the validity of arguments and the analysis of arguments being made. This does not mean I will vote up speakers who are sloppy and unstructured, because I will not. Speed is not an issue for me, you will not be speaking too fast for me at any time, as long as you signpost and slow down on your tags, so I can flow. As long as you can speak quickly and with clarity, I will be fine with speed.
I will tell you that I have only done one year of policy debate (with great competitive success in the KDC and JV divisions).
In the event that someone doesn't speak clearly, I will clear them. I will clear a competitor exactly twice before putting down my flow and tuning out for the rest of the speech. I will also vote down for a lack of clarity in speeches.
For Disadvantages and Kritiks, they should have an aff-specific link (but I will be lenient on this rule in the case that an aff is small/niche-y).
DAs: I really really dislike the usage of generic links because they tend to be weak and are not really applicable to all affirmative cases under the resolution. I prefer politics disads to anything else, I think they're the strongest type of disadvantage, but that doesn't mean I'm going to flip out if you run some other form of disadvantage. The disadvantage is easily my favorite argument that can be made on the neg. I debated a lot in the KDC division (classical style debate) in which disadvantages are predominantly used as neg offense. Make sure the disadvantage is unique and has a strong link chain leading to the impact. I strongly dislike disadvantages with a nonsensical link chain or have an impact of nuke war/global pandemic from 2010, because the timeframe for that has OBVIOUSLY elapsed. I prefer more real-world impacts of structural violence, racism, discrimination-based violence.
Ks: I'm not gonna pretend I'm some sort of K Hack or something, I've only read Neolib and Fem K in round, but I have read some other K lit with some level of understanding. I also dislike generic link arguments with kritiks, despite liking them as an argument being made on the neg- I believe there's a lot of merits to the Kritik. Make sure that your alt guarantees solvency and tell me why we should prefer the world of the alt to the world of the aff. Tell me WHY the world of the aff is bad and how the aff leads to your impact/impacts. You should able to refute arguments made on the Kritik. I prefer epistemology to ontology in Kritikal debates. For the Kritik I'm open to more impacts than I would be with a disadvantage, especially with the nature of a kritik, but I prefer impacts of societal/ecological collapse, worsening of status quo, etc.
Topicality: I like topicality, but not as much as disadvantages and kritiks. If it gets to the point that the 2NC is 8 minutes of Topicality, you better do a good job analyzing the T debate. I will vote for T if it is the main voter/argument present in round, otherwise I will vote for other arguments being made. If the aff provides a counterinterpretation, tell me why I should prefer your interpretation to theirs. I am not too huge on debating credibility (in general) of sources as opposed to the actual warrants of the definition. Otherwise with crebility on T, my hierarchy for credible sources is pretty simple:
1. Supreme Court Rulings
2. Governmental Organizations
3. Experts on the Topic
4. Mainstream Media
for voters on topicality, I prefer education based voters. I don't really want to hear anything else as a voter because at the end of the day, education gained/lost should matter more than anything else in the round.
Counterplans: I'm not a huge fan of them, because solvency usually doesn't match with the counterplan text in its entirety, but I am not completely closed off to the idea of them. They are just my least favorite argument used for neg offense.
PICS and PiKs: Prove PICS are abusive if they are run. You could do a PiK in one sentence (please slow down for it) and I would still count it as an argument that must be responded to.
K Affs: I'm mostly unfamiliar with K Affs, I've read some K Affs on Open Evidence, but I don't entirely grasp or prefer the structure of K Affs.
Theory: I like debating on debate theory, especially when used to prove abuse/no abuse in the round. But I dislike hearing the same, stale blocks that anyone can get from Open Evidence.
Framing: I love hearing debates on framing and seeing affs that provide framing because they give me a lens to look through the round with instead of forcing me to rely on my own, biased lens. Framing is quite important to me because in most rounds it can determine a win/loss by telling me what to prioritize in the round. When both aff and neg provide frameworks, I must be given a reason to prefer one framework over the other.
* I hate arguments saying racism good, sexism good, poverty good, etc. I will vote you down for running them.
* I get triggered by descriptive narratives of rape, domestic violence/sexual violence, suicide and depression. These can be mentioned in round, but if you fail to provide a content warning and read such narratives, I will leave the round for that speech.
*Be fair to your opponent and show good sportsmanship. Don't be rude/condescending to them and respect them, their pronouns and triggers. Don't run arguments that invalidate an opponent's identity intentionally.
*Don't be abusive and run shallow arguments as a time skew that kill education in the round. I think it's fundamental that we be equitable to each other and make sure that everyone leaves the round with as much education as they can possibly gain from the round.
*Flash quickly when using flashdrives, I would prefer a copy as well for flowing purposes and so I can read the cards and understand the warrant behind them better through reading them.
Liam Singleton Paradigm
Cole Skinner Paradigm
Malachi Smith Paradigm
Trey Smith Paradigm
Chakara Smith Paradigm
Toby Sowell Paradigm
Alex Wakefield Paradigm
Ruby Wang Paradigm
William Warren Paradigm
Rebecca Whitehead Paradigm
Betty Whitlock Paradigm
Sophia Won Paradigm
Jack Xiao Paradigm
Amy Xiao Paradigm
jeffrey fuchs Paradigm
Speak Slow so I can understand you but not so slow that you can't fit 3 points in the argument
Value good questions that further the debate, furthermore, if you ask a question please bring it up in your debate
Clash is great
Congress should be filled with logical debates, not anecdotes