NSDA Middle School Nationals

2019 — Dallas, TX/US

*Griffin *Darden Paradigm

I prefer a more traditional LD debate. I am fine with DAs, justified theory, and topicality. CPs are fine if your opponent has read a plan but I generally don’t end up voting on them in LD debates. You can read a K if you want but I am only familiar with the pretty generic ones. If you choose to read a K it should not be vague and you should seem knowledgeable about it if you want me to vote on it. Plans are ok I just don’t believe them to be super necessary in LD.

When it comes to the way I vote I will default to weighing on the value criterion that has been provided (although I would prefer that the debate not spend to much time on value criterion back and forth). I think it’s a huge plus for both debaters to weigh their impacts through both criterions.

On speed I am fine with it but I value clarity way more than speed (so don’t sacrifice clarity). If you do elect to spread i would like a copy of the speech doc.

Karen Abrams Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Omayma Al-Awar Paradigm

I am a parent judge, who has some experience judging public forum rounds. I like a few things in a speaker.

For the First Speaker:

When presenting your case to me, I would like you to speak clearly and slowly. If you start speaking too fast, I'll stop flowing. Make sure that you're emphasizing what contention you're on and organize your case by subpoints, making it easier for me to flow your case.

During your summary speech, I would like for you to present voters to me, again speak clearly.

For the Second Speaker:

When you are rebutting your opponent's case, make sure that you tell me what on their case you are responding to, and I would prefer you to go down the flow. If you do something else, tell me in an off time roadmap. Also, clash is very important in a round so I would like to see a lot of it from you.

During your final focus, I would like to hear Impact calc and why you win the round. Your impacts should be resolutional. Also tell me the reasons why you should win.

Cross Ex:

I want you to be respectful to your opponent. I don't care about where you're facing, either me or your opponent. During Grand CX, teams can either stand up or sit down.

Adrienne Arinah Paradigm

Not Submitted

Maya Arora Paradigm

8 rounds

This is for MS Nats:

I am a junior in high school at Cape Fear Academy and this is my 4th year doing LD. Faster than a conversational pace is fine, especially if you are pressed for time in the 1AR, but don't spread.

I will mostly decide based on the flow but persuasion is still a factor especially if the round is close. Weigh and do evidence comparison if you can.

**** No need to shake my hand please ****

Things I like:

- rawls

- util

- overviews

- numbered responses

- sassiness

Amit Arora Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

P B Paradigm

8 rounds

Hi my name is Perry and I am a current circuit LD debater who got to 5 bid rounds this year. The short version is A) I will vote on any not explicitly offensive claim with a warrant B) you do what you are good at and C) I will make a decision on the flow, not presentation based factors. I prefer progressive debate, but just because you dont do this, doesnt mean I will like auto drop you. This is middle school nats and I am fine with judging a good traditional debate.

If you have any more questions ask me in round.

Also if their is a speech doc, I would like to be on it. My email is pl232511@ahschool.com

Davis Beck Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Davis Beck Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jada Bourne Paradigm

8 rounds

Keller High School 19'

Howard University 23'

Experience:

Hi, I'm Jada! I debated in North Texas for 2.5 years. I did LD and competed regularly on the nat circuit my senior year. I qualified to TFA State my junior and senior year (broke my senior year) and broke at some TOC bid tournaments. Although I primarily competed in LD, I competed in UIL policy (qualified to state), I did 1 PF tournament and competed in World Schools at nats. I'll be teaching at NSD and TDC in Summer 2019!

I primarily read Critical Race Theory, Performance, and liked reading T towards the end of my career. Here's the link to my Senior Year wiki if you're curious (my Junior year wiki is gross lol):

https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/Keller/

TL;DR: If you’re time-crunched for prefs just read this and the bolded stuff in the general section. You do you. With the exception of theory and tricks, I’m down to listen to anything that's run well. I think debate should be about the debaters and not about the judges. Mostly everything else below is just a preference. Also if this paradigm makes me seem scary/intense I promise I'm not! :)

K- 1

Policy/LARP- 2

T- 1-2

Theory- 3-4

Phil- 4

Tricks/Friv Theory- Strike me pls

-----------NSDA UPDATE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*this worked for Kati so let's see if it works for me- if you bring me coffee I will give you a 30

-----------General Stuff-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Yes- I'd like to be on the email chain if there is one: jada.debate@gmail

2. Speed is fine just go a little slower for than what you would for your favorite circuit judge and slow down on analytics/T/Theoory- I will clear you twice. After that, I will make it very obvious that I am no longer flowing. If it's not on my flow, I'm not evaluating it.

3. Due to LD time structure that doesn't allow you to fully explain args unless you only sit down on a couple, I would highly advise you to send me a doc to ensure that I get every single arg on my flow unless you're very strategic about where you're spending your time

4. Reading radical arguments that you do not have the agency to read is a really good way to get a L 26 from me. Id Pol K lit is important, so don’t spectularize the suffering of those who are at the core of it for my ballot bc you won’t get it. Ground yourself in your argument or choose another argument. If you have questions about this please ask.

5. The less work I have to do for you the better. If I can pick a few lines out of the 2NR/2AR to write my ballot with I will be very happy and so will your speaks.

6. Be nice and don’t run morally offensive args (racism good, sexism good, etc.). Debate is becoming toxic and hostile, please don’t contribute to that.

7. PLEASE! FOR THE LOVE OF THE DEBATE GODS, PLEASE WEIGH!

8. IT'S NOT A GOOD EXTENSION IF YOU DON'T TELL ME THE WARRANT

9. I do not care how you position yourselves in the round. Sit, stand, lay down, whatever I guess.

10. I'd like to say that I'm pretty chill when it comes to debaters having fun in round, but whatever the meme round you may subject me to will be, it better be quality lol.

11. Respect your opponents trigger warnings and pronouns, please!

12. Have fun and learn something new :)

-----------Argumentation---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I always got really annoyed as a debater when I was trying to do prefs and judges had these super long lists of arbitrary preferences that felt more like requirments/threats. I am going to try not to fill this paradigm with a bunch of confusing/contradicting preferences. Basically, don't read something just because you think I'll like it and don't not read something just because I didn't read it- you do you.

-----------Tricks and Spikes/Friv Theory----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

silly debater tricks aren't real arguments ;)

-----------Kritiks--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm just gonna steal this section from Brianna Aaron’s paradigm. She coached me my senior year and I agree with this heavily.

I was primarily a CRT debater in high school so I'm familiar with a lot of the Kritikal lit in the antiblackness and humanistic realms. That being said, DO NOT THINK I AM GOING TO BE YOUR FAVORITE K HACK. I will not automatically vote for you just because you pulled out your K in front of me. In fact, sometimes it is better for you to just stick to your theory or DA/CP strat because otherwise you'll be confused and then I'll be confused and then there's a lot of confusion and no one likes a confused judge.

1. I love Kritiks with good links so generic state bad links is fine but I'd prefer to see this in combination with something that is aff specific.

2. Make sure that the alt is clearly explained or you have an easy chance of losing the round if I don't understand this alternate world that I'm voting for.

3. I need framing like really really really need framing. You might have the most amazing Kritik out there in the world but I won't know how to evaluate any of the arguments you've made when you haven't told me how to gear my ballot. So, make sure you have a ROB/ROJ/Value/Value criterion or whatever you want to call it so I know how to write my ballot.

4. PoMo is a little harder for me to grasp so make sure that it is explained a little bit more than your other Ks.

-----------Performance Affs/Non-T Affs-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have absolutely no care in the world if your aff is topical or not so long as by the time the 1AC timer goes off I know what happened, why it happened, and why it's good/how it can solve for whatever harms the 1AC presented. I read these affs for a good portion of my senior year. They are absolutely necessary in debate and I love to hear them. MAKE IMPACT TURNS TO T PLS.

-----------Plans/DA's/CP's--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really admired good LARP debaters in high school because I thought the best LARP kids just cut fantastic evidence and were super strategic. These positions tend to lack good warrants so cut good evidence and be able to explain internal link stories very well. I will say Politics DAs are super unbelievable to me, that's not to say that I won't evaluate them, rather I'm not going to look to vote for them/will have a really high threshold for evaluating them...I'm a political science major, I will admit the bias here. I was not the most tech debater, so if you rely heavily on tech just do some good crystallization for me at the end of speeches and keep the flow clean. GOOD WEIGHING IN THESE DEBATES IS IMPORTANT.

-----------Topicality----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like T. I like T as a time suck, I like T as an actual 2NR strat, I like T, I like T a lot more than I thought I would. Keep the flow clean, slow down on this flow if you want me to catch everything, weigh between voters and standards, don't concede impact turns.

-----------Theory-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yikes. I went for theory two times my whole career. This is not my best style from a judging perspective and would prefer if it didn't happen in front of me unless it is necessary. I can evaluate a theory debate but if this flow gets messy imma just move down to the next layer.

-----------Disclosure Theory------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think disclosure is generally a good norm, but also I don't personally care if you don't. You know disclosure theory is a risk if you don't disclose. I think you're safe to read disclosure in front of me if your opponent had the ability to disclose, chose not to disclose in any fashion, and you legit cannot engage now/forced into generics. I'm probably going to be very reluctant to vote on disclosure if they actually disclosed but you just didn't like the way they did it. For Example, they disclosed three word, three word but you wanted them to open source. I think my only exception to this is probably full text in the cite box where you asked them to disclose differently and they didn't. Full-text disclosure in the cite box is often illegible lol.

-----------Speaks-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know exactly how I'm gonna be with speaks yet, but I'll start at a 28 and move from there. Definitely let me know if its a bubble round. Things that will raise/lower speaks:

1. Say/do anything mean or problematic >:( : you're not gonna be happy with your speaks

2. Give REALLY clean, concise, strategic, and interesting speeches: 29+

3. Read a relevant position about how Beyonce deconstructs whiteness: 30

-----------Other misc. things I'll probably continue to add to as I get more experience-----------------------------

1. I'm not gonna vote on something I don't understand by the end of the round- as frustrating as that might be, that's your fault, not mine.

2. Case debate is an underrated strat....do it!

3. Brownie points for kids who engage with generic positions in non-generic ways.

4. Please don't call me judge lol, you can call me by my first name :)

Jacob Christianson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Leif Clark Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Marielle Cornes Paradigm

8 rounds

I am a fourth year policy debater at Mountain Brook. I usually am the 1A/2N. I am a very flow centered judge so line-by-line and dropped arguments are very important to me. I am a more policy centered debater who usually runs a plan text so I am more suited to judge a policy round. This does not mean I will not vote for a K if that team does the better debating. I am definitely tech over truth but I will not vote for arguments that are racist/sexist/etc. Other than that I am open to any argument but if you are going to go K make sure to make it clear.

Few important points:

Add me to the email chain: mhc1721@gmail.com

Prep for me ends when you tell me it does, I do not count flashing or emailing as prep just please do not take a ridiculously long time. Do not steal prep, I am the type of judge who will call you out on it.

Again I judge on the flow so PLEASE do not rely on the speech doc. It kills me when people answer arguments that were on the speech doc but the other team did not read.

Please be polite in round, if you are rude to me, your opponent, or your partner I will be docking speaker points.

Arguments:

Case Debate:

As the 2N, I usually take case and I know how important case debate is. On aff, do not ignore your case. It is you offense and what I will be voting for you on so make it clear. On the neg I love to see specific answers to the aff instead of generic impact defense. I also love a team who reads impact turns on case especially if they then use them as net benefits to a counterplan.

Counterplans:

I love a good counterplan. An advantage counterplan or a PIC are great if you know how to run them. I am fine voting for a generic counterplan like states but if you do this please do good net benefit debate or the debate will be boring. I am more likely to air neg on condo but this does not mean I will not vote on the fact that reading lots of conditional counterplans is abusive. On the aff, when making a counterplan I enjoy seeing solvency takeouts but please explain them and why they are very important in that debate.

Disads:

Love them, I am a good judge to pref if you want to read tons of DAs and make for a very difficult 2AC. I enjoy tricky DAs with case specific links but I will vote for almost any DA. To win a DA in front of me you NEED good impact calc. I want to hear from the neg why it outweighs and turns the aff and I want the aff to explain why they outweigh and turn the neg. Also please debate the link on both sides. Neg - the link debate is where you can easily lose; Aff - the link is usually the most sketchy part so take advantage of that.

T:

I run T a fair amount and agree that a clearly non-topical aff is probably abusive. This being said you still need to win all the techy parts of a T debate for me to vote for you. I also love to see a good reasonability debate. If the neg just ignores it I will most likely go aff on reasonability.

Ks:

I am good to vote on a K but I do not have lots of experience with them so PLEASE make the link and the alt clear. I am not very familiar with the literature of very out there Ks like Baudrillard so please explain it.

K Affs and FW:

When I hit K Affs I usually go for framework so this is prob the negs best option in front of me. I like to see a good warranted out debate that discusses fairness and education. THis does not mean always go for framework though. If you are losing that debate go for a K or something.

Theory:

I love theory just please make voters clear. I will not vote for theory if there is clearly no abuse. For example, I believe fiat is a thing and both the aff and the neg have it and the neg can read one conditional advocacy with it definitely not being abuse.

For LD

I do not have much experience debating ld but me school has a team so I have some familiarity. Please explain framework, theory, and any other ld specific arguments.

Pretty much I will vote for the team that did the better debating. We are all here because we enjoy debate so lets not make it miserable. Just have a good, fun debate.

Marielle Cornes Paradigm

8 rounds

I am a fourth year policy debater at Mountain Brook. I usually am the 1A/2N. I am a very flow centered judge so line-by-line and dropped arguments are very important to me. I am a more policy centered debater who usually runs a plan text so I am more suited to judge a policy round. This does not mean I will not vote for a K if that team does the better debating. I am definitely tech over truth but I will not vote for arguments that are racist/sexist/etc. Other than that I am open to any argument but if you are going to go K make sure to make it clear.

Few important points:

Add me to the email chain: mhc1721@gmail.com

Prep for me ends when you tell me it does, I do not count flashing or emailing as prep just please do not take a ridiculously long time. Do not steal prep, I am the type of judge who will call you out on it.

Again I judge on the flow so PLEASE do not rely on the speech doc. It kills me when people answer arguments that were on the speech doc but the other team did not read.

Please be polite in round, if you are rude to me, your opponent, or your partner I will be docking speaker points.

Arguments:

Case Debate:

As the 2N, I usually take case and I know how important case debate is. On aff, do not ignore your case. It is you offense and what I will be voting for you on so make it clear. On the neg I love to see specific answers to the aff instead of generic impact defense. I also love a team who reads impact turns on case especially if they then use them as net benefits to a counterplan.

Counterplans:

I love a good counterplan. An advantage counterplan or a PIC are great if you know how to run them. I am fine voting for a generic counterplan like states but if you do this please do good net benefit debate or the debate will be boring. I am more likely to air neg on condo but this does not mean I will not vote on the fact that reading lots of conditional counterplans is abusive. On the aff, when making a counterplan I enjoy seeing solvency takeouts but please explain them and why they are very important in that debate.

Disads:

Love them, I am a good judge to pref if you want to read tons of DAs and make for a very difficult 2AC. I enjoy tricky DAs with case specific links but I will vote for almost any DA. To win a DA in front of me you NEED good impact calc. I want to hear from the neg why it outweighs and turns the aff and I want the aff to explain why they outweigh and turn the neg. Also please debate the link on both sides. Neg - the link debate is where you can easily lose; Aff - the link is usually the most sketchy part so take advantage of that.

T:

I run T a fair amount and agree that a clearly non-topical aff is probably abusive. This being said you still need to win all the techy parts of a T debate for me to vote for you. I also love to see a good reasonability debate. If the neg just ignores it I will most likely go aff on reasonability.

Ks:

I am good to vote on a K but I do not have lots of experience with them so PLEASE make the link and the alt clear. I am not very familiar with the literature of very out there Ks like Baudrillard so please explain it.

K Affs and FW:

When I hit K Affs I usually go for framework so this is prob the negs best option in front of me. I like to see a good warranted out debate that discusses fairness and education. THis does not mean always go for framework though. If you are losing that debate go for a K or something.

Theory:

I love theory just please make voters clear. I will not vote for theory if there is clearly no abuse. For example, I believe fiat is a thing and both the aff and the neg have it and the neg can read one conditional advocacy with it definitely not being abuse.

For LD

I do not have much experience debating ld but me school has a team so I have some familiarity. Please explain framework, theory, and any other ld specific arguments.

Pretty much I will vote for the team that did the better debating. We are all here because we enjoy debate so lets not make it miserable. Just have a good, fun debate.

Michael Dandridge Paradigm

I'll reserve judgement round by round.

However, I want a couple things to be known.

First, keep the rounds clean. Honestly, I'll vote for most things, however if you ask yourself whether this is okay to run, then don't run it.

Second, if I can't understand what you're saying I'm not going to flow it.

Finally, I expect, as high school students, that you have the maturity to solve in round issues. Let me know if you need my input during round.

Ask me anything else within round.

Dyuti Dawn Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Hafize Dogan Paradigm

8 rounds

Background: Although I am familiar with LD and parli, my experience in debate is mostly with PF.

Preferences:

For LD only

I don't mind progressive stuff but I find that a lot of it lacks the depth and explanation needed in order to make well thought out arguments. If you're gonna run something off the wall, don't just repeat the same tag line over and over again thinking I'm gonna buy it because I don't like making any links for debaters. Obviously the crazier your argument is, the more work you have cut out in front of you in order to persuade me.

For all debates

Don't tell me your opponent dropped your arguments if they didn't, don't be rude and don't think that all you have to do is read a card in order to refute an argument. I don't mind speed, just make sure I'm still typing because if I'm just sitting and staring at you then I've definitely lost you. CX is usually a good indicator to me on how the round is going to end but I don't flow any of it so be sure to bring things back up in your speeches.

What I Look For:

- strong V and VC (for LD)

- use of logic and reasoning, especially during rebuttals

- clear impacts that can be weighed against your opponents

- strong understanding of material

- decorum (if you can’t respect your opponent then you don’t respect this activity)

Kyle Doviken Paradigm

Not Submitted

Maggie Doyle Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cyprian Dumas Paradigm

8 rounds

Hey I'm Cyprian. I'm a rising senior and I've been doing LD since freshman year.

I would consider myself pretty knowledgable about most arguments. Traditional debate is fine but feel free to run disads, counter plans, kritiks, theory, or any other kind of argument as long as it's explained well. This especially applies to k's. The main thing I'm looking for is that the argument makes sense. Don't overcomplicate things.

Speed is fine but please make sure you're clear. If you're gonna spread then please add me to the chain.

Main things I'm looking for are voters. Tell me what's important in the round so I can vote off what you want me to instead of what I think is important. The main thing I'm looking for in actual arguments are impacts. Links and contexts are great but tell me why what you are saying should matter to me. Please do impact analysis and please collapse if you need to so I don't have a hundred different arguments on my flow at the end of the round.

I know this paradigm is very general but it's because I'm fine with just about everything. If you're planning on running something really obscure or have any specific questions feel free to ask me.

Andrew Erickson Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Sam Foster Paradigm

Experience

I'm a 5 year experienced policy debater who made it to state, with my focus being K and theory debate. I'm now a coach with a focus on LD for my school.

Conflicts

Village Middle and High School from Houston, Texas

E-Mail (Include Me In Chains)

bfostermkii@gmail.com

-------------------------------------------------

General Paradigms (These apply to every format I judge)

Speed: I'm totally fine with speed so long as I can clearly understand you and hear you. Slow down on tags, cites, and analytics. If I can't hear you or understand you then I'll stop flowing and listening until you fix your delivery. I'll let you know if I can't hear or understand you, but it'll be on you to restate whatever I missed. If I missed it then I won't evaluate it.

Theory: I love theory when done well. I hate theory when done badly. I view theory as the higher argument in the round, but you have to show me how the violation impacts the round and why that impact matters. I'm a firm believer in actual abuse in round over potential abuse in round, but I will 100% evaluate potential abuse if properly debated. I love a good standards debate so long as the debater can actually showcase how the standard applies in the round. I default to "No RVIs" but if the entire round gets devoted to a singular theory argument or your opponent runs a lot of theory then I'm more than willing to listen to RVIs.

Topicality: I default to competing interps so long as the neg can show that the aff violates the definition. However I will rank topicality lower in the round if the neg argues potential abuse. In other words, if you run topicality, tell me how the aff doesn't meet and that's bad and then follow it up with On Case arguments I'm going to be unhappy because the aff's definition was within your means at that point. Also I don't do RVIs on Topicality as I view T as a test of the aff, but if the neg is being abusive with T then feel free to call them out.

K Debate: I love a good K debate so long as I can understand your critique. If you're going to have a philosophical/high theory critique then you will need to explain your alternative. I would also recommend slowing down on these types of critiques as they can be confusing and, while I'll do my best to keep up, if I can't understand your K then I won't vote on it. You will also need to explain whether your critique is apriori or not so everyone in the round can properly evaluate. Do not just read tags, you have to actually show me how the aff (or neg if you're feeling bold) links into your critique. If your alternative is just rejecting the aff then you need to explain why that's a good option.

Debating Novices/Not Circuit Debaters: Go all out; we're here to compete, not hold hands. Don't be a jerk mind you, but the only way we get better is through experience. I wouldn't want anyone to pull punches on my debaters, so I won't expect you to do so in round.

Prep Time: I do not view flashing/passing evidence as prep time so long you aren't working on anything. If you make a request and keeping working then that's prep, but if you sit back and do nothing while you wait then I won't consider it prep (to a point).

Speaker Points: I judge speaker points on your strategy, delivery, and attitude in round. I will start you at 28 points and will add or subtract points as needed. I can, and have, given out low point wins.

Voters: I will vote on how the round went, nothing else. I view my flow as the map of the round so I don't care if it's not on my flow. I won't vote you down for being rude in round, but I will vote you down if you get abusive in anyway.

Disclosure: If the tournament doesn't require it then I don't care, if it does then read all the disclosure theory you want

New Arguments: I don't evaluate brand new arguments in rebuttals and will dock you speaks for doing so. I will also reward speaks for calling out brand new arguments as well.

Flash/E-mail Chains: I want on that chain to better judge the round if both debaters are doing so

CX: It's binding

-------------------------------------------------

LD Specific Paradigms

LARP: Go for it, but if you run a plan I will definitely listen to "Plan Bad" theory.

Counterplans: I'm totally game for them, but be careful with PiCs as LD forces a rough burden on the aff when the neg runs a PiC. I'll definitely evaluate a PiC but will most likely drop your speaks for it.

Framework: I use framework as a lens to frame the round, not as a voter. Just because you win framework doesn't mean you win the round. If your framework involves high theory then you need to make sure you explain it correctly. If I don't understand it I will not vote on it.

-------------------------------------------------

PF Specific Paradigms

Voter Weights: You need to tell me what the most important voter in the round is, if you don't then I will default to the the flow only and that never ends well.

Crossfire: I view crossfire as a back and forth, but if you allow your opponent to ask multiple questions then that's on you.

Progressive Cases: I'm totally down for theory and critical cases so long as they're well written

-------------------------------------------------

CX/Policy Specific Paradigms

The General Paradigms Go Here

Manuel Garcia Paradigm

I appreciate a well-structured speech that delivers logical and persuasive points. I like to see debaters who challenge their opponents on their points with astute and well-timed rebuttals, in other words, able to think on their feet. I will judge your value, criterion, and contentions. It is important that you do not go off topic.

Standards:

State your value, criterion and contentions. In addition make sure you have a clear claim with a warrant and an impact.

Case Analysis

Debater must show a clear understanding of topic. Directly address topic and justify your claims. Make sure you can cite your points if requested.

Cross examination

Debaters should be confident and persistent, but should not become hostile or rude during the cross-examination

Rebuttals

Make sure you counter attack every point made by opponent. Failing to do so shows agreement with opponent.

Presentation

Be confident in your delivery. Do not spread (I need to be able to listen to your case). Use your persuasive skills to present a logical case.

Tina Goodwin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Adalynn Guillory Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ishika Gupta Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Tucker Hall Paradigm

8 rounds

I am an experienced LDer who debated throughout high school on the state and national level.

I did mostly traditional debate but I am not unfamiliar with progressive argumentation. CPs, Ks, plans, and anything else that may be funky are cool as long as you really explain and keep that argumentation going.

If you want to win my ballot hammer those voting issues and give me heavy weighing and impact calculus.

I won't do a ton of work for you, if there is a dropped argument, bring it up.

Ben Harris Paradigm

8 rounds

Top level: What you say matters most. Good cards are very important, but spin and your articulation of your arguments is what you are held to. It's about strategy and what you say. If the only thing I held you to was your cards, then there would be no strategy in debate, just cutting cards.

I judge by the flow. I will listen to any argument (except racism/ableism/etc. good) regardless of its truth so be sure to answer it. Tech over truth all day long. I mostly do policy, but I have done some of PF and LD for the last 5 years. I am fine with speed. I will be keeping track of time. Impact calculus is critical to winning a round. I love scrappy debate. Finally, an argument that is not extended or answered is a dropped argument and so a true argument. Don't shadow extend arguments, actually explain it as you extend it, and don't just use buzz words.

Add me to the Email Chain: benharrisdebate@gmail.com

Ethics challenges: They stop rounds.

Policy:

K's - A good K is always good. I will buy any argument here as well. I am moderately well versed in the literature, but that does not mean you can get away with not explaining your K. Perms can still work with K's. Lastly, Cap is a non-unique disadvantage, I don't love it but will vote on it if necessary.

K/Performance Affs: Utilize your performance as offense if it works, but I am not really persuaded by these arguments. I think that the aff should defend an advocacy statement (probably a topical plan or the resolution), but I can be persuaded otherwise. I love framework and will happily vote on it. Go beyond your prewritten blocks and actually debate the substance of the argument. Nothing is better than a 2a who answers a bunch of framework arguments that the neg never made.

T- If it is a topic generic aff, then it is topical. Otherwise, I will buy T. RVI's might be one of the few exceptions to the rule I stated at the beginning, I hate them, but I will vote off them if they are dropped.

DA's- Great. Love them. Will vote on them.

CP- I am a 2N, so I don't really find them abusive, but again any argument goes. I love Word Pics and a good, nuanced, one will help your speaks. Generic CP's are nothing special. Consult counterplans are the one kind that I feel are cheaty, but I can be persuaded otherwise. The perm should be in the 2AR 9 times out of 10.

Presumption- I only put this in here to say that I buy presumption more than most judges. I think that it is an underused argument that is actually great.

Prep: Starts and stops when you tell me to, but do not steal prep.

LD:

Same as above really. I am fine with speed, but if you spread you should flash.

Value: I don't love value debates very much and really default to Util, but if your value wins you the round then go for it.

As a policy debater, I prefer progressive LD, but I am fine with traditional LD as well.

For all forms of debate: Just do what you are comfortable with, I will listen to it, and if it is well debated, I will happily vote on it.

Robert Hershey Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Alex Holmes Paradigm

Not Submitted

Xin Hu Paradigm

I am a parent judge with no previous judging experience.

My preferred rate of delivery is a 2-3 out of 5. If you are unclear, I will not flow your arguments even if they are true. This helps me understand your arguments and better allow me to evaluate the round.

Substance debate and contention level debate under the resolution is most important. Framework is important as well, but you should make the best argument as I will vote for the most persuasive speaker.

It is very important to have strong evidence to back up your claims. If you make assertions without good authors/sources/credentials to support your position, that is not a strong case.

It is recommended that you include voting issues at the end of the round that crystallize your position and your speech so that I, as the judge, know what to vote on and who to vote for.

Gautam Iyer Paradigm

8 rounds

Hi! I’m Gautam.

Carroll Sr. HS, TX ’19

Duke University ’23

Email: gautamiyer28@gmail.com (add me to the email chain please)

Background - debated 3 years for Carroll Senior High in Southlake, TX, qualified to TFA state, NSDA nats, and TOC my senior year. Debated on both local and national circuits so familiar with traditional debate too.

General - I’m fine with whatever you want to run as long as it isn’t blatantly offensive. Probably best at evaluating LARP/policy style debates and worst at evaluating tricks or high theory. I’ll vote on tricks but I’ll have a lower threshold for what counts as answers to those args.

Defaults - I default to comparative worlds, reasonability, drop the arg, no RVIs, presuming aff, permissibility flows aff. I doubt I’ll ever have to use most of these.

Miscellaneous stuff

  • As a debater I was atrocious at permissibility, skep, truth testing in general, burdens, etc so if you want to read those args please explain them thoroughly
  • I won’t drop speaks regardless of what arg you read unless it’s offensive, but if you want to read a really dumb aff or something go ahead
  • Disclosure is important and I will gladly vote on a disclosure shell
    • Please send screenshots at the end of the round if you go for disclosure
  • Compiling the doc is prep but emailing it, etc. is not
  • I won’t flow CX unless asked
  • I will vote on frivolous theory but will be more easily convinced by weaker answers or reasonability to things like formal clothes theory

Kenneth Jackson Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Sana Jaffery Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Wendy Jin Paradigm

I am a parent volunteer with a child who does LD debate. I have never judged before. I don’t understand any technical aspects of debate, and will judge the debate based on who persuades me of their side more. With speed, I am comfortable with slower speaking and I would be a 2-3 with speed on a scale from 1-10, 1 being the slowest. If I cannot understand what you are saying I will not account for it in my decision. In LD I understand the importance of value and criterion so please make sure you have both and that your arguments center around them and the importance of evidence quality (recent, author qualifications, etc).

Nisala Kalupahana Paradigm

8 rounds

I'm an experienced PF/Extemp/Impromptu/Congress competitor, judge, and coach. Please don't spread in PF/LD or yell over each other in cross -- I absolutely hate this.

Mohanraj Kanniappan Paradigm

8 rounds

I vote base on who persuade me more of their position overall. I prefer evidence-based debate. The more persuasive arguments, the better. I should be fine with anything you read, if the warrant for every argument is explained in a manner that I can understand. Be clear if you are going to spread, I won’t deduct speaks unless it’s obvious you aren’t changing anything. If you do spread, flashing, emailing, pocket-boxing, or providing a paper copy of your case to either me or your opponent upon request is mandatory, and you will lose the round if you cannot do this. Do not under any circumstance spread against anyone that cannot understand/flow speed or you will lose. If you are a traditional debater, feel free to go at whatever speed you are comfortable with, this activity isn’t about how fast you go it’s about how good your arguments are. Give clear overviews (Conversational pace or a little faster, cover the flow, isolate important arguments and go for those things first). Collapse to a few voting issues as opposed to going for everything and making me resolve it. Demonstrate a thorough understanding of either the topic, or the position you are reading. I really don't like when debaters are rude to one another. Keep the round civil and courteous.

Hannah Kim Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ted Kim Paradigm

Background

I have no speech and debate competition experience. My first foray into this world was in early 2014 as a judge; I have been involved ever since and have judged continuously at a rate of at least 30 tournaments per year. I am now involved in the debate program at my school as a public forum coach.

General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)

While I do consider myself to be more experienced than any lay judge, I do not consider myself as knowledgable as a former competitor turned judge or coach. Here is a list of things not to expect from me:

  1. Do not expect me to know the things you know. I don’t. Simple as that. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
  2. Do not expect to change my mind after a debate is over in the hopes of changing a decision. That should be only done in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
  3. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to.
  4. I flow on paper, meaning I won't be looking at either competitors too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means that there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
  5. While I do attempt to keep my biases outside the round, there may be occasion where I will hear an argument and it will confuzzle my brain terribly. That doesn't mean I won't count it; it means that you will visibly see me look very confused. Take that as a sign that the argument needs to be thoroughly explained or re-explained. Failing to do so will more likely than not make me drop the argument regardless of whether your opponent dealt with it appropriately.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Regarding speaker points:

I judge from a top-down scale. Everyone starts at a 27.5 (Average based on Tabroom standards) and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity and confidence in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge quite harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply because this is debate and W’s and L’s are what matter.

Things I do not appreciate occurring in round and will be appropriately penalized:

  1. Do not lie in round. Or at the very least, do not get caught lying in round. This includes but is not limited to: cooked evidence; misrepresenting evidence; misrepresenting your opponents’ position; putting words in their mouths that they never said nor meant; and so on. Please refrain from such uncouth behavior. My reaction will be to give you a 0 and the L. Please remember that I have the power as a judge to call for evidence at the end of the round before my decision to verify any perceived indiscretion.
  2. Do not yell at your opponents in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.

Structure:

Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.

Framework (FW):

In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. I don't require explanations of what your FWs are unless there are particularly unique.

In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor.

Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Regarding the decision (RFD):

I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their respective W or L.

A few exceptions to this rule:

  • Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
  • Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack didn't happen. It will not go your way.
  • Regarding links: I need things to just make sense. Do not use terrible links. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What?” then you have lost me. If using a link chain, link appropriately. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.

I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.

I'm not a big fan of theory/kritiks. If it comes up and it's warranted, make sure I know it. But most of the time, I won't be happy that it's happening.

Regarding Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.

Regarding Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.

SPEED:

I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of circuit debate and listening to ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to none elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.

Irrational Paradigm

This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.

  1. No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Chloe Kinderman Paradigm

I'm a junior and 4th year debater for Mountain Brook High School. I've done PF and Policy.

I can handle speed, but I will always prefer depth of analysis and clarity over speed.

Any argument you make should be warranted. A tag is not sufficient. You must explain why your evidence is true and how your argument works.

Final Focuses should be primarily impact calculus because I need to know why the arguments you are making matter and how your impacts interact with and out way your opponent's.

You must time yourselves, but I will be keeping the official time. DON'T STEAL PREP. I see too many teams do this these days. If you are talking to your partner, someone's prep should be running.

For LD: Having done Policy, I know my way around progressive LD args. I don't love Ks, so you will have to do lots of work to get me to vote on them. Honestly all of my PF paradigm applies to LD.

Ji Il Kwon Paradigm

I value well-crafted and articulated arguments.

I prefer a strong framework debate, especially pertaining to values and value criterion. Your contentions should link back to your framework.

Clarity is important.

Pls avoid spreading.

Being kind and respectful to your opponent is absolutely essential.

Zoe Lamborn Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Cindy Leong-Wu Paradigm

I am a parent judge with no LD experience. My preferred rate of delivery is 2 (maybe 3, but basically don't speak too quickly) out of 10. No spreading. Summarize your key arguments at the end as well. Clearly talk about value and criterion and I like evidence.

Shuang Liu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Zhuojing Lu Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Camille Luong Paradigm

8 rounds

I am a rising senior from St. Petersburg, FL. I’m into my 4th year of LD. I’ve qualified to NCFL and NSDA in LD. I was rank 14, seed 3 (Octofinalist) at the Harvard tournament for LD. I am captain of my school’s speech and debate team. I do Model UN and placed 3rd in the nation for Ethics Bowl. Etc etc

Preferences:

1. FRAMEWORK: I care a lot about criterion and not value. Criterion guides the round — most values are essentially the same and UNLESS you’re able to prove that it’s more resolutional and/or its significantly different than their value I‘d rather u just concede to the same value and move onto how to achieve that via criterion. Also, pet peeve is “im winning the FW debate” and then not applying ur criterion to any of your contentions in the rebuttals.

2. VOTERS: Make voters super clear. Crystallization is key. Also, scripted voters are okay, but it’s more impressive when you’re able to point at specific things within the round.

3. DECORUM: If you don’t let your opponent answer your question during cross Bc u keep interrupting them i am going to dock hella points. “Perceptual dominance” isn’t super important to me and I honestly think it’s a little bit sexist sometimes..

4. PROGRESSIVE: I like theory but I hate Ks. Please don’t run a K. I don’t like condo CPs. Outside of theory, Ks, CPs, plans, I don’t really understand most other progressive argumentation styles. So if it’s something that’s not a traditional argument make sure you explain it reeeeeallly well. I can flow most spreading but don’t go top speed. Make sure your opponent is comfortable with spreading before you do it.

5. PRESENTATION: Public speaking is important, but if you’re not winning the argumentation and on the flow, then you’re not winning the round. This isn’t to say I’m against “fluff”, just make sure it’s not your whole speech. “Storytelling” is only effective to an extent when you’re losing the other arguments.

TLDR; I vote primarily on flow and argumentation. Presentation is important insofar as the way you present it can affect how well I understand it. Focus on the framework and criterion and relate it to your contentions. Don’t be rude.

Juliana Ma Paradigm

8 rounds

tl;dr for NSDA Middle School Nationals:

Hey! I'm a high school junior (rising senior) and I have been doing LD for two years (this year I mainly competed on the national circuit).

Things I'm looking for in a good debate:

1. Good argumentation (claim, warrant, impact)

2. Comparison (weighing, cross-applications)

3. Covering the flow (line by line, effective grouping)

4. Clear structure (roadmap, signposting, overview)

Most importantly, please be nice to your opponent! Feel free to ask me any questions before and after the round, and you should also read my full paradigm for stylistic preferences if you have time (to be updated below).

Full Paradigm (In Progress)

About me:

Hill JM

I debate for The Hill School, a boarding school in Pennsylvania. I'm a rising senior and I have been competing in LD for 2 years (1 year on the national circuit).

Styles of debate I like and feel the most comfortable evaluating (in order):

1. Topicality/theory: For some reason, a lot of people hate theory, but I happen to think that theory is educational because it teaches logic, makes you think on your feet, and requires the most technical skills to execute. Most importantly, theory is FUN and STRATEGIC! So seriously, go for whatever shell you like. If you can win on frivolous theory, then you should win. Simple like that.

2. Policy (Plan, CP, DA)

3. Traditional/Framework

4. K

5. Tricks

Abigail Maloney Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Hunter McFarland Paradigm

8 rounds

2019 NDT (new framework section)

Email Chain: Hunter.Callahan.McFarland@gmail.com

ACCESS REQUIREMENT: Do not relentlessly post-round me. If you want to argue with me about my decision send me an email and we can have a constructive dialogue that way. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to make the space accessible for you before the round begins.

Background:

--Assistant Debate Coach at UC Berkeley & The Harker School

--Third-year coaching/judging college policy debate

--M.A. in Communication, University of Wyoming (thesis was on the rhetoric of settler colonialism)

--Debated for the University of Wyoming (B.A. in American Indian Studies & Political Science) and Twin Falls High School in Southern Idaho

To Note:

--Flowing: I am not opposed to arguments that challenge how I flow, but here are my default mechanics: I use my laptop and I can type pretty fast, but you should still slow down on tags, analytics and most importantly, theory. I flow CX. I attempt to line up every argument so I expect you to debate line-by-line. Tell me if you have an overview on each page. I will only flow the speaker who is supposed to be giving the speech unless instructed otherwise for performative reasons.

--Paperless Debate: I will not count emailing as prep time unless you are being unreasonable. Your doc needs to be saved and ready to be uploaded by the time you end prep. I am not afraid to arbitrarily deduct time from your prep clock if you are stealing prep (trust me, we all know it is happening). You are likely to get higher speaker points if you are ready to give your order and speech right away.

--Clarity: It matters because debate is a communicative activity. I need to be able to hear each word you read. I will yell "clear" three times and if you do not correct your clarity I will stop flowing (same with "louder" or "slower").

--Clipping: Zero-tolerance policy so MARK YOUR CARDS as your speaking. If I think it occurred with malicious intent I will stop the round and award the individual who clipped zero speaker points and the team with the L. If you know it occurred and I don't, it needs to be on film for verification.

--Evidence Standards: I have higher standards than most judges and prefer that every argument made in policy debates have evidence attached to them unless the observation you are making is obvious. I am less strict in kritical debates, but evidence on questions of ontology, theory, and your alternative would help your arguments greatly. I tend to read in-between highlighting to ensure the description of your evidence is accurate (this is why my decisions take awhile sometimes). If you want to point out that your opponents read evidence out of context you should read a re-highlighting of it not just "insert it" into the debate.

Argument Preferences:

I am agnostic on content, but not on form. Your arguments need to be well-warranted (i.e. you should not merely present a conclusion, but you should present logical reasons for why I should accept that conclusion as true or I will presume it false because you have not presented a complete argument). Therefore, dropped arguments aren't necessarily true, but you don't need to reinvent the wheel, you just need to provide a quick warrant instead of only providing a claim.

Kritical/Planless Affirmatives--- Affs should be debatable and, at the very least, your 1AC should have a solvency mechanism attached to a stable advocacy statement. I am willing to vote neg on presumption if you don't solve your impacts unless your interpretation of presumption is better than the negs.

Topicality (Kritical affs)---

Affirmative advice: You have to have a compelling competing model of debate to win my ballot (i.e. a counter-interpretation that sets limits on the topic). I agree that the best debates are ones that generate the most clash so if you can prove you were debatable you will be in a good spot for my ballot. I can be persuaded that breaking some rules of the game are good. However, I'm increasingly frustrated by arguments about debaters as people rather than theory. I will never be persuaded that reading framework in and of itself is violent, and I am not compelled by pre-requisite arguments or impact turns that are based on metaphors or syllogisms (claiming that "plan debate is genocide" is trivializing). Instead, you should critique the neg's substantive model of debate. Framework alone can outweigh the affirmative even without a TVA or solvency answers, but either of those greatly diminishes affirmative offense. I don't think TVAs need to solve perfectly, just access a similar discussion so I will rarely vote for aff teams that do not have an offensive reason to reject the TVA.
Negative advice: Make sure you are accurately describing policy debate, not an abstract deliberative process. I am likely to conclude that the educational content both policy debate and kritical debate give you are equally valuable so it is better to ground your offense in the form of iterative argument refinement and rigorous contestation around a predictable stasis point to demonstrate why your model of debate is preferred (this means you have to win a predictability internal link and prove the aff is un-debatable). Fairness is an impact but you should still tell me why it outweighs the aff's offense. Case defense helps minimize the risk of the aff's impact turns. TVAs better be topical, but they don't have to solve the aff just access the 1AC's educational value.

Topicality (Policy affs)--- I don't think teams go for T enough. Quality and context of evidence matter. You should provide a detailed picture of what the topic should look like. Reasonability framing only makes sense if you are winning that your interpretation of the topic is reasonable (i.e. extend a counter interp). I am highly unlikely to vote aff if you only have an education impact.

Case Debating--- I want more of it unless you are going for a CP that clearly solves the aff. I love impact turns (no matter how absurd; thanks TCram).

Kritiks--- I'm down with any K you want to read, but I am less familiar with continental philosophy so you need to clearly explain your theory. I am not willing to reward you for my prior knowledge so define complex terms. Don't just assert the impact and assume I know what it is, you need to explain it and tell me why it outweighs. The neg should present an opportunity cost to doing the affirmative, even if the alternative is a superior method or I will likely vote on a permutation. Roll of the ballots/judges are only important if you impact them out or I will always just vote for the team who I think did the best debating. I tend to agree that affs should justify their epistemology before getting to weigh their impacts (but you need to prove their impacts false first).

Disadvantages--- I prefer topic DAs, but also enjoy a tricky elections or agenda DA. The quality of evidence matters, but spin is also critical. I will vote on zero risk but it is unlikely. Good impact calc can easily switch my ballot in a close debate.

Counterplans--- Consult and process CPs are not very compelling, but I enjoy PICs within reason (PIC out of NHI services bad, PIC out of PAS in hospitals good). I tend to agree that solvency advocates matter for each plank. My default is to kick the CP if it doesn't solve but the DA still outweighs the aff (unless the aff proves the CP links to the net benefit).

Theory--- People cheat. Don't let them. Your block should be fully developed and read slowly. Theory arguments are only reasons to reject the team when you have proven the other team has changed your ability to engage in the substance of the debate (even if the argument was conceded).

Conditionality--- Conditionality is good (contradictory truth claims are not, but for substantive reasons rather than theoretical).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LD:

All of my policy preferences above apply. I recommend making fewer arguments so you can develop them more. I have a little more sympathy for the aff's theory arguments due to the format of the activity.

Noah Menisteab Paradigm

Background:

Head Coach Speech and Debate at Duchesne Academy (2017-Present)

Rice University '20 studying Political Science

Debated for Marist School (2012-2016)

Email: nmm6@rice.edu

NDF specifics -

Idc if you don't like voters. You are probably bad at line-by-line so do yourself a favor and use voters in summary and final focus. Also you don't have to disclose or send speech docs if you dont want to.

Important for 2019-2020 Season:

Evidence - I HIGHLY recommend reading card text or referring to an accurately cut card in the constructive and rebuttal. These are properly cut cards (Thank you Christian Vasquez for the link). If you don't at least refer to cut cards (i.e., just quotes) then you should strike me.

There a few reasons why I'm going to be more strict about using cut cards. Cut cards promote better research and debate ethics. I understand trying to fit as many sources as possible into speeches, but lying about what your evidence says ruins the ethos of the round and cheats everyone of the educational and competitive components of this activity. And I'm tired of calling for evidence that contradicts the warrant read in round.

Disclosure - Teams I've coached only disclosed a few times this past year (similar to many teams who claim to disclose). However, it's hard to refute that rounds between disclosed teams are better rounds to participate in. It allows for better strategy preparation, spreads knowledge and checks evidence abuse.

Disclosure can happen in two ways - either through the wiki or by emailing your opponents and myself prior to the round. While I won't penalize for nondisclosure, you will get +0.3 speaker points for disclosing or sending speech docs and +0.7 for doing both. Misdisclosure is an auto-loss and lowest speaker points allowed.

PF:

My views on Public Forum evolved the past season based on observations of rounds and conversations I've had with debaters/coaches. Below are some general things I expect to see when I judge your round as well as my thoughts on progressive debate.

General Thoughts:

1.) I look at the round through an offense/defense paradigm - you have to adequately defend your offense and place defense on your opponents. To me, just having defense is not enough unless you warrant why your terminal defense should be preferred over any offense from the opposing team.

On my flow, offense requires a link/warrant, an impact, and frontlining. Miss one and it will be harder for me to flow your offense.

2.) Speeches must build off of each other. It’s not enough to just read some offense or defense in one speech and only extend it at the very end in the Final Focus. Rebuttals need to be line-by-line with 2nd rebuttals frontlining major turns for at least 30-60 seconds. Any offense or defense you want me to look at on my flow needs to be cleanly extended, especially in the Summary and the Final Focus.

3a.) The Summary and Final Focus MUST MIRROR EACH OTHER! Any OVs, observations, offense, and defense you want me to look at needs to be in BOTH SPEECHES! The burden to extend defense in the summary rests on both teams. I don't care about the 1st speaking team disadvantage in summary because there are other advantages in the round.

3b.) Defense and Offense Structure - Defense on "their case" doesn’t mean you extend every arg from the rebuttal, but extending the most important ones with good analysis (like turns). Offense is super simple - any offense you want me to consider at the end of the round must be in summary. Refer above for the requirements of a proper extension. Please also DO WARRANTED & COMPARATIVE WEIGHING! I have no problem dropping you because you didn’t do a good job extending or weighing in the round. Also, most teams are really bad at line by line. Save yourself and do VOTERS!!!

4.) Evidence – You can expect that I have done quite a bit of research on the topic and will understand most topic args. For the most part, I don’t interfere with the debate and will flow and vote on any arg presented (basically tech over truth). The only times I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) would be when the args/examples presented are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, anything ridiculous like "extinction/terrorism good," or when I know a piece of evidence being read is completely misrepresented. I will call for evidence if debaters ask me to or if I find it important in my decision. Cards should be properly cut (refer to the message at the top). And evidence exchange needs to be quick - I will give you 1 min to find evidence. If you go over it, I will start deducting prep time. We need to keep rounds on time. And when a team is finding evidence, no one should be prepping.

Also, it's up to the debaters in the round to call each other out and issue a formal evidence ethics challenge if I don't call for a card.

5.) Disclosure - Refer to the disclosure message above. You should disclose at national circuit tournaments/championships.

6.) Decisions - No matter the tournament (unless explicitly told not to), I will always disclose and give a detailed RFD a few minutes after the round. I am constantly thinking about who is winning along with an RFD in my mind and on my flow after each speech. If for some reason you don’t want me to disclose, let me know, and I’ll just disclose to the other team. I'm also willing to answer more questions outside the round and email my flows for you to see how I evaluated the round.

Progressive PF:

Plans/CPs/DAs - I've always been okay with “specific” plans, “pseudo” CPs, and DAs because I used them during my debate career. Just make sure you "fit" them within PF and the resolution. Debaters who complain about the rules of PF debate when it comes to plans and CPs – get over it and debate.

Kritics - I'm okay with the generic K's people try to run (i.e. Feminism, Capitalism) but I am not familiar with high theory (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche).

Theory - Theory is the highest layer of debate. I am okay with just a paragraph or a full shell. For me to extend your theory argument, you need to read it as soon as the abuse occurs. For disclosure/misdisclosure, you need to read it in the constructive since it's essentially abuse before the round. Additionally, theory needs to be extended throughout the debate. Otherwise, it becomes disingenuous and your speaker points will suffer. Evidence of abuse is also needed for theory (especially disclosure related shells). Extending theory your opponents drop is a TKO (auto-win and +0.5 speaks). These theory preferences (except reading disclosure) applies to any tournament round I judge.

Misc:

1.) Preflow before the round*** otherwise -0.3 speaker points.

2.) Crossfires - It's usually not important to my ballot and I don't flow them. I think it’s more for y'all to clarify your args to each other. If something significant is said in cross-fire, then bring up immediately in the next speech to make it binding. Also, be nice to each other.

3.) Speed - I am okay if you go fast (6-7/10), so long as you are clear. (use to say "micro" spreading but bc of the war against jargon by NDF, I took it out @Jeff @Lyndsey).

4.) Speaker points - For me, speaker points take into account analysis and persuasiveness. However, debate is an educational activity that requires good use of evidence, so I lean more towards analysis. Scale from 27-30 with everyone starting at a 27. If you get below a 25, you did something unethical in the round. Typically, speaks I give tournaments range from 27-29. Don't expect a 30 just because you won the round.

5.) Accommodations - I'm 100% fine with any accommodations debaters might need. Just communicate what you need before the round. Opponents will also receive the same benefits. If you are an opposing team that disagrees with reasonable accommodations, get over it and just debate.

LD:

Yes, add me to your email chain: nmm6@rice.edu

I didn't do LD in HS, but I've judged some LD rounds the past two years. My paradigm for LD is similar to PF in that I will still look at the round on an offense/defense paradigm. I'll flow any argument you want to present to me (Ks, CPs, DAs, Theory, etc.). Speed is the same as PF. Don't spread. If you have specific questions, ask me before the round. At national circuit tournaments, LD should always disclose positions on the wiki.

Questions? Ask before the round

Matt Moorhead Paradigm

8 rounds

he/him, appleton east 19'

email chain: matthewrmoorhead@gmail.com

hi! i'm matt. i really like this activity so i'm going to make this nice and simple. i have a lot of opinions about debate, those opinions rarely factor into my decision. i'm probably more tab than you think i am, i really don't have the audacity to say that x argument can't be read in front of me. i don’t like intervening and put the baseline of argumentation at not cheating, not being offensive, and having a claim, warrant, and impact. my paradigm = a way to get better speaker points, not an all-or-nothing interpretation of debate.

here are my opinions that will guide your strategy:

1. i debated for four years for appleton east in wisconsin. i did national circuit ld and dabbled in policy. i broke at the toc among some other things and taught at nsd flagship this summer. i have experience with every style of debate.

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

3. my ideal round in high school involved: impact turns (anything from dedev to food security bad), cheater counterplans, policy tricks (modesty, framework, methodological pluralism, etc) on the aff, and k tricks (root cause, floating piks, etc) on the neg.

4. i like when people have clearly put time into understanding their position - obviously i like rounds more when they have arguments i have historically enjoyed, but reading arguments i didn't like as a debater is not the brightline for good speaks or the win/loss.

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

6. theory should involve a defense of your model of debate - this is especially true in the context of fw, it's easier when k affs defend their model over particular disads to neg offense.

7. err on the side of over-explanation, i won't correct your theory for you - this doesn't mean that you have to explain what capitalism is, but that you can't just say "there is desire inherent in the lack".

8. phil debates usually are bad impact calc - i find it hard to assume 100% truth of a framework and hijacks make it way easier for me to evaluate non util debates.

9. your speaks will be fine - they may be better if you make me laugh or give me a good music recommendation.

have a great day!

https://youtu.be/pXKsgEvguAE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTJn_DBTnrY

Meghan Munoz Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Aryan Parikh Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Susan Pein Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kelsey Pierce Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Naveen Pinjani Paradigm

Not Submitted

Trevor Provost Paradigm

8 rounds

MS LD:

I've done LD in high school for 3 years. I like traditional LD, but I won't turn away more progressive styles if it's done well.

I'd rather you stay away from plans, counter plans, K's, or any other advocacy outside of the resolution and the inverse resolution.

I flow but I still vote truth over tech as long as its extended throughout the round.

I want heavy clash on the value and criterion debate, even in the first negative speech.

Obviously contentions are still important but if your rebuttals are 70% value/criterion debate and 30% contentions, I'm def okay with it.

Explain how your contentions prove that affirming/negating the resolution helps to achieve your values! Your contentions don't matter if they don't prop up your value!

I'm pretty comfortable with most values/criterions so unless you're doing something really obscure or abstract, you probably won't have to spend too much time explaining it.

And the burden debate does matter to me, if nobody reads them the that's fine, just now that if somebody does and you don't explain why your's are better or how you fit their's, I will vote on it.

And just don't be mean to one another and have fun :)

Steve Racaw Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mihir Rai Paradigm

8 rounds

I graduated from Greenhill in 2019.

TLDR - Do whatever you are best at and I'll do my best to evaluate it. My favorite kinds of debates are policy debates and I love cleverly constructed scenarios.

Elie Salem Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Elie Salem Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Juliet Sampson Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Abigail Schulte Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Alivia Schultz Paradigm

Not Submitted

John Shaughnessy Paradigm

Experience: LD Judge 3 Years

Rounds judged this year: 21-30

Rate of delivery of case not a major factor in decision, but please do not speak so fast that I can't understand you.

Value and Criterion an absolute must. Sound evidence and logic needed to support and link the two. Upholding your V and VC essential to winning my ballot.

Please make sure to include key voting issues that you would like me to consider prior to finishing your last rebuttal.

Andrew Shea Paradigm

8 rounds

Experience:

I've debated for three years one in PF the other two in LD. I completed heavily on the local circuit and I have been to some circuit tournaments. That's not to say I'm not familiar with circuit arguments Im experienced in K, plans, performative, etc.

Debater Expectations

If your opponent can't spread, don't spread. If you are Aff it's your burden to make sure the neg can too or is okay with it. If you spread and your opponent is clearly not equipped to handle it and you continue to do it I will drop speaks.

Don't be rude or treat your opponent like their lesser or dumb. It's petty and not great in round to say stuff like "my opponent is clearly incapable of understanding this".

Don't card clip.

I don't know every K in the world give a quick explanation of internal jargon or just limit it. I can't vote if I don't know what I'm voting for.

Time yourself

Flex prep is okay.

No using cross ex for prep.

On to that actual debating thing

Traditional: Go right ahead

K's: I'm fine with most but what I'm not fine with is language that puts your opponent in some violation of the K personally. I like critical args but I don't like that if your reading Queer theory and you say my opponent is promoting a position that violates queer lives if your opponent is queer they should not have to out themselves to say that they aren't. The same thing applies to theory. To say in theory your opponent by affirming or something is violating the rules of debate by engaging in some ism I will not be happy. Other than what you can't do I'm familiar with alot of k args so feel free to run one. Just don't be a jerk to your opponent.

Theory: Nope. Running a T shell especially in your case is just a no. You'll have to do major groundwork to justify Theory to me and I'll let your opponent have a lower standard to accurately respond.

Plans and Cp: Go ahead

Performative: Perform your heart out.

DA's: Go ahead.

LARP: No clue what it is but I want to see it

Philosophy I'm familiar with

Foucault

Butler-love Butler

Marxism/socialist philosophy-You have nothing to lose but your chains. So yeah I'll pretty easily buy cap bad.

Wilderson

Social contract stuff

Thats pretty much it. Go debate.

Cole Skinner Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Anish Srivastava Paradigm

8 rounds

Clash, I want to hear you call them out. Attack their ideas don't them individually.

Keep an accurate flow, you'll need it when telling me why you win.

I accept all arguments, its your job to tell me why I reject.

Ollie Stoneman Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ariane Stroud Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Joseph Tarnowski Paradigm

8 rounds

FOR TRADITIONAL DEBATERS:

I'm a tabula rasa judge. Run whatever you want, I can guarantee I've heard weirder and I'm probably at least somewhat familiar with whatever you're running. Conceding framework (especially on neg) is underutilized and very strategic, and is especially good since framework is often irrelevant in most rounds (READ: DON'T DEBATE USELESS FRAMEWORKS). Same goes for weighing and evidence comparison, it's not done nearly enough. I'm happiest when everyone is having fun in the round, so joking around rather than just being dead serious is definitely the way to go. Please feel free to ask any questions you want as after the round, because debate is also a learning experience.

Short version:

Read whatever you want. I will vote on anything, other than obviously bad/oppressive arguments like racism/sexism good. I average 28.5 speaks, you likely won't get above/below and 29.5/26.5 unless I'm thoroughly impressed, and my threshold for speaks also changes based on the tournament difficulty and likelihood to break.

Theory: 1

LARP:1

High theory: 2

Idpol: 3

Tricks: if this is your main strat plz strike me

Defaults:

Competing Interps

Drop the arg

No RVIs

Truth Testing

Tech>Truth

T/Theory>K

Speaks:

30: You really impressed me and will almost definitely win the tournament

29: You were a good debater who demonstrated strong knowledge of the arguments and tech of the round.

28: Mostly average

27: Below average, lacking in certain important aspects

26: You did something very wrong and need to improve drastically.

Long version:

K affs:

Fine with them. I've run a few. I'd prefer it to be at least somewhat related to the topic, but that's not a hard and fast rule. If there's a performance, tell me why it matters. I'd like some kind of weighing/framing mechanism. Not really preferential in either way for the T/K aff debate, but do lots of weighing and line by line.

LARP:

Go for whatever. Not the biggest fan of process/consult CPs, but if they're well explained/warranted and there's clear competition, I'll pull the trigger on them. I think advantage CPs are underutilized and really cool. DAs don't have to end with extinction and I think smaller impacts with better interaction than just "outweighs on magnitude" are much more persuasive. Make sure none of your ev is miscut.

Ks:

Go for anything. I'm generally familiar with most k lit, and other unfamiliar stuff I generally grasp pretty easily. However, if you run some obscure pomo with lots of jargon and isn't really common in the current LD meta (i.e. DnG), I'd like a little more explanation. I'm fine with identity or other non-pomo Ks, but I'd like to see more specific links than "state bad".

Theory/T:

I've debated a lot of theory, and I'm fine with it as a strategic choice. I'll prob think it's funny if you go all in on something like font size or formal clothes theory in the 2N. Have a good abuse story and strong weighing on the standards debate. If you're extemping the shell, please put the interp in the doc, and if you're running T, try to have some sort of definition, otherwise T specific weighing arguments will prob hold a lot less legitimacy. Other than that, no major preferences. Running trolly/friv theory isn't an excuse to have no warrants.

Phil:

Not super familiar with more obscure stuff, so I'll need some explanation, but I am familiar with Kant, Rawls, Levinas and Nietzsche. I'd prefer some actual fw over blippy analytic stuff loaded with tricks, but I'll vote for either, your speaks just won't be great if you go some tricky stupid route. Other than that, flesh out some strong offense and have a good syllogism and I'll be fine.

Misc:

Really just don't be blatantly offensive. No preference toward sitting/standing, swearing in round for emphasis, etc. You'll get higher speaks if you're funny, lower speaks if you're blatantly rude. There's a distinction between the two. Honestly, just have fun and enjoy yourselves. (Also if you and your opponent agree to a joke round, you're both getting AT LEAST 29 speaks)

Put me on the email chain: joeytarnowski@gmail.com

Ari Tenenbaum Paradigm

Please do not make your argument a 6 minute run-on sentence.

Please speak clearly and assume that I am hearing your arguments for the first time. You cannot earn points if I cannot understand, hear or keep up with what you are saying.

Please focus on the quality of your arguments, not the quantity.

Feel free to use your prep time whenever you want

Manna Trevino Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Maleah Tuttle Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Prema Vasudevan Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Celine Wei Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Julia Wise Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lydia Yuan Paradigm

I am a parent volunteer with a child who does LD debate. I don’t understand any technical aspects of debate, and will judge the debate based on who persuades me of their side more. With speed, I am comfortable with slower speaking and I would be a 2-3 with speed on a scale from 1-10, I being the slowest. If I cannot understand what you are saying I will not account for it in my decision. In LD I understand the importance of value and criterion so please make sure you have both and that your arguments center around them.

Farhan Zaidi Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Maggie Zollo Paradigm

8 rounds

I currently coach LD, PF, and CX at A&M Consolidated, and did LD at Northland Christian in high school. If you're here for PF, skip to the third paragraph.

As a debater, I read a lot of plans, DAs, and CPs and so I like listening to them, but I'm cool with other off case positions, too. When it comes to Ks, I would really appreciate it if the position was clearly explained (especially in terms of ROB/ROJ and the layer of the debate it functions on) and cleanly extended throughout the round, since I may not be as familiar with some of the literature (especially if you're reading pomo type stuff). I won't vote on any argument that tries to justify unjustifiable things (the Holocaust, slavery, other forms of oppression). If you need clarification on what that means, feel free to ask. If you're reading a process CP I'll be more receptive to perms/theory against it.

I would prefer that you don't read frivolous theory in front of me, it bums me out. I know my definition of that is different than others, so feel free to ask for clarification before the round. I'm open to listening to T, but I'd honestly prefer to not have it become the only layer in the round/the only thing I have to vote off of. Same with RVIs. Also, I find myself voting for K's a lot more often in TvsK debates, so my threshold for "non-topical" affs is probably more forgiving than some. I default to reasonability if it's a situation of potential or frivolous theory but will go with competing interps if you justify it, which isn't hard to do, so please take the extra 15 or so seconds to do so if that's what you want to go with. Also, extend voters and drop the debater arguments please. Condo is fine when limited to one (or two in CX) positions, but feel free to take the time to explain otherwise in either direction. I think conditional K's can be kind of bad perceptually depending on what the pre-fiat impact is if there is one, or if there's a performative/different method-based aspect to it.

You'll get high speaker points if you speak clearly, extend arguments, and weigh, and you'll get low speaker points if you're rude and/or offensive to anyone in the room (I listen to CX, too, so be civil during that), especially if you're debating someone clearly out of their depth and you're obviously winning but you decide to go about it obnoxiously, or if you speak particularly unclearly. In more competitive rounds aka at bid tournaments, speaks will be more likely to be based off of strategy. If you go all in on T or theory when you don't need to, for example, there's a chance I'll dock speaks. You can read as fast as you want, please just be clear. I'll ask you to be clearer a few times, but eventually I'll just have to try my best with guessing if you don't listen, and that isn't good for anyone. Also, for PF, the 2nd speaking team should cover part of the case in the rebuttal speech, terminal defense is fine to extend, and line by line is alright up until the summary, arguably the final focus. Don't go for everything, have solid issue selection since y'all don't get the best time constraints.

Feel free to ask for clarification on any of these points before the round, or ask any more questions that you think could apply to the debate. Thanks for reading this!

My email is zollomargarita@gmail.com, I would love to be added to the email chain.

hanna griffin Paradigm

8 rounds

I'm a recent high school graduate with three years of speech and debate experience, specifically in LD. In terms of how to win my ballot, I will vote on pretty much any argument so long as it is well-developed and warranted throughout the round. My biggest pet peeve is when debaters don't impact their arguments out to a framework and explain why one side is net superior to the other. Please don't act condescendingly toward your opponent; however, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate some spiciness. I'm fine with any speed but be sure that your opponent can understand you in order to have a productive round. Debate isn't just about winning the argument, it's about telling the best story.

If you make a 1D reference during a speech, you get better speaks.

jay warnock Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted