Tabroom.com

NSDA Middle School Nationals

2019 — Dallas, TX/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

*Griffin *Darden Mountain Brook Junior High

Karen Abrams Hire 8 rounds

Omayma Al-Awar Alice Deal

Last changed on Sat March 5, 2022 at 8:38 AM EDT

I have judged a number of events including PF, LD, CX, and Speech. I consider myself a more Traditional Judge who values the educational experience of this activity and would rather judge actual clash in a round than having to weigh for you.

LD:

As mentioned above, I am a traditional judge and I need to see clash in a round.

I do not tolerate disrespect and if you can't respect me or your opponents, you are almost certainly guaranteed to lose the round.

Values Debate:

You can run whatever you want in your framework, but I need to see the logic behind what you're running. Even if the VP is as simple as Morality, tell me why you win.

If there is no VP clash, and the VPs are the same, rather than just set the VP as the set premise for the round, tell me why your opponents view of Morality/Justice/etc. is flawed and why you uphold it better. Go ahead with defining it but I would rather see why it is important.

Value Criterion debate is probably the most important section on the flow for me. If the criterions are the same what I mentioned before still applies. Make sure you extend the debate across the flow or else I have no choice to vote for your opponent. Additionally as you establish your framing as the established values for the round, make sure you carry it through with you across the speech.

Argument Debate:

Same thing as the values, I need to see the logic behind your arguments. I couldn't care less how you structure your contentions, make it easy for me to flow. Subpoints are definitely ideal when writing a case, and emphasize your taglines. I value Truth > Tech, I recognize the abstraction in LD so I'll believe what you say as long as the logic you provide justifies your warrant.

Sign posting is extremely important and make sure you number your responses when you begin to break down the case. Impact your arguments out!

Impact Debate:

All your arguments should have an impact to them or else there was no point for me to listen to what you just said, therefore when you go to your final speech you can give proper impact-calc that makes it easy for me as a judge to weigh.

In the era of progressive debate I tend to see impacts either be existential (we're all gonna die) or just we couldn't care less about this problem x, y, and z are happening and therefore who cares about nuclear arsenals and standardized tests.

Impacts for me need to be logical and weighable, and don't make me scratch my head for 15 minutes wondering how I'm supposed to consider this.

Adrienne Arinah McNicol Middle School None

Amit Arora Alice Deal 8 rounds None

Maya Arora Hire 8 rounds

P B Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu July 9, 2020 at 6:33 AM EDT

My name is Perry and I debated LD for AHS in Florida where I semi'd at the Esports TOC and won a few tournaments.

In general I try to be 100% tech over truth. I really hate intervention/dogmatism as a debater, and I will vote for any warranted argument no matter how ridiculous it is. I dont really care what you do as long as you do it well.

General Things

I will evaluate the round on the flow, if you say something like "fuck the flow", I will just ignore it and move on. This doesn't apply to tricks which win on the flow why I cant evaluate it/trigger presumption [IE semio-cap has contaminated language so you can only vote aff].

I am much much more receptive to semantics/truth testing/jurisdiction args than most people on the circuit

You need to extend arguments. Idk why this just like stopped being a thing. If you dont extend conceded arguments they dont exist. That being said, these extensions can be very brief for a conceded flow. IE: Indian and Pakistan go to Nuke war now which causes extinction, and the plan stops that through disarmament. TO CLARIFY THIS MEANS YOU NEED TO EXTENDED CONCEDED PARADIGM ISSUES!!!

CX is not a speech and you cannot extend arguments from it.

I wont vote on blatantly new arguments, and will hold the line even if the other debater doesnt point it out.

I wont vote on arguments that A] Say you should win the round only because of your identity category IE Auto Vote for me because im [X] group or B] Arguments that constitute personal attacks on your opponents conduct out of round.

A lot of arguments people read now just are claims without warrants, I consider "no warrant" a sufficient response if you explain why their argument is unwarranted [You can't just assert no warrant without a warrant]

I will have no idea what it means to "gut check" or "reject this arg because you as a judge intuitively know its false". Like do I, im confused.

Tricks

This is probably the type of debate I am the best at and read the most as a debater, but I really am starting to be annoyed by the state of tricks in 2020.

Good Tricks== Skep, Skep Triggers, Contingent Standards, Burdens, Clever and straight up Aprioris, Metaethics NIBS like Monism, ECT.

Bad Tricks== Really terrible theory spikes like "evaluate the debate after the 1nc", "no neg analytics", shit like the resolved apriori.

Please do weighing between aprioris/NIBS, absent this the round is hard to resolve

This being said I will still vote on bad tricks if they are technically won on the flow and it wont effect your speaks that much, I will just die a bit inside and have a lower threshold for responses.

Phil

This is my favorite type of debate, and the arguments I find the most interesting.

I think normativity is very important, you should be able to explain why your impacts are bad and we have an binding ethical obligation to refrain from allowing them to happen. I am very persuaded by the arg that absent a normative framework [Or explaining why normativity is bad] arguments have no impact.

Independent Framework Hijacks are very underutilized and strategic.

Frameworks should have an normative syllogism. I really dislike the current trend of reading 10 preclusionary util warrants without justifying the fundamental principle of the framework, and I will be receptive to arguments pointing out why this is illogical.

I will not vote on epistemic modesty absent people actually explaining to me how to "compare the probability of the framework times the magnitude of the impact under a framework". Like what does this mean, I have no idea how to evaluate the round under it. Also "maximizing expected moral value" is not a warrant.

Theory/T

I am fine with frivolous theory and enjoy good theory debates. I read a lot of shells which win off risk of offense on competing interps.

That being said the current trend of reading memey altruistic shells like shoes theory, must be from X state, must have school ID, ECT, is entirely unfunny and needs to die. This means: 1] If you actually go for something like this in the 2nr/2ar I will cap your speaks at a 28.5 2] Pretty much all the other debater needs to do to respond is just be like "me doing something marginally unhealthy for myself isnt a logical reason I should lose the round" and "your norm justifies an infinite race to the bottom for links of omission" and I will disregard it. Also idk why you would read shoes theory when you could just read a much better shell or something.

In general you should engage on the standards level and create unique offense against the shell. I am not a fan of the new norm of people just spamming a ton of paradigm issues.

True theory shells need to return with a vengeance. Seriously, if the aff reads like eval after the 1ac, or all neg interps are counter interps and No RVI, their is no reason why you should reading ASPEC when you have a violation that is literally impossible to respond too.

Reasonability is probably true and very underutilized. People should also go for drop the argument more.

I will vote on RVIs. Its probably easier to win an RVI on theory than T.

I will vote for or against Nebel T, but I tend to think that it is more true than false. I think the aff should go hard for pragmatics given that Nebel is just objectively right semantically.

If their are multiple shells in the debate, please do weighing between them.

LARP

I dont have most experience with this, but these arguments are pretty intuitive and can be fun when done well. I also wish I got to judged more of these debates because I enjoy them

Impact weighing is a must-- other wise the round is messy as fuck.

I think their can be close to 0 risk of an impact. This being said I tend to think high magnitude impacts are very strategic.

"The aff is a good idea" is not an argument.

Im probably one of the few judges on the circuit who leans aff on no neg fiat.

I think PICS that are structurally competitive with the aff are fine, but it will be very hard to persuade me that Agent/Delay/Process CPs are reasons to negate.

I also lean aff against advantage counterplans.

I love plan flaw.

I also like impact turns, including really stupid ones like wipeout.

Disads should have uniqueness. If you just read a link and impact in the 1nc, and then the 1ar makes a real uniqueness press, I will be extremely unpersuaded that you have the ability to read a bunch of new cards in the 2nr.

Case Outweighs is a great arg

Inherency/Uniqueness debates are cool

I think this is mentioned somewhere else in my paradigm but I find the planorama idea really funny and if you do it you will get good speaks.

RESPOND TO THE CASE. I really dislike larp 1ns that are just 8 off and then a dump of cards without making a single line by line argument in the speech. If you do this your speaks will be :(

Also a lot evidence sucks so clever analytics>>>>>terrible cards that are just empirical claims without empirical warrants highlighted to death.

Kritiks

I am probably a much better judge for this than you think since I became much more critical near the end of my career and 8 out of the last 13 2nrs I gave (TOC & Harvard) collapsed to the K.

I know a decent amount about PoMo K's (I have read primary source for Psycho, Baudy, Bataille, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Vattimo, ECT), but I dont really know anything about IDPOL args besides the ones that are super common on the circuit (Afropess, Queerpess, CripPess, Warren, Setcol).

Im fine with voting on K tricks like Floating PIKS, Root Cause, VTL, ECT but you should hint at them in the first speech.

I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY HATE BLIPPY INDEPENDENT VOTERS. I cannot emphasize this enough, if your strategy relies on labeling every marginally offensive 1 line argument as an reps voter against your opponent, you will not be happy with my rfd. I also find that most independent voters are not complete arguments given that they are almost never linked to a framing mechanism. I actually really like reps K's, but I think at a minimum they should 1] Have real evidence or a well fleshed out analytical warrant that isnt just a claim 2] Justify why they have a normative impact under a framework in the round, or arguments why intuitions are important and 3] Have an internal link why the action causes debate to become inaccessible, and why accessibility is a voting issue. Absent meeting this checklist, I think they are like reading theory shells without paradigm issues, and I feel comfortable disregarding them.

The alt should be competitive with the aff. If your K is just a random descriptive claim about the world and a solution without a reason the aff is bad, I will be extremely, receptive to the perm.

I dont think the term "role of the ballot" magically means you automatically win 100% preclusionary impact weighing, people need to win framing as a broader structural quesiton.

How to get high speaks:

[1] Read a Good Skep warrant/trigger that I havent seen before.

[2] Trigger and win on a contingent standard

[3] Do the planorama thing

[4] Go NC/AC

[5] Have the 1NC order be case

[6] Read either Heidegger, Nietzsche, Levinas, or Merlau-Ponty well.

[7] Read a K aff that proves the res true.

[8] Read a K that substantively negates as a NC. IE Blackness is ontological so we have no obligations because ethics is impossible.

[9] Read policy args proving the whole res true or false and just win util.

[10] Be funny

[11] Most obscure phil tbh

Davis Adam Beck Hire 8 rounds None

Davis Beck Mountain Brook Junior High None

Jada Bourne Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 14, 2022 at 3:57 AM CDT

Howard University 23'

Put me on the email chain: jada.debate@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Jada (she/her)! I did LD and competed regularly on the Texas/nat circuit my senior year. I qualified to TFA State twice and broke at some bid tournaments. I've taught at NSD, TDC, and FlexDebate. I also compete in Parli on the collegiate level.

Conflicts:

1. All FlexDebate Participants

2. Valley AM

3. Keller HS

________________

General Stuff:

**Note for Harvard 2022: Full disclosure - I have not judged in a bit and have yet to judge this topic. That being said, paying close attention to my paradigm, sending me docs, and avoiding topic-specific jargon at least for day 1 will be in your favor!

NOTE FOR ONLINE TOURNAMENTS!!!! : You HAVE to reduce your speed SUBSTANTIALLY! I'm talking by almost half. Send analytics - it helps me out TREMENDOUSLY. I don't want to miss arguments bc the audio cuts out or blends your words together, so please just slow down lol. Locally record your rounds, please!

1. Reading radical arguments that you do not have the agency to read is a really good way to get a L 26 from me.

2. Be nice, don’t run morally offensive args (racism good, sexism good, etc.), respect trigger warnings and pronouns! I naturally will probably default to using general they/them pronouns to refer to you.

3. If you feel unsafe in the round in any way, pls communicate that to me in some way (email me during the round, knock on the table twice, come up to me, whatever it takes) and we will handle it.

4. Don't be rude to novices/inexperienced debaters if you CLEARLY have more experience than them. I will give a low point win and in extreme cases drop you.

_______________

Pref Shortcut

K- 1

Policy/LARP- 2

T- 1-2

Theory- 3-4

Phil- 4 (really low 4 lol)

Tricks/Friv Theory- Strike me pls

_______________

Tricks and Spikes/Friv Theory:

Please don't.

Phil:

Uncomfortable with Phil for the most part if it's in any form except traditional LD. I can follow along and figure it out, but you have to take it slow and over-explain things.

Kritiks:

*I love Kritiks. I'm most comfortable with Identity-based positions but can understand anything with enough explanation. (err on the side of over-explanation for PoMo!!!)

Performance Affs/Non-T Affs:

I love these. I don't care if your aff is topical so long as I know what happened, why it happened, and why it's good/how it can solve for whatever harms you've presented.

K Affs in general:

I love these too. Most comfortable with identity-based K affs, but I'm cool with anything given the right amount of explanation.

Plans/DA's/CP's:

Sure. 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, especially creative T-shells. If your strat is just to read like 3+ generic T shells I will be unimpressed lol. Keep the flow clean and slow down.

Theory:

I definitely can understand a theory debate if it happens, but complex, East Coast theory is not what you want to go for in front of me. I prefer theory when there is legitimate abuse. If this flow gets even remotely messy I'll be sad.

Disclosure Theory:

I think disclosure is generally a good norm, but I do not personally care if you disclose or not. If you default to reading a disclosure shell without asking your opponent to disclose differently first, I'm probably not gonna vote you up on disclosure.

_______________

Speaks

Speaks are subjective and I will disclose them if asked. I'll start at a 28 and move from there. Some rules I try to stick to:

1. Say/do anything mean or problematic >:( : lowest speaks possible

2. The speeches were good but had avoidable messy spots or missed obvious strategic routes: 28ish

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

_______________

Other misc. things

1. I can't vote on something I don't understand by the end of the round.

2. I always take the path of least resistance, i.e. the first place on the flow I do not have to do any work for you.

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

4. I will not vote on extensions/arguments without a warrant.

5. Unless you're entertaining or I'm confused, I'm probably only half listening to cx.

Jacob Christianson Hire None

Leif Clark Hire 8 rounds None

Marielle Cornes Hire 8 rounds

Michael Dandridge Coral Academy Of Science

Dyuti Dawn Hire 8 rounds None

Raj Dharani Carroll Middle School None

Kyle Doviken West Ridge Middle School None

Maggie Doyle Hire None

Cyprian Dumas Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 17, 2023 at 5:46 PM CDT

Barkley Forum Update (not debate related): I'm a student at Emory right now (chemistry and premed). If you have any questions about Emory in general I'd be happy to answer them for you! Feel free to ask me stuff before or after the round (but please not during lmao).

Other Barkley Forum Update (this one's actually debate related):I haven't judged an LD round in almost a year now (I judged some policy over the summer) and I don't coach anyone so it's been a minute. Please slow down a little bit to probably 80% of your max speed instead of full circuit spreading because I don't want to miss anything y'all are saying. Also I am not as well versed in a lot of the acronyms anymore in circuit debate (particularly tricks) so please take the time to say the full names of things. I will still be able to evaluate the rounds properly just as well as I have been but my vocabulary isn't the same anymore so please explain all the terms you need to (you know what they are).

Here's my full paradigm so plz read

My email is cyprian.dumas@gmail.com. If you ask me for my email I'm gonna assume you didn't read my paradigm.

I did national circuit LD in high school and I primarily ran policy stuff, theory, t, and tricks (I'm prob best for judging these arguments). You can prob put me as a 1 for these on your pref sheets.

I'm down with judging phil and k debate too but I'm not familiar with a lot of the lit (especially pomo k's) so if you're running that please overexplain. You can prob put me as a 2 or 3 for these based on how confusing your lit is but you should probably put me as a 5 if you're running exclusively pomo.

This should go without saying but don't be offensive. You should also try to avoid being a jerk in general because this is supposed to be an enjoyable activity.

Tricks debate is cool but there's some things I'll interfere on there. First, you don't get to change speech times and I evaluate all five speeches. Don't bring in stuff from outside of the round (except disclosure stuff I guess but I'll get to that more in a second). That'll be met with an L and minimum speaks. Everything in this paragraph is non-negotiable.

I'll vote on disclosure theory but I really don't like it at all especially if it's run against someone with substantially less resources than the person running it. Don't expect your speaks to look good if you go for disclosure theory against a stock position.

A claim, warrant, and impact for EVERY argument you want me to evaluate at the end of the round each have to be extended in EVERY speech as well.

Debate should be a safe space for everyone involved. If you're reading something that could be potentially triggering or sensitive for someone please ask everyone involved in the round if they are ok with the material being read.

I'm not a fan of really long paradigms (this one's already pushing it) so I'm not gonna write out every single nitpicky thing for all your RVI warrants and framework weighing and all that other stuff. So PLEASE ask me for specifics in round. I'm looking forward to judging your debate. Good luck and have fun!

Andrew Erickson Hire 8 rounds None

Sam Foster The Village Middle School

Last changed on Sat February 8, 2020 at 12:25 PM CDT

Experience

I'm a 6 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 highest 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, so don't expect me to vote on the potential of absue. Now if you can prove that the potential turned into real abuse, then I'm all ears. 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.

Also: Miss me with stupid theory arguments like "you misspelled the resolution" or "you misread the resolution", these arguments are bad and have no place in a round.

AC Theory Spikes: I don't have an issue with these but you MUST be prepared to explain them later in the round if your opponent steps on them. Saying "You can't run theory because I said 'CX Checks Theory'" is worthless to me. Explaining how we could have avoided the theory argument by asking questions during CX, on the other hand, is fantastic.

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 a priori 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 verbally abusive in anyway.

Impact Calculus: Whether it's theory, K, DA, C/P, or Stock, it doesn't matter - please give me some impact calculus to use otherwise we'll rely on my own calculus skills and that won't be pretty

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

Tricks: Go for it, but be prepared to go all in

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 but I do not flow it

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

LD Specific Paradigms

LARP: Go for it

Counterplans: I'm totally game for them

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. You also need to make sure your comparatively weigh it versus your opponent's because frameworks are nebulous in nature so they need evaluation and explanation to prove why they're the preferred value in the round.

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

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 Vernon Middle School

Tina Goodwin Saipan International School None

hanna griffin Hire 8 rounds

Ishika Gupta Hire 8 rounds None

Tucker Hall Hire 8 rounds

Ben Harris Hire 8 rounds

Robert Thomas Hershey Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 18, 2020 at 5:15 PM EDT

Howdy to any competitor/coach reading this,

Main Paradigm

I was LD competitor for four years at Pembroke Pines charter high school in FL. I competed in both the local and national circuits during my time as a competitor. I have read and competed against most things that have found their way into the scene including but not limited to: Traditional, LARP, Ks, theory,T ,performative, etc. ( you can email me about anything not listed here, but I'm probably familiar, just forgot about while writing this paradigm)

I am slightly familiar with the topic, but as someone who doesn't coach or compete, I have yet to read any topic lit, so please don't assume I know anything that your average US high school grad wouldn't know. In regards to theory I am familiar with a lot of the common stuff but its been awhile so a refresher never hurts. Also of critical importance in regards to reading theory, I need you to explain what the theory is actually saying, please don't require me to make assumptions, cause you know what they say.

In regards to speaks I would say I am pretty generous, but things that will cause me to decrease speaks includes: unclear spreading if it continues after 2 "clears", poor speech organization, poor time management, being rude. Things that will not cause me to decrease speaks: speech impediments, sneezing/coughing/clearing your throat, background noise, or pretty much anything outside your control, spreading and while this may seem obvious, I have seen speaks docked for this so I figured I would mention it. I will only tank speaks if you are clearly intend to offended or demean either your competitor or any specific group of people, ie: racism, homophobia, sexism, xenophobia, purposeful triggering, failure to read trigger warnings in regards to content that may be triggering (when in doubt, ask before the round, and please accommodate. I don't have triggers so please clear this with your opponent before the round)

Misc info that may be useful

truth>tech

I default neg world to status quo if neg does not provide any alternative

Abuse has no bright line, but I am not afraid to gut check

Without any in round scaling, voters in order of importance default to: fairness, accessibility, education, anything else

I hate frivolous theory

I will vote on spikes, but you need to extend them ( don't be afraid to read T on spikes bad)

Ks are cool but as a white man I cannot in good faith vote on a oppression Olympics. I understand that you may closely relate to the Ks you read but in the event of a KvK debate it cannot simply boil down to my oppression is worse than theirs.

My pol compass placement is -4,-4 (lib, left)

Please just be nice to your opponent and people in general, it costs absolutely nothing and makes literally everything better

Please use a email chain rather than whatever internal system the tournament is running on, due to the fact that those are coded as well as the 3080 drop

If there is anything you want to know or want me to know about you feel free to email before or after the round, I tend to be accommodating

If you manage to throw a HxH reference anywhere in the round, it wont affect anything in round, but I'll think you're pretty cool and will send you a HxH meme via email if you so choose

TL;DR

Read anything, don't make me make assumptions, and be nice

Email is rhershey0411@gmail.com to email me for any questions

Alex Holmes Hire None

Gautam Iyer Carroll Middle School 8 rounds

Meleesa Jack Mountain Brook Junior High

Kenneth Khalil Jackson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 3:40 AM CDT

Hello, I’m Khalil Jackson! In high school, I mainly competed in Congressional Debate but have some experience in all debate events. This paradigm applies to all debates.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Keep me in the loop on file sharing (kjspeechanddebate@gmail.com), and make your subject lines specific. I will only flow what I comprehend in round, but I will go through the files if I was thrown off track or need to double-check something.

I am not not too good with speed, especially being so far removed from debate. So, try to maintain a relatively normal speaking pace, if possible. If you want to speed up, we can try it out. I will be forgiving when it comes to clarity and will notify you of it as often as it takes. When signposting, let me know which arguments are especially important and weigh it when you get there. Fewer, more-developed arguments are preferred.

I am more than willing to listen to any arguments or approaches to your side of the resolution. However, assume that I am not familiar with the literature or your arguments. You need to be intentional about what you say and how you tie it together. So, I will not piece together what went unsaid, and I will not vote for you if your arguments are unclear.

I am generally substance over procedure, truth over tech, but that is not a hard and fast rule. I am willing to vote for anything that is well-explained.

I have a habit of giving non-verbal cues, but do not mistake them as an indication that I agree with you. They only indicate that I understand the point you are trying to make, not necessarily that I buy what you are saying.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here are some of the ways you can lose the round immediately:

- Being deceitful by clipping cards, falsifying evidence or any number of shady things

- Being rude or disrespectful to me or anyone else

- Being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. in any way shape or form

I try not to intervene but will do so if I am invited to, like being asked to read evidence or if I feel that bad behavior is taking place.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or concerns before round!

Sana Jaffery Hire 8 rounds

Wendy Jin Sartartia Middle School

Iman Mukhtar Kadri Hire 8 rounds None

Nisala Avishka Kalupahana Hire 8 rounds

Mohanraj Kanniappan Randolph Middle 8 rounds

Hannah Kim Hire 8 rounds None

Ted Kim South Pointe Middle School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 8:02 AM PDT

Background

I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.

General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)

Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:

Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
Defense is not sticky in PF. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.

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

General Debate Philosophy

I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.

Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of the world beyond debate will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Regarding speaker points:

I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 20 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum 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 harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."

Do not yell at your opponent(s) 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/Organization:

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. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.

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. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.

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 debate.

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/defense didn't happen. It will not go your way.
Regarding links/internal links: I need things to just make sense. Make sure things are decently connected. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What is happening?” then you have lost me. 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.

Regarding Progressive: I'm not an expert on this. I am a content debate traditionalist who has through necessity picked up some things over time when it comes to progressive tech.

A) On Ks: As long as it's well structured and it's clear to me why I need to prioritize it over case, then I'm good. If not, then I'll judge on case.

B) On CPs: Don't run them in PF. Try not to run them in LD.

C) On theory: I have no idea how to judge this. Don't bother running it on me; I will simply ignore it.

Regarding RFD in 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 and weighing. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.

Regarding RFD in 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 progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value 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.

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 Mountain Brook Junior High

Lyle Kleinnman Merryhill School 8 rounds

Ji Il Kwon Leaders Academy

Zoe Rose Lamborn Hire 8 rounds None

Cindy Leong-Wu Robert Lanier Middle School

Shuang Liu Quail Valley Middle None

Zhuojing Lu Hire 8 rounds

Camille Luong Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 27, 2020 at 7:59 AM EDT

I am an incoming freshman at Stanford University, currently on a gap year. I debated LD for all four years of high school, mostly focusing on traditional debate.

Here is my LinkedIn if you want to stalk me: https://www.linkedin.com/in/camille-luong-34ab741a5/

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, and 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'm almost a year removed from debate, so I can flow really fast speaking but probably not spreading anymore, especially not topspeed.

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 Hire 8 rounds

Abigail Maloney Hire 8 rounds None

Hunter D McFarland The Harker MS 8 rounds

Stacy Mei Fort Settlement Middle School None

Noah Mengisteab Hire

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 1:15 PM EDT

Background:I am a second-year law student at NYU and work with Delbarton (NJ). He/Him/His pronouns.

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain. Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into the email and send it in the email chain. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut card = your evidence won't be evaluated in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

Offense>Defense. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense. But please still extend good defense.
Speed. I will try my best to handle your pace, but also know if you aren't clear, it will be harder for me to flow.
Speech specifics: Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary (weighing is a bit more flexible if no one is weighing). Backhalf extensions, frontlining, and "backlining" matter.
Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.
I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) if you argue anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., evidence issues).
I will always allow accommodations for debaters. Just ask before the round.

"Progressive" PF:

Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e. Fem/Fem IR, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). But please don't overcomplicate the backhalf.
Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to do. If you're in the varsity/open division, please don't complain that you can't handle varsity-level arguments. *** Evidence of abuse is needed for theory (especially disclosure-related shells). I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, open source is not usually necessary (unless your wiki upload is just a block of text), and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow.
Trigger warnings with opt-outs are necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but are not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression (general content warning before constructive would still be good). Still, use your best judgment here.
***Note -- if you read an excessive number of off positions that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a high threshold for your arguments. So it probably won't work to your advantage to read them in front of me. Regardless of beliefs on prog PF, these types of debate are, without a doubt, awful and annoying to judge. I'll still evaluate it, but run at your own risk.

Misc: Please pre flow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are super important to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; I'm okay if you speak fast (my ability to handle it is diminishing now though lol), but please give me a doc; speaker points usually range from 28-30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

Matt Reilly Moorhead Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 9, 2024 at 3:54 PM CDT

he/him, appleton east ‘19, wisconsin ‘23

matthewrmoorhead@gmail.com

wsdt update -

i am excited to judge your debates, please just do the following:

a. read my paradigm and please ask me questions if you have any - i would much rather be transparent than leave you with concerns over your strategy

b. share the evidence you will be reading to your opponent and myself before your speech starts - evidence quality matters and your opponents have a right to analyze the evidence you read

c. do impact calculus - rounds without good argument interaction require me to intervene which is always bad, the more work you do to write my decision for me = the better your decision will be

d. be nice, enjoy yourself, treat everyone with respect, and focus on improving every round instead - ballots aren't everything and you should take every round as a new opportunity to learn something new, take notes afterwards and ask questions about my decision if anything is unclear

paradigm proper -

1. tl;dr - not formally involved in debate anymore but judging is a privilege and i am plenty qualified to judge your round, i care about good debating and really nothing else, don't worry too much about tailoring towards my ideology from when i was a debater/coach

2. background - did ld and dabbled in policy at appleton east in wisconsin, i broke at the toc in 2019, led 3 summer labs, and have coached state champions and toc qualifiers - my main experience is with policy-style debate and kritiks, but i have extensive experience coaching, debating, and judging every style of debate at national and local levels

3. hard and fast rules - strike me if you don't disclose/flash your evidence or i will rigorously tank speaks, an arguments' risk starts at 0% and goes up based on the quality of it's warrant, evidence quality matters so i will read cards you reference in the 2nr/2ar, yes judge kicks but tell me to, won't vote for stuff i can't explain back to you which means winning arguments require a ballot implication, arguments that demonstrate your work put into debate are always better than cheap shots you grabbed from backfiles or had your coach explain to you pre-round

4. for high speaks - my avg range is 28.2-29.4, biggest boosts for ending the debate early/speeding things up and being casual/personable - have fun, make jokes, be technical, and write my rfd

Meghan Munoz Hire 8 rounds None

Kayla Ortiz Indian Hills Junior High 8 rounds None

Aryan Parikh Hire 8 rounds None

Susan Pein Ramblewood Middle School None

Mark Perkins Hire

Kelsey Pierce Hire 8 rounds None

Naveen Pinjani Carroll Middle School

Trevor Provost Hire 8 rounds

Mihir Rai Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 19, 2023 at 12:30 PM CDT

Speechdrop or email works – send docs to mraigreenhill@gmail.com

Debated at Greenhill in LD from 2016-2019 frequently on the national circuit. Have judged here and there since graduating. I love judging debates and will do my best to accurately judge every round.

1. An ideal debate for me determines whether an instance of the resolution is preferable to either the status quo or any alternative. This understanding of debate is similar to how I debated in high school which mainly revolved around policy arguments and some structural kritiks. Since graduating, I have gotten better at judging other types of debates but will always enjoy a policy/K debate. At the end of the day, I feel comfortable judging most debates but probably would prefer not to hear a blippy fw/tricks debate.

2. I will give the negative a fairly large amount of credence in how they choose to attack the aff and am a sucker for unique counterplans. The more tailored a negative strategy is to an aff, the more I will enjoy judging the round. This doesn’t mean generics are bad but doing the work in CX/1NC to engage with the aff will significantly increase your chances of winning.

3. Debates where you outspread your opponent to win off some frivolous theory shell or blippy argument that was undercovered are extremely boring to me. Anything more than 5 off seems to cause debaters to forgot the debating part of the activity. If you’re going to read blippy theory shells or any argument that lacks a clear claim, warrant, and impact; know that the threshold for responses will be very low.

4. Large overviews at the top of speeches that act as replacements to explaining how your arguments interact with your opponents are frankly boring, and indicate to me that you likely don’t know what you’re reading. Take the time to explain more obscure or high theory kritiks and don’t expect me to do the work for you. If I can’t explain it back to you at the end of the round, I will feel very comfortable voting against you.

5. When you’re spreading, slow down on analytics (especially blocks of analytics). I will say clear if I feel like you’re slurring your words. If there are disputes about wordings of advocacy texts, I’ll hold you to whatever is in the doc unless you explicitly slow down and flag it. And if you catch any errors in the plan text, feel free to throw out a bunch of perms or plan text flaws.

6. In general, I like to reward debaters who show me they know what they’re talking about and have thought through the overall round. Making smart 2nr decisions, utilizing CX effectively, and making witty comments will all help you out significantly in front of me (and likely any judge). Do what you believe makes you the best debater and don’t be afraid to do what you think is the right move to win a round. There have been too many times where I have heard a debater tell me they didn’t want to go for an argument because “Greenhill doesn’t like those arguments”. If you are unsure whether or not to go for an argument, ask yourself if there’s a clean claim, warrant, and impact story. Whether that be a spec shell, a weak DA, or a conceded case turn, you do you.

Deepa Rao The Bear Creek School 8 rounds None

Carly Rieger Indian Hills Junior High

Last changed on Sat November 7, 2020 at 10:09 AM CDT

email: cr30505@gmail.com - yes, add me to the email chain. please feel free to reach out by email/fb (I'm more likely to respond on fb) if you have questions.

I debated circuit LD at WDM Valley for four years and qualified to the TOC, receiving four bids, during my senior year. I have taught at NSD Flasgship (2018,2019), NSD Philadelphia (2018,2019), and TDC (2019) and I've been coaching LD since graduating in 2018.

tl;dr - it's your round, debate it how you want to.

I will evaluate the round on the flow, everything here explains my defaults but if you make arguments as to why the round should be adjudicated in a particular way I will evaluate debate through your lens. please make the round as clear as possible - weighing is your friend, give clear overviews, justify everything, and explain. tell me the implications of your arguments.

I have the most experience with framework debate, identity K debate, and theory debate.

defaults: (this only matters if no one makes arguments to the contrary)

epistemic confidence
competing interps, no rvis
theory > k > substance
pragmatics > semantics
truth testing > comparing worlds

misc:

I’ll say ‘slow’ or ‘clear’ if necessary.
I am fine with flex prep.
I love a good framework/identity k debate, it makes my heart happy (you will probably get good speaks).
I very much think you need an impact mechanism (a standard text, a ROB, etc.) -- otherwise, i will be left to evaluate impacts as I see fit which probably won't make you happy.
extensions need warrants and impacts, even if you are extending a conceded argument. If you are extending a case that is conceded, it isn't sufficient to say "extend my whole case."
if you are debating a novice or someone who lacks a lot of circuit experience, please make the round educational and inclusive. this does not necessarily mean go full-on traditional (although that's definitely fine), but it does mean don't go full speed and a bunch of offs (your speaks will go way down).
please be ready to debate when you walk into the room – this means pre-flowing during your opponent's prep if you need to and having the AC speech doc ready to send.

theory:

theory violations need to be verifiable. just provide screenshots please! if someone makes an i meet to an unverifiable shell with no verification (i.e. a disclosure shell without screenshots or a coin flip shell that's just word of mouth), i will default to the 'i meet' being true.
feel free to read theory for strategic reasons (i.e. friv theory) or because there’s actual abuse.
if you go for reasonability, please provide a brightline. if you don't provide a brightline, or provide a brightline of gut check, i will probably gut check to competing interps.

Elie Salem Hire 8 rounds None

Juliet Sampson Hire 8 rounds None

Abigail Schulte Hire 8 rounds None

Alivia Schultz Hire None

John Shaughnessy John F. Kennedy Catholic School

Andrew Shea Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 5:41 PM CDT

Important Stuff is Bolded

My name is Andrew Shea (he/him). You can call me Judge Shea, Andrew, Fire Lord O’Shea, whatever floats your boat.

I am pursuing a major in history and a minor in international relations at the University of Iowa. I am working towards a phd in transnational labor history and relations.

I have a cat named Haywood after Harry Haywood. He is amazing and cool. Ask and I am happy to show pictures.

My email for contact is: ajhamilton112601@gmail.com

I competed at John F Kennedy High School in CR IA. I was coached by Jesse Meyer who remains a large influence on me today.

I judge mainly LD and PF. I was mostly a K debater and did okay throughout my career. I generally understand most arguments. My paradigm breaks down into prefs/speech paradigm, in-round debate behavior, and in-depth LD/PF prefs. Please ask questions if you have any. I am always looking to improve.

LD Cheat Sheet

1 K

2 Phil

3 Trad* or Policy/LARP

4 Theory/Strike**

5 Tricks/Strike (don’t know enough to competently judge)

*I think trad is a good debate format and can be competitive/clash with circuit debate. I put it higher up to tell trad debaters they can pref me without concern.

**I won’t vote you down because you run theory. I just have a lower threshold for response to theory. For example I don’t think you need to run a counter interp or RVIs to respond but if you do, you should do it well.

Two things of note:

I am ok with spreading but ask your opponent beforehand preferably in front of me. If you did not ask (or ignore attempts to find accommodation) and your opponent runs theory/disability arg on why spreading is bad I am more liable (not guaranteed) to drop you. However I'll note I have no "bad" WPM. I think if you have an issue saying "clear" or "speed" is the responsibility of the debater. If you have a problem with their overall speed mention something to your opponent after the speech. TLDR If you both agree to spread great, if you have an issue with spreading: advocate for yourself and work with each other under the best of intentions. All that said I am also less liable to vote for a 2ar spreading theory shell if no objections were raised prior.
I am pro Flex Prep but you have to ask before round. I prefer this to avoid someone being denied the opportunity to use it in round. In elims I go with the majority judge view on flex prep.

PF Cheat Sheet

1 Trad PF

2 Critical Args

3Theory/Strike

I am basically fine with anything in PF but theory annoys me. I really prefer normal PF but I won’t mentally check out if you don’t.

See above LD prefs for spreading/flex prep

Speech Judging

I am by no means an experienced speech judge but I have coached the very basics and I did exempt and spontaneous in high school. I like to see confidence, good use of the space in a room, rehearsed body movements (don’t just keep your hands in one position unless that is your character's thing for something such as a HI), and just do your best.

Unless explicitly prohibited by tournament rules let me know if you want to give hand signals for time. I would be happy to do them.

Debater Behavior

Ask and Advocate: Debate should be a friendly and welcoming space. To that end, ask and advocate for yourself. If you have an issue or a question please ask. If you feel harmed in some way or see something that bothers you, advocate for yourself. I am happy to facilitate in any way I can to make debate a better space for all. In no way should gender, disability, or class make you feel unsafe in this space.

Assertive and Polite: It is ok to be determined and assertive in a debate round but never belittle your opponent or be snarky to them. Everyone here is a person first and foremost along with being a student. Debate is a pedagogical game and I find it vastly more useful to educate rather than to belittle someone for not understanding or for making a "bad argument" that said, you should absolutely seek to control a round and narrative. Raised and passionate voices are ok but avoid yelling or taking a dismissive, arrogant tone. Be very cognizant of that difference when debating women/non men debaters, sexism is all too prevalent and unacceptable in the debate space and such dynamics do influence my judging particularly in the way I give speaks.

On Spreading: I am not anti-spreading. While I don't think it is a good norm for debate I do understand that it is the default and if everyone is ok with it I will be too. I prefer that people ask before round because I have met several debaters who have had disabilities that prevented them from spreading. I would like debate to realize spreading should be moved away from but because I don't run a camp or have money I at least want to make the space more accessible to different debaters in lieu of some larger change.

Judge Behavior

As a judge I will: provide you with in-depth feedback and always explain to you why I interpreted something the way I did. I will not always be right and make mistakes but I will do my best to explain my reasoning.

Do everything I can to answer questions or redirect you towards resources who can do it better

Provide a safe environment for debaters as someone in the community who cares and who will listen.

LD Prefs in-depth

Since I mainly judge LD here is more in depth thoughts for those who care to read them:

K debate: I love K debate. My political beliefs lead me to love hearing Parenti, Gramsci, Lenin, Mao, Marx, Losurdo, Fanon, and many others along the communist and decolonial based lines. As such I will be happy when I hear cap bad, china isn’t the devil, palestine will be free, etc. That said I familiar with many other authors and I am generally friendly towards hearing any new arguments and I am happy to learn about anything new.

Phil: I know some but not alot. I would love to learn more and therefore feel free to run anything just explain it well.

Trad: I think it can and should endeavor to be more competitive with circuit debate.

Policy/Larp: I don’t necessarily have a problem with it, sometimes I just find it boring. Honestly I have grown to like it more because I actually do enjoy hearing about the resolution.

Theory: I won’t vote someone down because they run theory but I firmly believe that theory is often used in a way that makes debate poor and ruins the quality of argumentation. I think it harms accessibility and as a result my threshold for response is lower. While I feel like I have a decent grasp on theory debate there is a greater risk of me not fully comprehending your argument as I haven't attempted to immerse myself in the mechanics due to my dislike.

What I look for in a good LD round

Overview: Like a real overview which represents the interactions that happened in the round with a narrative. Challenge yourself to have it be more than a summary of what your case is.

Weighing: Like actual weighing. Extending your impact is great but you need to explain why your impact should be valued more compared to your opponents

1nr Card Drop: I see people spread as fast as possible through their speech and then just extend whatever their opponent did not respond too and think they won the round. I need some weight and explanation of the warrant from arguments to vote on them. When there isn't, my threshold for responding or weighing them is lower than the arguments you developed. Developing arguments is good and makes me value them more than your 17th apriori which has “big” implications in the round because your opponent conceded it.

Truth vs Tech: I'm more tech. Basically that's it.

Tabula Rasa: I'm not. I will not tolerate racist, sexist, ableist, classist behavior. I also have strongly held beliefs of what debate should be to get better. That said if I think such behavior has occured I am more likely to stop the round and refer the issue to tab. What I won't do is vote someone down because your K says they are literally the devil for not being topical. I am more receptive to the argument that the argument is some "-ism" not the person. We are learners here and should educate and build people up.

Judge Intervention: This is a very tricky topic for me. So because in the debate space we generally agree that a judgeshould intervene if some racism, sexism, issue occurs yet however we don't think this when it comes to things like reproducing imperialist talking points. We don't typically weigh the reproduction of these dominant idealogical norms as bad whereas only over racism and sexism is despite the fact that systems like imperialism harm far more people than an indvidual sexist or racist comment. So I think when people say "no judge intervention" that doesn't make alot of sense because we have decided as a community that we won't tolerate some things. So therefore I think a good take to approach this (not the best) is that judge intervention should be approached when the debaters says it is necessary as a top shelf/layer argument and then for the oppenent to argue why it shouldn't be perhaps by arguing their idea of what they want the judge to do is not good. This for example should take place in the debate over the role of the ballot. In terms of judge intervention regarding "why did you weigh x argument y way" generally if I think its close it may simply come down to persuviness, the narrative, or may best guess.

Teach me something: Honestly this goes for debaters, coaches, and other judges. I want to learn and improve and be a positive force in the debate space. I love learning about new theories and concepts. As such it may be helpful to take the time to explain the mechanics of an argument without the internal jargon to maximize education.

PF in-depth prefs

Trad pf vs Circuit pf: It's weird that there is now a difference between trad and circuit/prog PF debate and I am not exactly a fan that its come to this. That said I prefer normal PF rounds over critical arguments as I don't think the format lends itself to progressive.

Theory: See LD prefs for opinions on theory.

Evidence: My evidence standards are a bit higher in PF due to frequent bad paraphrasing. I will likely review cards which are deemed critical in round during prep time. If I find that the card itself is misconstrued I will be annoyed and have a lower threshold for response to the arguments that rely on the card. That said I think there is a difference in making an argument which misconstrues the card rather than the card itself being misconstrued. That's just debate.

That's all folks.

Cole Skinner Hire 8 rounds None

Anish Srivastava Hire 8 rounds

Ollie Stoneman Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 26, 2020 at 5:14 PM EDT

Research Triangle '20

University of Georgia '24

Add me to the email chain: oliviastoneman20@gmail.com

About me: I read mostly LARP positions, with a few kritiks like cap and security, and topicality. I did some traditional debate too. If that is your thing, I will gladly listen to it but I prefer circuit debate. I can handle speed, but please slow down if you are making short analytics because otherwise I will probably miss them. Something to know about me is that I'm not a good judge for long underviews and tricks with arguments I can easily miss. I'm not flowing off the doc, and I'm only going to look at it to read cards after the round. I feel most comfortable judging LARP, topicality, and legitimate theory debates (condo, PICs bad, etc.). I will evaluate any argument unless it is offensive or rude. Also just a reminder to weigh and make clear which layers in the debate come first when I evaluate the round.

Also, I know nothing about this topic.

Defaults for how I evaluate rounds:

1) comparative worlds

2) competing interps > reasonability

3) no rvis

4) tech > truth but techy truth is fantastic

Traditional debate: I spent a solid amount of time doing this in high school. If this is your thing, go ahead and do it, but I prefer circuit debate. I often find these debates hard to resolve so please make it clear. Also, if you want to save time, no need to read a value if you don't want to please just debate the value criterions.

LARP: Personally love it. Quality of ev is important if there is any competing arguments that say opposite things. Also, I like the politics disad but please read recent ev if you are going to otherwise I will be sad :(

Topicality: I love a good T debate. Just make sure to weigh. I default no RVIs on T, and it will probably be hard to convince me to vote on an RVI.

Theory: Happy to listen to legitimate theory debates. Just make sure to be clear during analytics. Also, I am willing to listen to RVI justifications, especially if you are debating friv theory.

Ks: Happy to judge these rounds, but I'm not super experienced with a lot of the lit, so err on the side of explaining more if it's not generic.

Tricks/friv theory: Strike me or pref me low I will probably be confused.

Speaker points: I'll start at a 28 and go up or down as I see fit.

Ariane Stroud Marvin Baker Middle School 8 rounds None

Joseph Tarnowski Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 13, 2024 at 7:44 AM CDT

Please be on time for check-in. Also if you're interested in college debate, I'd love to talk to you about Samford debate!!

If you have any questions about things not on my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round or email me.

Email: joeytarnowski@gmail.com

he/him

Background

Policy debate at Samford (class of 24), qualified to NDT 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

4 years of LD in high school

Judging

Don't say/run things that are egregiously offensive, i.e. racism/sexism/etc. good, death good, etc.

I would recommend starting off your speech at like 75-80% speed to give me a second to adjust before you build up to full speed. Clear differentiation between tags and the card body is also appreciated.

I do a lot of work on both the policy and critical side of debate in college. I generally am of the predisposition that the aff should defend some implementation of the resolution, the specifics of what that may mean is flexible, but choosing to mostly or entirely jettison the resolution is not the best strategy in front of me. I think Ks on the neg are most successful when forwarding a nuanced indict of some underlying assumptions/mechanisms of the aff, and that affs are typically most successful in reasons why the neg is not able to explain key portions of the aff and leveraging that against the K's explanation of the world.

I'm generally more neg leaning on CP theory debates and typically default heavily to reasonability and rejecting the argument, but I think especially egregious practices can make me swing more toward the middle on issues like condo (i.e. 2NC CPs out of straight turns or kicking planks on CPs with a ton of planks that do a ton of different things). Love a good impact turn debate, hate a stale impact turn debate. Otherwise I don't have any especially notable preferences when it comes to policy arguments, impact calc at the top is always good, evidence comparison is great, etc.

I'm an ok judge for T but am not the biggest fan of it as a throwaway strategy that only occupies a small portion of the neg block. Significant time investment in evidence comparison is much more important to me here and often is a make-or-break.

Note for LD: I would not consider myself a good judge for "tricks". If you regularly do things like hide blippy theory arguments or rely on obfuscating tactics to win debates, I am probably not the best judge for you.

Local/Lay Debate

First and most importantly, I am excited to be judging you and glad you are a part of this activity!

I will disclose my decision and give any feedback I can as long as it is not explicitly prohibited by the tournament, and strongly believe the process of disclosure/feedback/asking questions is one of the most important parts of debate. You are always welcome to ask questions about my decision, ask for advice, clarification, etc. or email me and I will always be happy to help in whatever ways I can (assuming you aren't blatantly rude).

I did a lot of lay debate in high school, it was probably 80% or more of what I did, so I can really appreciate a slower debate. My advice for you is to do what you do best and are most comfortable with, don't feel like you have to spread or read positions you are unfamiliar with because of my policy background, as I started out and have spent almost half of my debate career doing slow, traditional debate. Some other things you should know:

1] One of the most important aspects of my judging is that I think the bar for explanation is generally too low for most debates. If you want to win an argument, you shouldn't just explain what your argument is, but the reasoning behind WHY it's true, as well as what the implication is for that argument being true.

2] Please make sure you have and can show me the full text of any evidence you read. I may not need to reference any evidence after the round, but if I do I would prefer you have it readily available. I would heavily prefer this is made easier by setting up an email chain with me and your opponent where all evidence read in-round is exchanged, both for the purposes of transparency and quality of things like evidence comparison.

3] I often find framework debates in lay LD have little direction or warrants. This is especially true when both sides have a similar or identical framework, and I think those debates would often be drastically improved by the neg just conceding framework and the rest of the debate focusing just on substance.

I also really appreciate folks who have a clear understanding of things like evidence comparison and strategy, I feel most people overlook the ability to make smart strategic decisions and leverage evidence comparison in lay debate. Knowing your evidence and author qualifications and effectively utilizing them are powerful strategic tools, as well as making smart strategic concessions in other parts of the debate to get things like a strong time tradeoff on other important parts of the debate.

Ari Tenenbaum Sawgrass Springs Middle School

Cynthia Timmons Greenhill Middle School

Manna Trevino Hire 8 rounds None

Maleah Tuttle Hire 8 rounds None

Prema Vasudevan Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 4, 2021 at 5:05 AM CDT

*** If there is an email chain I'd like to be added in case of technical difficulties with the online format, otherwise I will not look at it and speech docs are not a reason to spread in round. Email: premavasu23@gmail.com ***

Bio:

I'm currently a Sophomore at UNL. I graduated from Lincoln Southwest Highschool in 2020 where I competed in LD Debate for 4 years. I also occasionally competed in Congress, and qualified and competed at nationals for both LD and Congress. Below I have General Notes that apply to all events and below that I have specific notes about how I judge LD, Congress, and PF.

*** I've done my best to create a detailed paradigm, but I know I may have missed things, and it may be unclear what I'm trying to say, so please ask questions if you have them! ***

General Notes (For all events):

- I do not judge every tourney or coach, so I most likely am not super familiar with the topic in general. I also have a fairly traditional background and am out of practice with flowing very high speeds so just be aware of that!

- I believe that debate is an educational space, and we are all trying to learn! Please do your part to foster a welcoming environment where everyone can learn from each other and engage with each others ideas. In short, please be respectful towards your opponent (and me) so we can all learn and have a good time at debate.

- If you are running any arguments that are sensitive, or even if you think your arguments may be sensitive, please provide a content warning before the round begins. I think this is vital to creating a positive environment in the debate space. If you feel you are not comfortable engaging in a round due to sensitive content please feel comfortable letting me know and we can figure out what to do next.

- I have absolutely no tolerance for racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. in the debate space. Such behaviors are unacceptable, I will not hesitate to drop you on face, your speaker points will reflect this, and I will contact your coach to address these issues.

- I expect you all to time yourselves and be honest about that. I may also keep track of time, but no guarantees. For novices I will be keeping track of time, and I am willing to give you 30 second warnings during prep if you would like.

- I tended to lean more traditional as a debater, but I have experience with a wide variety of arguments. If you have more progressive or 'out there' arguments or debating style there is one thing that is very important to keep in mind: I am open to hearing any arguments so long as I understand your argument. Have a clear understanding of your arguments, and clearly explain those arguments to me and your opponent.

- I do not vote for disclosure theory. I encourage debaters to fileshare if there are internet issues with tourneys over zoom but I do not vote for theory based on disclosure on the wiki.

- I will disclose decisions unless tab tells me not to.

LD DEBATE

TLDR; I am a traditional-ish judge, and don't do well with very high speeds since I'm out of practice. I appreciate strong framework debate, impacting, and narrowing the round as it goes on. Please ask me any specific questions you may have! I have more specifics below.

The Round:

Standards:

I think framework is super important! Framework is the lens through which I view and evaluate the rest of the round. In your framework you should tell me what I as the judge should see as the most important thing to care about. Do I care most about saving the most amount of people, or should I care more about justice and what that means? The impacts I care about are determined by the framework through which I will weigh arguments, so please spend time explaining your framework in the context of your arguments, as well as how your framework interacts with your opponents framework and arguments.

The most common structure is Value and Value Criterion, this is the format I am most familiar with; I am also familiar with the use of single standards. I am open to other forms of framework so long as you explain clearly what you are saying and how that fits into your other arguments.

Contention Level Arguments & Evidence:

Claim, Warrant, Impact are foundation to contention level arguments. In short, what I am trying to say is that every claim you make (aka your arguments) should have a warrant (evidence) and an impact (why do I care about this at all?). These three aspects put together form a compelling argument to me.

When you extend or cross apply arguments it doesn't mean much to me if you just say a card name or read off a bit of the card's warrant analysis. Extend the impact, tell my why your evidence says what you say it says, and tell me why I should care. Relate your contention level arguments back to the framework you have established. I do my best but I'm not great at flowing card names, so explaining things and extending impact goes a long way for me!

Voters:

I know some people enjoy explicit voters, but I don't have a strong preference. If you have voters, great, if not that's fine too. That said, in your last speech I think that you should not try to address every argument made, but instead crystalize and focus on the most important arguments made in the round and advocate why you are winning them. I find this to be persuasive and it also makes the judges job easier (which should be the goal of a debater).

Argumentation:

As I mentioned earlier, I lean more traditional in my debating style. This means that I am most familiar with 'standard' case structure and arguments. This does not mean you can't/shouldn't run progressive arguments in front of me, it just means that I'll need you to be extra clear about what you are doing/saying.

I think my former coach put it best so I will have to quote him here: "I strive to be open to all forms of argument, but both I and your opponent need to understand them to in order to have effective debate."

*** 'progressive debate' can mean a lot of different things, and I don't have a detailed explanation of how I evaluate each different thing (Kritiks, Theory, plans, etc.) so please ask me more specific questions if you have them and I'll do my best to answer.

Tech vs. Truth

I am someone who prefers truth based debates, and I think this ties back into how I think framework and impacting arguments is important and compelling. That said I am also comfortable judging technically. I honestly think this comes down to how the round is debated. If both debaters are focusing on line by line and technical arguments, I can evaluate tech over truth. If debaters are making arguments about the underlying truths or moral good or what have you then that is how I will evaluate the round. I think here it is up to the debaters to steer the round in the direction they want and I will evaluate what I'm left with.

Speed:

- To be honest, I do not like speed very much, but I can certainly understand and flow speed if I have to.

- I prefer when debaters focus more on debating and communicating arguments vs. getting as much as they can on the flow.

- If I had to pick a preferred pace it would be slightly above conversational

- I have experience debating people who speak quickly, so if you talk fast I can follow along for the most part

- I only write down what I can hear and understand, so if you speak very very fast I'm going to have trouble following your arguments.

- You'll know you are too fast if I am not writing at all and I've put down my pen. I do not yell slow or clear unless things get really really bad.

- I think it is good practice to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with spreading, and to respect their answer if they say no.

- Speaking fast does not impact my decision (unless I can't flow important arguments) but it does impact speaker points.

Speaker Points:

For me there are two aspects of speaker points: 1) argumentation/debate, 2) presentation

I value quality arguments being made, clash in arguments, and well thought out analysis throughout the debate round. Essentially, I would like to see quality debating and I will reflect that in how I award speaker points! Debate is also a communication event so I do value how you present your speeches. If you are speaking quickly it does hurt your speaker points with me. Above all else, if you are communicating arguments clearly and interacting with arguments you are on the track to get good speaks from me.

If you are rude or disrespectful in round to your opponent this will automatically give you lower speaker points.

Congressional Debate

Though I am primarily an LD judge I want to re-emphasize that I have a history competing in congress and I have a very good understanding of the event. I may not cover everything here so please feel free to ask me questions!

Speeches

As someone who primarily did LD, I am going to be most focused on the 'meat' of your speech, in other words, your main arguments. I think having good introductions etc. are great, and add great value to the presentation of your speech, but what I am going to be most critical about is your main arguments you make in the speech.

I think that a good main argument in your speech will have a claim, warrant, impact structure. Your argument is essentially a claim you are making. That claim should be backed by verifiable and reliable evidence. Evidence is a part of the warrant, the warrant is essentially the main point you are making. Your claim and the warrant are given meaning by impact. Impact is why what you are saying is important and why the listener should care at all.

Some additional notes...

Evidence: evidence is not just reading something off. The evidence should provide a meaningful why. If a statistic says 20% of college kids like coffee, you should also tell me why that is the case.

Impact: Impact is very important but also must be backed by evidence or intuitive logical claims. Tell me why XYZ is the impact of the action you advocate for. Also, I am an LDer so I love to hear why I should care about things. If your impact is that people are dying (it might sound a little crazy) but convince me that saving people is what my priority should be.

Questions

Do not underestimate the value of questions! A key aspect of good congressional debating is staying involved in your house and showing judges and fellow competitors that you are active and listening. Questions are a great way to stay involved and show us that even if you aren't giving a speech you are still actively debating!

- this is a bit of a pet peeve, but please don't ask questions to someone who agrees with you to garner more support. These questions often add very little to the actual debate and don't move the discussion forward.

- great questions are questions that further debate, for example, questions that go beyond evidence and attack the core ideas in the arguments themselves make for great questions.

Debating

I think every single congress judge says this but please debate. Especially as a LD person I highly value the debating that happens in a congress session.

To me, this is what I mean when I say debate:

- interact with each others arguments. Explain why the other representatives are wrong. Provide well thought out counter arguments

- don't be afraid to give a rebuttal speech! Even if a speech is short if you are spending your time thoughtfully analyzing and rebutting others in the session, I see that as time well spent

My final tip for debating is something that not everyone does, but I think it helped me in actively debating during congress: take notes. Especially for those of you who are newer to congress, I think taking notes is really really helpful. I took notes in congress out of habit from flowing in LD. There are a few benefits to doing this.

1) taking notes can help you keep track of what has been said so you don't repeat what someone else said in your own speech

2) taking notes allows you to see and think over what has been said. This visual helped me come up with rebuttal points to previous speeches

3) taking notes shows the judges that you are involved! Taking notes, similar to asking questions, is a way to show judges that even if you aren't giving a speech you are still engaged and paying attention to what is going on.

Precedence / Recency:

I expect the Presiding Officer to handle this. To be honest I don't remember how this works so if you have questions about this it should be directed to the Parliamentarian or another judge on the panel.

Presiding Officers:

Again I am not well versed in parliamentary procedure, so I don't have clear guidelines or expectations as to how the P.O. handles parliamentary procedure. I do appreciate when the presiding officer is fair and efficient in how they run the session. If you have more specific questions about how I assess P.O.'s I'd be happy to answer any questions you have as best as I can.

Public Forum Debate

I am primarily an LD judge, and I have not competed in PF debate. That said I have a solid general understanding of PF from years of watching rounds and talking with my peers who do the event.

I encourage you to take a look at my LD paradigm. My LD paradigm covers my general view of debate and what I like to see in debates. Although the particularities will be different the general things I look for in a round remain the same. The way I award speaker points is also going to be the same as in LD. Also, please ask me questions! I would love to answer any specific questions you have since my PF paradigm is not very detailed. I'll do my best to summarize what I look for in a round below along with some thoughts I have about PF

- I believe debate is an educational event, and I enjoy when debaters are clear with their arguments. I believe this clarity allows for everyone to engage with the ideas presented. In the case of PF clarity and clear explanation of arguments is especially important because I'm not as familiar with particular nuances in PF.

- I think that every good argument has claim, warrant, and impact. My LD paradigm, explains this so I will summarize briefly. I want to see strong claims that are backed by evidence. Evidence alone is not an argument, so explain what your evidence says and why it supports your claim. I also really value impact.

- On the topic of impact. I think impacting arguments is vital as impact is what gives your argument meaning. I know that weighing different impacts is important in PF. In PF, I will generally default to a utilitarian calculus (saving the most lives etc.) unless I am strongly urged otherwise (for example I find human rights arguments compelling).

- Evidence: I am not the type of judge to ask competitors to see the evidence they talk about in round. I base my decisions based on what I heard and flowed in round. Thus, if there is evidence clash I expect debaters to tell me why theirs is better or worse etc. Of course if there is a serious evidence dispute I may ask to see evidence but for the most part I go based on what is argued in round.

- I have seen framework being used in PF, but to be blunt I am very apprehensive of it. I am very familiar with the concept of framework because of my background in LD but in my experience it doesn't fit well with PF arguments. If you are going to run framework in front of me I will be a harsh critic because of my existing experience with framework and my knowledge of how framework should interact with the rest of your arguments.

- You do not have to drastically change your debating in front of me for any reason, just be ready explain things because I'm unfamiliar with PF in comparison to other events!

- Please ask me questions! I know I am probably missing a lot of things in my PF paradigm and some of the things I have written may not make total sense. If you have any specific questions at all please ask me so that we can all have a good round!

jay warnock St. Andrew's Episcopal Middle School 8 rounds

Celine Wei Cross Timbers Middle School 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 19, 2020 at 7:15 AM EDT

Hello! I'm Celine (she/her/hers). I graduated from Colleyville Heritage in Texas last year and am currently a freshman at Duke. I debated in LD for 4 years, on both the local and national circuit. I qualified for NSDA nationals, UIL, and TFA state, so I'm comfortable with both traditional and circuit debate.

email: celine.x.wei@gmail.com (please put me on the email chain)

Generally, I'm good with any argument as long as it is clearly connected to some sort of evaluative framework and it isn't offensive. Just make sure to extend warrants through your speeches, and tell me what I'm voting on in your last speech, and why it's better than your opponents arguments (ie weigh). I decide by first looking at framework/weighing mechanisms, and then determine who met it better. If there's no offense in the round, my default is presuming neg (though obviously can be convinced otherwise). I'm fairly good with speed, but obviously slow down on taglines and theory.

Analytical Phil: I appreciate a good phil debate. Just make sure to explain how your offense links back to the framework. If you're not consequentialist, make sure your offense is not consequentialist either. If it's not a common framework, make sure to explain it well.

Policy/LARP: I ran a fair bit of policy args in high school. You should be reading a framework (ie util, structural violence, etc.), it doesn't have to be a strict value/value criterion, but it should be specific. I appreciate good case debate. Make sure you're explaining warrants and doing good impact and link weighing.

Ks: I loved running Ks in high school, and am pretty familiar with most common critical literature (ranging from identity to post-structuralist). I default to affs having to be topical, but can be convinced otherwise. I do think that pre-fiat debates can occur, but I see that as more of a methods debate, so you have to know how to defend your method/solvency in terms of how your aff/method engages with the world. Also, neg K's should be able to explain what their alt looks like, and be specific and warranted in their links. If you're reading something more obscure, make sure to explain it well.

Tricks: I'm fine if you want to read a theory underview, or have tricky elements to your strategy. If your strategy is to read a nailbomb aff, or truth-testing with a bunch of not very well-warranted NCs, I'm probably not the judge for you, and will probably be more permissible to your opponents responses.

Theory: I view theory in an offense-defense paradigm (voters are framework and your standards should link to them). I default competing interps, drop the arg, and no RVIs if you don't tell me otherwise. I think people should disclose, but I'm also sympathetic to small school debaters who aren't aware of disclosure norms (disclosure shells should include screenshots). If you run frivolous theory (ie water bottle theory), I'll have a lower threshold for reasonability args. I'm honestly a big fan of a good theory debate, so please don't make it messy (ie if you don't have a cohesive story, no one weighs, no clear extensions, no explanation of voters).

Speaks: If you have a super effective overview, efficient weighing, great line by line, etc. I will give you higher speaks for making the round better! Don't be unnecessarily rude or condescending (note: this doesn't mean passionate or aggressive) toward a younger or newer debater. I'll say slow or clear a few times if I'm having trouble flowing, but after that ¯\_(ãƒ„)_/¯ I start at 28 and go higher or lower.

If there's anything in here or anything else you have questions on, feel free to ask before round, although try to keep your questions specific. Also, if you have any questions after round, feel free to find or contact me as well. Looking forward to good rounds!

Julia Wise Coakley Middle School None

Lydia Yuan T.H. Rogers

Farhan Zaidi Holy Trinity Episcopal Academy 8 rounds

Maggie Zollo Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 11:20 AM CDT

I previously coached 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.

Disclaimer: I have not judged many online rounds this year and would really appreciate it if tags were read slowly and if you prioritized clarity over speed! I'm sure a lot of my paradigm is dated (I wrote most of it a couple of years ago) so feel free to ask for clarification on anything :)

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. 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. When spreading, please just be clear. I'll ask you to be clearer a few times if necessary, 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 and 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!

Login to Tabroom

NSDA Middle School Nationals

2019 — Dallas, TX/US

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm List

Judges