NSDA Middle School Nationals
2019 — Dallas, TX/US
Armaan Aggarwal Paradigm
Maitri Ajmera Paradigm
Put me on the email chain or give me a flash of all the speeches before you start: email@example.com
4th Year debater @ Wichita East
Feel free to go fast but clarity> speed. I'll clear you twice if I think you're unclear.
Tech> Truth. A conceded arg is a true arg but only if it’s extended properly.
Engage the aff. Case debates are nice (not stock issues lol). Impact turn debates can be interesting.
I'll vote off the flow. I'll default to a policymaker unless told otherwise.
These days, most of my 2nrs are either a DA+ CP or a K (fem or neolib). I don't care what you read or go for, just do what you need to do to win.
T- Not gonna lie, these aren't my favorite debates but I will still definitely listen and vote on it if you win it. Impact it out and you’ll be good.
CP + DA- This is what I go for most often. I enjoy these debates very much and appreciate good impact calc.
K- Ks are cool but don’t get too wild. I’m familiar with cap, fem, biopolitics, exceptionalism, and ~kinda~ set col. If you are reading something besides this, heavy explanation will be crucial to making sure I understand.
Theory- I will reject the arg not the team and will only vote on it if there has been an egregious instance of in round abuse. Condo is an exception.
All in all, do what you do best and i'll do my best to accomodate to you. I won't intervene unless you decide to be a dick. Say sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or ableist things and I'll deck your speaks or even vote you down if it's egregious enough.
Cameron Albright Paradigm
Framework -If you don’t tell me how to vote then I will just vote on stock issues. I love good framing debate with impact calculus in speeches.
Spreading -No Spreading. If the average person can’t understand what you’re saying then I’m not going to flow it.
Kritiks -If you run a K then you need to demonstrate that you understand the philosophy behind it. Don’t just run a K because you can. I’m okay with them but I need to know that you know what your talking about.
Topicality -If you want to win on T then you should spend actual time proving the violation and how it inhibits NEG ground. I won’t vote on a Ts that are clearly just fillers.
Conditionality -You can kick out of arguments but I want the speeches to be focused on main voting issues so if you’re going to kick out of an argument do it in the negblock, doing so in the 2NR is just a time skew.
Counterplans -Counterplans HAVE to be non-topical, that’s basic policy theory. AFF: perms are tests of mutual exclusivity. Perms don’t “solve” things because they’re testing for if the CP is mutually exclusive.
Aidan Anderson Paradigm
I am a 4th year debater at Columbus High School (GA) and have competed on the local and national circuits with moderate success.
Speak Slowly |------------------------------------X----| I can flow anything IF you're clear
Feelings |-------------------------------------X---| Dead inside
Naturally Grumpy |-------------------------------------X---| Grumpy face is your fault
Longer Ev |------------X----------------------------| More Ev
Analytics |-------------X---------------------------| Evidence
Only Logic |-------------------------------X--------| Evidence Heavy
Structure is Imp. | -------------------------------------X--| IDC if understandable
Truth |--------------------------------------X-| Tech
Serious |--------------------------------------X-| Witt Galore
Intervention |--------------------------------------X-| Tabula Rasa
Card Dump |---------------------------------------------X------| Engage with warrants
IDC |---------------------------------------------------------X---| No Offensive Overviews
IDC |----------------------------------------------------------X--| Cover 1st Rebuttal Turns
IDC |--------------------------------------------X----| Extend Defense
New Ev. |--------------------------------------X----------| Hell Na
Voters | ----------------------------X--------------------| Line by Line
Give a bad FF |-----------------------------------------------X-| WEIGH EVERYTHING
CX about impacts |---------------------------------------X-----| CX about links and solvency
Tune out of CX |-------------------------X-------------------| I flow CX
Be strategic, funny, and not abusive and you'll get ballin speaks.
If you have any questions or don't understand how to interpret this paradigm, feel free to ask before the round.
I DO disclose and give feedback.
If you have any questions contact me on Facebook messenger or email me: firstname.lastname@example.org
Vishvak Bandi Paradigm
UT Dallas '23.
2A/1N for 3 yrs, 1A/2N for 1
Add me on the email chain. email@example.com
Fun Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8IYPnnsYJw
My thoughts on Policy are below. My PF paradigm is at the bottom.
If I'm judging LD, read my policy paradigm. I probably don't know anything about the topic. I also don't know what a "criterion" is, or why people "value" morality so much. Underviews and RVIs are annoying. After chilling with a trix debater at NSDA i have changed my mind. Trix are ok.
Debate has 2 rules - One person wins and one person loses and speech times. Follow them and and do what you want.
This is from M.Overing's paradigm, but I think this sums up mine - "If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."
I'll probably vote on most arguments. I mostly read critical arguments junior and senior year. Interpret that however you want. I'm here to have fun and judge a good debate so make it worth my time.
I try to remain as impartial as possible, but the biases I list below will probably come into play if they're not debated. All of them can be reversed by out-debating the other team.
Meta Level Things
Mark cards during the speech - I don't ask for it, but I expect you to send it if your opponent asks.
I flow Cross-x. You still need to extend things that happen in cx like normal arguments.
I don't vote on false arguments - If you're just objectively wrong about something (a T violation they didn't violate, etc) I won't vote on it.
You can (and should) rehighlight cards - if you think you have an indict you can "insert rehighlighting here" and give me an explanation of what the rehighlight means. If the start, end, or article is different, I expect you to read the new highlighting out loud.
Truth v. Tech - I flow. I also use my flows to determine the winner of the debate. That said, I do think there is a certain amount of truth that plays into my decisions. For example - While warming is 100% a real thing and impact, people can (and have) won warming good in front of me, but they had to do a bit more work on warrant level of the debate. A the end of the day, an argument needs sufficient amounts of explanation to win, even if it was dropped.
I don't view the round in a total vacuum - I think that some of the stuff people do out of round or in other rounds should be brought up in round especially if its problematic.
Sass/shade is rly fun. Don't be rude.
-1 speaks for saying the words "reverse voting issue" or "RVI" in a policy round.
There's a difference between new 2AR spin and new 2AR arguments.
Drop the debater, competing interps, neg on presumption, util good.
I don't really care. Don't use speed as a way of pushing other teams out of the debate space. I'll call clear 3 times, and then stop flowing if it continues. If I don't flow it I don't evaluate it.
This is where I start evaluating most debates. Aff should make case extensions.
I love it when a neg team is able to use case defense/offense well and beat the aff before I look at the other flows.
All Impact turn and impact d debates are great. Double turns are wowee. Triple turns are uWu.
I hate shadow extending case, but I also hate hearing the same overview 4 times.
30 speaks if you read 8 minutes of impact turns without repeating yourself and win the round.
Defend your aff - that's literally all you have to do. I really don't care what you read or have a preference for types of affs.
I love teams that beat the K on extinction o/w.
The advantage should be at least 6 cards long.
Read actual DA answers if you read a soft left aff. Kessler 8 and Conetta 98 don't answer the DA.
Limit the framing contention to 5 minutes of the 1AC.
I write down how many times you say "fiat" in the round. You can't say fiat solves everything.
Be topical, or give me good reasons for why it doesn't matter. I'll leave what topical means up to you.
K affs/K v. K Debates
Fine with them. Don't just go "*Buzzword* *Buzzword* we win the round."
While I might know what the buzzword means, I still expect good explanation and analysis. Make sure you know what you are talking about. If you read a poem/play music, it should be relevant after the 1AC.
What you defend probably shouldn't change every speech.
I prefer you have a relation to the topic and that you answer questions in CX.
If you want to win you need to explain your method, framing, and the impacts you solve.
Winning the TVA and impact debate makes it hard for me to vote neg. Do that and win that your model of debate is better, and its very easy for me to vote aff.
Also, fairness is probably an internal link (or is it? you tell me), and Antonio 95 is bad.
I believe that the aff gets perms in method debates.
I reward a well thought out and executed performance.
Ctrl-F for "Framework" and read that.
TVAs are underutilized in T debates. Use them.
T is never an RVI.
Very technical and well carded T debates are my favorite kind of T debates. The best definition cards are contextual to the resolution and is exclusive, not inclusive into a group. Aff specific violation cards or reasons are what usually make or break these debates.
Impact this out the same way you'd impact out disads or FW against a K aff.
Reasonability is about how reasonable the counter interp it. I dislike reasonability 2ARs, but they can win rounds.
I think Effects T is inevitable on this topic.
I'll preface this by saying most FW debates are boring because there isn't clash. Actually engage arguments and I will be happy. Answer and win the Aff arguments and I will vote on it. These debates usually come down to impact calculus for me.
A surprising amount of teams read FW 2NCs on arguments the 1NC didn't have.
My flow gets long so I would prefer if the 2NC is just straight down with a short O/V.
Most of the times I vote neg in these debates are because the aff doesn't answer the TVA properly, doesn't engage the limits offense properly, or isn't doing enough analysis on the impact level.
Make a TVA with a solvency advocate. TVAs need substantive answers outside of "doesn't solve the aff."
I think that Framework is about competing models of debate between what the aff justifies and what the negative thinks is best. This means that if you go for framework as a way to limit out content from debate you will not win (ex. "vote us up because we remove baudrillard affs from the debate space").
The negatives model of debate should be able to access the same education and subject formation that the aff is able to access ie. you need to tell me why policy education is able to create good subject formation and education, or how clash is key to education about "x" scholarship.
Substantive framework impacts such as cede the political, deliberation, etc are generally more persuasive against identity based arguments. Fairness is probably not the best impact against teams making identity based arguments. I'll vote on it but its a very thin line to walk. Against all other teams it should make an appearance.
I love a good Disad debate. If your impacts have the same framing as the other team, do impact calc. If your framing is different, read a framing card and also do impact clac. I hate bad politics DAs, but I'll give lots of leeway because this topic has no good DAs. I will not do work for you on the link debate. Point it out if they powertag random framing cards.
Specific impact calculus ( I prefer "India Pakistan war turns into a nuclear conflict, that escalates and has higher probability" over "Global nuclear war will kill us all").
The arms sales topic looks like it has some great disads. Don't ruin them by saturating the topic with terrible ones.
Don't call midterms "mids" or politics "tix" or anything like that, -1 speaks.
UQ debates on the ptx DA are annoying. For me, anything from within the past week is good, unless something major happens in that time (a supreme court judge retires, gov shutdown, etc).
Case specific counterplans are the best - generic things win rounds but its a harder sell. I don't judge kick unless the 2NR tells me to.
Presumption goes aff if the 2NR has a CP.
I'll vote on PICs. Make sure to answer theory.
Counterplan text amendments or changes of the actor in the 2NC are probably not legitimate.
Going for the Internal Net Ben as a disad is very cool.
You can (and probably should) pic out of problematic language. I'll listen to stuff like the "the" pic or the "USFG" pic, but won't be inclined to vote on it unless really good work is done here.
A good theory debate will please me. Prove in-round abuse for an easier ballot.
Don't read K's bad, new affs bad, and whole res theory - They're objectively wrong.
Condo - 4 is probably the upper limit in front of me. At minimum I think the neg gets 2 + the squo. No evidence for a advocacy, combining them later in the debate, amending and adding to CPs will make me more likely to vote aff.
Disclosure - Read this instead of new affs bad. Disclosure is probably a good thing.
Multiple worlds - I don't think this is a separate theory arg, probably should be on the condo/dispo flow.
Consult CP - Probably should have an aff specific solvency advocate, but on this topic I'll give leeway.
I am always tech > truth on the K flow, unless the K is problematic.
The best K debaters give very organized and easy to flow speeches, do good line by line, and tell me what arguments matter the most. To do this, limit the overview to 2:30 and do as much quality line by line as possible.
The floating PIK should be made clear before 2NC Cross-X.
I'm most familiar with the lit base for cap, anti-blackess, settler colonialism, queerness, security, and bio-politics, but don't let that keep you from reading Bataille or Nietzsche. Just explain the thesis a bit better. If you're reading these high theory/pomo arguments contextualization matters a lot to me.
I should be able to look at my flow and understand the thesis of your argument after the round.
If you don't win your thesis claims I don't see a world where I can vote you up, so defend them well.
The more specific the link and the more time is devoted to a comprehensive alternative explanation = the more likely I am to vote for you.
The 1AR should be hard. I don't believe all perms are either intrinsic or severance. I don't care if you kick the alt and go for the K. Limit your overview to 2:30 minutes. Do the rest on the LBL.
Examples can win you the round so give them to me - they're under-utilized by a lot of K teams and it shows me you all don't research your arguments.
I reward a well thought out and executed performance.
Framework is very important and should probably have a card if its more complicated than "Endorse the best subject formations."
If you win framework it becomes so much easier for me to vote neg. This also applies to root cause/ontology args. Win them, because its a easy neg ballot if you do.
Your 2NR needs to have an explanation of how the alt resolves all of the links and impacts you go for. That means 2NR's with little explanation of the alt need to be winning links and impact framing claims to win the round.
These are a sore point for me. I've been .2 or .3 away from breaking way too many times. I'll try to look at the judge list before and normalize my speaks to what I feel everyone else is giving.
If its a circuit tournament I'll go with the usual speaks scale you see. I usually start at 28 and average 28.7. If you get a 28.7 or higher, I believe that you were debating at a level I would expect to see in an elim round at that tournament.
If its a lay tournament where everyone arbitrarily gets 30s I will give 30s to everyone.
Flashing isn't prep, but I can tell if your stealing prep.
Bring it up if someone is clipping cards.
Don't be racist, sexist, queerphobic, etc. I'll vote you down immediately. I have an extremely soft spot in my heart for the LGBTQ+ population.
Don't shake my hand or call me judge, it makes me feel weird.
Make me laugh. I 'm on the discord and use reddit and stuff so I know memes. If you make a meme reference or something I'll be happy. If you make a really good joke or meme reference from the discord maybe +.1 speaks.
I'll give you a smiley face on the ballot for making fun of any current or former Coppell debaters (specifically Rohin Balkundi, Het Desai, or Shreyas Rajagopal), or anyone from the discord. If it makes me laugh, +.1 speaks.
Read Shabbir Bohri's Paradigm. It has nothing to do with mine I just thought it was funny.
I'll preface this with a few statements. I believe policy is the better kind of debate. I have a lot of negative feelings about the norms of the PF community. I believe there's a low standard for just about anything in PF rounds - ev quality, LBL, etc. PF also has issues with evidence ethics, with the threshold for "quality" ev and cases being very low, borderline plagiarism. I also read every single piece of evidence read in a round. Treat me as a flow judge.
That being said, I'll evaluate any type of PF round, but I have several expectations if you want speaks higher than a 27.
Do not paraphrase ev. I expect the ev to be cut similarly to policy debate, and the full paragraph included, along with a proper citation. If you paraphrase, I evaluate it as an analytic.
There also must be an email chain. This is a non-negotiable. If one of the teams in a round I'm judging refuses to do this, they get a loss with 25s.
No looking at the "full text" on articles outside of prep time.
All your arguments must be warranted out. I don't want "tagline extensions." If either teams make no actual arguments, I will make my own decision. You don't want me to do that.
I expect the teams to be responsive to each others arguments. Your "crossfire" is not speech time. I will not extend any arguments for you. Flow the speeches and be responsive. If the other team concedes large amounts of your case - its a really easy win for you. But you have to point it out.
I read every piece of evidence sent in the email chain. PF rounds don't have that much ev, so I will do my best to read along with you.
If you disagree with any of that stuff above, save my time and strike me - I'll just go watch a policy round or do something productive.
Theory is really cool but most PF kids don't know how to do it well.
All of this being said, if I do judge a PF round I will enforce several PF norms I am aware of.
I'll give you a smiley face on the ballot for making fun of any current or former Coppell debaters (specifically Shabbir Bohri), or Isaac Appel from Roosevelt. If its good, maybe +.1 speaks.
William Bannister Paradigm
I Default to Tabula Rosa:
I love to see theory debate around framing and arguments revolving around my duty as a judge and I think that burden debate is extremely important. However, if these things don't take place then Ill implement my own value criteria when I consider your impact calc. Unless you tell me otherwise I think that comparatively advantageous is a reasonable standard.
Tech VS Truth - How it affects my evaluation of the flow:
I don't appreciate the weaponization of spread and the over-evaluation of cards that are inherently trash. However, it is important that you clearly state if you are kicking out of arguments otherwise you are at the mercy of me blatantly accepting the tech of you dropping argument no matter the truth of what a team brings up against your dropped argument. Manage your flow, but focus on the flow being a sign that you are clashing on evidence, not splattering cheep recut cards hoping that a team makes a tech error that causes them to lose the round.
I'm a strong believer that solvency determines the weight I give to you (SOLVING) for the impacts you bring up during the round. Unless it's fairly convincing I generally don't believe solvency take outs.
UNLESS YALL DEBATING A BILL THAT'S BEEN PASSED, then I generally find inherency a waste of time. AFF if someone gets you on inherency that's pretty bad.
DA = Good, DA that runs into a larger narrative about why the AFF is bad = Major brownie points. Important notes: your link chain should tell me a story that you can explain when pushed on. If you can't explain your link chain in cross-X then it's going to take a major tech mess up from the other team for you to get anything on the DA. Also really protect that link on the DA if your the NEG because otherwise, the aff is going to swat that DA away with ease.
Counter-plans are good if it is modifying existing policy all the better, I think CPs are at the heart of policy debate. But if you run, RCP, Delay CP, then your wasting valuable speech time.
Our Komrade the K +++
I think kritical debate that around the heart of the topic is awesome so that being said linkage isn't very important to me on the K as long as you can establish a narrative between the case and the K. I think that everyone should experiment with the K during their debate experience. I prefer functionality in an alt, that doesn't nessisarly mean solving for the impact completely, but rather creating change which is comparatively advantageous with the status quo. We ain't gonna hollow out capitalist structures by being big brains.
This being said... I don't vote on the K in the round if it is used because.
-The opposing team belongs to a certain socio-economic, ethnic, or gendered group
-The excuse for you being a well-developed source on the K is because you belong to a certain socio-economic, ethnic, or gendered group. If you are then that's great and I am proud of you for finding advocacy, but it doesn't replace a well-rounded knowledge of lit.
Good test the competitiveness in multiple ways. Multiple perms are good. That being said don't run nine perms hoping another team drops one because that's not real debate and I won't vote on that.
Double Binds ++++++
LOVE a good double bind, combines clever strategy and exemplifies both tech and truth simultaneously! However, if you just go up there and start throwing around the phrase every time the other team makes a contradiction then I won't take you seriously.
If its needed do it, if it's not, don't waste our time (although double blinds between a link and T are accepted strategies)
I think that theory is an important part of a debate.
I refuse to treat spec like topicality its not a voter issue. I do think it plays into solvency and it can be used to establish links.
Other things about myself:
R.E.S.P.E.C.T your opponents and teammates. Please try your hardest to use their correct pronouns, I will try my hardest as well, we are all imperfect, we all make mistakes, but have integrity.
Pronouns - it no way affects what you call me what you want.
If you want to bash religious institutions go ahead, if you want to question the truth behind an entire system of belief go ahead. If you think religion is inherently immoral and its the opioid of the masses then lay it all out, I will vote for it. But I will not tolerate being xenophobic in your classification of a religious group. Anti-Semitism and Islamaphobia are not cool. Making offhand comments about the character of a religious group is not cool.
If you want to debate eastern vs western values and make it clear that it's not about race or religion then that's chill. (I.E. Western liberalism V Eastern authoritarian models = Good | "Judeo-Christian dominance" V "Cino Supremacy" = VERY BAD)
Trinity Brockman Paradigm
4th-year debater @ Manhattan High School
Everything is up for debate.
I am a heavy flow critic. I find myself looking towards the arguments and how they function in the debate over the inherent “truth” of an argument. I will vote on an argument I know is not true (many economy arguments, for example) if this is not refuted. Basically, I am tech over truth in most instances.
However, I will not vote on arguments such as racism good, patriarchy good, transphobia good, ableism good, colonialism good, etc. Give content warnings for graphic content!!! (I will vote you down and walk out IF NOT DONE) If there are any of the aforementioned violence practiced theoretically or materially in round I will vote against your team immediately. These types of injustices kill education and means that no ethical pedagogy can occur. Zero tolerance here. Debate space should be a space to act without fear of oppression - I will make sure that is reflected in my judgments and comments.
Avoid getting in a conversation about credibility in order to run around debating the argument at hand. I will hold claims true until proven otherwise in the round.
Don't take too long with flashing - Be quick and honest with how you transfer files. I love a solid closed cross-ex. I default to whichever style the debaters are comfortable with, ya'll make that decision.
I am fine with any speed you choose, you will not go too fast for me. However, do not spread just to push the other team out. That is an accessibility issue and if they are pushed out of the round and make an abuse argument or criticism of your practices I will most likely vote against you.
Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. T is always a voter because it taps into the performative aspects of debate and how this education can be effective. They are always about competing interpretations and the reasons as to why that interpretation is more beneficial than others. You must weigh the offense based on your standards/voters vs. the C/I and their subsequent standards/voters. You have to win your interpretation is the best for the debate. This applies to all theory arguments.
***Topicality is just an agreement between two teams on what is to be debated. If there is/are more pertinent issue(s) that the teams wish to discuss (e.g. anti-blackness, transphobia, colonialism, ableism) of a particular event that is proximal to the debaters then that is okay. Do not think you are stuck to the topic if there is a general consensus on what should be debated.
Framework: I also love framework, but your blocks better be updated and stop using arguments from 2005 that K affs collapse high school programs and that this is the wrong forum. The debate has evolved since then. I believe framework is a criticism of the affirmative’s method, but it also can be utilized as theory or a counter-advocacy if paired with the correct arguments. I'll keep this around throughout the round and will flow it through at the will of the teams.
Counterplans: Read one, please. If you don’t, you need status quo solves. If you read a perm text, please give SOME explanation on how the perm functions. I don’t view perms as advocacies (no one does anymore) because the CP is just opportunity cost to the affirmative, so don’t act like you suddenly have an amazing new net-benefit because you permutated the CP. Presumption never flips aff. Presumption, simply put, is that the existing state of affairs, policies, programs should continue unless adequate reasons are given for change. I believe condo is good, I'm going to have a hard time listening to anything else.
*also i LOVE delay and pic cp's...so have some fun with that
Criticisms/Performances: I do run Ks as a debater. (I have argued neolib, cap, security, fem, gender, set col, and queer kritiks) It should be an advocacy. Additionally, I do not think white debaters should run anti-blackness. I do not think non-queer individuals should run queer theory. This runs the line of commodification and you cannot work within that position if you do not belong to it, meaning that you will never truly understand what you are running and operating form a position of privilege to do so. I am okay with whatever criticism or performance you so choose to run, just make sure you can explain it and how it solves the aff.
It is much more important to me that you find an educational gain from this activity and adequately express the things you care about greatly than hitting all the stock issues or being a policy maker. Debate is about the debaters, make the round what you want. ANY attempt to push the other team out of the debate will result in a dropped ballot.
Any other questions just find me and ask.
Allen Cao Paradigm
I am a current high school rising senior doing policy debate at the Blake School in Minneapolis.
Speak clearly, speed is fine, but make sure you aren't mumbling incoherently. Presentation is not as important as the quality of the arguments, as those will win you the debates.
I am open to a variety of arguments as long as you can make it convincing to me and tell me why. Work on framing the round and weigh impacts + arguments so that I don't have to do the work. Explain why your arguments matter more.
Be aware of your offensive + defensive arguments- that is how I will weigh the round- an aff with no offense and only defense with sufficient negative offensive will be hard to win. Neg with only defense would mean that I would give risk of the plan solving.
Do a lot of impact framing: Probability, Time, Magnitude - very important for evaluation of DAs, CPs, K v. Plan debates.
DAs- I like DAs and will go for it if you can explain why the impacts outweigh the affs impacts and prove why the plan would be a bad idea.
Ks- I am open to hearing a good K debate. On Framework, I will give leeway for the aff to be able to weigh their plan, but make sure sufficient answers on both sides are given. I will go for the perm if you prove to me why the plan is still necessary and how it is still on net good when integrated in a perm. I will go for the perm if the aff sufficiently solves negative offense and prove why the plan is a desirable net-benefit.
CPs- I like advantage and functionally competitive ones- not a fan of PICs. I think that takes away a lot of the debate and doesn't necessary make the CPs unique enough for me to consider voting on it. If you can explain on the neg why the CP and its net benefit outweighs the impacts of the aff and answer aff solvency sufficiently, I may vote on the CP.
Carlos Cedillo Paradigm
Sharon Cella Paradigm
Coach of King Arts Debate Team 2014-present
Founding Member of the Illinois Middle School Debate League (IMSDL)
I judge an average of 30+ rounds per debate season in the IMSDL and CMSDL leagues
Please include me on all email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
Paradigm: Tabula Rasa
1. ALWAYS roadmap and signpost. Your job is to make my job easy.
2. I'm fine with spreading, but clarity is important.
3. I'm open to all types of arguments, except K AFFs. I just think they're lazy.
4. If you run Topicality, please make it worth my while and give it some gravity.
5. NEVER treat your opponent in a way that I will feel is rude, bullying, or demeaning in any way. I will take off speaks for that type of behavior.
6. I always keep time in the round. You are welcome to keep time for your own team if you wish, but do not attempt to keep official time for your opponents.
7. I always prefer clash at every opportunity. It shows me that you understand the arguments and aren't just throwing stuff out there in a "race to rebuttals/kicking" game.
8. Most simply, tell me what I'm voting for and why. I'll listen to any well made argument.
Sean Chen Paradigm
McKinney '18 (small school, north Texas)
Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: email@example.com
I am okay with speed, but make sure to slow down on tags, theory, analytics, etc. If I cannot understand you, I will call "clear."
I won't count flashing/emailing as prep, unless it gets unreasonable. Generally this should take <15 sec., so if you're struggling with this, take some time to learn how to use Verbatim's built in features.
I haven't formed any concrete views about judging debate, which means that I will evaluate most arguments as they are debated. Even though I debated mostly on the policy side in high school, don't let this stop you from reading your best args. I'd rather see a good K debate than a bad policy debate. This does mean, however, that I would appreciate more explanation during K debates, unless you want me to parse through and misunderstand your authors.
I like comparative and detailed impact calculus. This includes comparison of timeframe and probability. Comparison and calculus is crucial for me to evaluate a theory or framework debate.
I am not very familiar with the topic yet. I have only judged at a few local tournaments. If the debate hinges upon some obscure facet of immigration law, an explanation would be great.
This is my first paradigm, so let me know if you have any more specific questions before the debate and I'll do my best to answer them.
Ethan D'Alessandro Paradigm
My email is: firstname.lastname@example.org please add me to the email chain
I go to ICW and have debated there for 3 years
Currently a 2A but was a 2N for fresh/soph years
Lot of experience with the topic
Not a good judge for high theory Ks or K affs
DA + Case or DA + CP are some good strats
Impact comparison makes my life easy
For my first 2 years of debate I was a 2N, I switched this year and am now a 2A
I am a junior at Iowa City West High School and have debated 3 years, have a lot of experience with the topic
I'm good for DAs, CPs, T, I'm less good with Ks
Probably don't run your 1 off baudrillard/bataille, I am not familiar with much K lit outside of Security, Agamben, Cap, Fem IR or more policy kritiks
Also probably don't run K affs in front of me, I will vote for them, but I am probably going to lean neg on topicality arguments/framework args and it will be an uphill battle for my ballot, however, I will try as hard as possible to be impartial when making the decision
DA + Case is what I went for all of freshman and sophomore year when I was a 2n so go for it if you want - I will be a good judge for it if you do it well
Probably most theory is a reason to reject the arg not the team (I can be convinced otherwise of course) except condo
Make my ballot easy - I don't want to have to sit in the back for 20 minutes trying to rework the whole debate, tell me where I should be looking, what to weigh first, make impact COMPARISON especially turns case or turns DA arguments will get you far
I'm 95% tech over truth, but don't read obviously offensive arguments (e.g. racist, sexist, homophobic etc.)
Finally, debate is a space to explore and run some fun, cool arguments, you do what you do best, and I will try my best to judge the debate fairly and impartially.
If you say nucUlar in round you get -30 speaker points (not really just a pet peeve)
Amber Dawson Paradigm
Andrew Dimitrakakis Paradigm
Khanh-Vy Do Paradigm
Pamela Doiley Paradigm
Ethan Dozier Paradigm
Topicality is a voting issue but it needs voters. No voter= no reason to vote on it
Cross-ex: Be polite i.e. don't yell at each other
Run arguments you know how to run don't try an arg you don't understand.
for spreading don't slur or go so fast i cant understand or I won't flow it
Jay Elder Paradigm
yeah add me to the email chain: email@example.com
I'm a senior at Park Hill High School in KCMO, I've done cx for all of high school. I'm the 2A/1N.
I go to an NSDA circuit school, but I've had plenty of flow rounds and sometimes go to NatCir tournaments.
I went to the NSDA national tournament in Congress in 2018, choked, then got 5th in Extemporaneous Debate, and went in Policy in 2019.
I went to the MSHSAA state championships in Policy in 2018 and 2019, placing 3rd in '19.
I've judged a lot of different tournaments, but none of them are on tabroom. I've judged rounds ranging from extremely lay novice all the way to kritikal NatCir flow rounds.
The short version (if you're reading this before a round)
I'm a tabula rasa, game theorist, and slight policymaker judge. I vote primarily on impact calculus, but you can run pretty much anything. As long as you can give me a clear explanation as to why I should vote for your args, I will. You do you, if you have a strat that you like, do it, I'll adjust to your style so you can have the best experience as possible. I'd like to get a flash of all speeches, but if it starts taking too long, I won't need it. Just send it.
The long version
Speed: I enjoy fast debate, I see debate as a fun and competitive activity, and if you want to go fast, send it. I'm good with you going as fast as you want, but please dear God make sure you signpost well enough and go slow on tags and cites. The best way to be crystal clear for me on the flow is to go as fast as you want through the warrants and use the "and" strat (say AND before every new tag, emphasize it so I know that it's coming). If you're one of those kids who goes for speed and ends up only speaking in vowels, don't go for speed. It's pretty easy to read me as a judge via facial expressions, so you should be able to tell if I don't understand you. I won't yell "clear" or put my hand up or anything, it's not my job to hold you accountable for speaking. Breadth isn't as important as depth, I'd prefer a round with super specific and in-depth arguments with a ton of clash as opposed to a round with 14 off and barely skimming over each arg just to make sure you get everything in time. If you prefer breadth and want to run it, do it. You'll just have to make sure you tell me why I should vote on your laundry list of args that may have been conceded (like I get it, they conceded it, but you shouldn't stop there, tell why it's important that they conceded and why I should vote them down for it).
Policy affirmatives: I've always run and hit policy affirmatives in my career, so I get them. I like them linear, they should tell a story. Have links for everything, and solvency advocates are a must. If you read a card that's powertagged and you get called out on it, good luck. You need evidence where the warrant itself advocates solvency for your plan.
Kritikal affirmatives: I've never run one, but I like the idea of them. My only statement is that I don't like it when people run them unless they have a direct relation to it and genuinely feel the need for change or whatever you argue, if that makes sense. If you want to run one, do it, but if you run one that complains about suppression in the debate community or something, unless you can prove a ton of suppression and abuse and whatnot, it probably isn't a good idea. K affs are generally less offensive, and I don't like that simply because debate should be fun and entertaining for everyone involved, including the judge. I'd rather vote on the semantics of a plan as opposed to the extent to which society is bad.
Topicality/FW against K affs: Go for it. I like when k affs have at least SOMETHING to do with the resolution, so reasonability can be won by aff if they do, but if not, I'm very likely to vote on T/FW.
Disadvantages: Full send. I love DAs, but make sure they are somewhat realistic with the links. I'll totally vote on wild impacts like terrorism/extinction and whatever, but the DA has to make sense. Don't run something like a wages DA where the links argue brink now but the UQ is from 2004. DAs are cool, I like them, go for it.
Counterplans: I love CP's, even if they are cheating at some times those are the best! A CP can solve some or all of the affirmative. My one requirement for a CP is that it has to have a well explained net benefit to the aff. I like the idea of having solvency advocates for a CP, but it is possible to not have one and be able to analytically explain why your CP can solve the aff. It's a debate to be had!
Theory: Theory is mostly fine for me. If you run it, that's fine, but if you run something like new affs bad, that's dumb and wasting time, and I won't vote on it. As far as I can think of, go for anything else tho and you'll be fine.
Topicality v Policy affs: I love it. I love T more than any other offcase positions. I understand that there's such thing as a topical aff that violates a T interp, and there is such thing as a legitimately untopical aff. Run T on both, I don't care. The more in-depth the argument is, the better. I've run things like T-Should and T-To, I absolutely love stuff like that. Basic things like T-increase are fine as well, I just won't enjoy the round as much.
Kritiks: I've run Ks and hit Ks, I'm not totally anti-K, but I'd rather have an in-depth debate about a plan and not a generic link to a complaint you have. Things like a Nietzsche K (some call it Blow Out The Candle) are stupid, if you run a K, have an alt that's legit and isn't something like "reject the aff" because attempting to do something is better than letting the squo get worse, unless you make an argument saying otherwise. I'm familiar with Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Capitalism, Security, Anti-Blackness, Afropessimism, Anthropocentrism, Settler Colonialism, and Neoliberal mostly. If you wanna go for something else, do it. Just make sure you explain it well enough for a lay judge to understand.
Language: Don't be racist, homophobic, or anything like that. Personally, I feel like making sure you don't misgender somebody is important, and technically you're supposed to ask for pronouns prior to the round, but if you accidentally misgender somebody, I won't vote you down for it. Yes it's wrong but I get it, it happens. Unless they make an arg about it like a GenderK or something, I won't use it as a voter. Microaggressions are small, they should be avoided, but not something that dictates a round.
Other: Trigger warnings are necessary for a lot of instances. I won't vote you down if you don't have trigger warnings, but if you discuss things including rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, IPV, and other things of that nature, it'd be nice.
I'm an advocate for judge kick, so I'll do it too.
Throwing shade and being sassy is fun for me and you, I'm totally cool with it, but don't be disrespectful.
I would much rather judge a fast round than a slow round. I'm an NSDA circuit debater so I pretty much only compete in slow rounds and I hate it.
K vs K debate is something I've never experienced, but I'd love to. So if that's an option, GO FOR IT.
Nothing frustrates me more than rounds with no clash. If both teams keep saying "they dropped x" when they didn't and your only response to refutations is extending the evidence they're trying to disprove, I'll enjoy the round less, and you will be more frustrated with the result.
I like humor. If you give funny analogies or just overall are humorous, I'll enjoy the round more. References to Kanye West won't improve your speaks or chances of a win, but it'll make me happy.
If you have any other questions before the round, feel free to ask them.
Lauren Ellenz Paradigm
DAs: I'll vote on generics if specific links are analyzed.
Ks: I'm a fan of Ks as long as you analyze your links well and prove why the kritik matters. I'm most familiar with cap, security, and anti-blackness, but I don't have a problem with voting on other Ks if you explain it well.
CPs: CPs should be compatible with other negative elements. I'm generally not a fan of multiple worlds, but it depends on how you argue it.
T: I'll vote on T if you can prove abuse and impact it out.
Speed: Speed is fine, as long as you're not incomprehensible--somewhere in between your flay speed and your high flow speed is probably best. I'll clear you a few times if I can't understand, and after that I'll stop flowing. Non-flowed arguments won't be considered.
Disclosure: Disclosure is great when agreed upon by both teams, but no team should be forced to disclose. In the event of a theory argument on disclosure, I'm most likely siding with disclosure bad.
Conduct: I don't tolerate in-round sexism/racism/homophobia/transphobia. I will dock speaker points, and if the round is close and/or if the offense is entirely inexcusable, I'm willing to make it a voting issue. ALSO! Be nice to each other! Snark and humor are great and can make a round more fun, but there's a fine line, and no one's having fun if you're being rude.
Zoe Fernandez Paradigm
I qualified for Nationals in 2018. I’ve done policy for four years and am a Senior.
I don’t care what you run, just make sure I can understand it. Speed is fine but again, if I can’t understand a word you’re saying then that doesn’t work in your favor.
I judge on three levels. Flow, conduct and style. Simply put, tell me where to flow otherwise I won’t. I don’t interfere in round so if you don’t make the argument you won’t win on it. Be nice in the round, I hate rude and cocky debaters. And style is important but it’s the least important of the other two.
Have fun, it’s your round I’m just living in it.
Candice Frost Paradigm
Ari Gabriel Paradigm
If in Policy or LD add me to the chain: AriJGabriel@gmail.com
I'm a freshman at Stanford. In HS I debated for 4yrs and did middle school debate for 2yrs. I competed in USX, IX, LD (traditional and progressive/circuit), Congress, and PF. I competed at NSDA nationals twice.
Here are a few things I like to see in rounds:
FW: I like FW, but it's not necessary in LD. I want to know why your VC works as a mechanism for me to view the round through, and please don't use a V of morality in an LD round and justify it by saying "LD is a morals driven debate."
Ks: I enjoy a good K as much as the next person, but it needs to have a clear link to the AC/NC/Resolution. The only exception is Nietzsche Ks. I really don't want to hear your generic Nietzsche K. If you have one prepped and you think you can change my mind you are welcome to run it I will ultimately vote on the flow.
Plans/CPs: I love plans and counter-plans in LD, but you need to run them with a FW.
T: I will vote on theory.
Spreading: I need to understand your tags and authors. If the card (i.e. its internal link, credentials, miss representation, miss tag, ect...) is a main point of contention I will ask to see it after round.
Ks: I enjoy a good K as much as the next person, but it needs to have a clear link to the AC/NC/Resolution. The only exception is Nietzsche Ks. I really don't want to hear your generic Nietzsche K. If you have one prepped and you think you can change my mind you are welcome to run it I will ultimately vote on the flow.
Plans/CPs: Honestly, just a fan.
T: I will vote on theory.
Most Importantly: Just be yourself. Run the arguments you want to run and I will listen, flow, and enjoy them.
If you have any questions feel free to ask me before or after round.
Lauren Gilbert Paradigm
Ammeriahya Gonzalez Paradigm
put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
ask me questions
RJ Gonzalez Paradigm
Miles Gray Paradigm
Debater: UC Berkeley; Coach: The Harker School
I aim to judge debates as a neutral observer concerned only with the technical interaction of arguments and evidence. In theory, this can accommodate any argument or content. In practice, I have found some arguments hold up to the “tech > truth” standard far better than others.
About me and my beliefs:
(1) I believe debate is good.
(2) I am most experienced and interested in policy literature.
(3) I find arguments for being intentionally untopical far weaker than their responses.
(4) Nuclear war and human extinction are disproportionately more concerning to me than impacts of lower magnitude.
I will attempt to give speaker points that are sympathetic to inflation. You can get better points by doing judge instruction, avoiding frivolous theory arguments, comparing evidence, and giving clear, organized speeches. I will kick the CP if necessary. The aff must give nearly-unanswered instructions prior to the 2AR for me to consider otherwise.
Andrew Harding Paradigm
Andrew James Harding - email@example.com - TWHS '19, GW '23
***NSDA MS NATIONALS*** - I'm a volunteer HS judge. Hopefully the information I have been able to piece together is useful. Email me before round if there are any questions.
Background: I graduated from The Woodlands HS in Houston, TX. I'm attending George Washington University and I'll be an active member of their Parliamentary debate team. I debated all four years, competing in CX for 2.5 years as a 2A/1N and LD for 1.5 years. For other events, I competed in DX for 4 years and occasionally other IE events. I've qualified to TFA State for 3 years in CX, LD, and DX. I've qualified in DX to the TOC and NSDA Nationals twice. In CX and LD, I'm familiar with and have ran both policy and critical arguments, mainly based off of Antonio Gramsci's theory of hegemony during senior year.
TL/DR: Tech>Truth. I'm okay with speed, but I need pen time. Plans and K Affs are cool. Ks, CPs, DAs, T, and legitimate theory are cool. Tricks and non-basic phil are not cool. Performance args can be cool, but you'll have to make sure I fully understand the arg. AFF must have offense on case in the 2AR. I'll vote neg on presumption. I default to competing interps. I'll drop the debater. Fairness is an IL to education. CX is binding. CP texts are binding. I'll vote on condo if abuse is clearly shown.
General: I view debate as the ultimate game of strategy. That being said, debate is also a game of persuasion. It is your job to persuade me that I should prefer your arguments over your opponent. I expect ethical discourse and effective argumentation. Regardless of whatever argument you're going to run, it ought to be ran properly. I don't care about how you sit or dress, but make sure you're respectful of your opponent and listen to any request they may have to make the round better for everyone. I would prefer to see a good technical and strategic strategy that has been well prepared. I don't want you to just read the case and prep your teammate gave you. Don't assume I know what you're saying. My main focus has been on policy-type arguments, but I'm always open to new experiences and learning. I like to give long RFDs and many comments as I want people to be the best debaters they can be. Don't feel bad if you need to ask me to shut up so you can leave the round.
General AFF: I shouldn't have to guess what the 1AC is about. I don't want to hear many new case cards, for I believe the 2AC should incorporate as much of the 1AC offense as possible. T can be a voter and should always be covered well. The 2AC should be: case, T, then the 1NC order. There should be something on the flow against every off case position. I want to see ADVs kicked as the debate moves along. The 1AR is tough, but coverage of all remaining off case is expected or there should be some arguments made that can address multiple off at once. 2AR MUST include heavy case analysis. If the case debate is lost or not warranted well, I'll presume neg.
Policy AFFs: Love them. I expect to hear inherency either on top of the 1AC or within each ADV. There needs to be an IL to every IPX. Solvency must explain what your specific plan solves your ADVs. If the USFG is your actor, then you must defend that USFG action is key and/or good. That doesn't mean you must justify EVERYTHING the government does, but you must defend the position that the government is the best actor to solve problems. Big stick impacts should probably o/w deontologist impacts if you want access to impact calc.
Middle of the road AFFS: I'm okay with them, but I'm not too familiar with them. For the most part, everything said about "Policy AFFs" above apply here. Frame impact calc however you desire, but I'm to suspect SV is the way to go here.
Critical AFFs: Love them. The AFF must be in direction of the resolution with evidence that links the two together. I must hear an advocacy statement, for I need to know what your AC calls for what I would be voting for. While I enjoy fancy taglines, I must be able to identify the purpose of each card. Impact framing and/or ROJ ought to be included. Don't assume I know your literature. There's a good chance I won't, but if you articulate well enough, there shouldn't be an issue. On T debates, you must give me reason why I should weigh case against T or I don't think you'll get my ballot.
General NEGs: The negative shouldn't walk into round without a skeleton of a strategy ready to go. I enjoy a good 1-off K debate as well as a 6-off policy debate. While I understand the strategical value of reading as many offs as possible (I've done the same), it's nice to read 3-4 off that allow for in-depth analysis in the negative block. The 1NC MUST address case. Not doing so will make me believe you're attempting to skirt away from actual clash and just hope to win on overloading on off case. Case turns are wonderful. However, a win is a win and while I won't like you, I'll listen to you. I should hear case in the block. Kicking arguments that don't advocate for a world outside the AC are totally fine and I expect it. The 2NR should only go for one off (or two if it's a CP with a DA for the NB) AS WELL as at least one case argument. Again, you do you at your own risk.
T: Love it. If you have a shell that the AC links well into, I want to hear this debate. I will listen to squirrelly shells, but I highly doubt I'll vote on them. There must be an interp, violation, standards and voters. Including "Drop the debater" is optional as you obviously want me to even if you don't read it. The block should answer the line-by-line effectively and show why the AC is skewing the debate. Don't read T with 8 other off and argue "wE hAve nO gRounD" as I'll probably buy 2AC defense easily, so pick your standards carefully. I need a TVA and caselist in the 2NC, even if they ask for one in cross as I won't flow cross.
DA: Love them. I absolutely love politics DAs (base, political capital, midterms, elections, down-ballot, congress, courts, international affairs) as I know this area the best, but DAs in general are nice. A DA should include at least 4 cards (U, L, IL, IPX), but 3 is doable. I'm not a fan of 2 carded DAs. More than 4 are cool. Inherency/Uniqueness should be as recent as possible. If your U ev is from 2016 and the 2AC spreads through a N/U card from 2019, you're not winning the DA. The link should be as specific as possible as I'll believe the plan would trigger it, but I understand the use of generic links. However, there's a good chance I'll buy "AFF not k2" arguments if the link is generic. IL must connect to the IPX.
CP: I'm okay with them. I didn't run them often, but I understand how they function and will happily listen to them. 3 parts: text, solvency, NB. There must be a clearly defined CP text THAT IS BINDING. Meaning, if your text refers to granting parole to Syrian refugees, but the AC is about climate refugees, you better hope the AC let's you getting away with it as it's up to the AFF to call you out on it. If the 2AC doesn't test it, then they missed their chance and I suppose it's up to you to do as you please. It'll reflect in your speaks though. If you attempt to change the text after being called out on it, I will not only dock speaks as you're creating an unfair burden on the 2AC, but I will only consider the CP as what the text says it's doing. After the text, I need to hear a solvency advocate through a from of evidence. This evidence should explain why the CP will solve the issues of the AFF. A net benefit MUST be attached to the CP. While I'll expect a DA, you do you if you have another idea, but know it's a risk. Losing the NB means I no longer consider the CP. If you're going for the CP in the 2NR, you must also go for your NB.
K: Love them. I'm most familiar with critical literature addressing capitalism, hegemony, and biopower. With that being said, I understand the basic concepts on most kritiks. I'm not well-versed in postmodernist thought, but I will listen to the best of my ability. You'll have to do a lot of work in the overview to make sure I know what's going on. Kritiks needs a link, impact and alternative. I REALLY want framing (ROJ/IPX), but it isn't required to win. The more specific the link the better. However, there must be SOME relation to the AC. Meaning, I'll listen to state-bad links, but that would mean the AC defends the state. The block must include heavy link analysis. There must be a clearly defined alt. I'm not a fan of vague alts or reject alts. I want to be introduced to a new way of thinking or acting. If you're going for the K, I need very, very strong alt work. HOWEVER, I will buy the K as a linear DA with the link and impact if I'm told to. I want to know my role in the debate in order to influence how I weigh impacts.
Theory: I'm usually not a fan. The only theories I've ran as a 2A are: disclosure, 50 states fiat, condo bad and "generic links". I don't really enjoy theory debates as I believe they distract from debating the content of the debate at hand. However, I do believe theory can be necessary when there is legitimate concern over actions that have occurred during a round. This may be my LD experiences creeping in, but I believe the negative should only advocate for one conditional world. However, i doubt I will buy condo if there are two condo args. Three is pushing it, and four makes me heavily favor voting on condo bad. I don't like tricks debate as it completely distract from debating the issues at hand. If you run theory, I need an interp, violation, standards and voters. Run theory at your own risk and only if there are legitimate concerns.
Performance: I'm okay with it, but I may not be the best to judge for these arguments. As a white, cis, heterosexual male, I will not able to fully understand performance if it is based off of personal experience due to the privilege society has presented to me. While this doesn't mean I won't fairly weigh the arguments, I can't promise that I'll either understand or analyze the argument as someone else could, but I will do the best I can. I would want an explanation for the performance so I can have a general idea of what to expect and to look for. Make sure I know how you want me to evaluate the argument, mainly through framing.
Ben Harris Paradigm
Top level: What you say matters most. Good cards are very important, but spin and your articulation of your arguments is what you are held to. It's about strategy and what you say. If the only thing I held you to was your cards, then there would be no strategy in debate, just cutting cards.
I judge by the flow. I will listen to any argument (except racism/ableism/etc. good) regardless of its truth so be sure to answer it. Tech over truth all day long. I mostly do policy, but I have done some of PF and LD for the last 5 years. I am fine with speed. I will be keeping track of time. Impact calculus is critical to winning a round. I love scrappy debate. Finally, an argument that is not extended or answered is a dropped argument and so a true argument. Don't shadow extend arguments, actually explain it as you extend it, and don't just use buzz words.
Add me to the Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Ethics challenges: They stop rounds.
K's - A good K is always good. I will buy any argument here as well. I am moderately well versed in the literature, but that does not mean you can get away with not explaining your K. Perms can still work with K's. Lastly, Cap is a non-unique disadvantage, I don't love it but will vote on it if necessary.
K/Performance Affs: Utilize your performance as offense if it works, but I am not really persuaded by these arguments. I think that the aff should defend an advocacy statement (probably a topical plan or the resolution), but I can be persuaded otherwise. I love framework and will happily vote on it. Go beyond your prewritten blocks and actually debate the substance of the argument. Nothing is better than a 2a who answers a bunch of framework arguments that the neg never made.
T- If it is a topic generic aff, then it is topical. Otherwise, I will buy T. RVI's might be one of the few exceptions to the rule I stated at the beginning, I hate them, but I will vote off them if they are dropped.
DA's- Great. Love them. Will vote on them.
CP- I am a 2N, so I don't really find them abusive, but again any argument goes. I love Word Pics and a good, nuanced, one will help your speaks. Generic CP's are nothing special. Consult counterplans are the one kind that I feel are cheaty, but I can be persuaded otherwise. The perm should be in the 2AR 9 times out of 10.
Presumption- I only put this in here to say that I buy presumption more than most judges. I think that it is an underused argument that is actually great.
Prep: Starts and stops when you tell me to, but do not steal prep.
Same as above really. I am fine with speed, but if you spread you should flash.
Value: I don't love value debates very much and really default to Util, but if your value wins you the round then go for it.
As a policy debater, I prefer progressive LD, but I am fine with traditional LD as well.
For all forms of debate: Just do what you are comfortable with, I will listen to it, and if it is well debated, I will happily vote on it.
William Honea Paradigm
Athens HS (TX) 2015-2019
Texas Tech University 2019- Present
Speed- Doubt you can outspread my pen. But it by some chance you do I’ll let you know.
Affs- Read one.
K Affs- Provide a logical framework for me to evaluate.
T- Aff has burden to prove topicality. I will grant aff reasonability if there is a bright line given. Otherwise I default competing interp.
K’s- Don’t assume I know your author. That being said I can probably easily grasp it. Provide a role of the ballot.
Theory- Theory is fine as long as a good voters are given. Condo debates can be fun.
Ben Honoroff Paradigm
Lucas Humes Paradigm
Hi, my name is Lucas Humes, but you already know that so lets get to the MEAT:
K's- Do not run K's, that you're not familiar with, meaning make sure you know the philosophy that surrounds your Kritical position. I will vote for K's if you give me a reason to prefer the ALT/if you can prove that the underlying issue outweighs the impacts on the flow.
SPEED- I personally dislike speed and believe it gates people out of policy debate and would direct you to talk at a reasonable pace that could be understood by any person that has never competed in debate (more specifically policy). That does not mean you will lose the round if you spread, but if I can't understand you I won't flow/vote on it.
Conditionality- I'm on the fence with CONDO, personally I believe that conditional arguments are made only in an effort skew time. However, I will not vote you down for kicking something so long as you do it BEFORE THE 1AR, doing so in the 2NR is clearly abusive. I will accept theory arguments from both sides (condo good/bad), and will flow for the team that presents the best case on that issue within the round.
Topicality- I believe in "old policy" theory meaning that the aff should be topical and that the T is the first thing that should be voted on when making my final decision. With that being said only run T's if you can prove that actual ground is lost, don't just run T for the sake of running T. As far as affirmative should be concerned, if you prove no ground was lost then I will not vote on the T, but you MUST answer it.
Counter Plans- CP's need to be untopical, if you run a topical CP I will view it as a reason to uphold the resolution and thus vote aff on the cp. Perm is not an advocacy and shouldn't be treated as such, it is a test of mutual exclusivity nothing more.
Disadvantages- This in my opinion is how the negative wins the round, however as stated above is not the only way the negative could win the round. But if you prove post-aff world is worse than status quo then I vote neg.
Case- I will vote for neg if they prove aff doesn't solve effectively (solvency deficits) or if they can't solve at all (no solvency). I will also vote for neg on the case flow if they prove the issue is resolved by status quo.
Framework- You should be framing every argument, if you don't give me a reason to vote on something I won't.
Burdens- Aff: Prove that the world needs your plan and that it actually solves for the advantages you list. Neg: Prove that status quo is better, post plan world is worse, that the cp solves better, or that the affirmative is untopical.
With that said, I'm a very lax judge and will vote on whatever round you have. Have fun and try to learn something about the resolution!
Maria Ibrahim Paradigm
Evan Jones Paradigm
*updated for 17' Glenbrooks*
My preferences exist, but I’ll attempt to be as objective as possible.
I'm best for a CP+DA strategy but would prefer you do what you do best.
Warranted evidence comparison is the most important thing regardless of strategy.
Debate is a game, don't make the game a harmful place for someone else.
T-USFG & Planless
My ideological sway is toward T-USFG but I will do my best to not let that get in the way.
Topical versions of the aff are persuasive and helpful.
Sometimes these debates mistake the forest for the individual trees. Having the best impact comparison is the key.
Topicality w/ plan
I love a good T debate.
My default is competing interps and how the evidence interacts. Reasonability is not a question of the aff being reasonable it's if the counter interp is reasonable.
To win T there needs to be a clear distinction between the kind of topic each interpretation creates.
In round abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse, but if impacted out that changes
The more specific the better
A lot of DA scenarios are preposterous but we discuss them normally. Smart arguments that poke holes in the internal link chains can reduce DA risk quite a bit
Zero risk is hard, not impossible, super small risk of DA can be written off indistinguishable from zero
Turns case arguments are persuasive when well explained (preferably carded), they typically depend on the link being accessed
The link is generally more important than uniqueness can be persuaded the other way on this question
Bring back line by line
Same as DA, the more specific the better
Not going to judge kick for you
If it basically does the aff CP theory becomes a bit more persuasive (plan plus, consult, processes)
If there is textual and functional competitiveness then CP theory is not as persuasive, but am not ideologically positioned against it
I’m down – high theory stuff needs a bit more explanation because I don’t usually know what’s going on.
Please no conceptual 3 minute overview
Please no excessive buzzwords in place of explanation
9 times out of 10 it IS your Baudrillard.
If I don’t know what the alternative is doing the chances of it winning the round are very low.
Roll of the Ballot arguments tend to be self-serving or just a sentence that identifies the controversy of the round. I don’t think they get either side anywhere.
I could vote on an impacted out perf con argument.
Aditya Joshi Paradigm
Ian Kimbrell Paradigm
I coached for Saint Ignatius High School for 10 years in the 90s. I coached for Case Western Reserve University from 1995-2006. I started coaching again in 2016.
The teams I coached were 75% policy and 25% Kritik debaters. I am fine with any type of argument, but I tend to enjoy fast, evidence intensive, traditional policy debates that collapse down well to a few clear reasons for me to prefer.
I do my best not to interject my opinions or perspectives into the decisions. I like being told how to sign the ballot and will try to pick either the 2NRs or 2ARs interpretation of the round. I like analysis of warrants. Clash between competing warrants is makes for the best debate.
Bravado is encouraged as long as it done within the confines of fun, friendliness and fairness.
DAs: Analysis of the evidence, comparison of evidence, and clear articulation of uniqueness, link, and impact are important to me.
TOPICALITY: I like topicality debates but rarely see them. I look to compare two competing interpretations. I probably have a lower threshold than most for having to justify it as a voting issue.
KRITIKs: They are fine. I treat them like any other argument. The more specific the link evidence and link story is to the affirmative, the more engaged I will be. Permutations need to be clearly explained. I am open to K is bad arguments.
COUNTER PLANS: Counter Plans are fine. Permutations need to be clearly explained.
I have a bias towards new/odd arguments. Especially creative DAs and Counterplans. If you are looking to test something out, I may be a good judge to try it on. I'll make sure I give you all the feedback you need.
Jaden Lanza Paradigm
State good ------------------------------x--fuck off statist
Nah, for real if you have any questions just ask. I can handle most anything but just make the most reasonable and persuasive arguments. Spread if you want but send me your cards. Don't make silly or superfluous arguments you don't understand and have fun!
Caleb Lawson Paradigm
i go by alex, they/them.
a priori issues: respect everyone involved in the debate. if you're being a jerk, it will be reflected rather drastically in your speaks. if you're blatantly racist, sexist, don't respect pronouns, etc., it will be reflected rather drastically on which team wins the round :)
general notes: i vote off the flow by creating a story for why each team wins the debate. whichever story forces me to do the least work wins the round. i consider myself halfway between truth and tech; dropped arguments are true arguments, but you still have to explain what they are before i'll consider them. if i have a choice, i'm not going to vote on an arg i can't explain to the other team. i tend to lean slightly toward policy args, but i've read all sorts of stuff, so ks and k affs are a go (99% of teams reading t are woefully incompetent). the way you present your args doesn't matter to me until you or the other team tells me it should.
disads: i like em. read em. specific links are neat-o. specific link turns are neat-o-er. debates where teams read both are neat-o-est. there is such a thing as no risk, and i can be persuaded of it (probably much more easily than a lot of other judges can). do your impact calc.
cps: if you feel like cheating, go for it, but be prepared to justify that. i'm not super willing to kick it for you, but if the aff drops the ball on it then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
t: read it. i like it. if it's a time suck, i'll be sad. if the team has read the same aff all year, it's probably quite a bit harder for you to win this debate. i don't think t is an rvi, but then again i've also won debates on rvis, so do whatever you want
fw: i enjoy a good framework debate a lot. please do it well. while i am admittedly a bit biased toward framework, i am still receptive to k affs and have read them myself, so i have an understanding of what k teams need to do to beat it. don't change your aff for me.
theory: is cool. read it. i can be persuaded to vote on any of it.
condo: it's my personal opinion that a persuasive condo arg coming from the aff requires full commitment from the 1ar forward. anything else leads to these debates being thoroughly undersubstantiated past the block.
Cheyenne Lee Paradigm
Gavin Lott Paradigm
Vinson Lu Paradigm
email - email@example.com
Have any questions? Ask me.
I have debated CX for St. Andrew's Episcopal School for three years as a rising senior. Though I will attempt to evaluate the round from as objective of a stance as possible, I believe that no one can divorce themselves from their preexisting dispositions. Here are some of my general thoughts about debate:
- I believe that debate is primarily an educational activity. I have no problem intervening when argumentation or discourse is harmful for the debate space. Please do not engage in problematic discourse/rhetoric, including racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
- Although I am open to alternative models of adjudication, I default to resolving argumentation based on line-by-line argumentation. This means that engaging in evidence-based clash, comparing evidence, and handling the flow is crucial to winning.
- Debate is fun because the people are fun. There's a difference between being passionate and being mean.
- You do what you're comfortable doing - my role is not to impose my views on you. I will attempt to intervene as little as possible to make a decision.
Regarding specific positions:
- I feel that there is stronger value to "defensive" arguments than most people. It should be possible to win that an affirmative doesn't solve or that there is zero risk of a link to the disadvantage.
- I think that solvency deficits and internal-link takeouts are underutilized and help minimize policy affs well.
Critical Affs/Performance Affs
- You should be prepared to explain your methodology clearly.
- I have less sympathy to affirmatives that do not engage in the resolution in some form.
- If there's something I've learned from going for a politics DA too much, it's that your scenario is probably false. That being said, specific work here
- I prefer that you contexualize the disadvantage to the affirmative; even if you have generic links, explain how they implicate the affirmative.
- Turns case arguments are important in hedging affirmative solvency versus the disadvantage.
- Most counterplans are alright, although I tend to think that process CPs and international fiat are questionable.
- Clever counterplans are fun but are probably not very theoretically legitimate.
- Conditionality is probably good, but more than 3 advocacies is pushing it.
- I default to competing interpretations until told otherwise.
- People tend to forget that these theoretical arguments have impacts; these debates become incredibly hard to evaluate absent impact weighing.
> I probably have a lower threshold for pulling the trigger on these arguments, provided that the above stipulation is met.
- Links of omission are probably not links to the affirmative.
- Most good kritiks both implicate the methodology of the affirmative and propose a competing practice.
- The alternative is usually the weakest part of the K; as such, it probably needs the most explanation.
- Framework/ROTB is probably self-serving most of the time, but I'll evaluate it regardless.
Brenden Lucas Paradigm
Frosh @ MoState
Yes email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Updated for MSDI 2019
Typically, I default to offense/defense and that alone. But I'm open to any and everything you may run, and I'll do my best to evaluate it. So don't let any of my preferences discourage you from doing what you do best.
I have (at least I think) good topic knowledge, but still, don't go wild with jargon.
Don't steal prep and be nice
Be clear on tags and analytics pls
Topicality - Neg
T debates far too often end up nowhere and are underutilized against policy teams. Your interpretation should be easy to understand, qualified, and allow good ground with a decent amount of affs and ways the aff can be done. If you're going for T, I'm not going to require that you go all in during the 2nr, but know that you get what you put in.
I find that education is a fine impact, but I lean more towards procedural fairness being the preferred reason to vote neg on T.
Aff teams need a counterinterpretation and a reason why they meet the neg's interp and need to impact out why they don't hurt ground, education, fairness, etc.
T is always a voter but never a reverse voter
Topicality - Framework
Even though FW is just T, it's a different beast so here are my thoughts. FW should always be in your 1nc against a planless aff, that's obvious, but you should be very careful against certain affs. FW makes sense if it's a K that could've been done with a TVA (those need to be explained btw), but for identity teams, tread carefully. Neg's too often tell identity teams they don't have a place and that's fucked up.
However, besides that, FW debates need clear standards and voters with impacts that really grab me.
You should also twist the affs arm and try to get what arguments you can run and what the neg's role is. A lot of the time, aff teams will grant arguments in CX and then 180 to say those arguments are problematic so you could use that in your FW strat.
A clear role of the ballot, along with any TVAs need to be clear, and accessible by both sides in the debate.
I don't evaluate disads much differently than anyone else would. Make sure you have all four main components and please spend time going deep on the impacts and their calc. I need to know the nitty-gritty about how and why you outweigh the aff. Does your really bad shit happen faster, more likely, or is it overall worse? Tell me!
I'm pretty sure a lot of judges would say that aff needs to win UQ to go in on a LinkTurn, but I would disagree. I don't think UQ controls the link all that much, cause then UQ would often overwhelm the links to many disads.
PTX disads can be good or really bad. I know they're hyper generic, but it's on y'all to get me past that and sell me on the link chain. Aff teams also shouldn't rely on fiat solves the link or any other weak answer. Give me good analysis bruh!
I'm a big fan of the CP + Disad combo for neg. Like a good 90% of my high school 2nrs were CP Disad.
I want a counterplan to be something unique and interesting that solves all or at the very least enough of the aff to outweigh and prevent a real baller net benefit. I'm a fan of process and advantage CPs, but not delay or consult CPs. Those are dumb.
I won't privilege 2nc cp edits or anything like that. I'm also not one to judge kick.
I generally believe that condo is good, but not infinite obviously. I have my limits, and if we're at like 8 one sentence CP's in the 1nc I start to get sympathetic with the aff team.
The K - On Neg
K's of all sorts are very fascinating. However, my experience with K's isn't very great so I'm unfamiliar with a LOT of them. However, if you are a K team, do what you do best and run the K. I'm all ears for anything and am eager to learn about your thesis.
K's really need to go hard on the links. I need links that are well contextualized with what the aff does and how it does it. They gotta be super fleshed out and in-depth, I want something more than the aff uses the state or whatever.
Go hard on any perms or double binds the aff might throw at you. Are your links disads to the perms? Do the perms even work as ideas let alone policy implementations? Idk, that's on you.
The Alt debate is super critical for a K team to really win the ballot here. In my eyes, the alt is something that can be done real world and would mitigate any impacts the K is using to outweigh and turn that aff. If the alt doesn't solve or is kicked, I'm probably not willing to vote on the K or view it as a non uq disad.
The K on Aff
I find a lot of K affirmatives interesting and a lot of the times necessary to talk about a lot of bad shit in debate and in the world, however, see above for my experience with K's. Your aff will be very interesting but my lit knowledge is poor at best.
Aff teams really need to stress why the resolution is indefensible or why their advocacy or plan is good in the context of the topic. The advocacy should actually be able to resolve the thesis and impacts as well. I find that a lot of K affs can't actually resolve what they claim to be problematic, so be careful.
Negs should engage with the 1ac and use cross-x to gather as much info about it as they can before delving into the FW shell. Have really good case coverage along with CTP and or FW.
The aff should give the negative a role in the debate. I get it, you don't wanna, but if you're denouncing the topic, the team who should be denouncing the topic should have a role where they can engage you in the round.
At the end of it all, this is just my opinion (and who cares about that?). So just do what you do best and debate how you like to!
I'll evaluate anything you give me and I look forward to judging you
Also, I'll probably keep my flows for a little bit after the tournament so email me or find me after the round if you have more questions beyond the RFD.
Madeline Martinson Paradigm
I just really like fun debates😊
That being said, don’t be rude.
Ian Mattson Paradigm
Debated for La Salle for 4 years, currently at Elon University
3 years of being a 2A/1N in policy, one year of being a one off K debater in LD, also was double 2's for half the immigration topic
Tl;dr - I will vote on anything, so you do whatever you do best
Good explanation is important
Fast is good when clear
Analytics are good (most of the time)
Theory is good kinda
Politics DA is meh
High theory is meh
2NR ranks are T/K/DA+CP in that order
K Affs can be good
FW is good
I would like to be on the email chain: email@example.com
Debate is always educational and almost always good.
Everyone wants to say they're tab but they're not, so I'm just gonna give y'all the way I think about arguments. I don't think that necessitates a change in strategy, but more in extension of arguments. You do you.
Theory is fine as long as it's not fringe. Tell an abuse story and why that made it impossible for you to win/participate in the round. Coherent stories and examples of ground loss, etc. are good.
LD People: Disclosure is good, you should do it. But if you're reading disclosure and the violation is "I messaged them on facebook before X mins before the round and they didn't respond" I will give you a 25 regardless of whether you go for it or win. This is a terrible model for debate and whoever thought it was a good idea had no sense of personal space. Email or just, maybe, show up to the rooms 30 minutes before so you can disclose in person. Wild, I know.
Mostly the usual here, good links are better, impact calc is a must, please explain the turns instead of just putting it at the top of the block overview. Case specific DA's that you clearly did good prep for sound much better than a generic topic DA with a different link.
I think the politics DA is a terrible argument, if we're being honest with each other. That being said, in (almost) every policy round my 1NR was five minutes of politics. I will understand and vote on it, albeit begrudingly. If you have 3 internal links to get to an impact I don't hesitate to vote aff with some analysis on why risk of a link doesn't trigger said impact. 1 internal link is ideal, ya know, like a normal dis-ad.
Pls attack internal links, especially if there's more than 1. I promise they're bad. Unless they aren't, but I have yet to see a politics DA that has a good one.
More of the usual, make sure you explain why the CP solves case and why it doesn't link to the NB, and why the perm can't resolve the NB. Cheating CP's (Consult/Delay) are usually bad but it's the other teams job to call you out, if they don't then I'm not doing it for them. Just explain the mechanism and how it's different from the aff.
T and FW are different. T when done right is my favorite (and in my opinion, the most fun and strategic) 2NR. Extend interp/violation/(whatever you want to call impacts to T) and we'll be good. T is mostly tech so please try and keep it clean.
Some other thoughts:
Explain reasonability right please.
If there's no counter-interp it's literally impossible to win.
Generic shells are fine, just don't blow through blocks that you read against every aff on the topic. Slow down a little and contextualize to the aff.
There will be no RVI's under any circumstances.
Also gonna keep it fully transparent with y'all, FW is probably a true argument. That being said, I spent the entirety of my senior year not affirming the resolution and had no relation to the topic. Make of that what you will.
FW is about lbl and explaining why your model of debate is good. Relation to the topic makes it significantly easier to win as a K aff. Impact turns to either sides education arguments are good. DA's to interpretations are good. If you don't have a competing model of debate I'm literally incapable of voting for you, even if you win every DA. Link turns are good when explained right, impact turns to education are great when explained right. TVA's are terminal defense to counter-interps and any solvency deficits are just what neg ground is, so please explain why it is literally impossible to bring the thesis of your aff into a topical discussion. Or have a solid relation to the topic and have a reason your method wouldn't be able to function with fiat/the USfg/etc.
When I did policy, I read exclusively Cap and FW against K affs, Neolib and Security against most policy affs. When in LD I exclusively went one off queerpess, you do with that whatever you want to.
K's are good when: they have good links; an alternative with reasonable solvency; a framework that supports their thesis; impact turns to the aff; are well explained (big important). One or more of those things is always ideal.
K's are bad when: they have bad/generic links; are explained badly; have arbitrary alts that get no explanation; don't interact with the aff at all at any level(biggest important).
Please make distinctions between pre/post fiat impacts and the way I should evaluate them, otherwise I do it myself and one of y'all won't like the conclusion I come to, so make it for me please. Please contextualize to the affirmative, otherwise the link story becomes weak. Please know what you're talking about, otherwise I probably won't be voting for you. If the other team knows more than you about said criticism, there's a high chance I won't be voting for you. Just know your stuff please.
Reps K's are fine, alts that are just reject the aff ~work~ but y'all can do better.
High theory is meh, I don't think myself or any of y'all understand it but ya know, not gonna generalize. If you read Baudrillard and it's the same 3-4 cards I've seen my entire debate career I will be sad. Don't copy Mich KM. Or South Eugene. Or whomstever you're copying. Be original, it makes everything better.
PS: I've read baedan, Baudrillard, Warren, Wilderson, Halberstam, Puar, Winnubst, DnG, Giroux, Ahmed, and various security authors. Don't skirt explanation because I've read your author of choice, if it isn't in the round I'm not going to evaluate it.
Aff teams: if the aff is soft left the permutation is usually a good bet, contest links because they're probably bad, have defense of the rhetoric of the aff, give me a reason to prefer being a policymaker, etc. Most K's can be dismantled pretty easily if you just use your brain a little instead of reading more cards. Call out blippy DA's to things like the perm or FW.
Hey I've read one of these! For a whole year! And it had no relation to the topic!
Regardless, I am totally fine with these. You need good answers to FW, reasons why their education is bad and yours is not, reasons why the TVA literally can't exist under their interp, etc. Know your lit. Explain what the aff does and why I should sign my ballot aff. Affs that want the ballot for the reading of the 1AC aren't persuasive. Have a method I can vote for, or why the epist is good, or whatever. Give me something. Please.
Performance: I never was ~too~ involved with these so take that into account. Explain why the performance matters/what it gets you/why and how I should evaluate it. As a sage once said: "Reading an eDgY speech doc is not a performance." I wholly agree with that, garnering offense off of the reading of the 1AC/K is fine but don't say it's a performance unless it is. Embodying the method in round would be considered a performance if done right.
KvK - I did none of these until my senior year. I've grasped it but still probably don't understand a lot of the nuances that go into it, especially if I'm not familiar with the lit, so please explain why things matter. If it's a methods debate I think it's very easy to win mutual exclusitivity on the perm, but that might just be me.
Intersectionality can be a good argument if you have the warrants for it, randomly claiming it probably isn't gonna fly and is super susceptible to links.
Why is disclosing speaks a thing? Don't ask, I'll just make them lower than I was originally going to.
Cross can be good when utilized right. Don't be an ass, you can be sarcastic or whatever I honestly don't care. Bring the concessions up in a speech or it doesn't mean anything. If you make me chuckle it's probably good.
You can use whatever pronouns you want for me. If I slip up and say "guys" it's a Philly thing that is gender neutral. Misgendering people is just like, rude? It's not that hard to just say they/y'all. If the other person has an issue with that then they can bring it up, otherwise you just look ignorant/mean/oblivious to me, which are all bad looks.
Sorry if I missed anything, feel free to email me with questions, it's at the top
Esther Mergerson Paradigm
Wendy Muir Paradigm
Background: I have debated LD for about 2 years in highschool. I debated PFD for 1 year and am a two time qualifier to the NSDA national tournament both times in WSD.
LD: I’m a very Traditional Judge. I don’t want to see any spreading, speed is fine but if I can’t understand you I won’t flow you. I love to see clash in Rounds and during crossfire. However, if you bring something up in crossfire you must bring it up in your next Speech or I won’t flow it. In LD I want to see logical arguments however I’m fine with you using common sense arguments however I do wanna see evidence backing up these arguments
PFD: Like LD I’m a traditional judge I wanna see clash in both crossfire and speeches. I am fine with speed, but not spreading again if I can’t understand you I won’t flow you! If you do bring something up in crossfire I want you to bring it up in your next speech or I won’t consider it! In PFD I want to see you use not just evidence but also logic in your cases.
WSD: Being someone who loves the style of WSD I will traditionally go by the rules (I.e. conversational speaking, avoid traditional debate lingo, etc.) but overall don’t be straight rude to your opponents it makes you look bad and just be courteous to your opponents.
-Stock Issues Judge – The AFF must have all five stock issues to win the round
-Counterplans must be competitive/unique
-Kritiks/DAs are fine
-No Theory, Topicality is fine though
-Offtime Roadmaps are good
Justine Musk Paradigm
Quan Nguyen Paradigm
Wichita East Policy Debate: 2015-19 (surveillance - immigration)
Washburn NFA LD: 2019-
Most common 2nrs were a Counterplan and Politics Disad or an impact turn. There's no such thing as a cheating counterplan if you win theory. Im not great for kritikal arguments- my senior year we only went for a K twice and always went for T-USFG vs planless affs.
Dilon Nguyen Paradigm
email: dilonwin(at)gmail(dot)com , please add me on the chain
My name is Dilon, i'm a current debater at New Mission High and been debating for 5 years and counting. I've debate in the high school circuit of Boston Debate League. I attended national circuit tournaments 3 out of my 5 years.
*As of NSDA 2019 I've judged 6 tournaments on this topic*
I am the 2A/1N if that matters to you. I'll vote on anything you read, I've done cp's and da's to performances. It really comes down to what you tell me to vote on and why. I'll do some of the work on the flow but don't think that I understand everything you tell me.
Be cordial, i want a good debate where both teams are able to learn and have fun.
I do not want to see a veteran team running high theory shit against a team that is new to policy debate, it can and may discourage new debaters to even debate. Being disrespectful is taking very seriously; it'll reflect on your speaks. I've debated in UDL so i know the huge gap in debate so please respect every team.
Weighing cards is better than giving me multiple pieces of evidence without any impact framing/calc. It'll be rewarded if you can tell me why pieces of evidence are important.
Speed: idc but i need to hear a tag and author. If it can't understand, i won't flow it ESPECIALLY YOUR ANALYTICS.
I'm a very expressive person so look at my face to see my reactions. Seriously, i do make pretty cool faces in round.
***If you say Jessie Pontes is the worse debater, I might just give you a 30.***
Speaks: there's a thin line between funny and asshole so remember that. Be you, do you, but just be respectful. In cross-x, idc of it gets loud or there's talking over each other, but allow your opponent to answer the question. If you don't read actually warrants, don't lie and say you did. automatic 24 speaks.
AFF: run whatever you like. I've ran K AFFS, Policy, and even nontopical policy (don't even ask me about it lol). The aff should give me a clear impact to vote on. I want a story, don't think your 1AC is a case, think of it as a story, give me an image in my head. I honestly believe you can be persuasive enough to tell me why i should vote case. Make sure you give me something to vote on, don't assume that I know what you're advocating for if you literally don't give me anything to vote on.
K: I lean K. I'm somewhat familiar with certain K lit so just do you. But, don't do some stupid ish about how like racism good. Also, deep stuff like nietszche, Lacan, Agamben, etc. i;m not to familiar with but if you just explain a good story and tell me why the AFF fits into the kritik and how it triggers the impacts, or just some damn
T/FW: idc, I'm willing to vote on it if there's a clear story
Theory: sure, i'll vote for it if it's explained thoroughly. I want to actually see why "framework makes the game work."
DA: i know most scenarios, same thing, just give me a good story and impact calc. dont make me do work on the impact calc. I need to here a real clear reason on why they trigger imp. if it's not explained then i might not even evaluate it
CP: same thing as a case, just give me net benefit and a solvency story. tell me how it solves case and/or why it's just better than the aff
Layne Nichols Paradigm
Firstly, it’s not my job to make your arguments for you or to be interventional. If someone makes a horrible argument, it’s your job to tell me why it’s horrible and why I should vote on it. Don’t just extend tags, instead extend the warrants as they tell me why the argument matters. This gives a better idea of the arguments you’re extending as I may not have caught the author or tag, but instead probably flowed the warrant.
Speed should be fine for whatever you want to do... if you go too fast I’ll hand signal you to slow down.
I’m with most all types of args - Theory, CPs, traditional DisAds, etc. Not a huge fan of K’s and I think they are not run properly and a waste of time. This doesn’t mean don’t run a K, it just means if you do, run it correctly or I probably won’t buy it.
I’m voting on quality of arguments, not how pretty a speaker you are. At the same time, if you constantly stumble over your words to the point where I can’t understand you, I probably just won’t even flow it.
Time yourselves, I don’t want to have to worry about that
TL;DR Don’t assume I’ll make points for you, speed doesn’t matter, run whatever you want as long as you run them correctly
Justin Real Paradigm
Senior @ Wichita East
It's very hard to win if you don't have offense... please have offense.
I'm down for whatever you want to do (within reason- don’t say/do shitty stuff), but be ready to defend your actions and justify them and be able to explain your arguments.
I'm 99.9% not going to vote on something being a stock issue- actually impact it out to fairness/education please and explain why your education is good, and theirs is bad.
Please contextualize your links to the aff or it will be hard to vote on any K/DA. Impact out turns case args/ offense you have.
Frame the debate and tell me what you want me to vote on or you might not be happy with the decision.
Here's my wiki w/ stuff I've done on the topic- has all my 2NR's
Feel free to ask if you have any questions.
Mason Remaley Paradigm
I'm tab in its purest sense,so feel free to run what ever you want. I'm just as comfortable with Deleuze as I am with T.
You have to extend analysis of arguments things for me to vote on them. I'm good with speed just be clear.
Don't be offensive.
I can answer specific questions in round or if you email me.
Lukas Rhoades Paradigm
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm open to any arguments, but I probably will have bias towards framework against planless affs.
At the end of the round I'll look at the ballots for both sides and pick the more persuasive one. The final rebuttals should tell the story of why you get the ballot.
I've read a good mix of soft-left and big stick affs, and I'm open with both.
I generally think conditionality is good (most definitions other than no or infinite seem arbitrary). However, I can be persuaded if the specific negative strategy involves inherent abuse that make it impossible for the aff to garner offense. Winning 2AR's on condo will be 1. it was dropped or 2. sufficiently answering neg args and explanation of above abuse.
A lot of counterplans probably can be considered "cheating", but its up to the affirmative to give warrants why and not just say "process cps bad kills fairness" and move on.
I enjoy creative disad turns case and case turns the disad arguments. I see these basically like everyone else. I also like specific links. Make sure to utilize impact calc, it makes a ballot a lot easier to obtain.
I have experience reading generic neolib/cap, security, and some set col but not much else. I'm probably not the best for high theory args.
Kritiks should have actual links to the aff that aren't links of omission. Saying "state bad" and "aff uses usfg/state" is NOT a link.
Vs. Plan Affs
These are some of my favorite debates.
Just saying the neg dropped reasonability isn't a default vote aff, it just means that the counter-interp solving neg offense would warrant a ballot.
Make sure to still do impact calc instead of just saying "vote neg preserve limits" or "vote neg their interp kills neg ground". Why does this matter?
Vs Planless Affs
For a ballot the affirmative should provide a defensible counter-interp and successfully impact turn the neg's impacts.
The following paradigm reflects basically all my views:
milton Rosenbaum Paradigm
Ty Rossow Paradigm
Background: I debated on the national circuit in CX (three years) and LD (one year) for Union HS (OK). I am now a first year out at Baylor University pursuing majors in economics and philosophy. I am also an LD instructor at VBI.
--- Debate is a game. That does not mean the game should be exclusionary or lack educational value.
--- Tech determines truth. I’m not comfortable imposing my beliefs about the world onto the debate, unless the debate is offensive to a group of people.
----- I enjoy highly technical debates.
------- Speed is fine but be clear.
------- Evidence quality matters, but not if you don’t explain the warrants in said evidence. I’ll call for cards if there is a dispute about what a piece of evidence says, but I won’t vote on warrants in your evidence that are neglected in the debate.
------ If you clip cards or say something offensive about a group of people, I will give you zero speaks and an automatic loss.
----- Tl;dr for the rest of the paradigm: Like all judges, I have preferences, but I am generally comfortable with voting for anything. Win the arguments on the flow and you will almost certainly win my ballot.
Policy AFFs: I like them.
*** Against the K: Don’t shy away from defending what you do. I’m more than comfortable with voting for a heg good + util 2AR if that’s the direction your aff takes you.
*** I’m also cool with soft-left AFFs.
K AFFs: I have experience reading them and will vote for it. Performance is also fine if you communicate the importance of it. Framework specific preferences are addressed below.
Disads: Yes. Read lots of cards.
CPs: Yes. My views on “judge kicking” aren’t particularly strong either way; give me a warrant and I will evaluate it.
K: Yes. I have a fairly extensive background in K debates. This is mostly on the identity side, but I am willing to listen to continental philosophy as long as it is explained well. In addition:
*** More specific link argumentation is always better. That doesn’t mean I won’t vote for a generic link, but I’ll be much friendlier to your K if you can tie it to the 1AC.
*** On questions of framework, I lean towards the middle ground; the aff can weigh the 1AC, but the neg can garner links external to the plan.
*** The block and 2NR need to clearly articulate the alt for me to vote on it.
*** I will vote for a floating PIK, but if the aff calls it out, I will strongly lean aff on the theory debate.
T: Yes. Don’t be afraid to go for it if you’re winning the flow.
*** I generally default towards an offense-defense paradigm over reasonability.
Theory: It’s fine. I’m not a huge fan but I’ll vote on it if you’re clearly ahead.
*** I was a 2N so I lean neg on most theory debates, including condo, PICs, process CPs, consult CPs, and international fiat.
*** On condo: one counterplan is almost certainly acceptable, two counterplans is probably acceptable, three counterplans is debatably acceptable, and four counterplans is really pushing it.
*** I’ll vote on a perf con arg if it is impacted out and turns the K.
*** I lean neg. That does not mean you should be afraid to read a K aff in front of me; I will fully evaluate it like any other argument. Instead, it just means that you need to be going for the right arguments (under my paradigm) to win the debate.
*** On the neg, I am most persuaded by clash and procedural fairness arguments.
*** It helps me greatly if you have some way to suck up most of the aff offense. A TVA, truth testing, impact turns to the aff’s method, or some combination of these will greatly benefit your 2NR.
*** On the aff, I am most persuaded by arguments about how framework creates a poor educational model and/or necessitates exclusion.
*** You need to be defending your aff as a debatable argument. Impact turns to clash and fairness won’t get you far; I am highly inclined to believe that both of these are voting issues. Defensive arguments about how to preserve limits, ground, predictability, etc., coupled with your offense, is a much better strategy in front of me.
*** I would greatly appreciate seeing impact comparison from both sides. I feel that the neg is often ahead on questions of fairness, and the aff is often ahead on questions of education. Determining which impact outweighs is therefore paramount to many decisions.
---- Spreading is fine, but be clear.
---- I am fine with progressive and traditional LD, and I have experience in both.
---- LD rounds are often light on warrants and efficiency. If you are superior to your opponent in both of those regards, you will get my ballot over 90% of the time.
K AFFs/CP/DA/Framework/Ks: These are all good and addressed in my policy paradigm. Other thoughts I have specific to LD are:
*** I am more lenient towards CP theory in LD rounds due to the time structure. One condo CP or K is probably fine, but anything beyond that is probably abusive.
*** Comparative analysis that typically happens in the policy 2NC needs to be in the LD NC.
Plans: These are acceptable and I enjoy these debates.
*** I am willing to vote on Nebel T, and I am interested in hearing more of these debates.
Phil: Despite my primarily policy background, I enjoy these arguments quite a bit. I find philosophy fascinating, and these cases are the heart of LD, so please don’t hesitate to read them if this is your A strat. With that being said, I do have a couple of comments:
*** Oftentimes, I feel like phil cases rely heavily on jargon to confuse opponents and go for drops. If you rely on this and your opponent messes up, I will vote for it, but I a) will not understand much and b) feel as if you are creating a bad pedagogical model, so your speaks will suffer.
*** On the contrary, phil cases that are well-explained and accessible will receive higher speaks. Giving examples that prove your philosophy will be a major help with this.
Theory: My receptiveness to your shell will largely hinge on a personal “gut check.” If legitimate abuse has clearly occurred in the round, I will grant you more leeway on the theory debate. However, I will be frustrated if it seems as if you are fishing for a theory violation to run from substantive debate. This also means that I lean strongly towards reasonability; I think most experienced debaters intuitively know whether their strat (or shell) is reasonable.
*** This does not mean I won’t vote for frivolous theory. If you win the arg, I will vote for it. However, I will be very frustrated, lower your speaks, and my threshold for you “winning the argument” will be high.
*** I am fine with metatheory in instances where there is legitimate abuse.
*** RVIs are debatably fine. I will vote on it if you win the flow.
*** It helps me when you give a title for your warrants. For example, instead of saying “a) x b) y ” say “a) Time skew (or whatever warrant) – x b) (separate warrant) etc.”
*** If you are aff, please do not pretend you have multiple different warrants if all of them collapse to time skew.
*** AFC, TJF, and the whole gamut of exceedingly silly theory arguments will annoy me.
*** Abusive under-views will annoy me as well.
Wesley Roush Paradigm
I debated four years for Topeka High School in Topeka, KS
Don't be rude, have fun. I have zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
If you are reading a structural violence aff then you should be reading a content warning before the round begins. Doesn't mean you have to, just my personal preference.
I'd prefer a flash or to be on the email chain if applicable (email@example.com)
I ran everything from middle of the road affs to K affs.
I value tech over truth, a conceded argument is a conceded argument.
If you are spreading give me some time in the beginning to let my ear warm up cause I haven't listened to fast flow debates in months. If I can't understand you then I won't be flowing. And for the love of god please sign post!!
I can adapt to most things you are running unless is a super specific K, then you might lose me on the flow because if I don't understand it I won't vote for it. I will probably look confused if I am confused.
But, if you are going to adapt to me then you should have a pretty easy time.
Affs - You should be topical or at least topic oriented. But I am not opposed to rejecting the topic. Just run whatever you have been running all year and you should be fine.
Disads - I enjoy unique and smart politics disads but I also think generics can garner good education in the round for lower levels of debate. If you don't have the basic structure of a DA then you have less of a chance winning on it.
CPs - Run them, I think they are a crucial part of the negs arsenal. PICs arent my favorite but that doesnt mean I won't vote for them. Other than that you should be fine if you read a CP in front of me unless its some generic delay CP.
T - T is important and teams should be reading T every round even to just test the aff. I don't have a default to either competing interps or reasonability - it is your job to convince me which one is better for the debate. RVI's are something I will NOT vote for. The aff should be good enough to answer T without trying the RVI. T is one of my favorite arguments and not enough teams utilize it.
Ks - Sure read them, just because you can read blocks at me doesnt mean I'll vote for it. If you are just yelling buzzwords and not explaining the argument then there is a small chance I'll vote for it.
Any questions just ask me when in the room and I'll be happy to answer it.
Maddie Rowley Paradigm
Gabriel Sandoval Paradigm
Sarwa Shah Paradigm
Richard Shen Paradigm
- I will vote on almost anything if you debate it well enough. Read what you feel comfortable with.
- A dropped argument is a true argument, but you still need to explain why that argument is important.
- Clarity comes first. If I can't understand what you're saying, I won't write it down. If my pen stops moving during your speech it's a bad sign.
- Everything results in extinction anyways, so make sure you're doing good impact comparison probability-wise.
- Please be polite and professional. I will dock speaks for rudeness and disorganization.
- Good evidence is good, but spin is more fun :) Just don't flat-out lie because I will catch you.
- Humor gets you points for style but won't affect my decision.
Underrated imo. Debate the case like you would any other flow. That means making good arguments and responding to your opponents. A well-debate case can swing the round either way. The aff will usually have better solvency evidence but the neg can beat it with smart analytics. Take out the weakest internal links!
I don't care much for philosophical framing debates. Just tell me why structural violence should outweigh a small chance of a disad or why extinction comes first.
Good as a tool for taking down tricky, borderline-topical affs. Bad as an A-strat. That said, reasonability will not always save you.
K Affs- Debate 👏 is 👏 a 👏 game. I think deliberately avoiding the topic is unfair. That's not a free win for the negative, though. Both sides need to fully explain the value of their position.
My personal favorite part of debate.
Every disad is different so I can't say much other than UQ, L, I. You're gonna want to win all three. In the end, the 2nr will have to tell a story, so specificity and coherence tend to beat sweeping aff args.
My second favorite part of debate. A clever counterplan that solves the case will win my ballot. The affirmative will need to win that the risk of a solvency deficit outweighs the risk of the net benefit to beat any counterplan.
Solvency advocate theory's a loser, but not having evidence makes solvency deficits more enticing.
50 state fiat theory's not great. I will allow it but whether the negative gets uniformity is up for debate.
I will judge kick if you tell me to.
Good: smart and creative PICs
Bad: Multi-actor, future fiat, consult
PS- speak boost to whomever first compliments my Supreme sticker; gotta do your pre-round prep, kids.
I understand most kritics, but the negative should still slow down in the overview to explain the thesis. Random buzz words and K-tricks will not cut it.
Specific links will beat the perm. Co-option disads won't.
I will usually lean aff on framework. "Vote for whichever team best heuristically examines capitalistic epistemology" is not fair.
David Si Paradigm
Dougherty Valley '19
-Debate how you normally would debate in front of me: fast, slow, critical, etc.
-I am most likely qualified to judge your round
-My judging paradigm is similar to Scott Wheeler's
-I debated four years of Policy and LD
-I received 1 bid to the LD TOC
-I qualified to the NSDA National Tournament in Policy 2x, reaching top 30
-I qualified to the CA State Tournament in Policy 3x, reaching quarterfinals
-I primarily read policy-style arguments, but have gone for K's as well. If you are reading a K I've most likely hit it before, so expect a cursory understanding.
-Almost all of my 2NR's have had this. Read them as you usually would.
-Politics DA's are probably educational. I lean neg on questions of whether fiat includes PTX.
-Default judge kick.
-Read sufficiency framing.
-Condo is good unless there is a convincing reason why the specific advocacies force aff out of making certain arguments.
-Lean aff on cheaty counterplans theory.
-Default reasonability. However, I'm neutral about competing interps vs reasonability.
-Weigh standards (legal precision vs limits) and also voters (fairness vs education)
-Assume I have no topic knowledge so provide case lists and warrant what constitutes "core of the topic."
-ELI5, don't take buzzwords for granted
-Specific link work + alt solvency explanation >>> generic framing + ROTB
-I don't take a particular stance on whether the aff gets to weigh case, but when the arguments boil down to "moots the 1AC" versus "epistemology first + fiat double bind" I find myself (reluctantly) leaning neg.
-If your strategy revolves around confusing your opponent you will confuse me as well.
K Affs + Framework
-I prefer if these are in the direction of the resolution but this isn't a hard rule.
-Your counterinterp to framework should be a robust, defensible model for debate.
-You get perms as long as you convincingly explain what they look like.
-Here are some of my preferences
-Education >>> Procedural Fairness, but I understand the strategic incentives in front of certain affs.
-Policymaking bad >>> Limits are a prison.
-Drop the argument. Drop the team is reserved for condo only.
Madison Simms Paradigm
Tanya Singh Paradigm
For Congressional Debate, I believe speech structure is very important with speaking, and I also believe that being a clear, concise speaker is integral for competitive success.
In session, I value clash and non-repetition. Especially refuting the points of specific representatives and showing how your point and theirs fundamentally differ. If I hear a speech that repeats everything that has already been said in the debate and adds nothing new, along with avoiding direct clash, I will vote down, regardless of how brilliant of a speaker you might be.
I believe that with this structure you must give a thesis in which you "preview" your points before actually going on to give your speech, otherwise, it becomes unclear as to what you are going to say and becomes harder to judge/examine clash.
With argumentation, you must present a claim and a CLEAR warrant to support the aforementioned claim. Don't assume that everyone in the room knows what your statistics mean, explain to them if necessary, but make it short and sweet.
There also needs to be a real-world impact for your argument, nothing you say actually matters if you don't explain how this will change global geopolitics or demographics for better/worse. Then, you are just saying things to say them.
In the cross-examination/questioning period, don't let the questioner ramble on with a half-coherent question for fifteen seconds or longwindedly give an answer that lasts for twenty. This is where I especially value being clear and concise.
I will be especially tough on the PO, parliamentary procedure can be arduous and difficult so I will be lenient on that, but being fair and kind to the representatives in the chamber is important, as you have been given the duty by your peers. Respect goes BOTH ways.
I value sportsmanship very highly. Do not be rude to the other representatives in your chamber or subordinate them to yourself. Do not be bigoted or disrespectful. We are here to have an intellectual debate and it would be inappropriate for it to devolve into disorganized chaos where nobody is treating each other correctly.
With Policy Debate, I am slightly more lenient on speech style and I find myself fixating on the validity of arguments and the analysis of arguments being made. This does not mean I will vote up speakers who are sloppy and unstructured, because I will not. Speed is not an issue for me, you will not be speaking too fast for me at any time, as long as you signpost and slow down on your tags, so I can flow. As long as you can speak quickly and with clarity, I will be fine with speed.
I will tell you that I have only done one year of policy debate (with great competitive success in the KDC and JV divisions).
In the event that someone doesn't speak clearly, I will clear them. I will clear a competitor exactly twice before putting down my flow and tuning out for the rest of the speech. I will also vote down for a lack of clarity in speeches.
For Disadvantages and Kritiks, they should have an aff-specific link (but I will be lenient on this rule in the case that an aff is small/niche-y).
DAs: I really really dislike the usage of generic links because they tend to be weak and are not really applicable to all affirmative cases under the resolution. I prefer politics disads to anything else, I think they're the strongest type of disadvantage, but that doesn't mean I'm going to flip out if you run some other form of disadvantage. The disadvantage is easily my favorite argument that can be made on the neg. I debated a lot in the KDC division (classical style debate) in which disadvantages are predominantly used as neg offense. Make sure the disadvantage is unique and has a strong link chain leading to the impact. I strongly dislike disadvantages with a nonsensical link chain or have an impact of nuke war/global pandemic from 2010, because the timeframe for that has OBVIOUSLY elapsed. I prefer more real-world impacts of structural violence, racism, discrimination-based violence.
Ks: I'm not gonna pretend I'm some sort of K Hack or something, I've only read Neolib and Fem K in round, but I have read some other K lit with some level of understanding. I also dislike generic link arguments with kritiks, despite liking them as an argument being made on the neg- I believe there's a lot of merits to the Kritik. Make sure that your alt guarantees solvency and tell me why we should prefer the world of the alt to the world of the aff. Tell me WHY the world of the aff is bad and how the aff leads to your impact/impacts. You should able to refute arguments made on the Kritik. I prefer epistemology to ontology in Kritikal debates. For the Kritik I'm open to more impacts than I would be with a disadvantage, especially with the nature of a kritik, but I prefer impacts of societal/ecological collapse, worsening of status quo, etc.
Topicality: I like topicality, but not as much as disadvantages and kritiks. If it gets to the point that the 2NC is 8 minutes of Topicality, you better do a good job analyzing the T debate. I will vote for T if it is the main voter/argument present in round, otherwise I will vote for other arguments being made. If the aff provides a counterinterpretation, tell me why I should prefer your interpretation to theirs. I am not too huge on debating credibility (in general) of sources as opposed to the actual warrants of the definition. Otherwise with crebility on T, my hierarchy for credible sources is pretty simple:
1. Supreme Court Rulings
2. Governmental Organizations
3. Experts on the Topic
4. Mainstream Media
for voters on topicality, I prefer education based voters. I don't really want to hear anything else as a voter because at the end of the day, education gained/lost should matter more than anything else in the round.
Counterplans: I'm not a huge fan of them, because solvency usually doesn't match with the counterplan text in its entirety, but I am not completely closed off to the idea of them. They are just my least favorite argument used for neg offense.
PICS and PiKs: Prove PICS are abusive if they are run. You could do a PiK in one sentence (please slow down for it) and I would still count it as an argument that must be responded to.
K Affs: I'm mostly unfamiliar with K Affs, I've read some K Affs on Open Evidence, but I don't entirely grasp or prefer the structure of K Affs.
Theory: I like debating on debate theory, especially when used to prove abuse/no abuse in the round. But I dislike hearing the same, stale blocks that anyone can get from Open Evidence.
Framing: I love hearing debates on framing and seeing affs that provide framing because they give me a lens to look through the round with instead of forcing me to rely on my own, biased lens. Framing is quite important to me because in most rounds it can determine a win/loss by telling me what to prioritize in the round. When both aff and neg provide frameworks, I must be given a reason to prefer one framework over the other.
* I hate arguments saying racism good, sexism good, poverty good, etc. I will vote you down for running them.
* I get triggered by descriptive narratives of rape, domestic violence/sexual violence, suicide and depression. These can be mentioned in round, but if you fail to provide a content warning and read such narratives, I will leave the round for that speech.
*Be fair to your opponent and show good sportsmanship. Don't be rude/condescending to them and respect them, their pronouns and triggers. Don't run arguments that invalidate an opponent's identity intentionally.
*Don't be abusive and run shallow arguments as a time skew that kill education in the round. I think it's fundamental that we be equitable to each other and make sure that everyone leaves the round with as much education as they can possibly gain from the round.
*Flash quickly when using flashdrives, I would prefer a copy as well for flowing purposes and so I can read the cards and understand the warrant behind them better through reading them.
Thanalini Sivanesan Paradigm
Yes, I would like to be apart of the email chain. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Yes, you can spread.
Yes, it can be open cx.
Quick Things to Know ...
1. DO NOT say anything racist/homophobic/transphobic. Even if the other team doesn't make it a voting issue (which they should ... hint hint) I will drop speaks.
2. Impact out all of your arguments!
On to the Specifics ...
CPs are fine, just prove mutual exclusivity. A clever PIC is always good but be ready to defend why you get to steal most or certain parts of the aff plan.
DAs are good too, but generic links that apply (to immigration policies) overall are ineffective, and if the aff proves that to be true I am less likely to vote on it.
- I'm not as persuaded by nuclear war impacts. You can try, just have a good internal link story.
Ks are my favorite! That DOES NOT include white POMO ... those are my least favorite. You can read them if you like but be ready to explain the white gibberish simply, because confusion does not get my ballot, and disregard my eye rolling. Do not take this to mean that I will vote up a queer anarchy k, anti-blackness k etc. just because its read. Have specific links to the AFF, point out specific warrants and give analysis on how the world of the alt vs. the world of the aff functions, and you got my ballot
FW shells are interesting as I do not have a bias on it, so do whatever you want. Just prove why I should adopt your FW shell and compare it to the aff's.
I have a HIGH threshold for voting on T/Theory, if the violation is unreasonable.
- I DO NOT think Fairness is an impact.
- I will likely buy condo bad if its more than 6 off.
That's all! GOOD LUCK! DON'T SUCK! HAVE FUN!
Cole Skinner Paradigm
Halton Stancil Paradigm
Policymaker, with an emphasis on stock issues. I don't really like theory, but if you have to run it make sure I can follow it very closely.
I require that those participating in cross-ex stand if they are responding/asking questions.
Please don't spread! On a scale of 1-10 (10 being super spread) I'm comfortable at a 5 or weak 6. I like quality of the speech over quantity of the arguments.
I don't like Kritikal Affirmatives. I think they detract from the object of the particular debate.
I would like it if voters/frameworks could be made clear as early as possible. (First rebuttals being the last chance for that)
I like competing values, they really make for a more interesting debate and add to the overall clash.
I would prefer if teams could time themselves for speeches and prep time.
Alex Sullivan Paradigm
Policy consultant for Melissa High School (TX)
Student at the University of North Texas studying Comm Studies and English.
(2015-2019) Policy Debate/ Extemp for Melissa High School on the UIL, TFA, NSDA level(s)
Former coaches: Brenden Dimmig, Kyle Brenner
Paradigm Thesis: TAB
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
My paradigm should not restrict the debaters from choosing one thing over the other. Use this as a guide, not as the rules. Do what you're comfortable with.
Thesis: I will listen to every and anything. I do consider myself tab. I feel a lot of times judges say they are tab and will listen to anything but only because they don't want to look bad and/or get striked. I will listen to anything as well as vote on it. That being said, if I have to fit under any "traditional" paradigm it would be policymaker. Going for full STOCK issues won't exactly win you the debate. Do whatever you're comfortable with and just be cognitive of me following along with your arguments. Have fun!
Speed: I'm fine with it! Just sign-post and please slow down on tags/analytics. Please be aware that I will most likely call for the speech docs and will be following along.
Speaker Points: I will start with a 29 and then work my way up or down :) For specific tournaments, I will adjust my speaker point range.
Card clipping: Noopppppeeee. Not cool. If you call your opponents out and I can confirm clipping, I will vote them down.
Etiquette: I will absolutely not tolerate any racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, xenophobic, etc. commentary in the round. If so, I will tank your speaks and if I feel otherwise, vote you down and bring it up to tab. Feel free to utilize your opponents' discourse as links to your argument(s).
Appearance: I could care less about how you dress or look. It's 2019, we shouldn't care about those misogynistic and gendered norms. Also, I don't care if you sit down during cross-ex. Just make sure I can hear you!
Last couple of things: I flow on paper and sometimes on my computer. Every contention/advantage will be its own sheet and every off will be its own sheet. I will flow everything you say unless I have no idea what you're saying. I also probably won't keep your prep time, and won't necessarily count flashing as prep unless it becomes excessive, duhhh.
Love it. If you end up winding the debate down to T, I prefer the 2NR be just the topicality and additionally some case or just 5 minutes of T.
- The standards are disadvantages. Providing a case list for me is very important starting out in the 1NC and/or 2AC and impacting that out throughout the round. That being said, provide me with some off-case positions that you lose and why those specific positions link back into your standards.
- I love contextualization and/or grammar arguments. Saying, "look at the plan through a vacuum" doesn't really do anything for me. Make sure you're doing the full analysis here.
- Warrant all of your claims out, and give me those voters. I don't necessarily default to any set of interpretations. Competing interps or reasonability? Just tell me which one to prefer!
- Reasonabiltiy is the test of the AFF's counter-interpretation, not the AFF.
I treat framework in similar regards to topicality. Again, weigh the standards as disads and explain to me why voting on this sets a precedent for future rounds.
- A topical version of the aff is probably your best way to win here.
- Make sure you're not going for multiple disads in the 2NR. Give me a clear standard and the reason as to why that's the voter.
- As the aff, I err neg when you make arguments like "T creates our offense". I don't really know what to do with that. I'm fine if you make those arguments but just make it more clear for me as to why that's a reason to reject the FW argument tech wise.
- Cond/uncondo/dispo: I'll vote on it. I will not vote on it if it's used as your only answer to an argument. Tell me why voting on it is uniquely key for this debate round.
- Contradicting advocacies: I'm fine with. Just don't be too abusive.
- Disclosure theory: ehhhhhh. Let's do our best to avoid this. If you don't have your stuff on the case wiki, just give the opposing team a heads up on what you're planning on running prior to the round.
- Word theory (trigger warnings, ect.): I'll vote on it. I think it's very important for setting a precedent. That being said, just pleaseeeee give everyone a trigger warning if need be and be respectful.
- Other: just ask me before the round!
Love. I think the disad debate is very strategic.
- I don't need a case-specific link on the disad in order to vote on it. As always, it is preferred.
- Uniqueness isn't the contesting issue for me. I agree with how the link controls the disad debate.
- Impact analysis is super important to me here. Tell me why the disad outweighs/turns case. Do the comparison of how your specific impact has more probability and/or risk than the AFF(s).
Like them. PIKS are the best. I will listen/vote on any kinds of counterplans.
- External and internal net benefits are a must for me here. To vote on a CP, I need you to have external net benefit (DA's) OR internal net benefits (Case Turns/Solv Deficits). The solvency debate here is also important... I have a pretty high threshold on counterplans solving 100% of the affirmative. In my opinion, if you don't do this or don't provide any offense and/or defense on the case flow, I can't vote on the counterplan.
- I will vote on Advantage Counterplans. For these, I would suggest that you read case turns on all of the other AFF advantages that you aren't basing your counterplan on. But, you do you.
- Theory here really depends on the round.
- Perm debate is super important. As the neg, do a good job covering this. Go ahead and make disads to the perm(s) as well. As the aff, really explain what the perm looks like and how it can overcome any net benefits - especially case turns.
Yes! Love! I am most familiar with gender/queer/cap/set col methods. But, that doesn't mean I don't or won't understand and/or listen to others.
- Spending a lot of time on an overview is kind of useless. Give me a short one and do the line by line. If you spend to much time on an overview here and cross apply answers to AFF arguments but don't necessarily do the line by line, I will for sure give the 1AR some leeway. Do the line by line.
- Being a method debater, you will probably know more than I will so just make sure you do a good job on the link and alt debate. I'm not as comfortable voting on a non-case-specific link here as I am on the disad debate, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on generic links.
- I don't think the alt has to solve 100% of the aff, just make sure you can solve for the linear disad. If you decide to kick the alt and treat the K through the linear disad as a case turn, that's super cool.
- Make sure you do the "K outweighs case or turns case" analysis. Root cause debate is also important too.
- Framework isn't really a big issue for me here. If you want to make it one, then so be it. I believe that the Neg does have the right to read kritiks and that the Aff reserves the right to weigh its advantages and/or offense.
- If I never get a clear explanation of the alt and the Aff says "there's no explanation of the alt, don't vote on it", then I might by that. I need that explanation and what happens post-ballot. Preferably during the 1NC cross-ex or in the block.
I'm okay if you run multiple permutations.
- Don't just be like "perm do both", "perm do k/cp", "perm aff then k/cp". Saying that does nothing for me. Explain to me how and why you can do this.
- Winning net benefits for the perms are important to me, as well as framing the aff's advantages/harms as disads to the advocacy too. I would suggest contesting the solvency debate here. Make sure you answer any disads to the permutation(s).
Again, method v. method debate is super dope.
- Make sure you can somewhat link your method back to the resolution somehow and explain it to me in easy, simple words.
- I would like you to provide me with some ROB or ROJ.
- I also think that "method is a pre-requisite/pre-condition" arguments are very important here and provides you with a lot of defense. Same with the root cause debate.
I have little to no experience here. But, I will for sure listen and vote on this. Again, I just ask that there is some form of ROB or ROJ. You do you! Link to the resolution in some way.
I think this debate is very under-covered and is not being done as much as it should be.
- The best way to win me here is the solvency debate. If you provide me with just one reason as to how the affirmative can't solve, I feel like I can vote on that.
- That being said, reading arguments and then using them as internal net benefits to your advocacies such as your counterplans and kritks is strongly encouraged. Speaker points for strategic decisions will be awarded here.
- If you choose to do case turns, all I ask is that be careful and don't contradict yourself!
Structural Impacts vs. Existential Impacts:
I would prefer to listen to structural impact framing, but of course, I will listen to big stick impacts as well as vote on them. Doing the comparison between these two in the round is very important to me. That being said, if there is none, I will most likely default to structural impact framing when there is no comparison on both sides of the debate.
Planked Out Plan-texts:
I could care less or not if you do this. ASPEC/OSPEC is okay and sometimes kinda fun and kinda not. IDK, you do you.
Thesis: I am down for whatever - that means either super traditional or super progressive, I can vibe. Just please give that impact weighing and analysis, as well as a clear framework. Other than that, you do you!
Framework: Tell me to vote and/or view the round in a specific framework, that's fine. Make sure you clearly link all of your offense to your framework and explain to me why I should prefer it. You need to win some kind of offense here. Saying to vote for you just because you have a better framework will do nothing for me - give me those impact O/W's kind of arguments.
Value/Criterion: I don't have a specific set determinant for any values and/or criterions. Just tell me where and how to vote here. You do you.
Observation: Fine. Ask me about specifics.
Contention: I view and treat these as advantages to the case like in policy debate. Just make sure it links back into your framework clearly.
Plans: Plans are dope. Give me solvency.
CP's/Disad's/Kritik's: Yass. Refer to policy paradigm above.
Case debate: Giving me that meta-level analysis is fine. Just please slow down here. Also, attacking your opponent's evidence is also fine. Tell me why it matters though.
Theory: Okay. Give me those standards. Refer to policy paradigm!
Thesis: Not much to say here. Refer to the rest of my paradigm for specifics. Again, just give me a good impact calc.
Offense: Going straight defense will most likely not give you the ballot. I need some offense here. Other than that, do whatever you want.
Malhar Tamhane Paradigm
Andrew Tran Paradigm
Framework: I'm pretty tabula rasa, so please tell me how to vote or I'm just going to vote for the team that wins on stock issues. I love good framing debates with impact calculus in the rebuttals.
Speed: Speed is okay with me only if it's okay with the other team. Ask each other before the round starts if you want to spread. If you are unintelligible I'll raise my hand for you to slow down.
Topicality: I vote on topicality if you can prove a real violation and that it actually inhibits NEG ground. I won't vote on T's that are just obviously time fillers though, if you want to win on a T you should be spending at least two minutes on it in the 2NR with good arguments.
Conditionality: You can kick arguments in the block but it's a time skew if you kick in the 2NR, the rebuttals should be about the main voting issues, not the 1AR answering everything so the 2N can just kick.
Kritiks: I'm okay with kritiks, if you want to run them just run them well.
Counterplans: Counterplans HAVE to be non-topical, it's basic policy theory. AFF: Perms are NOT advocacies, they are tests of mutual exclusivity. Perms don't "solve" things because all they are is testing if a CP is mutually exclusive or not. That being said, if you can prove the CP isn't mutually exclusive then I don't vote on the CP.
Disadvantages: I'm a firm believer that the best NEG cases is the classic DA/CP/Case. I love if you have a good story with realistic internal links that shows a real disadvantage to the plan.
Please just be nice to your opponents and have a good time! Debate is supposed to be a fun activity where you can also learn, if you're being exclusive in the debate space I will hold that against you.
LD is a value debate. You should have a value and defend that value as the most important thing in the entire debate. I don't think LD should be a solo watered-down version of policy, so just debate values well.
Public Forum is probably the closest thing to actual people debating issues outside of Speech and Debate. I like it that way, just let your public forum rounds be real, unadulterated debating. Please though, just try to be nice during Crossfire.
Aryan Waghmode Paradigm
Natalie Wang Paradigm
Akshay Warrier Paradigm
Richard Waterhouse Paradigm
Jasmine Watson Paradigm
Marna Weston Paradigm
Marna Weston (coached by Dale McCall at Twin Lakes High, WPB, FL)
State Champion, Lincoln Douglas Debate & NFL District Champion, Policy Debate (Florida)
Condo is probably bad. I don't like tricks and rude stuff. I don't like people beating their opponents down in a disrespectful manner. True champions find a way to win with style, finesse, and some measure of grace. Basically, "say what you mean, and mean what you say" in front of me. Kick outs and shifts are not received well. I am comfortable with crystal clear debaters and crystal clear rebuttals. I've been focused on my policy teams this year, so I'm not familiar with the LD topic. I think there is still such a thing as an LD topic, although I keep hearing the same positions regardless of the topic a lot, and I guess that's ok. I am open to a lot of different types of discussions, and I'm excited to listen to what you bring to the debate space.
Sacred space except
The room where we exchange thoughts
is not for condo
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm (Scroll down to see my policy paradigm):
I guess the best statement I can make about typing a philosophy for a mutual judge preference list in Lincoln Douglas Debate is “I do not understand why this is needed.” My high school coach, Mrs. Dale McCall of Twin Lakes High in West Palm Beach, Florida and others contributed their ideas toward a new style of debate in the early 80’s where “superior speaking to lay audiences on a proposition of value” was envisioned. Any reasonable person without specialized knowledge of any kind would be a fitting judge or audience member in such a forum. That event was called Lincoln Douglas Debate. As a participant when LD was still an experimental event and the topics were chosen through individual tournament invitation, I debated in the final round of the Inaugural Lincoln Douglas Debate at the Barkley Forum in March 1983. In October 1981 a fellow teammate and I closed out the New York City Invitational at the Bronx High School of Science. My paradigm is and always has been, “be a high school Lincoln Douglas Debater”. Offer reasonable definitions (required), a value (required), and criteria as appropriate (probably optional, definitely debatable). Debate as if before a community group, and do not perform in such a way that would alienate reasonably intelligent people who have come to be both informed and entertained.
A good standard would be the “my principal” paradigm. If the principal of my school watched you debate and from your performance came to me on the Monday after your performance and said, “Mr. Weston, I am concerned that debate is confusing, exclusionary, and not an activity that is building critical thinking or communication skills for our students based on what I saw last weekend”, then you can be sure that you will have lost my ballot. Such a performance could endanger the existence of my program. My ballot acts as a defense from such examples gaining popularity. I believe enough loses might cause such practices to cease.
The “role of the ballot” and RFD when I am the critic will ideally be to honor the historic intent of the Lincoln Douglas event and those who worked so hard to bridge the debate world for general audiences, and not to exclude such persons. A rude debater can expect to lose “on face” absent any consideration of arguments withstanding in the round. The activity is about life and how one carries oneself.
Additionally, I shall not reward debaters with high speakers for “rolling over” opponents. One to six big ideas is probably the most I should hear in constructive speeches and these then boiled down to one to four critical voters at the end of the debate. “Drops” in LD are evaluated qualitatively, not quantitatively. It is certainly possible that “one big idea” could make many more ideas irrelevant to a decision, if argued effectively. A superior debater should be able to win the round with class while respecting the dignity of the opposition, in every instance. In short, any person coming into the round should be able to evaluate the round, and every person in the round must be treated in a dignified manner, either as a participant, observer, or critic.
Thank you for your interest in my thoughts.
Overview: I firmly believe that policy debate is first and foremost a communication activity. Consequently, oral presentation plays a larger factor in my adjudication process than in most decisions in recent years. I focus on the “story” of the debate, but line-byline refutation can be a component of that. Know your order before you announce it. Don't change the order after you announce it. Clearly articulated arguments at any speed can be evaluated. Inarticulate utterings that cannot be understood cannot be evaluated. Be quick, but don't hurry. I will not tolerate rudeness. Cross X is binding.
My paradigm is one of few dispositions; the rest is up to the debaters. They are as follows:
1. I agree that conditionality is "probably" bad. So its "probably" not a bad idea to speak to this and support reasons why I might or might not vote on this.
2. Topical Counterplans are not OK. If at the end of the round I haave been effectiely persuaded there are two Affirmative teams, I'll probably vote Affirmative.
3. I prefer not to judge topicality debates. If you're ahead on it, explain to me why its important to care about this, or I might not understand why to vote on it.
4. I enjoy case debates. Solidly clear and irrefuably presented and reasonably current inherency evidence could really win a debate. No, really.
5. Kritikal arguments on both AFF and NEG are fine, but pay close attention to the way you communicate your position (clear and concise!).
6. The topic should be debated, but how you approach the resolution, and how you approach debate generally (content, style, etc.), should be left up to the debaters.
7. If you're Negative, show me how your approach is specific to this Affirmative. Be thoughtful in explaining what a vote for your side means and why I should endorse it.Ask meto vote for your side. Dont complete on-face grant the 1AC in favor of pre-set tangentially related points and expect me to get why that means the Negaative wins the debate. Be paricularly clear on fairness and why ground is or isnt lost and warrants a decision.These are usually not presented clearly and powerfully.
8. I will appreciate teams who competently deploy arguments from the earlier days of CEDA, such as Justification, Hasty G, etc. I also appreciate when the AFF and NEG teams sit on the correct sides of the room with respect to the judge. Otherwise, I might vote for someone but accidentally vote for the wrong team. "Sort of kidding" but I know this has happened to teams and that in my career in the activity, more than one judge thought they voted for a team, when they hadn't. If you're not on the proper side of the room, at least say in your speech which team you represent and why you think your side should win the debate. That is taken for granted a lot.:)
Public Forum Paradigm
To be truthful, it all goes by a little quickly for me in a PF round. I never competed in PF. The speeches are really short. I do appreciate the skills developed through the practice of concisely presenting so many arguments in a limited space of time. On a personal note, I thought the whole idea of yet another "policy is too fast and there is too much research" debate event, was that PF would remain slow for lay audiences. I have observed this is not the case, but good debates are still where you find them in PF--- as in Congress, Policy, LD, and Worlds. As such, please watch me closely and clearly indicate why as a judge I should prefer your way of evaluating the round over your opponents. I'm always pretty much up to speed on current events through working on Policy & Extemp each week of the season, so I'll probably be up to date on your issue. The key will be to express reasons to prefer your interpretation of what is important-------over what your opponent is saying. Whoever does that most effectively will likely win my ballot.
Tia Whitman Paradigm
I have competed in policy debate, extemp, and congress the past four years, so those are the events I know best. I have competed at the state and national level many times, so I understand the structure and argumentation of these events fairly well.
Policy was my main event and I enjoyed it very much. When in round, I want to definitely see clash. I'm basically tab, but if you can't convince me of an argument, I'm not going to vote on it. Also, I usually do not like K's. However, if you can run one correctly and coherently, I'm open to hear it. Try to avoid petty arguments that you're going to kick out later in the round, it's usually just a time suck. If you kick out of an argument, convince me it was necessary. As for spreading, I am okay with it, but if I can't understand a word you're saying, I will say "Clear" only twice and will stop flowing after that. I do not count flashing as prep.
For extemp, I would like to see you understand the information you're telling me and tell me why what you are saying is important or factual. I don't want you to perform like it's a prepared speech. In that regard, I mean I would rather see a comfortable, conversational speech rather than you just spitting facts at me.
I'm gonna be honest, I've never competed in poetry or judged it before. Regardless, I have watched a few rounds so I want to see projection and clean, cut blocking. I do believe your piece must be age-appropriate, so no extensive cussing, etc. I also expect to be drawn in and moved by your piece.
Kris Wright Paradigm
Noah Yust Paradigm
Wichita East 2015-2018
put me on the email chain
For the Novice
Stock issues aren't real
You must have offense to win. The aff must prove their plan makes the world better. The neg must prove the plan makes the world worse.
Novice debate is for education; if you want to try out a CP or K then I'm good for it. That being said, I greatly prefer a substantive debate, so please don't read bullshit just to play gotcha.
If you have any questions abt particular args, ask. I can handle whatever you can throw at me (that is however, not an excuse to not understand/explain ur args). Here's my wiki if you wanna know what I've done on this topic.
Have fun, be nice
Anaya parikh Paradigm
esra qaki Paradigm
malavika rajaram Paradigm
ethan seabourn Paradigm
micheal stroud Paradigm
i will not be persuaded to vote for or reward teams who use or promote racist, xenophobic, sexist, transphobic, or violent language. i will not be persuaded to vote for or reward teams who clip cards, cross read, or, variously, cheat.
"yes, i want to be on the email chain. my email address is firstname.lastname@example.org"
debates take a long time, already. 92 minutes, optimistically. please, please dont make them last any longer than they absolutely must. if you, for any reason, must take a break or stop the clock, that's totally okay. but for the sake of us all getting off campus at a reasonable hour, and for our hosts who put together a schedule for a reason, lets all try to keep our debates to, like, 105 minutes.
"Debates are [almost certainly] best decided by the debaters themselves."
i dont believe i have ideological positions on what debaters should say _before the debate_. by the conclusion of the debate, i hope to have developed strong opinions about the content, and form, of the debate i watched. i invite you to do what great debaters ought to: persuade.
i will be happiest voting for a team that doesn't underestimate the value of cross examination time.
i will be happiest voting affirmative for the presentation and continuous defense of: 1) a strong case that there exists one or more problems in a set, and 2) propose a solution to that problem set (pessimism/no solution _is_ a defnsible solution to problem sets).
i will be happiest voting negative for the presentation and defense of a combination of any of: 3) the affirmatives identified problem set is not that, 4) the affirmatives identified solution is not that, 5) the affirmative will make some other problem set worse, 5b) that matters a great deal, 6) an alternative solution to the affirmatives problem set, 7) the affirmatives formal framing of their problem set is itself a problem.
"i am not likely to be persuaded to vote affirmative for a wrong forum argument." however i could be persuaded that a teams approach to debate itself is preferable to their opponents, and that should be the filter through which i evaluate the debate.
i can be persuaded that negatives should have significant flexibility to respond creatively and passionately to the affirmative, and that a strategic pivot as the result of a discovered flaw in that response is alone insufficient to default affirmative.
"i don't want magic word invocation to stand in for final rebuttal work weighing and comparing potential outcomes. 'extinction' and 'nvtl' are not arguments.