Tabroom.com

1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy

2020 — College Park, GA/US

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Ahad Ansari Lake Highland Preparatory 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 19, 2021 at 10:27 AM EDT

Hi I'm Ahad and I'm a senior at Lake Highland.

Overall, I’m fine with pretty much whatever you want to read and I don’t have a preference towards judging any specific type of arguments, so you should read whatever you’re most comfortable with. I’ll vote on anything as long as you can explain it well and it has a clear claim, warrant, and impacts. However, if you say or do anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I will definitely tank your speaks and probably drop you.

If you’re reading a position that is dense or confusing, make sure you explain it very clearly. Don’t just assume I’ll understand a position or vote on something that isn’t explained well because I or my teammates read something similar in that literature base. If you’re reading blippy tricks make sure you slow down enough so that I can flow them completely – if your strat is to go for blippy arguments that were conceded, make sure they were clear enough for me to catch in the first speech.

Make sure your extensions have clear claims/warrants/impacts. My threshold for extensions will be lower if the argument was conceded, but you still need to give me more than just a card name or a 5 second blip if its something you want me to vote on.

Here are some defaults for the round – I hope I won’t have to use these, and I’ll only use these is literally nothing is said about these issues at any point in the debate:

- Truth testing > comparative worlds

- Theory > K

- You can weigh between layers (theory, T, ROB)

- Permissibility negates

- No RVIs

**Just because these are my defaults does not mean I am more inclined to arguments that align with these – as long as you make a warranted argument on any of these issues in the round, I’ll ignore these defaults.

If you have specific questions just email me (ahadansari02@icloud.com), Facebook message me, or ask me before the round and I’m happy to answer them.

Lucas Bailey Henry W Grady HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 4:31 PM EDT

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card.

Timing

You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if not argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts. Performance is important here.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true. I have a fairly low threshold to vote on "psychoanalysis is unscientific nonsense" arguments because....well, they're kinda true.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

Mia Coates Marlborough School 5 rounds

Madi Crowley Lake Highland Preparatory 2 rounds

Jaya Dayal Lake Highland Preparatory 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 7, 2021 at 8:13 AM EDT

Email: thejd2020@gmail.com

Hi! I’m a first-year out, and I debated LD at Lake Highland for 4 years.

First, please be nice in round :) There's no need to be rude or mean to your opponent in round even if it is a competitive event. I understand that for virtual tournaments there are bound to be tech and wifi issues, and will be as accommodating as I can.

I’m fine with pretty much any arguments you read, so read what you’re most comfortable with and can explain well. I’m not the biggest fan of tricks but I’ll vote on them if you warrant and explain them really well. I expect extensions and explanations of arguments to have a clear claim, warrant, and impact. If you read anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc or otherwise discriminatory and exclusionary in round I'll probably drop you and will definitely tank your speaks.

If you're reading a position that's more dense or confusing, you need to explain it clearly. Don't assume that I'll be familiar with it and will just vote on it because I or my teammates read something from a similar literature base. If you're reading blippy arguments or tricks, make sure you slow down enough so I can flow them completely, especially if you're planning on going for conceded blippy arguments - make sure they were clear enough in the first speech for me to flow them. I really don't understand tricks very well so although I'm not opposed to voting on them I really need you to explain them well if you want me to vote on them.

Arguments should be extended with a clear claim, warrant, and impact and need to be extended throughout the entire round if you plan on going for them. My threshold will be a bit lower if the argument is conceded, but if you want me to vote on the argument, you need to do more than just say the card name.

Please weigh between different layers of the debate! This is really important for me understanding how you expect me to evaluate your arguments in the round. I always appreciate when debaters take a few seconds at the end of their speech to break down how you think the round should be evaluated and what arguments you think should come first based on the weighing you did. If you provide absolutely no weighing between arguments, here are some things I will default to:

- Theory > K

- No RVIs

If you talk about the environment there's a chance I might give you higher speaks :)

As a debater, I focused on a few different things each year, but spent most of my senior year on K debate. However, that doesn't mean that you should read a K in front of me if that's not what you're most familiar with. I am somewhat familiar with Deleuzian literature but again expect clear explanations and warranting for whatever you're reading. I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. I focused on tech debate for most of my time in debate, but am familiar with Lay debate too and will evaluate it based on your arguments, responses, and extensions throughout the round.

This is how I would rate my familiarity with some common types of arguments, 1 being the most familiar and 4 being the least.

K (1)

Theory/T (2)

Phil (3)

Tricks/Spikes (4)

Here are some norms I think should be followed for the virtual debate space:

- I think it's even more important virtually than in person to get clear confirmation that both your opponent and the judge are ready for your speech

- For Minneapple, the tournament allows for 10 minutes total in the round to accommodate any tech issues anyone is having. Please make sure you don't abuse this time if you're not having technical difficulties but I will be as understanding as I can if you are. If you know your computer is acting up or your wifi is spotty let me know at the beginning of the round so we can make a plan in case something goes wrong!

- Be prepared to adapt your debating style depending on the technical situations of your opponent and judge. I have no problem with spreading in a normal round but make sure that your opponent can understand and respond to your arguments.

If you have any specific questions you can email, Facebook message, or ask me before the round.

Anika Dham American Heritage Plantation HS 6 rounds

Chris Flowers Little Rock Central 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 9:37 AM CDT

update: toc 23'

Email chain: chris@alterethosdebate.com

TLDR

Debaters ought to determine the procedural limits and educational value of each topic by defending their interpretations in the round. I ought to vote for the team that does the best job of that in the debate.

I mostly care about warranting arguments and engaging with opponent's through analysis and impact comparison. The team that does the better job justifying my vote at the end of the debate will win.

Debaters should not do any of the following:

Clip cards

Steal prep

Ignore reasonable things like showing up on time and maintaining speech times and speaking order.

Disregard reasonable personal request of their opponents. If you don’t wish to comply with opponent requests, you ought to have a good reason why.

Misgender folks

Say or do racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist things.

Read pessimism args from identities they don't identify as.

Argumentative Preferences

WARRANTS & EXPLANATIONS over blippiness.

Education > Fairness

Breadth = Depth ---> both are important please make warrants here.

K’s don’t need to win an alt to win.

Reasonable disclosure practices should be followed.

Analytic > Low quality evidence

Specific Stuff

Theory

Disclosing before the round is a reasonable thing to do. That being said, I come in with a slight bias against theory arguments in LD. Lots of frivolity in this space right now.

To adapt for this bias teams can read theory that actually has the potential to improve debates or read shells that will have clear and significant violations. Running theory as an exploit of tech judges makes debates less enjoyable for me and I am inclined to vote against them at the smallest of responses. Affirmative teams should feel comfortable reading fewer spikes and more substance.

t/framework

Neg teams ought to engage with plan free or non-topical affirmatives. Affirmative teams should advocate for some departure from the status quo within the context of the topic. The more an aff is steeped in topic literature, the less likely I am to vote against it as a procedural issues, so strong topic links are crucial. I generally think education is a more important element of debate than fairness and that an inability to prepare against an argument doesn't inherently mean that argument is unfair.

Topicality

I default to reasonability because I think it incentivizes innovative research by the aff and expands the limits of the topic in a good way.

Perf Con.

I'm good with multiple worlds but think perf cons make for less enjoyable debates and I am inclined to vote against 1NC's that read cap and the econ da in the same speech.

Counter Plans

If you have a solvency advocate, its legit.

PIC’s are generally good because they force the affirmative to more deeply examine their advocacy, I want them to be excluding something substantial and to have a solvency advocate of some kind.

Conditionality

Neg definitely gets to be conditional. Limited conditionality is the most reasonable interp.

DA's

I like topic DA's, and find most politics and econ based internal links implausible. But, I won't vote against them on face, I let your opponent make those arguments.

Presumption

Neg walks in with presumption. Neg teams should still make presumption analysis in the round though.

*If I haven't mentioned it here, ask me. It has been a minute since I've judged.

Emmaline Harmon Henry W Grady HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 5, 2021 at 8:37 AM EDT

hey! I'm tech> truth- I prefer to vote on like true arguments (this excludes things like comparative analysis of economics- I'm more talking about things like "police do not have qualified immunity" that I wouldn't like to see in the round), but will vote on almost anything.

A: I will not vote on shitty impact turns like "oppression (of any kind for any reason) good". I will drop you, give you the minimum amount of speaker points available and tune you completely out and talk to your coach. This is shitty.

B: Please read my whole paradigm: I don't want to have to give a whole speech on my preferences before the round; it's a waste of time and I would rather just go ahead with the round.

C: I really don't like miscut cards/ evidence (it's wrong to do) and will lower your speaks because of it if you aren't already losing on it. (I will be checking evidence if it's called out/ if i feel fishy about it)

LAYERS

1. Theory

2. Topicality

3. K

4. Case

5. DA's, CP, etc.

THEORY STUFF

- Not a fan of friv theory, but not all theory is friv theory. if you run that shell, it's a perfcon, but unless your opponent points it out I'll vote on it, but won't really be happy abt it.

- Drop the arg is NOT AN RVI: when you tell me to/ win drop the arg, I'll stop evaluating theory and go to the next layer of the debate. If you say it's an RVI, I will not vote on it as an RVI. I'll just go to the second layer of the debate.

- If you collapse to a different layer in the 2n/ 2a I'll kick theory with you but PLEASE TELL ME TO DO SO (also really strategic move)

- Y’all: no 2nr/ 2ar theory unless you justify it earlier in the round. This is nasty please I am begging you.

- I'll evaluate the round however it goes, but if you're feeling "don't evaluate the round after the 1n/2nr/1ar", it's up to your opponent to say otherwise, not me.

-I HATE TRICKS it's not debate. Please don't run this in front of me.

TOPICALITY

- please god run this if the aff isn't topical*: I DISLIKE AFFS THAT PRETEND TO BE TOPICAL(YES I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SUBS AFF)

- I don't really buy that the neg has to be topical unless it's a cp, but prove me wrong.

- If you are neg and the aff violates t-plural, you can absorb that as part of your advocacy and I'll buy it.

*tell me why non t affs are harmful!! don't just assert that it's non t.

K's

- I really love k debate, feel free to run this in front of me- these are the rounds I like to judge.

- I’m fine with k debate on a lay circuit: I do like to hear good educational k's (setcol, securitization, orientalism, etc) because those truly open up a space for discussion. BUT PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS OF YOUR AUDIENCE. if the person you’re hitting is super new to debate then please don’t run like psyco or baudrillard if you’re just doing it bc they can’t answer it(i mean the justification should already be in the framework but...). THAT IS BAD, and I’ll most likely dock your speaks by .5 every time I feel you’re being a jerk just to win.

- on that note, as long as you can adapt to make the k educational, then huray!

- K affs are good, but I would like for them to be topicialish, but even if they aren't I'm still down.

- Perms are great AFF

CASE

- If you are creative with your case I will increase your speaks.

- Phil is good and I really love this style of debate and will be really happy if you run it but please know I'm decently well versed in philosophy and will be sad if you mess it up.

- Don't have a lot of specifics here.

- plans are cool too.

CPS, DA, ETC

- I don't care what you do here, just make sure you're doing a good job on why the cp is competitive

- Perms are great

-PICS =???????????????? but go wild if you think you can win that on both the theory and actual argument itself.

MISC

- since we are doing debate online for the most part I do want there to be chains.

- no I don't disclose speaks

- I don't flow cx.

-I'm cool with flex prep, just ask.

- TRIGGER WARNINGS ARE NECESSARY if you are running things that could be potentially harmful (narratives mainly, but you know what is considered violent/ needs a tw). Your words have meaning and weight to them, so be cautious of what you say and how it may impact others.

- (this again should be given but) I also will dock your speaks if you are a jerk to your opponent (or me??) during a speech or just say something way out of line.

- negs don't get perms: pointing out they are defending a singular (noun) and absorbing that as part of your advocacy is not a perm.

- Don't clip cards please I will 100% allow your opponent to stake the round on it and rightfully so.

- you are a jerk if you out spread someone who is obviously new/ not as experienced.

FOR PREFS

1: phil/ K debate

2: "LARP"

3: Theory

4- whatever: whatever else there is

strike: tricks and jerks

yeah. please don't bring me food.

emmadebate01@gmail.com

^ questions (put the subject line “debate question”) and chains (the file share thing sucks) (+3 speaker points if you make the subject funny)).

Taman Kanchanapalli Cardinal Gibbons 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 25, 2021 at 12:54 PM EDT

Hello, I'm Taman Kanchanapalli! Nice to meet you and I hope I can give you good comments from your round with me in the back!

Email chain: taman.sai.k@gmail.com

Qualifications: Debated for Berkeley Prep and HB Plant High School and earned TOC bids in multiple formats (Policy, LD, and PF). I debated a total of 4 years. I’ve gotten some RR invites, made deep elims of national tournaments, and qualified to NSDA nationals 4 times. I think I can be able to make a coherent decision most of the time, but am no means perfect, and will try my best to adjudicate your round in the most technical fashion possible. Here are some people who have greatly influenced my takes on debate: Kevin Kuswa, Ronak Ahuja, Andrew Overing, John Overing, Daryl Burch, Ignacio Evans, Roberto Fernandez, Isaac Segal, Peregrine Beckett, Kumail Zaidi, and Tajaih Robinson.

Note for e-debating: Try to use a good microphone if possible, and please slow down a bit on analytics or send them in the doc. It’s probably due to static or some internet issue, but I’ve noticed a lot of people cutting out during some speeches, and I think going a tad bit slower can slow that.

At the top:

I think debate’s an educational and competitive space. Due to its competitive nature, I tend to view it as a game that reaps educational benefits as a result of clash. As so, I try to judge through a tech > truth paradigm and try to catch every argument on flow. I don’t necessarily default to anything and can convinced otherwise for every argument. The only exception is racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, and other arguments of that type.

Quick prefs:

K: 1

LARP: 1

Tricks: 2

nonFriv theory: 2

Friv Theory: 3

Normative Phil: 2/3

Tough to understand Phil: 4

Performance: 2/3

Here are my thoughts on specific arguments:

Disads: I really like good and though out topic DAs. I think it’s an important part of topic education and is unique to every topic. My favorite 2NR my senior year was the generic Conventional Weapons/Deterrence DA with a couple extra added in scenarios for escalation. I view the impact and link portions of DAs the most, so please establish solid ones and do weighing on which comes first. The earlier the weighing, the better my frame for evaluating the round. As I did my first 3 years in policy, I am a big fan on the politics DA, but I think the weakest part of this is the link level. Establish this, and be clear on the line by line and warrants of this and you should be good.

Counterplans: My favorite type of these are creative advantages Cps (tend to be multiplank ones) and process CPs. I think a solid CP strat should have a robust solvency advocate and be well applied to the aff. I reward strategic Cps and prowess with very high speaks as it kinda just gets me really happy to see these unfold in a unique manner in the 2NR. I usually default to CP theory, except Consult and delay, as drop the argument, but I can be convinced otherwise very easily by things like dropped paradigm issues. However, I grant the aff leeway with abusive perms against abusive Cps as long as you justify it.

Impact Turns: BIG FAN OF THESE! China War good, Russia War good, Spark, Wipe-out, all are arguments that I think are evidence heavy and end up being my favorite debates to judge. I’ve gone for these a lot and I think the biggest part of the impact turn debate really comes down to the timeframe differential and why the aff is worse than the status quo.

Topicality: I tend to think this is a bit different than theory for me. Having a policy background, I think this is usually a neg exclusive argument, and the unique abusive on T seems to be a gateway issue unlike theory that happens in the round. Obviously this can be changed if you win things like an RVI or Theory > T on the flow, but this is just how I view T usually. I believe a good T 2NR has a lot of standard/impact comparison, weighing, and defense. Basically a combo of robust offense under your model of debate, and terminal defense to your opponent’s.

Theory: This was a nice addition that I got used to as I joined LD. I understand the pedagogical benefits of these, and I LOVE to see a technical theory debate. This is where everything is pure tech of me, I can be convinced of literally anything (semantics > Fairness, E > F, etc.) I can buy even the worst, most frivolous impacts, and will even evaluate things like Clothes theory. Not the biggest fan of these args for obvious reasons, but if you win it on the flow, I will be more than happy to vote for it and reward with good speaks.

Disclosure: I think this is generally a good practice and am a huge fan of open source disclosure. Show me after the round and you get a .3 speaker point boost. I’ve really reaped a huge benefit from the LD open source wiki, and the college wiki during my senior year as a small school debater and believe that it doesn’t make a huge prep out disadvantage. I like disclosure, but if there are structural factors that prevent you from doing so or the disclosure violation is super frivolous, then there’s a good chance I could be voting the other way.

Phil: This is probably the model of debate I’m least familiar with, but I do really like and engage with basic phil. Here are the phil NCs I’m familiar with: Monism, Kant/Lib, Hobbes, Polls, Pragmatism, and the more basic versions of skep (Moral Skep, External World skep, Derrida, etc.). I like these debates on the justification level and nice tricks like hijacks/collapses type arguments. However, I really like robust contentions of offense, for example if your opponent reads Kant and reads like 1 card on Kant negates, if the 1AR has 3 offensive args under Kant and the 2AR ends up being Kant affirms, I would be very very happy and if you win, I would reward you with insanely high speaks. If you are running complex phil, please dumb down the language a bit for me. Whenever I’ve hit debaters running super complex phil, I always had a tough time in cross understanding what they were saying. Remember, if it’s very hard for your opponent to understand, good chance your judge will feel the same.

Ks: I really like good K debates. I was primarily a K debater in high school, except 2nd semester where I decided to run LARP, Tricks, and the K randomly at tournaments based on a random number generator (this was cuz I just wanted to have fun). I would say I’ve pretty well-read in most critical literature. I definitely know the basics of the vast majority of Ks, and know a few particularly well. Here are the ones I know really well: Black studies (the likes of afropess, Warren, Racial capitalism, Hapticality, Black Baudrillard, etc.), Semiocap & Logistical studies (baudrillard, BiFo, M&H, etc.), Marxist cap, Queer Theory (Homonationalism, Queer press, Queer becoming), Bataille, Academy K, Psychoanalysis. Ks I know relatively well: the Util K, Fem, Set col. There are probably a lot of missing Ks, but I would say I generally understand the thesis and format of these and should be able to adjudicate your debates. If you run the K in front of me, make sure you have a good defense of your theory of power, and if you’re debating against the K, please try to engage with it and DO NOT concede the theory of power. I am generally understanding of good K tricks under impact calc as well (Turn case, floating piks, etc.) My favorite K 2NR this year was Barber and Hostage taking. My general 2AR v the K was extinction outweighs and theory of power defense. I heavily dislike bad K debates, please don’t shift to the K just because I’m in the back. Bad K debates really make me big sad.

Tricks: Yeah man, these are funny, and I love judging these debates IF they are good. Bad Tricks debate were there’s no weighing, clash, and there are a prioris and spikes flying all over the place really makes me stress, and I don’t like to be stressing. I actually think Tricks debate has a good amount of clash and weighing involved and the best debaters do this and make my RFD very simple (for example, if condo logic is conceded by the neg, but the aff concedes GSP, and the 2AR doesn’t do weighing on why condo logic outweighs, but the 2NR makes an arg about GSP outweighing because affirming negates, then I can negate). Contestation, LBL, and weighing are crucial to these debates, and I will adjudicate them as such. Good tricks debates also makes my life super easy and prolly just result in high speaks.

Clash debates: I’ve usually judged these types of debates. I think NonT affs bring in a new pedagogical facet into debate. I’ve read a lot of these, but keep in mind, I also went for FW a lot versus these affs. If you defend a nonT aff, please PRESENT and DEFENSE your model of debate. I am not a big fan on args that try to use the space as purely a survival strategies or is good to auto-vote for X people. Affirmatives that defend a model of debate, have strong offensive, and turns against FW are the ones that fair the best in front of me. The only exception to this is if you just straight up go for debate bad, but then you will need to defend your solvency on the aff and prove what the aff uniquely does to “break down debate.” On the neg, Clash is my favorite impact and I think a TVA with a good solvency advocate is really deadly against nonT affs. I personally think fairness is an internal link to clash and education, but I can easily be convinced otherwise. I think SSD is underutilized against specific type affs, and should be explained more in the 2NR rather than for like 20 seconds as I think it’s a great impact filter. I also think presumption is heavily underutilized because half of these affs really don’t do what they say they are doing. A 2NR that defends their impacts, does weighing, and has an impact filter, but also heavily contests the case debate against nonT affs typically fair the best in front of me.

K v K debates: I think these debates are really intellectually informative and I enjoy adjudicating these debates. I think the main part of the neg is beat back the perm and win solid links with impacts against the K aff when you go for this. I’ve gone for Psycho, Academy, Antiblackness, and Cap Ks vs. K affs.

Anything besides TFW/Ks v NonT affs: I really like it when you get innovative and go for like a DA or NC v K affs. I think the biggest part of this is the link level on the DA, since they tend to be not the best, and same with the offense under an NC. But, if you do try this, I think I would reward with high speaks just because it’s quite innovative.

Serena Lyou Lake Highland Preparatory 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 26, 2020 at 11:59 AM EDT

Lake Highland Prep '20

IMPORTANT NOTE: I've debated since freshman year, but I didn't debate this year. I've been coaching our novices, so I'm still involved with debate. However, I'm probably not as proficient as I used to be, which means you should start slowly and overall go slower than full speed.

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

Short version:

K's -- 1

T/Theory -- 1

LARP -- 2

Phil -- 2

Tricks -- 3

High Theory -- 3

I believe that debate is a space for debaters to have fun and enjoy themselves, which means that I am open to anything you want to read. I primarily read K's and T/theory my junior year and some phil my sophomore year. I'd be okay with larp, but please don't read tricks. I’m somewhat fine with flowing speed (again, I haven't debated all year so PLEASE not full speed), but slow down on tags, things you think are important, and whenever I say “clear." Don’t just assume I’ll understand a position or vote on something that isn’t explained well because I or my teammates read something similar in that literature base (i.e. just because LHP is known for reading Deleuze doesn't mean you should read it - I didn't get into high theory).

If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, and just plain rude I will tank your speaks. Please read trigger warnings!! if you do not and your opponent gets triggered you will receive max 25 speaks. Please be nice to younger debaters - those debates should be an educational experience, so please help them learn more.

If you are reading a position that you think is slightly confusing, or that took you awhile to learn, chances are I will think its confusing too. I want clear extensions with claim, warrant and impact. If the argument was conceded, I will be more lenient, but you still need to give me more than just a card name or a 5 second blip if its something you want me to vote on.

Long Version:

Ks: I love Ks and read them a lot my junior year, specifically Asian American Ks, but I also read other Ks as well. Non-topical affs are cool. However, just because I read Ks does not necessarily mean I, or your opponent, will understand your particular position; so, be sure to explain it well. If you're reading a unique K, I will probably enjoy it, just make sure to also flesh it out as much as possible.

T/Theory: I read T/theory almost every round. I don't default to any voters or paradigms. Please don't read frivolous theory. If you're reading a bunch of blips, PLEASE SLOW DOWN. If you hit a K, don't just exclude any and all discussion on their issues.

Framework: Please make sure you explain your phil well - don't assume I know it. Make sure you explain how offense functions under your framework and what the arguments in your framework mean with complicated philosophy.

LARP: I'm okay with LARP. Unique plan texts are fun to hear. Please do impact weighing with your opponent's offense.

Tricks: Please don't read these. I don't like them very much. But if you still decide to: if you’re reading blippy tricks make sure you slow down a LOT so that I can flow them completely like at least half speed – if your strat is to go for blippy arguments that were conceded, make sure they were clear enough for me to catch in the first speech. I will not vote on any arguments like "evaluate after the 1AR" or "give me 30." Don't be sketchy in CX. If your tricks are funny and make me laugh, I'll forgive you for reading them.

Speaks: I determine speaks based on how well I think you will do at the tournament. I also determine speaks based on how fun you make the round. PLEASE REMEMBER TO WEIGH!!!! This will earn you higher speaks! If you just read off the doc the whole round, I will lower your speaks. If you bring me food, I will raise your speaks depending on how much I like what you bring (for ex: boba milk tea or jasmine tea with boba -- +0.5, candy + 0.3, good healthy food +0.3, coke +0.2, snacks +0.1)

Miscellaneous:

a. I’ve been out of debate this year so go slower than top speed or else I probably will not catch stuff. If that happens, it becomes a question of judge adaptation. I will yell "clear" or "slow." This applies to interps, plan texts, blippy tricks, etc. It would be nice if you slowed down on taglines, author names, interps, plan texts, and important stuff like that.

b. Flashing isn't prep, but compiling the speech doc is.

c. If you have any questions you can ask me before the round, message me on Facebook, or email me. My email is at the top.

Nick Mirza American Heritage Boca/Delray HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 12, 2022 at 5:30 AM EDT

Barry University School of Law (2021 - Present)

American Heritage School, Head Debate Coach (2019 - 2021)

California State University, Fresno (2017-2019)

Contact Information: My email is nickbmirza95@gmail.com. I would like to be on the email chain.

Overview

Since I'm no longer coaching, my perspectives have changed and leave it up to you how I should confront the debate, regardless of argumentation style. My experience has almost exclusively dealt with running a plan text, disdadvantage/counterplan, and framework/cap (I can count on one hand the amount of times I went for cap though). I'm not against evaluating planless affirmatives when the debaters engage with the substance of their opponents arguments. I enjoy the clash between policy and kritikal teams.

Evidence Quality

I place a high value on evidence quality. I'll evaluate arguments that address a discrepancy between what is being said and what the evidence actually says. It's important to me that you know and understand the evidence you are bringing into the round.

Speed

I'm comfortable with speed, but my advice is too slow down on important arguments so I can make sure I flow it properly. This includes any prewritten analytics that are unloaded at me.

Topicality

I'm less persuaded by topicality in a policy throw down and would prefer a debate about the implications of the plan. I default to competing interpretations. Evidence should have an intent to define.

Framework

I enjoy framework debates. There needs to be an explanation of why your model of debate is better.

Disadvantages

My favorite. The link is the most important. Evidence that doesn't talk about the specific plan of the affirmative should be addressed, but I can be persuaded if the negative can thoroughly explain the application.

Counterplans

Eh. There needs to be a net benefit. I'm inclined to believe the status quo is a viable option, so in my adverse opinion, a counterplan is best when it's essential to alleviate a disadvantage. No opinion on judge kicking, but permutations need to be answered thoroughly. Lean negative on condo.

Kritiks

I'll vote for them. The alternative explanation is important and I listen/flow attentively to how it is conveyed. Generally, I have trouble understanding how alternatives function in the real world, so you need to do that explanation for me. I evaluate debate space impacts, but would prefer an analysis of outside of the round as well. I don't read the literature and my experience in debate is pretty much exclusively answering kritiks. My familiarity with literature leans toward identity. I don't understand post modernism or high theory whatsoever.

Abby Morris Lake Highland Preparatory 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 16, 2021 at 12:04 PM EDT

Lake Highland Preparatory School '21

University of California, Berkeley '25

email: abbymorris@berkeley.edu

Hi everyone, I'm Abby. I debated at LHP for 6 years, earned 2 career bids, and broke even at TOC my senior year. I consistently broke at tournaments and amassed a lot of bid rounds throughout high school. I specialized in reading critical and high theory positions but read everything else from phil and theory to even LARP and tricks. Below is the ranking of my comfortability in debate topics:

1- Ks

1- T/Theory

2- Phil

3- LARP

4- Tricks

Overview:

I will evaluate all styles of debate and I want you to debate your specialty as opposed to catering to my preferences. However, I am not a fan of debaters whose strategy is limiting in-round clash (i.e completely mooting your opponent's ground or being sketchy with your positions), so if that's your game-plan I wouldn't pref me. I am 100% okay with reading theory solely for strategic purposes, but reading 3 1ar shells after a 1 off 1N isn't the way to go if you want good speaks.

Specifics:

Ks: specific links are good. overviews w evidence are good. reading 5 mins of pre-written extensions is bad. don't read afropess if you're not black. don't read set col as a settler if you don't know what you're talking about.

T/Theory: Nebel is fine but the more interesting the shell, the better the round. Friv theory is fine. Default voters: jurisdiction > fairness > education, drop the debater, competing interpretations, no rvis.

Phil: This is good if you know how to explain your theory, don't assume I know what it says.

LARP: Not the most interesting thing to me but completely fine to read. However, I'm gonna need more than a 10-second extension of the advantage in order to get what the aff does and how it does it. Also, don't assume you have an extinction impact.

Tricks: This is okay if you read it in a way that isn't annoying and incomprehensible. Issues arise when reading tricks if the argument can be extended to win you the round in a very short amount of time. I'm not a fan of "oopsie you missed this" arguments that end the debate fast. I will evaluate these arguments but will evaluate them with a lower threshold for sufficient responses. Basically, burdens = good, a prioris = not the best.

Performances/Non-T Affs: These are cool if you explain to me why and how I vote for you. T-Framework is legitimate but I don't have biases either way.

Disclosure: I think debaters should disclose. I'm fine with disclosure shells like must disclose, must disclose full text, or must disclose open source. I dislike shells like must disclose round reports or other additional disclosure requirements bc I think they are unnecessary. I'll evaluate it if you read it but I will give you low speaks if you go for it because there are just so many better strategies you could have implemented. And, this should go without saying but don't read disclosure against novices or under-funded/non-competitive schools.

Random:

Please read trigger warnings !! It is a good practice if you think you have content that could be jarring for someone.

Be nice to younger or less privileged debaters. If you don't I will tank your speaks and think you are mean. Use those rounds as a teaching opportunity, NOT as an experience that makes them scared of debate.

I won’t listen to arguments like “eval substance after the 1N” or “eval theory after the 1AR."

If you are racist, sexist, or homophobic, expect an L 0.

Good speaks = making me feel like you know what you're talking about, CX is a good place to do that.

If you have any specific questions please email me!

Rodrigo Paramo Greenhill School 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 3:07 PM CDT

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 6th year coaching @ greenhill, and my second year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

A note on the topic - after judging at hwl, i have realized that many of the policy debates I am seeing are too big, have too many moving parts, and are not being clearly synthesized by either the affirmative or the negative debaters. this leaves me liable to confusion in terms of what exactly the world of the aff / neg does, and increases how much i appreciate a comparative speech that explains the stakes of winning each argument clearly, and in relation to the other moving parts of the debate.

8 things to know:

Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.
i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.
Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.
please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.
i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page
IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.
Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature
affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

Demarcus Powell Greenhill School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:48 AM CDT

Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm

Only send speech docs to Powell.demarcus@gmail.com

ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.

About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years. I taught and coached at Greenhill School from 2018 to 2022. Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.

Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.

Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.

Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.

Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!

Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.

Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.

Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.

General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.

Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.

Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.

Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.

Mihir Rai Greenhill School 6 rounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Griffin Richie Henry W Grady HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 4, 2023 at 11:58 AM EDT

I'm Griffin Richie (he/him). I graduated from Grady High School in Atlanta in 2021- I competed in LD on the local Georgia circuit and national circuit for three years, and in PF my senior year. I've broken at several TOC bid tournaments in LD and PF, won the 2020 GFCA Varsity State Championship in LD, and competed in NSDA Nats for 4 years, advancing in World Schools and PF. I'm new to judging.

Please put me on the email chain: griffin.richie@yale.edu. This should be set up before the round if possible. I'll boost speaks if there's an email chain in PF or traditional rounds.

This is my LD paradigm. It generally applies to PF and policy (if I'm judging that for some reason). My PF paradigm is at the bottom, as well as my thoughts on traditional debate.

T/L

I'll evaluate anything, as long as it is not explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic, etc.- I'll be as tabula rasa as possible. I'm tech>truth, but lower-quality arguments have a lower threshold of response.

You must have trigger warnings if you are talking about firsthand accounts of violence. Safety is important.

The affirmative must have a framing mechanism, whether it be in the traditional value-value criterion, standard, or ROB format. Absent an aff framework, I'm very comfortable voting off of any neg framing mechanism.

I'll read evidence if you ask me to, but that invites intervention. I'll really only do this if there are competing claims over warrants in key pieces of evidence.

If you're hitting a lay/traditional debater or novice, don't go lay- I think it's important for those debaters to be exposed to circuit debate, or they will never see the need to learn progressive strategies. However, if you go a little slower than usual, run strategies that are more accessible (basic phil, LARP), and are nice in cross, I will give you very high speaks.

You should disclose at TOC bid tournaments. I'm persuaded by disclosure theory, unless you're hitting a debater who clearly doesn't understand disclosure norms. I'll evaluate frivolous disclosure theory, but I would really rather not judge these rounds.

Cheat Sheet

LARP- 1

Phil- 2

Theory/T/Trix- 3

Ks- 4

Performance/Non T Affs- 5

LARP- I love a pure LARP/ util debate. If you plan on running this strategy, PLEASE weigh evidence quality, links, and impacts so you have a clear ballot story- if not, it will get messy. DA's, CP's, PIC's, Adv's, etc. are totally cool. 1 or 2 condo is fine, anything more is probably pushing it. Plans are fine, but the more specific it is, the more I'm persuaded by T.

Phil- I'm very comfortable with dense philosophical frameworks- I have an in-depth understanding of the common philosophies used (Kant, util, Rawls), and if you read a more nuanced philosophy, I've probably heard of it, but may not have a complete understanding of it- therefore, err on the side of overexplaining the warrants and implications. These debates get very messy when both sides just go for prerequisite or root cause claims, so weigh clearly and extend the syllogism throughout the round.

T/ Theory- Run it, I will vote off of it. I will not gut check theory or T, but the more frivolous it is, the more likely I will be to lower your speaks and have a lower threshold for responses. I'm not the best at evaluating theory, so clearly explain your abuse and ballot story. I'm very convinced by RVI's, especially on the Aff. Defaults- DTD, CI's, RVI's, Norm setting> In round abuse.

Trix- Cool with it. Don't make this debate messy (clearly explain the implications of spikes when you extend them), and don't be shady in CX. If you do either of those things, it'll make it hard for me to vote on trix, and if you're shady in CX, your speaks will suffer. I would prefer if there is clear delineation in the underview. The spikes K is a legitimate response, but I'm unpersuaded by 'spikes on top'.

Ks- Not a huge fan, but I have a basic understanding of many of the common lit bases (cap, afropess, etc.). If you really want to run a K, please do line-by-line and overexplain the warrants and implications, since I probably don't know the lit base that well. More nuanced links than "state bad" are definitely preferable.

Performance/ Non T Aff- You can run this if this is your main aff strat, but I'm not great at evaluating these rounds. I think the aff should be topical, and I'm very persuaded by framework- my main strat against Non T affs was 1 off framework. If you have a performance in the aff you need to explain why that generates offense and have some framework to filter that offense. Performance is probably not the best strategy with me in the back.

Lay/Traditional/Novice

I competed in local and regional lay/traditional tournaments for a large portion of my debate career. Totally cool evaluating this style. Values really aren't necessary. Generally whoever wins the value criterion wins the round, so make sure to do proper framework weighing. I don't really care if you sit/stand, etc., but make eye contact and be clear and passionate when you speak. I'll still vote off of the flow, but those elements are crucial for high speaks.

I did this event for a year. Here are some preferences or must-have's for me:

[1] Anything that's in Final Focus MUST be in Summary. I give a little more leeway for new weighing in the first final focus, but it shouldn't be completely new.

[2] Framework isn't a must, but impact calculus is often necessary in the summary and final focus speeches to deliver a clear ballot story. If not, I may have to intervene.

[3] Extensions of contentions/ subpoints are a must in every speech. If you just do blippy line-by-line, I don't know what arguments you're going for, and it's extremely messy to evaluate.

[4] Please collapse to one or two key arguments in final focus, and preferably summary. It's not only strategically beneficial, but it leads to better clash and articulation of arguments.

[5] Not a fan of paraphrasing evidence at all. If it's particularly egregious, I'll lower speaks. I'm very persuaded by "hey judge, they didn't read actual evidence". Paraphrased evidence is only slightly better than analytics.

[6] I will evaluate 'Progressive PF' or whatever you want to call it, but because PF was designed to be accessible to all and explicitly bans certain arguments, I'd strongly prefer traditional arguments over Ks, Theory, etc. If you want to run these arguments, consider doing LD or policy, and I'll probably tank speaks.

Speaks

Spreading is fine, but send out a doc to both myself and your opponent. If you're not clear when you spread, that will make it very hard to evaluate arguments. Go about 70-80% of your top speed, especially because we are virtual.

I won't evaluate "Give me 30 speaks", because it's a terrible model for debate.

30- Best debater at the tournament

29.5-29.9- Top 5% - really strong performance

29-29.5- Top 10%- very, very good.

28.5-28.9- Top 25% - very solid- you'll probably break

28-28.5- Top 50%- solid- probably won't break

27-27.9- Average- needs improvement

26-26.9- Below average- needs a lot of work

20-25- Racist or offensive. I'm going to talk with your coach.

1. Show your opponent respect- I'm totally cool with an aggressive CX, especially if your opponent is dodging questions, but know the line between aggressive and disrespectful/ demeaning. Your speaks will suffer if you cross the line.

2. CX is binding- if you make a concession in CX, you cannot try and sever out of it. That being said, I will only evaluate what happens in CX if it is brought up in your speech.

Mimi Sawhney Lake Highland Preparatory 6 rounds

Stephen Scopa American Heritage Plantation HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 5:15 AM EDT

I coach at American Heritage and have been coaching privately for 6 years now. My email for speech docs is: Stevescopa23@gmail.com .

Conflicts for TOC external to my school: Cary Academy, David Huang

Shortcut:

Philosophy - 1

Theory - 1

Non-Identity Ks - 1/2

T - 2

Identity K's - 2-4 depending how you read them

Policy - 5/Strike

General: I'm tech > truth, read whatever you want. I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. Also, if I don't think an argument has a warrant I won't vote on it. Speaks are inflated by good strategy and execution and capped by how bad i think your arguments are. If you're reading a bunch of unserious nonsense you might win but most likely won't get good speaks.

- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read.

- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.

- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC.

- I will vote on disclosure theory. Just don’t read it against novices or people who clearly don’t know what it is. I also won’t evaluate it if it becomes clear/verifiable the debater’s team won’t allow it or other similar circumstances.

- Don’t need to flash analytics to your opponent but I would like them

- Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such. I also don’t really think “x author is sexist/racist/etc so you should lose” makes much sense. I’ll vote on it if you win it but it’s an uphill battle.

Theory: Go for it - this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge, and I really enjoy judging nuanced theory debates. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced. I don’t “gut check” frivolous shells but obviously if you are winning reasonability then I will evaluate through whatever your brightline is. Also, for counter interps “converse of the interp” is not sufficient, if your opponent says “idk what the converse is so I can’t be held to the norm” I will buy that argument, just actually come up with a counter interp.

I really like RVIs and think they are underutilized so if you successfully go for one I will be happy.

T: T debates weren’t nearly as nuanced when I debated so you may have to explain some of the particulars more than you may be used to. I am also a sucker for semantics.

T “framework”: To be honest I am agnostic on whether affs should be T. I probably lean yes, but I also find non-T affs pretty interesting and fun to judge at times. I don’t consider an aff that doesn’t defend fiat but does defend the principle of the resolution non-T, and I am less persuaded by T in that sense.

Tricks: Sure, but speaks might suffer depending how they're executed and how dumb I think they are.

Ks: I really enjoy a good K debate. Especially psycho, baudrillard, nietzsche, and cap. The more specific the links the better. In a relatively equal debate i dont think i've ever voted for deleuze.

Larp: Probably the worst for this but will listen to it, just need to explain things a little more than you normally would. It is probably an uphill battle to win util vs other phil or Ks but possible if that's your thing.

Framework: This is my favorite type of debate and really want it to make a comeback. Great speaks if you can execute this well and/or read something that interests me.

Speaks: I average probably a 28.5. I assign them based on mostly strategy/execution with a little bit of content, but content can only improve your speaks not make them worse really (with the exception of disclosure probably). I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy - I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. I am also somewhat expressive when I think about how arguments interact so be mindful of that i guess. Also, if I can tell your 1ar/2n/2ar is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.

How do I get a 30?

I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following:

1) Going NC, AC really well with a phil NC

2) A good analytic PIC

3) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting

4) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before

5) Execute a Skep trigger/contingent standard well

6) Successfully going for an RVI

Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time - win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes.

Meghana Srinivasa Lake Highland Preparatory 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 15, 2020 at 3:53 PM EDT

Hi, I'm Meghana. Please add me to the email chain: megsrinivasa@gmail.com

TLDR: I am a senior that debated for Lake Highland Preparatory School. Honestly, I couldn't care less how you debate, just make sure your arguments are warranted.

Shortcuts:

Theory/ T/ Tricks - 1

Phil/ K - 2

Larp - 3

Theory:

This is probably one of the easier things for me to judge, especially nuanced theory debates. Slow down for the interp. If neither debater makes arguments I default to the following:

- There is no impact to a shell without drop the arg/drop the debater warrants so I will just evaluate substance

- Competing Interps

- No RVIs

- Fairness is a voter

Topicality:

Similar to theory. I like both pragmatics and semantics, but the 2NR should only go for one of them. Having a TVA and topical cards is good. T doesn’t automatically come before the ROB, so make sure to weigh.

Tricks:

These are cool and fun, but I will also have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the trick is. If truth testing is not read, I use framework as the offense filter meaning some tricks won’t matter.

Framework:

I have read some philosophy, but if you are running a confusing/dense position I would err on the side of over explanation. I will also not use my prior knowledge of your framework in my evaluation.

Ks:

I read a wide variety of K literature my sophomore and junior years from identity politics to high theory, but again I will also not use my prior knowledge in my evaluation. What the alternative does to resolve the link needs to be clearly explained. Perms are good and should be warranted. Similar to theory/T, a ROB doesn’t automatically come before theory or the framework, so you should explain why it comes first and weigh.

LARP:

A dense larp v larp debate is probably what I am least qualified to judge mainly because of lack of exposure. But if this is your style of debate, make sure to weigh your impacts and don't just yell extinction first.

Misc:

- Independent voters need a warrant and should link to some sort of framing mechanism

- Not a fan of people blitzing affirming/negating is harder arguments as their only response to a shell

- Not a fan of extremely frivolous disclosure shells but you do you

- Please don't be be offensive/ overly aggressive/ or rude. If you are, you will not like your speaks

Kelly Stone American Heritage Plantation HS 6 rounds None

Adam Torson Marlborough School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 11, 2024 at 2:46 AM PDT

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

Nikhita Vasan Marlborough School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 18, 2020 at 1:18 PM PDT

Niki; pronouns she/her

email — nikivasan@gmail.com

Presentation HS ’19, Emory ‘23 I competed in both policy and LD for three years at Presentation.

PLEASE READ: I have been out of debate for some time now, (for some reason it doesn't show up, but I last judged VBI LA 2 2019). This means a few things:

1. Especially in light of rounds being virtual, 75-80% speed is preferable.

2. DO NOT assume I have any prior knowledge of the topic.

3. My tolerance for blippy arguments will be even lower. Flesh out whatever you are going for.

tldr; I'm probably the best judge for you if you read Ks or soft left/structural violence arguments. Policy arguments are fine, but I personally never really went for them in high school. Please don't read LD phil, tricks or friv theory. please.

Relevant info: Debaters are human beings first. Do not be racist, sexist transphobic, abelist etc. otherwise I will drop you. Debate is a game but that doesn’t mean our orientation towards it doesn’t matter. I have a lot of familiarity with identity-based and performative criticisms (think fem rage/killjoy, South Asian diasporic politics, model minority, afropessimism/anti-blackness, settler colonialism, black marxism etc.) but also wasn’t afraid to give a 2NR on framework. I’m big on argument interaction - comparative analysis and weighing is probably good idea in front of me, especially when reading critical arguments.

LD specific — Just a forewarning, I am probably a horrible judge for you if you enjoy phil debate, tricks and any non-essential theory. K/ policy is fine.

Ks — Love it. Read them, love them, live them. Only caveat is that I have a much higher threshold for explanation on high theory/post-structuralist kritiks (baurdrillard, psycho etc.) so assume I have no prior knowledge of your criticism. I highly value link specificity, so links to plan action or in round performance are preferable; if not, I’ll just have a higher threshold for link analysis in the 2NC/2NR. I think that 2NRs on the K are won at the level of specificity - this means including EXAMPLES and analysis as to what your alt looks like in the real world or within the debate space. I do enjoy judging rev v rev debates but DO NOT like it when they become super theoretical i.e. two ships passing in the night — make sure your analysis is grounded in examples and is interactive with your opponent’s theory of power. In policy v K debates, I think the permutation is a tool that is severely underused. Prioritizing the framework debate in these instances is also another easy way to the ballot.

Topicality — Make sure your definition/violation is specific to the aff. I want analysis as to how your interpretation implicates your view of the topic holistically. Impacts about topic specific education are particularly convincing for me. Caselists are also good.

Theory - I don't love it, but if you NEED to read it go ahead. I’m fine with condo, pics bad etc. As long as the abuse story is justified, read it. If it’s frivolous or not necessary, don’t. Not a huge fan of RVI’s either. I default to competing interps>reasonability unless proven otherwise.

Framework (T-USFG) - yes, I will vote for it. Prewritten 2NCs/2NRs can get boring absent sufficient interaction with the specific counter-interp/aff’s offense. I tend to prioritize education impacts over procedural fairness claims, but will vote on either if warranted sufficiently. Convincing TVA arguments will be a benefit to you, especially if they are fleshed out in a way that can solve a significant portion of the aff's offense. Warning: I am NOT sympathetic to debaters/arguments that are highly dismissive of K affs or performance debate. Engage their model of debate, not the debater. Claiming their interpretation explodes predictable limits or forces identity negation does NOT necessitate ridiculing the aff team in CX or rebuttal speeches.

K affs — Super into these. As a judge, I don’t feel like it’s my responsibility to tell you what to do; performances are welcomed. I think that the aff should defend a method that has an explicit relationship to the topic, but it doesn’t necessarily have to defend hypothetical governmental action. I do think it’s very refreshing to hear new literature and performances in debate but that also means I will be very disappointed if it’s obvious you don’t believe in the politics you are advocating for. I think the aff needs to defend a contestable method that is able to at least mitigate the impacts presented in the 1AC; however, what the method may be is up to you.

DA/CP — If you are reading more than 5 off, I’m probably not the judge for you. Other than that, all the straightforward stuff applies; do your impact calc, win the link debate, have updated uniqueness etc. Counterplans need a specific solvency advocate and explicit net benefits — good comparative analysis will benefit you here.

Emma Yanai Marlborough School 6 rounds

Login to Tabroom

1st and 2nd Year National Championships at Woodward Academy

2020 — College Park, GA/US

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List

Judges