Bellarmine ‘21

Last Updated: December 5, 2020

Email: andrew.almeida21@bcp.org – put me on the chain, and format the subject line with the tournament name, round number, aff team, and neg team.

Experience: I have debated policy at Bellarmine College Preparatory as a 2A for two years, seeing appearances at both slow and fast tournaments. In general I go for policy strategies (heg aff, politics DA, FW, etc.)

For Everyone Debating in the Rhetoric Tournament today, don't bother reading most of my paradigm you won't have to worry about it. The less prep you use, the more heg you look and I will probably reward your speaks. (Doesn't mean you shouldn't use prep if you need to, just don't use it if you don't need to). If you want to see arguments I like, feel free to read the slow section. Most of that stuff is just my thought process when I evaluate a debate and you don't need to feel obligated to read it. Just be nice and you'll get good speaks

Slow:

T: In general, I'm pretty lenient on T, definitely more so than I have any right to be. Just don't read really bad T-args and you'll probably be fine.

Harms: In general, I think this stock issue shouldn't ever directly be a voter. Not to say that this stock issue isn't important, but I think the word "substantial" in the resolution basically makes the same argument (albeit worse).

I think this stock issue is most important for the affirmative, as this is their offense. A good tactic, especially if the negative team hasn't read any offensive arguments, is to weigh your harms with absolutely no risk. IE, there is absolutely no reason to not pass the plan.

On neg, I think if their harms are not "intrinsic", or are clearly not directly going to be solved by the plan, it opens up some very good arguments on solvency for later in the round. If the aff has harms that are very clearly true, it is honestly not even worth contesting them as it wastes time.

Inherency: This stock issue is definitely the most underrated and it can win a lot of rounds if utilized correctly.

For starters, the question of this stock issue is effectively the answer to the question "If the plan is so good, why hasn't it been passed yet?" I think any team who frames this question as a burden for the aff to meet can definitely win on this stock issue.

Teams who read affs that are clearly not inherent, or do not have a clear barrier preventing their plan from being passed, beware. I definitely find this sort of framing convincing, and I will vote on it if push comes to shove.

Solvency: On Solvency I'm pretty receptive to framing args, however I think as a general rule, you should read some offense (DAs) alongside it. Some specific args and my opinions on them

Framing: I'm fine with the framing that the aff must "solve for all of their harms" in order to win the debate. In general, I would try to avoid making the burden you set under solvency ridiculously high because you will look pretty unreasonable to the judge and the aff will have an easier time responding to it. That said, I would still set a high burden on the aff to solve for all their harms. Unless orchestrated really well, I don't think this replaces offense.

Circumvention: In general, I think these args are pretty bad. Main reason is because the resolution asks the question of "should" not "would". Due to affirmatives needing to be structurally inherent, IE never passed, there has to be some barrier preventing it from being passed. Literally every aff that is inherent would lose to this argument. Overall just stating what I said above is enough for me on these args.

Disadvantage: For the negative, in my opinion, this is probably the most important stock issue.

This is the only way for the neg to directly garner offense against the plan. I think the most important thing on the DA is adding a risk if the plan fails under any other stock issue. Specifically, the only real consequence to the plan under solvency without a DA is "maybe it won't be as good as we thought". A DA means that the world is worse off if the plan is passed.

Things I don't like to see as DAs

1. Solvency arguments in disguise

2. Dropped arguments (Yes I've seen people actually say this)

Circuit:

Tech over truth: Overall, I'll try to be accommodating with how you want to debate. Obviously I am not immune from biases, but I'll try to put them aside when evaluating rounds.

One thing to clarify here: one dropped argument doesn't equal an automatic win for either team. I need to see expansion on those dropped arguments in later speeches and a clear explanation as to why that dropped argument wins you the debate. Don't just get up and state the other team dropped arguments. Most debates only break down into a few key issues.

Framework and K Affs: I'll be quite honest here and say I'm not really that well-versed in critical literature, especially for more vague authors. My main strategies were mainly framework and maybe something like Cap. Overall, I generally assume debates are better when the affirmative team reads and defends a topical plan text, however, I can be persuaded by aff args on FW as well. If you are wondering where to pref me, I obviously don't just vote down Ks, but I may carry some intrinsic bias towards neg args. Judges who are well versed in the lit and lack any ideological biases will probably be better choices.

"'Clash of civilizations' debates, annoyingly, always seem to invite the most amount of judge intervention. I always appreciated it when judges were upfront with their thoughts on framework, so the below section is rather lengthy.

Procedural fairness is not a particularly compelling terminal impact to framework in front of me. While debate is certainly a game, it also certainly has other pedagogical benefits beyond providing entertainment value for two hours, and it’s unclear to me why maintaining fairness in the abstract comes before the various benefits and drawbacks associated with resolutional debate. Defenses of fairness tend to collapse down into sophistry like “fairness is an intrinsic good” and rely upon the judge to fill in the blanks with their own beliefs regarding the value of debate. While it’s true that fairness is intrinsic to a fundamentally competitive activity, I don’t know why that means it’s “good” or why I should automatically privilege it over other impacts advanced by the aff or neg. In other words, while I agree with DHeidt’s assertion that “saying fairness is an internal link to other values is like saying nuclear war is an internal link to death,” unlike my implicit assumption that death is bad, I won’t enter the room with the presumption that fair debate is worth preserving. You still need an external impact attached to that. At that point, you’re better off bypassing the attempt to bestow upon fairness some mystical “procedural” value and instead forwarding external defenses of the educational value associated with resolutional stasis, which (hopefully) shouldn’t be difficult to accomplish.

Winning fairness as a terminal impact in and of itself, to me, requires two things: a) a lack of additional standards to framework beyond fairness and b) substantial mitigation to aff claims that debate affects our subjectivities, pedagogical experience, or education in some manner. Introducing external standards to framework beyond procedural fairness necessitates conceding the implicit claim that debate possesses educational implications as well, at which point it becomes fairly simple for the aff to impact turn whatever education the neg’s model of debate produces. Confining the debate to purely a question of fairness enables the neg to potentially “no link” large swaths of aff offense by arguing that debate doesn’t have any singular or predictable impact on our subjectivities, but rather has intrinsic value as a game that we’ve all chosen to partake in and in which we’ve subscribed to particular norms – like the expectation that the judge fairly and technically adjudicate arguments. Pursuing this route obviously limits the scope of your external offense, but it also substantially undercuts most aff offense." (T. Vergho's paradigm)

K v K debates: I don’t expect I’ll be judging many of these. Judge instruction is paramount. I can go either way on whether planless affs get a permutation.

Ks- I think the best strat against Ks is to go full offense mode on them. Specifically, if you can, impact turning all their offense. You should try and leverage your impacts and explain why their theory (mindset) is bad. Link turns are good too, but be careful with those as they are harder to get away with.

I am familiar with the basics: Security, Neolib, Agamben, legalism, foucalt, etc. however for any hyper specific Ks, I will definitely need a clear thesis as soon as possible. If it means sacrificing nuance, you might as well do it.

In general, unless the aff concedes some huge technical arg, the aff will get to weigh it's impacts against the K. Most Fw on the neg just sorta asserts the judge should evaluate the round as some sort of "critical intellectual" without explaining how the judge should evaluate the round other than through cost-benefit analysis.

Advice for teams running Ks - Read links contextualized to the 1AC. Specifically, links based in presumptions made by the 1AC. As long as you have a reasonable/competitive alt, you should be fine.

Alts: A LOT of alts are either super vague or just don't do anything. I think the aff definitely should not just let the neg get away with fiating away entire structures/systems out of existence. If the aff doesn't say anything though, who am I to judge?

Overall, large metaphysical/ontological claims about how the whole world operates have a high burden of proof for that team to meet, especially if contested.

Also, detailed roadmaps are especially helpful, especially if you are reading a long OV.

Topicality (against policy affs): Between two interpretations of relatively equal quality, I’m a fairly good judge for the neg in topicality debates. I am definitely more willing to vote on T, as I've run some garbage T args before. I think there are two things you'd need to show to win T on the neg.

1. Good evidence quality and good contextualization in-round as to why I should prefer your interpretation/why their interp is bad. To do this, I think you should not only find some way to indict their evidence, but should also provide a thorough case list that fits under their interp.

2. An explanation of the impacts in-round. Just stating "vote neg for limits and ground" is not enough, you need to list specific args you lose access to/examples of how it has affected round . This will obviously be harder to do the worse your interp is. In general, the only real impacts to T, in my opinion, are limits and ground. I am willing to hear out new impacts, but it will be hard to sway me on them.

Overall, I'm pretty generous to the neg on T if there is a reasonable case to be made the aff isn't topical.

Oh yeah....reasonability.

Reasonability: I think there is honestly not that large of a distinction between competing interps and reasonabilty, it just shifts the burden of meeting the "best interpretation" to a "good interpretation". I don't think this is a bad argument, and I can vote either way on this. In general, the arguments I find most convincing for reasonability (other than the generic "goalposting") are explanations as to how competing interps leads to substance crowd out + an explanation as to how it weakens predictability.

DAs: Pretty good on these. Specific links and the right spin are all I really need to see on these.

"Zero-risk"- In general I assume there is always some possibility of the DA (unless there are thumpers/the DA literally makes no sense), despite this arg probably being true

"UQ controls the direction of the link"- This is a meaningless argument that doesn't bolster link defense effectively. A non-UQ claim and a no-link claim equally undercut the probability that a DA will happen, so in general this arg is redundant.

Turns case arguments should be executed as high up the internal link chain as possible. Even if the aff doesn’t explicitly answer “famine turns the case because it produces international instability that prompts proliferation,” it doesn’t really matter because all the other uniqueness/link/internal defense on the DA mitigates the neg’s access to this argument.

Soft left affs with long framing contentions are unpersuasive largely because they fail to present a coherent alternative model for risk assessment. There are many valid criticisms of debate’s traditional utilitarian framework, which prioritizes reaching extinction above all else; however, generic appeals to “probability first” or “long internal link chains are evil” as a substitute for technical debating present just as many flaws. Probability matters, magnitude matters, and if you’re doing your job on the DA you’ve probably reduced its risk enough that the framing debate becomes a moot point.

Impact turn debates are great, but often become messy due to the nature of these debates. Keep the flow organized by the relevant sections of the debate. Teams that win impact turn debates often do so by controlling one or two big-picture issues and using those to frame large parts of the flow.

CP’s: I tend to err aff on competition questions. If the counterplan could theoretically fiat a possible manifestation of the plan, I view the counterplan as questionably competitive at best. In practice, this excludes most agent CP’s if the aff doesn’t specify an actor in CX, but alternative sources of competition predicated on normal means or solvency advocates seem overly regressive. ASPEC can be used to generate competition, but unless dropped I doubt I’d ever vote on it as an independent voting issue.

Offense-defense applies to the link to the net benefit. If the counterplan links less than either the aff or the perm, in the absence of a solvency deficit that outweighs the residual link differential I’m likely to vote neg because the counterplan is the least risky option.

Smart perms other than “perm do both” and “perm do the counterplan” can often derail most complex counterplan strategies.

I will default to kicking the CP if neither side brings it up. If equally debated, I’ll likely err affirmative on judge kick. Don’t wait until the last speeches to make judge kick arguments.

Presumption flips aff in the presence of a CP.

Counterplans don’t necessarily need solvency advocates if it’s obvious how they solve an advantage or internal link.

Theory: I’m somewhat easily persuaded that counterplans which could result in fiating the plan’s action are theoretically illegitimate. As such, I’m aff-leaning on consult, conditions, delay, and other generic counterplans that compete off immediacy and certainty. I also think multi-actor (not multi-branch) counterplans are illegitimate. Anything other than conditionality is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

Neg-leaning on PIC’s, multi-plank CP’s, international fiat, self-restraint/non-enforcement, states, and generic “topic” counterplans like parole. 2NC CP’s are good in response to new 2AC offense. Agent CP’s are theoretically legitimate but questionably competitive. Most theory objections suffer from some degree of arbitrariness; aff teams should compensate by writing their violations to be as clear and elegant as possible (e.g. “counterplans must be policies” or “counterplans should never be able to fiat the plan”).

Conditionality is good. 2 is safe, 3 is probably okay, and any more than that is pushing it. Perhaps that’s an arbitrary brightline, but it seems reasonable based on community standards. That being said, aff teams should pick a stable interpretation like dispositionality for the purposes of theory debates to avoid neg arguments about the minimal differential between both sides’ offense.

On all theory args there is at least a reasonable threshold for proving in round abuse.

be nice and be cool in cx

I have coached Lincoln Douglass debate for 5 years. For me, excellent debaters are reasonable, efficient, articulate, logical, clear, audience focussed, fair, and adept at both offense and defense. Effective debaters provide a clear and direct weighing mechanism for why they are winning or have won the round, and they link back to the value criterion clearly and directly. I don't like fast debate. Debate in the real world for me as a human. I don't like tricks and manipulations. Debate your opponents' best arguments, represent them fairly, and use logic, analytics, and critical thinking to clash convincingly. Do the fundamentals well: good speaking skills, look to the audience, good sportspersonship, good clarity of enunciation, energy, posture, concrete framing, big picture framing, signposting, clash, clash, clash etc.

***BELLARMINE RHETORIC INVITATIONAL:

IGNORE EVERYTHING ABOUT:

- NO extra speaks

- NO spreading - this will be a slow round. If you are talking faster than you should, be warned - your grade WILL go down.

- NO Counterplans

EVERYTHING ELSE IN MY PARADIGM APPLIES!!!

Good luck!

Specifics:

Novice Policy:

I am a sophomore policy debater at Bellarmine. I will flow your arguments and pay attention to cross ex. That being said, if you want me to consider anything from cross ex, please mention it in your speech. I have debated a ton on this year's topic, so I'll be fine with abbreviations. Just keep in mind for future rounds that most parent judges might not be.

In terms of what arguments you read, treat me like a parent judge; that is what you should be practicing at this novice tournament.

Topicality: If you're going to read topicality, explain very clearly why the affirmative is not topical. Also explain why I should vote neg because of it.

Counterplans: Although you don't generally read counterplans in novice or lay in general, I'll still consider them equally. But - make sure you have a reason for reading the counterplan, and I wouldn't recommend kicking it because that's not at all intuitive to parent judges.

Speech content: In the final rebuttals, tell me very clearly why I should give you the ballot. For the 2NR, preempt the 2AR. For the 2AR, don't drop all of their arguments just because they don't have another speech - I am flowing. Essentially, do good line by line in every speech. Make sure to also practice framing throughout all your speeches.

Cross ex: Be nice, ask important questions, and no tag team cross ex please.

Speaks: Don't go fast - this is novice debate. I will most certainly dock you points. Some quick things about speaks:

1. Give a speech solely off of paper or computer - I want eye contact. I understand that when reading evidence, you should look at the evidence, but when reading tags or responding to arguments I expect some eye contact.

2. It's okay to be a little aggressive in cross ex, but DO NOT be rude, physical, or overly aggressive either.

3. I understand that this is a novice tournament, so I will be lenient on stuttering and pausing, but any gaps that aren't tiny will also be a small deduction in speaks.

4. If you are neg, I still expect you to flow the 2AR. It is always good to learn from a speech, even if it won't affect you in that specific round.

5. USE ALL YOUR SPEECH/CX TIME! Speech and cross ex time is a gift - USE IT! Using 7/8 minutes means you could've spent more time framing or convincing me of your side. I will dock your speaker points if you are short. (Quick thing - I expect both teams to time their own prep and speeches, please don't steal prep it looks very bad and is unethical.)

6. ALWAYS BE NICE! This is the most important thing. If you are very rude to your opponent that will result in an automatic 25. That means don't laugh during their speeches or after the round, just be cool.

7. +0.3 speaks for every good Minecraft joke - if it's bad I'll give you +0, if it's in between I'll give you +0.2 for effort.

8. +0.1 speaks for any and every Trump joke - I love them and don't be afraid to make more political jokes and references, I will add more speaks accordingly.

9. +0.1 speaks for puns. I might make it +0.2 if it's SUPER cringey.

10. +0.1 speaks for every time you make me laugh throughout the debate. Feel free to remind me after the round.

11. I will bump you up an entire speaker point if you can use the phrase "You can't just drop bombs and then grow wheat"(Dalmia '19) in one of your speeches. However, it has to be in the right context and relevant to the debate.

Final notes:
-I may ask to see evidence after the debate if it comes down to a specific piece of evidence. Thus, it is in your best interest to make sure the evidence makes the claim you say it does.

-I will make sure to give you extensive comments after the round - and if you have any questions please feel free to email me at dhruv.dalmia22@bcp.org. Also, if you use an email chain, add me to it.

I'm sorry for the length of the paradigm but I think it will be a better debate if you read through it.

Most importantly, have fun!

-Dhruv

finbarr.donovan22@bcp.org : add me onto the email chain if there is one : he/him

-----

I'm in my third year of policy at Bellarmine College Prep.

Be confident and respectful. If you take anything from this paradigm, it's that you should be sportsmanlike. I don't mean to say you aren't allowed to make fun of someone's argument, I mean to say that any kind of personal attack on another debater and/or being super aggressive in cross-ex isn't cool with me.

I'm tabula rasa. As long as you explain your arguments clearly and have a claim-warrant-impact structure I'll follow them. I'll vote purely on the arguments that were made during the debate.

For stock issue policy rounds, be sure to frame the debate for me. (i.e., write my ballot for me - what does a team need to prove to win the debate? One stock issue or plan bad idea? etc.)

Oh, and have fun! There's not much that's worse than a debate where both teams don't want to be there.

I did policy for one year in the Coast Forensic League, parli for one year in the Coast Forensic League, and Congress for 4 years in high school. I vote on stock issues; if you spread I will likely not understand you, if you run a critique, I will probably not understand your argument and will most likely vote for the other side. I don't extend arguments for you; if it's not on my flow at the end of the round, I will not vote for it. Keep the debate organized, the easier it is for me to put your argument on my flow, the more likely I'll be able to properly evaluate it. A smart analytic will beat a bad card for me. If you're disrespectful to your opposition, I will not vote for you.

I was in elims of the TOC, but don't mistake that for any kind of expertise. I'm as good at flowing as a fish is at climbing trees. I also don't read.

Here's my deal:

1. Great case debate - Who needs evidence when you've got a mind? As long as you engage and make good, logical arguments on case, you're golden. In fact, you could even nullify an extinction impact if you make it work. The dinosaurs are waiting.

2. Clash - Let's just talk, okay? I don't need a generic block of words thrown at me. Engage with your opponent's arguments. I mean, really, who needs evidence when you're logical? It's like having a receipt for a donut.

3. Slow debate - We're not in a rap battle. I don't need speed. I need substance. I don't care if you're the Usain Bolt of debate; just slow down and let's have a rigorous conversation about the aff plan.

Now, here are some circuit debate norms that make as much sense to me as a fish on a bicycle:

1. Dropped arguments aren't true - I've defeated teams who crushed us on content because they missed the hidden topicality shell between DA links. I mean, who agreed that debates should be judged like this?

2. Kritiks are wack - I could list my reasons, but I'll keep it brief. For one, crazy alt fiat is just that - crazy. Debate should be about possible solutions, not fantasy. Also, uniqueness - if I'm skeptical of alts, the K seems like a non-unique DA. And lastly, links - they're like those puzzles with missing pieces.

3. Judge intervention is good - Yes, I said it. If I don't like your argument, it's probably not going to get my vote. This is because I want you pursuing good arguments, not just the ones the other team undercovers. You're not going to persuade me with a stale argument any more than a stale donut.

So, there you have it. My approach to debate is like my approach to cooking - I don't do it by the book. So, let's get this show on the road!

Bellarmine College Preparatory - Class of 2022

Pronouns: he/him

Please include me on the email chain: andre.gaviola22@bcp.org

I currently participate in expository/informative speaking as well as policy debate. I have competed in both lay and circuit settings, and I am comfortable with any style(s) of argumentation so long as they are explained clearly.

Policy Debate:

I have not participated in policy debate in a while (I do ld) so I won't be as knowledgeable about the topic and the rules of the debate (like stock issues). Thus, please make your arguments as easy to understand as possible so that I can consider it in the debate. In addition, please do not spread because if I don't understand what you are saying or don't comprehend it fast enough, I will not take note of the argument. I also would greatly appreciate sign posting so I know what arguments you are responding to, which will make it easier on both me and the opponent. Essentially, just treat me as you would a parent judge and make your speeches easy to understand and follow.

Bellarmine '21

Harvard '25

Assistant coach for Bellarmine.

Email for the chain: ahiremath35@gmail.com. It would be great if you could make the subject "Year -- Tournament -- Round # -- Aff Team vs Neg Team."

Some people who have heavily influenced my views on debate: Surya Midha, Tyler Vergho, Debnil Sur, Dhruv Sudesh, Rafael Pierry, and Anirudh Prabhu. Feel free to check out any of their paradigms too.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Berkeley Tournament '24 Update
- I haven't judged any rounds on the topic. Don't assume I know any topic specific jargon or accept any community consensus.

- Beliefs about AI: AGI is inevitable, actors like OpenAI are most likely to achieve AGI, it is possible to regulate AI, most open source AI is good, and misaligned AGI can pose an existential risk.

- I despise the trend of ad hominem attacks in debates.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General thoughts

- I don't care what you read. While my partner Surya and I mostly read policy arguments, we occasionally read K affs and even went for the Baudrillard K in our TOC bubble round.

- Rebuttals should acknowledge and address the weakest parts of your own arguments. Reduce the debate to 2-3 core issues and clearly explain why winning those issues mean you have already won the debate.

- Hard numbering arguments is beautiful and makes it very easy to flow the debate. "One, two, three" > "first, second, third."

- Answer arguments in the order presented.

- Don't waste time calling arguments "terrible" or "stupid" or anything like that. Just directly explain the reason why the argument is poor.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FW

- Clash, fairness, and movements can all be great impacts. If you go for fairness, lean into the "debate is a game" framing. If you go for movements / skills, explain why that solves their offense better.

- Please don't just read blocks straight down. Contextualize as much as possible, wherever possible. The first lines of your 2NC/2NR overview should point out a central problem in the aff construction or strategy.

- Impact comparison is crucial, especially in final rebuttals.

- I generally vote for the team that is more offensive in these debates.

- Counter-interpretations need to have a somewhat clear caselist. Negative teams should make fun of counter-interpretations that don't.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CP

- Send all perm texts in the 2AC.

- Textual and functional competition are great standards to hold CP's to. 2A's should also be prepared to go for textually non-intrinsic but functionally intrinsic perms.

- Counterplans can solve for an advantage's internal links or an advantage's impacts. The best CP's do both.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

K

- The negative only gets to weigh the impacts of their links. How large the impacts are is up for debate.

- I don't have great background knowledge on the majority of these literature bases, so please be clear when explaining dense concepts. If I can't understand your arguments then I won't vote for you.

- 2A's should be mindful of what they need to win given 2NR pivots. They kick the alt? Winning framework basically means you auto-win the debate. They go for the alt? Winning a substantial DA to the alt can help you in multiple areas of the debate.

- Pick 1-2 pieces of offense on the framework debate and explain them well in the final rebuttals. These debates get muddled when either side tries to do too much.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

T

- Predictable limits are more important than limits for the sake of limits.

- Interpretations need to have a clear intent to exclude, otherwise the affirmative will have a much easier time winning "we meet." Surya's paradigm has a great explanation of this.

- Plan text in a vacuum is a better standard than most people give it credit for. If the alternative to plan text in a vacuum justifies the negative procuring violations from non-underlined portions of cards, then the aff should make fun of that.

- The 2AR/2NR should isolate 1-2 pieces of offense, explain why they outweigh, and explain why they solve/precede the other team's offense.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Theory

- Please be as slow as possible.

- Things that are good: conditionality, 2NC CP's, kicking planks, CP's without a solvency advocate.

- Things that are bad: international fiat, multi-level / multi-actor fiat.

- Theoretical objections other than conditionality can be made into better substantive arguments. A CP doesn't have a solvency advocate? Probably means your deficit is more credible. A CP uses an archaic process to establish a precedent? Probably means the perm shields.

Email - jhong@shcp.edu

In high school, I competed in policy debate, public forum, and original oratory in California's CFL. I also attended CNDI and a few circuit tournaments in policy as a junior and senior. Finally, I competed at the California state tournament in policy debate and at the NSDA national tournament in public forum. Currently, I'm a social studies teacher and a debate coach at Sacred Heart Cathedral in San Francisco.

Notes specific to policy:

-It's been a long time since I competed on the circuit. The most important consequence concerns speed. I can handle some, but will likely have a lower tolerance than most regular circuit judges.

-Tabula rasa, as much as possible. Most familiar with fascist "USFG should" debates, but I'm willing to vote for alternative role of the ballot arguments. Love to see the dying art of stock issues, if that's your thing.

-I'd rather see fewer well-researched, well-constructed, and well-articulated arguments than a lot of dubious ones. I know every paradigm says this, but it's particularly important to me. As a student and teacher in the social sciences, I've noticed that a lot of what we do in policy debate is poor social science. Not all of you will grow up to be political scientists or economists, but I do believe that everyone can benefit from a better understanding of what constitutes good social science. Causal inference ought to require a high burden of proof in policy debate, just as it does in academic social science.

-In terms of performance, I'm old fashioned and against things like tag team cross X. For better or worse, my view of speech and debate remains obstinately stuck in the days of jackets and ties.

-Finally, be kind. I have more experience with the activity than a parent judge, but if you wouldn't do it in front of a parent, then don't do it in front of me.

Hi!
I'm Aakash Jain, I'm currently a senior at Bellarmine College Prep. I've participated in Policy debate at all levels, from parents to circuit tournaments, Congressional Debate, and have done a little bit of public forum debate. I've also done Original Advocacy speech.

If you are a Rhetoric freshman, please ignore this completely - just do what Mr. Langerman/Cleary has taught you and you'll be fine.

Generally, I'm fine with anything in your rounds, but make sure to be clear and courteous throughout the debate.

Telling me how I should vote through the debate is really the gold standard of being an effective debater, please do.

In the rounds I will be judging, novice rounds, I would generally recommend not reading Kritikal arguments or talking particularly quickly. Instead, you should stick to counterplans, disadvantages, or best of all stock issues. I personally have mainly read kritikal arguments, so I'm fine with them if you read them well.

If I can't understand your speaking in the round, I'll say clear once.

CSU LONG BEACH JACK HOWE 2022 UPDATE: I haven't judged circuit debate since 2017 so I'm out of practice. If you have me in the back of the room, please go slower - ESPECIALLY ON ANALYTICS. I won't be able to understand you if you fully spread your pre-written analytic blocks, so please slow down. I'm the head director for Bellarmine's program so I spend most of my time these days coaching speech and slow debate. 

FOR STATE & NATIONALS: If I am judging you in debate at the CHSSA State tournament or NSDA Nationals, please do not treat me as a purely circuit judge, especially if I'm on a panel with other judges who are clearly not circuit-oriented. I believe that those tournaments are excellent forums for a type of debate that prioritizes judge adaptation and a slower, more lay style of debate. So, do not feel you have to go fast to try to cater to me. At these tournaments, I'll hold you to much higher standards in terms of the evidence quality, the specificity of the link, and the logical coherence of your positions. I will love you if you successfully criticize contrived internal link scenarios, the squirelly/shady arguments, and blippy line-by-line analysis in your CXs and speeches.

How to get high speaker points and win my ballot:

My greatest frustrations with the vast majority of debate rounds are two-fold: 1) a lack of comparative engagement with the other team's arguments and 2) a lack of well-impacted analysis of why your arguments are reasons I should vote for you. Speech docs seem to exacerbate both of these problems, as teams rely on reading pre-written blocks. More and more, I feel a sense of impending existential dread as I realize that nothing meaningful in the debate round is going to happen until the 2NR and 2AR and that everything else is a game of seeing which issues get undercovered. Let me break down my two biggest frustrations:

1) comparative analysis - I understand that you have beautifully constructed blocks to certain arguments but often times, those blocks are not directly responsive to the other team's argument, and so I'm left with back-and-forth disputes with no clear framework of how to resolve them. The quickest way to get good speaker points with me is to listen critically to the warrants of the other team's arguments and give comparative analysis that explains why your warrants are superior.

2) impacting important arguments - Though debaters implicitly understand the importance of impact calc, they often think about it incorrectly. Meaningful impact calc isn't exclusively about magnitude, timeframe, and probability. That's rarely how rounds are resolved. That type of impact calc presupposes that you're ahead on the other parts of the flow. The best impact calc explains why the arguments that you're ahead on in the round are reasons to vote for you and why those arguments are more important than the other teams arguments. Often times, teams get frustrated that a dropped argument didn't warrant an immediate vote for their team. If a dropped argument is not adequately impacted and framed, and the other team has more compelling offense, then most rational judges will still not vote for you. I see this most often in framework debates against identity politics affirmatives. The framework debaters are often confused how they lost the round, despite being "ahead" on some line-by-line issues. However, in those debates, the identity politics team is often far ahead in terms of impacts and framing why those impacts outweigh any of the line-by-line framework arguments. So, to put it simply, explain why your arguments matter.

Finally, please go slower on theory than you would with other judges - I debated in high school and coach policy debate now, but I also direct a program that coaches students in speech (IE) and lay debate, so I don't watch 20+ fast rounds a year, like many judges on the circuit.

My experience: I debated in high school for Bellarmine College Prep (San Jose, CA) from 2007-2011 and went to Michigan 7-week during that time but did not debate in college -- so I was out of the circuit for a couple of years when identity politics K and planless affs became popular. Now, I'm a coach at Bellarmine. I don't judge much on the circuit now that I direct Bellarmine's S&D program. I would recommend going a bit slower, especially on theory arguments, if you want to make sure that I'm able to flow everything. That also means that you should explain your warrants and arguments more than you might for other judges.

Policy
The more case-specific you are, the better. Far too many teams do not engage with case in a substantive way. Also, don't be afraid to make analytics – smart, true analytics hold a lot of sway with me, and it’s very strategic to have them in the 1NC and 2AC. If I see that you’re actually engaging the debate and critically thinking instead of just reading blocks and ignoring what the other team said I will be much more willing to give you higher speaks. That said:

Topicality – you must do a good job of explaining your interpretation and why it’s good for debate (or why allowing the aff to be included in the topic is bad for the topic), as well as the terminal impacts to your claims about predictability and fairness and education, etc. I generally err towards interpretations that are the best for the literature base of a topic -- for substantive, deep debates at the core of the resolution -- rather than arbitrary lines which found their entire argument on generic disad link distinctions. Good topicality debates should be grounded in excellent evidence (T- subs. w/o material qualifications is a good example of a violation that does not fulfill this criteria).

DA – I love strategies that are either CP/DA or even DA/case. As a 1N/2A, I took the DA a lot in the 1NR and loved doing 2ARs against the DA. Generic DAs are okay, but I’m going to like you a lot more if you’re reading a tight case-specific DA that has good, specific links and internal links.

CP – don't be abusive or shady, otherwise I'll have sympathy for the aff on theory args.

Case – I LOVE case and I think it’s totally viable to win a debate with a simple strategy like case-DA. Case is what these sorts of debate SHOULD be about. Don’t let the 2A get away with the entirety of case and you have to defend on a CP to win! Make them defend the plan. I could even be persuaded to vote on presumption.

K debates
I'm down with Ks. I'm familiar with much of the K lit - but take time to explain the core thesis of the K in the neg block (or 2ac) and especially the link story. Contrived and jargon-filled tags that lack substance but just try to sound smart / catch the other team off guard is a huge pet peeve of mine. For the aff, definitely poke fun of the link, as well as the alt - if the K cannot explain an articulate non-generic formulation of these parts of the debate, it'll be hard for me to vote for the kritik. I'm fairly knowledgeable with regards to the K literature base, particularly Foucault, Nietzsche, Bataille, Marx, critical IR, but that means I hold kritiks to a high standard of explanation. If you are reading some variation on Lacan, for instance, you'd better understand exactly what kind of argument you're making. There are many points in fast debate rounds when I feel an impending sense of existential dread but one of the more egregious examples of such moments occurs when teams completely and utterly bastardize a brilliant philosopher with a kritik and have no idea what that author's argument actually is.

Also, please do not read framework at the same pace that you would read a card. Especially when you are talking about the role of the ballot, slow down a little.

Identity debates
I'm open to debates on identity politics. Again, I didn't debate when these types of arguments were gaining currency so I don't have as much familiarity but I'm open-minded about them. I do believe they force debaters to grapple with ideas that are ultimately good for the community to confront. The most important thing for FW debaters in these situations is to not just focus on the line-by-line. In these sorts of debates, the identity politics teams typically win through in-depth overviews that impact turn essentially everything on the line-by-line. You HAVE to respond to their top-level impact claims - it's hard to pull the trigger in this type of round on dropped argument on the line-by-line if you haven't been addressing the framing of the debate itself.

If you have more specific questions, please ask me before the round.

Hi y'all! I am a former speech and debater for Bellarmine College Preparatory in the Coast Forensics League. I have finished my undergrad at UC Berkeley, studying Political Science and Philosophy. Although I have done speech for a majority of my four years competing in high school, I have done a year of slow Policy Debate and was a Parliamentary Debater during my senior year of high school. I am now an Interp coach at Bellarmine College Prep and a Parliamentary/Public Forum Debate and Extemp Coach at The Nueva School. These past few years, I have been running Tabrooms at Tournaments as compared to judging. And even if I have been judging, I am almost always in the Speech and Congress judging pool.

The tl;dr: Be clear, concise, and kind during debate. I will listen to and vote on anything GIVEN that I understand it and it's on my flow. Spread and run arguments at your own risk. Evidence and analysis are a must, clash and weigh - treat me as a flay (flow + lay) judge.

If you want more precise information, read the event that you are competing in AND the "Overall Debate Stuff" if you are competing in a Debate.

Table of Contents for this paradigm:

1. Policy Debate

2. Parliamentary Debate

3. Public Forum Debate

4. Lincoln Douglas Debate

5. Overall Debate Stuff (Speed, Theory, K's, Extending Dropped Arguments, etc.)

6. IE's (Because I'm extra!) (Updated on 01/2/2024!)

7. Congress

For POLICY DEBATE:

I feel like I'm more policymaker oriented, although I started learning about Policy Debate from a stock issues lens, and am more than comfortable defaulting to stock issues if that's what y'all prefer. I'm really trying to see whether the plan is a good idea and something that should be passed. Offensive arguments and weighing are key to winning the debate for me. For example, even if the Neg proves to me that the plan triggers a disadvantage and a life threatening impact, if the Aff is able to minimize the impact or explain how the impact pales in comparison to the advantages the plan actually offers, I'd still feel comfortable voting Aff. If asked to evaluate the debate via stock issues, the Neg merely needs to win one stock issue to win the debate.

Evidence and analysis are absolutely crucial, and good analysis can beat bad evidence any day! Evidence and link turns are also great, but make sure that you are absolutely CLEAR about what you are arguing and incredibly explanatory about how this piece of evidence actually supports your argument.

Counterplans - They're great! Just make sure that your plan text is extremely clear. If there are planks, make sure that they are stated clearly so I can get them down on my flow! Make sure that you explain why the CP is to be preferred over the Plan - show how and explain explicitly how you solve and be sure to watch out for any double binds or links to DA's that you may bring up! Counterplans may also be non-topical.

Topicality - Yeah, it's a voting issue. It's the Negative's burden to explain the Affirmative's violation and to provide specific interpretations that the Affirmative needs to adhere to. Further, if T is run, I must evaluate whether the plan is Topical BEFORE I evaluate the rest of the debate.

For Theory, Ks, etc. see the "Overall Debate Stuff" below.

I'm not too up on most arguments on this year's topic, so again, arguments need to be explained clearly and efficiently.

For PARLI DEBATE:

In Parli, I will judge the debate first in terms of the stronger arguments brought up on each side through the framework provided and debated by the AFF (PROP) and the NEG (OPP). If you win framework, I will judge the debate based on YOUR framework. However, just because you win framework, doesn't necessarily mean that you win the round. Your contentions are the main meat of the speeches and all contentions SHOULD support your framework, and should be analyzed and explained as such. If it's a Policy resolution round, I tend to judge by stock issue and DA's/Ad's (see the above Policy Debate paradigm). If a fact or value resolution round, I tend to judge through framework first before evaluating any arguments that come afterwards.

Counterplans - They're great! Just make sure that your plan text is extremely clear. If there are planks, make sure that they are stated clearly so I can get them down on my flow! Make sure that you explain why the CP is to be preferred over the Plan - show how and explain explicitly how you solve and be sure to watch out for any double binds or links to DA's that you may bring up! Counterplans may also be non-topical.

Similar to Policy, by the end of the 1 NR, I should know exactly what arguments you are going for. Voting issues in each of the rebuttals are a MUST! Crystallize the round for me and tell me exactly what I will be voting on at the end of the debate.

In regards to POO's, I do not protect the flow. It is up to YOU to POO your opponents. New arguments that are not POO'd may be factored into my decision if not properly POO'd. POO's should not be abused. Be clear to give me what exactly what the new argument/impact/evidence/etc. is.

I expect everyone to take at least 1-2 POI(s) throughout their speeches. Anything short is low key just rude, especially if your opponent gives you the opportunity to ask questions in their speech. Anything more is a time suck for you. Be strategic and timely about when and how you answer the question.

For PF:

I strongly believe that PF should remain an accessible type of debate for ALL judges. While I do understand and am well versed in more faster/progressive style debate, I would prefer if you slowed down and really took the time to speak to me and not at me. Similar to Policy and Parli, I want arguments to be clearly warranted and substantiated with ample evidence. As the below section explains, I'd much rather have fewer, but more well developed arguments instead of you trying to pack the flow with 10+ arguments that are flaky and unsubstantiated at best.

For PF, I will side to using an Offense/Defense paradigm. I'm really looking for Offense on why your argument matters and really want you to weigh your case against your opponents'. Whoever wins the most arguments at the end of the round may not necessarily win the round, since I think weighing impacts and arguments matters more. Please make sure that you really impact out arguments and really give me a standard or framework to weigh your arguments on! So for example, even if the Pro team wins 3 out of 4 arguments, if the Con is able to show that the one argument that they win clearly outweighs the arguments from the Pro, I may still pick up the Con team on the ballot. WEIGH , WEIGH, WEIGH. I CAN'T EMPHASIZE THIS ENOUGH! Really explain why your impacts and case connect with your framework. Similar to LD, if both teams agree on framework, I'd rather you focus on case debate or add an impact rather than focus on the framework debate. Though if both teams have different frameworks, give me reasons and explain why I should prefer yours over your opponents'.

The second rebuttal should both focus on responding to your opponents' refutations against your own case AND should refute your opponents' case. If you bring up dropped arguments that are not extended throughout the debate in the Final Focus speeches, I will drop those specific arguments. If it's in the Final Focus, it should be in the Final Summary, and if it's in the Final Summary, it should be in Rebuttal. I will consider an argument dropped if it is not responded to by you or your teammate after the rebuttal speeches. For more information regarding extensions, please look at the "Overall Debate Stuff" section of this paradigm.

Please use the Final Focus as a weighing mechanism of why YOUR team wins the round. I'd prefer it to be mainly summarizing your side's points and really bringing the debate to a close.

Most of all, be kind during crossfire.

For Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Similar to PF, while I did not compete in LD, I have judged a few rounds and understand the basics of this debate. I am more old-school in that I believe that LD is something that focuses more on arguing about the morality of affirming or negating the resolution. The Affirmative does not need to argue for a specific plan, rather, just needs to defend the resolution. However, I have judged a handful of fast rounds in LD and do understand more progressive argumentation from Policy Debate. I have also judged policy/plan centered LD rounds.

So there's framework debate and then we get to the main meat with contentions. With the framework debate, I'm open to essentially any Value or V/C that you want to use. If you and your opponent's Value and V/C are different, please provide me reasons why I should prefer your Value and V/C over your opponents. Weigh them against each other and explain to me why you should prefer yours over your opponent's. Please also tie your contentions that you have in the main meat of your speeches back to your Value and V/C. For example (using the anonymous sources resolution from 2018-2019), if you're Neg and your Value is democracy and your V/C is transparency because the more transparent news organizations are the more accountable they can be, your contentions should show me that in the your world, we maximize transparency, which allows for the best democracy. The best cases are ones which are able to link the Value and V/C seamlessly into their contentions.

If you win the framework debate, I will judge the debate based on YOUR framework. However, just because you win framework, doesn't necessarily mean that you win the round. Your contentions are the main meat of the speeches and all contentions SHOULD support your framework, and should be analyzed and explained as such.

If you and your opponent agree with V/C and V, move on. Don't spend extra time on stuff that you can spend elsewhere. Add an impact, add a DA, add an advantage, add a contention, etc.

By the time we get to rebuttals, I should have a decent grasp about what voting issues I will be voting on in the debate. A lot of the 1 AR should really be cleaning up the debate as a whole and weighing responses by the Neg with the Aff case. 1 NR should really spend a lot of time focusing on really summarizing the debate as a whole and should give me specific voting issues that the debate essentially boils down to. Feel free to give voting issues at the end of throughout your speech. They usually help me crystallize how I will be voting.

I usually decide the winner of the debate based on which side best persuades me of their position. While this debater is the one which usually wins the main contentions on each side of the flow, it may not be. I usually think of offense/defense when deciding debates! As a result, please WEIGH the contentions against each other, especially when we get into the rebuttal speeches. Even if you only win one contention, if you are able to effectively weigh it against your opponent's contentions, I will have no issue voting for you. Weigh, weigh, weigh - I cannot emphasize this enough!

***Here's an example of how I decided a round with the Standardized Testing resolution: The AFF's value was morality, defined as what was right and wrong and their V/C was welfare, defined as maximizing the good of all people. The NEG's framework was also morality, defined in the same was as the AFF's but their V/C was fair comparison, defined as equal opportunities regardless of background. Suppose AFF dropped framework, I would then go on to evaluate the debate under the NEG's Value and V/C. AFF had two contentions: 1. Discrimination - Standardized testing increases discrimination towards low income and minority communities, and 2. Curriculum - standardized testing forces teachers to teach outdated information and narrow curriculum thus, decreasing student exposure to social sciences and humanities. NEG had two contentions: 1. GPA Inflation is unfair - standardized testing allows for the fairest comparison between students since GPA could be inflated, and 2. Performance Measurement - the SAT accurately measured academic performance for students. Thus, in making my decision, I would first ask, how do each of the contentions best maximize fair comparison and thus, maximize morality. Then I would go down the flow and decide who won each contention. I do this by asking how each argument and responses functioned in the debate. For example, did the AFF show me that standardized testing discriminates against people of color and low-income households? Or was the NEG able to show that adequate resources devoted to these communities not only raised scores, but also ensured that these communities we better prepared for the exam? Another example, was the NEG able to prove that if colleges no longer accepted standardized testing scores, would grade inflation result in impossible comparisons between students? Or could the AFF prove that grade inflation would not occur and that there would be heavier reliance on essays and not GPA? After deciding who won which contention, I analyze the debate as a whole - Was the GPA contention outweighed by other issues throughout the debate? (ex: Even if NEG won the GPA Contention, did AFF win the other three contentions and prove that the other three contentions outweighed NEG's winning contention? Or if AFF only won one contention, did that ONE contention outweigh any of the other contentions the NEG had?) Ultimately, the winner of the debate is who BEST persuaded me of their side through each of the contentions brought forth in the debate.

I'm also totally fine with policy type arguments in an LD round. However, while I did do a year of slow Policy Debate and feel more comfortable evaluating these type of arguments, I think that Policy and LD Debate are two different events and should thus be treated as such. Unless both debaters are comfortable with running Policy Debate type arguments in round, stick to the more traditional form of debating over the morality of the resolution. If both debaters are fine running more policy type arguments, go for it!

Overall Debate Stuff:

I'm kinda stupid - write my ballot for me. It is your job to help me understand complex arguments, not the other way around. Don't expect me to understand everything if you're spreading through an argument and you can certainly not expect me to vote on an argument that I don't understand. In other words, "you do you", but if it's not on the flow or I don't understand it, I won't vote on it.

Speed - Consider me a slow lay flow judge. While I can handle medium-slow speed, I'd prefer it you just spoke in a conversational manner as if you were talking to your parents at the dinner table. If you want to run a Kritik, Counterplan, Theory, etc. go ahead and do so, just make sure that you say it in a speed I can understand it in. Remember, if you go too fast to the point where I just put my pen down and stop flowing, your arguments aren't making it on my flow and I will not vote on them. I will yell "SLOW" and "CLEAR" a maximum of three combined times in your speech if you are going too fast or I cannot hear/understand you. If you see me put my pen down and stop flowing, you have lost me completely. Moreover, try to avoid using fast debate terminology within the round. I may not be able to understand what you are saying if it all goes over my head.

Truth v. Tech - I feel like I have a very rudimentary understanding of these terms, so if you are a debater who loves running K Arguments, Theory, 10+ DA's, likes to spread a bunch, and is unwilling to adapt to a lay judge, do us both a favor and strike me. I run a very fine and nuanced line with truth v. tech. I feel like I'm slightly tech > truth, but ONLY SLIGHTLY so. I will do my absolute best to evaluate the round solely based on the flow, but I do think that there are arguments that are just bad, like (generically listing) "racism/homophobia/ageism/poverty good" or just linking everything to nuclear war. Let me illustrate this with an example:

The Neg tries to prove that an excess of immigration within the United States will result in Trump starting a nuclear war against country "x" as a diversionary tactic because he is losing his hardline immigration battle. Personally, I do not believe this will happen, but if this is the only argument left in the round and the Affirmative drops this and the Negative extends this throughout the debate, I will have no choice but to vote Neg to prevent more lives from being lost. However, if the Affirmative is able to show me that nuclear war will not occur or can effectively delink or turn the Negative's argument of nuclear war or can outweigh nuclear war (i.e. benefits of passing plan outweigh the possibility of nuclear war, which only has a close-to-zero percent chance of happening), I will be more inclined to believe that the Affirmative has won this argument based on any evidence/turn they give me, but also based on what I personally believe will happen. I will not arbitrarily insert my own beliefs into the debate, but if the debaters create a situation in which that case occurs, as with the example seen above, I will be inclined to vote for the debater that has the more true argument and the argument that makes more sense logically with me.

Tabula Rasa - As seen with the example above, I'm not Tabula Rasa. I really don't think that any judge can truly be "tab," for who am I to decide what is true? Again, I won't arbitrarily insert my beliefs into the debate, but if the debaters have an argument that I believe is "true," I will be more inclined to buy that argument unless a team convinces me otherwise. In other words, there exist arguments that I am more likely to agree with and arguments I am more likely to buy and vote on. Either way, I will evaluate the round from what I have written on the flow. Furthermore, take these examples:

The Affirmative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of California while the Negative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of New Mexico. In making my decision, I will side with the latter based on outside knowledge and because it is the argument I think is more "true" based on outside knowledge.

The Affirmative claims that Santa Fe is the capital of California. The Negative does not respond to this claim. While I do not think that the Affirmative's claim is true, the Negative does not respond to this argument and thus, I will consider the Affirmative's argument as valid and evaluate the round as such.

Judge Intervention - Take this as you will, but I strongly also believe that I as a judge should not arbitrarily intervene during the debate and should listen to the arguments presented in the round as brought up by the debaters. So like what I wrote under the Policy Debate part of the paradigm, go ahead and run whatever argument you want. As long as I understand it, I will put it on my flow. See "Speed" and "K's/Theory" portion of this section for more information about what arguments you should run if I'm your judge. It is ultimately a debater's job to help me understand their/his/her argument, not vice versa. Moreover, I will not weigh for you - that being said, if neither team runs arguments that I understand and neither team weighs, I will be forced to intervene.

~~~

Brief note: OK, so I get that the non interventionist approach contradicts the fact that I am more inclined to vote for an argument that I think is "true." As a judge I can promise you that I will flow what I can listen to and will evaluate the round holistically. I am an incredibly nuanced person and I think my paradigm reflects this (perhaps a little too much)...

~~~

PLEASE CLASH WITH ARGUMENTS! CLASH! CLASH! CLASH! Don't let the debate devolve into two boats sailing past each other in the night. At that point, it's completely pointless. I'd also prefer fewer well developed arguments over that of many arguments loosely tied together. Please don't brief barf or pack the flow with pointless arguments which aren't well developed. I may not include undeveloped arguments in my RFD if I deem that they are pointless or unimportant to the debate overall. Also, over the course of the debate as a whole, I would prefer fewer, but more well developed arguments, rather than a ton of arguments that go unsubstantiated.

Tag-Team CX/Flex Prep - I'm fine with this, just make sure that you're the one talking for most of the time. Your partner can't and shouldn't control your time. It is your Cross-Examination/Cross-fire after all. Same with speeches - essentially, don't have your partner be constantly interjecting you when you are speaking - you should be the one talking! If it seems as if your partner is commandeering your cross-examination or speech time, I will lower your speaks. Also totally fine with flex prep - you may use your prep time however you'd like, but since this time is not considered "official" cross-ex time, whether or not the opponent actually responds to the question is up to them. While I do not flow CX, I do pay close attention and if I look confused, I am more often thinking intensely about what you said, rather than emoting disagreement.

Roadmaps + Overviews - Please have them, and roadmaps may absolutely be off-time! I literally love/need roadmaps! They help me organize my flow make the debate/your speech a lot easier to follow! There should be a decent overview at the top of (at the minimum), each rebuttal - condense the round for me and summarize why you win each of the major arguments that comes up. Don't spend too much time on the overview, but don't ignore it.

K's and Theory - I'm not familiar with any literature at all! While you may choose to run K's or Theory (it is your round after all), I will do my very best to try and understand your argument. If I do not understand what you are saying, then I will not put it on my flow or vote on it. If you go slow, I will be more inclined to understand you and flow what you are saying. Again, not on the flow/don't understand = I won't vote on it.

Conditionality - This is fine. Though if you decide to kick anything, kick it earlier in the debate, don't wait until the 2NR unless it is strategic to do so. Please also make sure that your arguments are not contradictory - I have had to explain to teams about why running a Capitalism K on how the government perpetuates capitalism and then also running a CP where the Federal Government is the actor is ironic. In any case, kick the whichever argument is weaker and explain why Condo is good. Also, don't advocate for an unconditional position and then proceed to kick it or drop it. That would be bad.

Cross-applying - Don't just say "cross-apply my responses with Contention 1 on the Aff Case with Contention 2 on the Neg Case." This doesn't mean anything. Show me specifically how you group arguments together and explain how exactly your responses are better than your opponent's. Moreover, show me how your cross-application effectively answers their arguments - Does it de-link a disadvantage? Does it turn an argument? Does it effectively make Aff's actor in the plan powerless? Does it take out a crucial piece of evidence? What exactly does your cross-application do and how does it help you win the debate?

Dropped Arguments + Extensions - In regards to dropped contentions, subpoints, or impacts, I will personally extend all contentions, arguments, impacts, etc. that you individually tell me to extend. For all those arguments that were not extended and were dropped by the opponent, I will NOT personally extend myself. You must tell me to extend all dropped arguments or I will consider it dropped by you as well. All dropped contentions, subpoints, impacts, etc. should not be voter issues for the side that dropped it. I will drop all voter issues that were stated in the rebuttal if they were dropped by your side.

I did Interp, so my facial expressions will be turned "on" for the debate. If I like something, I will probably be nodding at you when you speak. Please do not feel intimidated if I look questioned or concerned when you speak. It does not show that you are losing the debate, nor does it show that you will be getting less speaks. However, if I seems like I am genuinely confused or have just put my pen down, you have lost me.

In regards to all debates, write the ballot for me, especially in the rebuttal speeches. Tell me why you win the round, and weigh arguments against each other!

ALSO, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, and SIGNPOST. The easier you make it for me to follow you in the round, the easier I can flow and be organized, and the easier you can win. Trust me, nothing's worse than when you're confused. KEEP THE ROUND CLEAN!

Don't be a jerk. It's the easiest way to lose speaker points. (Or even perhaps the round!) Good POI's/CX Q's and a good sense of humor get you higher speaks.

Links/Impacts - Be smart with this. I'm not a big fan of linking everything to nuclear war, unless you can prove to be that there is beyond a reason of a doubt that nuclear war occurs. So two things about impacts/links - the more practical and pragmatic you can make them, the better. I'm more inclined to buy well warranted and substantiated links to arguments. For example:

Plea bargaining --> incarceration --> cycle of poverty (These arguments are linked together and make logical sense. If we added "nuclear war" after "cycle of poverty," I'll just stare at you weirdly.)

Second, truth v. tech also applies with impacts and links, so if the Aff brings up a nuclear war will be caused by Trump as a diversionary tactic due to more immigration, and the Neg refutes that logically by taking out a link, I'll probably buy their argument (see the truth v. tech example I give). If the Neg doesn't respond, then the argument is valid. However, if the Neg is able to essentially group arguments and respond to them while weighing and shows me that even if they didn't answer this argument, Neg wins most everything else, I may still vote Neg.

I firmly believe that debate is not a game. It is an educational opportunity to demonstrate knowledge and to communicate efficiently between groups of people. Please don't try to make debate more complicated than it already is.

In regards to evidence in all debates: Yes, you need it - and should have a good amount of it. I know you only get 20 minutes to prep in Parli, and that you're not allowed internet prep (at some tournaments). But I need you to substantiate all claims with evidence. It doesn't have to be all subpoints and for every argument, but I will definitely be less inclined to vote for you if you only have one citation in the 19 minutes you speak, while your opponents have 7+ citations in the total 19 minutes they speak. Do not give me 7 minutes of analytics with no evidence at all. More evidence = more compelling. That being said, make sure that you also have a very strong amount of analytics as well. Don't just give me a lot of evidence without good analytics. Good analysis props up evidence and evidence supports good analysis. I would also much rather have a 4-5 good/solid pieces of evidence over 10+ trashy cards that don't help your case or add much to the debate. Essentially what I'm trying to say here is that good analysis > bad evidence any day, any round, and QUALITY > QUANTITY!!!

Do not CHEAT and make up cards, or clip cards, or anything of the like. Just don't. I will give you an automatic loss if you choose to do so. (Please don't make me do this...)

Time yourselves using whatever method you feel comfortable with! iPhone, SmartWatch, computer timer, etc. If you are taking prep, please announce it for me and your competitor to hear. Flashing or sending documents does not count as prep, though this needs to be taken care of in an expeditious manner. If you are caught abusing prep time, I will tank your speaks.

WEIGH - WEIGH - WEIGH!!! This is SO IMPORTANT, especially when debates come down to the wire. The team that does the better weighing will win the round if it's super tight! I won't weigh for you. Make my job easy and weigh. Again, as pieced together from previous parts of the paradigm, even if a team drops 3 out of the 5 arguments, if the team is able to show that the two arguments they do win outweigh the 3 arguments they lost, I will be more inclined to vote for that team that does the better weighing. I also love world comparisons, so weigh the world of the Affirmative and Negative and tell me which one is better for society, people, etc. after the implementation or non-implementation of the plan!

I will not disclose after the round (if I'm judging in the Coast Forensics League)! I usually disclose after invites though, given enough time. Either way, if you have questions about the round, please feel free to come and ask me if you aren't in round! I'll make myself visible throughout the tournament! If you can't find me, please feel free to contact me at xavier.liu17@gmail.com if you have any questions about the round! Please also feel free to contact me after the tournament regarding RFDs and comments!

FOR IE'S:

Ok. Now onto my favorite events of Speech and Debate. The IE's. First, I did Interp for a lot of my years competing, specifically DI, DUO, and OI. I've also done EXPOS (INF) as well. Take the Platform Events paradigm with a grain of salt. While there are many things that you could do to get the "1" in the room, I am particularly looking at several things that put you over the top.

PLATFORM EVENTS:

For Extemp (IX, DX) - I will flow your speech as thoroughly as I can. Please expect to have CITATIONS - at the minimum: news organization and date (month, day, year). An example: "According to Politico on February 13th of 2019..." If you have the author, even better - "John Smith, a columnist for Politico, writes on February 13th of 2019..." Please note that fabricating or making up citations or evidence is cheating and you will be given the lowest rank in the room and reported to Tab. You must have strong analysis within your speech. This analysis should supplement your evidence and your analysis should explain why your evidence is pertinent in answering the question. Good evidence and analysis trumps pretty delivery any day. Most importantly, make sure that you ANSWER THE QUESTION - I cannot give you a high rank if you do not answer the question.

For Impromptu (IMP) - I will flow your points as thoroughly as I can. I expect to see a thesis at the end of the intro and two to three well developed examples and points that support your thesis. While you do not have to have citations like Extemp, I would like to see specificity. Good analysis is also important and you need to make sure that your analysis ties into the thesis that you give me at the top of the intro. I also don't really like personal stories as examples and points in the Impromptu. I feel like personal stories are really generic and can always be canned. However, if done well and tied in well, personal stories do enhance the Impromptu! Use your discretion during prep time to decide if you want to use a personal story in your speech and how effective your personal story is. I also give bonus points and higher ranks to originality rather than canned speeches. Most importantly, make sure that you clearly develop your points and examples and explain why they apply to your thesis. I will default to California High School Speech Association (CHSSA) rules for Impromptu prep - 2 minutes of prep, with 5 minutes speaking - unless told otherwise by Tab/Tournament Officials.

Time signals for Impromptu and Extemp: With Extemp, I will give you time signals from 6 minutes left and down, Impromptu from 4 left and down. 30 seconds left will be indicated with a "C," 15 seconds left will be indicated with a closed "C," I will count down with my fingers for the last 10 seconds of the speech, with a fist at 7 or 5 minutes. I will show you what this looks like before you speak so you know what each signal looks like. With Impromptu prep, I will verbally announce how much prep is left: "1 minute left," "30 seconds left," "15 seconds." I will say "Time" when prep has ended. If I forget to give you time signals: 1. I fervently apologize; 2. This is probably a good thing since I was so invested in your speech or getting comments in; 3. You will NOT be responsible any time violations if you go overtime because it was my fault that you went overtime in the first place. #3 only applies if I literally forget to give you time signals; ex: I give you a time signal for 6 minutes left, but not 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1. If I forget to give you a signal for 4 minutes left, but get everything else, you're not off the hook then. I will also not stop you if you go beyond the grace period. Continue speaking until you have finished your speech.

For Original Advocacy and Original Oratory (OA/OO) - I will be primarily concerned with content. I will be looking for establishment of a clear problem (harms) and how that is plaguing us/society (inherency), and then I will be looking for a solution of some sort to address this problem (solvency). There must be some combination of these three in your speech. I will also be looking for evidence, analysis, and a strong synthesis between the two. Good speeches will have solid harms AND will explain how the solution solves their harms. Delivery should be natural, not canned or forced and facial expressions should not be over exaggerated.

For Expository Speaking/Informative Speaking (EXPOS/INF) - Again, primarily concerned with content. While Visual Aids (VAs) are important, they should serve to guide the speech, not distract me. That being said, I do enjoy interactive VAs that not only enhance the piece, but make me think about what you are saying. While puns and humor are both important, jokes should have a purpose in guiding your speech and enhancing it, and should not be included for the sole purpose of making anyone laugh. While I think that there doesn't necessarily need to be a message at the end of the speech, I should most definitely be informed of the topic that you are speaking to me about and I should've learned something new by the end of the 10 minute speech. Transitions from aspect to aspect in the speech should be clear and should not leave me confused about what you are talking about.

General Stuff for Platform Events:

1. Content > Delivery (Though I did Interp, so delivery is pretty important to me as well. Kinda like a 60-65% content, 35-40% delivery.)

What I have below is taken from Sherwin Lai's Speech Paradigm for Platform Events:

2. Projection and Enunciation are not the same as volume.

3. Repetitive vocal patterns, distracting hand gestures, robotic delivery, and unneeded micromovements will only hurt you.

4. Pacing, timing, and transitions are all important - take your time with these.

5. Natural Delivery > Forced/Exaggerated

6. Time Signals for OO, OA, and EXPOS - I am more than happy to give time signals, but since I am not required to give time signals for these events, I will not hold myself personally responsible if I forget to give signals to you or if you go overtime. It is your responsibility to have figured out time before the tournament started.

INTERPRETATION EVENTS:

I am most well versed in DI, OI, and DUO, but as a coach, I've worked with DI, OI, HI, POI, OPP, and DUO.

For Dramatic Interpretation, Dramatic Duo Interpretations, and Dramatic Original Prose and Poetry (DI, DUO, OPP) - Subtlety > Screamy, any day, any time. I'm not against screaming, but they should be during appropriate moments during the piece. Emotions should build over time. At no point should you jump from deadly quiet and calm to intense and screaming. Gradually build the emotion. Show me the tension and intensity over time. Screaming when you erupt during the climax is perfectly acceptable. Further, intensity can be shown without screaming, crying, or yelling. The quiet moments of the piece are usually the ones I find most powerful. THINK and REACT to what you are saying. Emotion should come nearly effortlessly when you "are" your piece. Don't "act" like the mom who lost her daughter in a school shooting, BE that mom! Transitions and timing are SUPER IMPORTANT, DON'T RUSH!!!

For Humorous Interpretation, Humorous Duo Interpretations, and Humorous Original Prose and Poetry (HI, DUO, OPP) - Facial expressions, characterization, and blocking take the most importance for me. I want to see each character develop once you introduce it throughout the piece. Even if the character doesn't appear all the time, or only once or twice throughout the script, I want to see that each character is engaged throughout the piece itself. Most importantly, please remember that humor without thought is gibberish. What I mean by this is that you should be thinking throughout your piece. Jokes are said for a reason - use facial expressions to really hone in on character's thought and purpose. For example, if a character A says a joke and character B doesn't get it, I should see character B's confused reaction. I will also tend to reward creative blocking and characterization. However, note that blocking should not be overly distracting.

For Programmed Oral Interpretation, Prose Interpretation, and Poetry Interpretation (POI, PRO, POE) - Regarding emotion, facial expressions, and character development, see the above text in the two paragraphs above regarding DI and HI. Personally, I place a little more emphasis on binder tech - the more creative the better! I think binder events are the synthesis of good binder tech, good script selection, and good facial expressions/emotion. Obviously, it's harder to do, since you have multiple characters in multiple parts of your speech and each have a distinct mood and personality.

For Oratorical Interpretation (OI) - Please err on the side of natural emotion over forced facial expressions. I am not a big fan when speakers try to force emotion or simply convey no emotion when speaking. Script selection is obviously a big deal in this event. Choose a speech with a promising and important message and see if you can avoid overdone speeches.

General Stuff for Interpretation Events:

A lot of this and my Interpretation paradigm is very much similar to Sherwin Lai's Speech Paradigm. He and I agree on a lot of things, including what I will write below.

1. Subtlety > Screamy - I tend to enjoy the small nuances of emotion. Build the emotion throughout, don't go from "0 to 100 real quick." Don't force emotion.

2. "Acting is reacting." - Each movement and action should have a purpose. Swaying or distracting micro-movements are bad. When one character or partner says something or does something, there should be a reaction from another character or by the other partner. Watch what is happening and react accordingly.

3. Let the eyes speak. Eyes are underutilized in Interp - I feel like everyone is so focused on facial expression and eyebrows/body language, that they forget about the eyes. Intensity can be portrayed in absolute silence.

4. If I am not laughing during your speech, it's not because it's not funny. I am just super focused on you and watching every little part of your blocking and your facial expressions.

5. Please watch body position - misplaced feet, hands, or mistimed blocking is a big no-no.

6. No blocking > bad blocking - you don't need to be doing something ALL the time. Sometimes, standing still and doing nothing is better than always doing something.

7. Use pacing and timing to your advantage.

8. Quality of cut is fair game.

9. Message of the piece - I don't think that there necessarily needs to be a super strong message to the piece itself. I'd be totally fine if the piece was literally 7 short stories that were interwoven together and each story had it's own little thing going on. I'm more concerned about the performance/technical blocking itself. That being said, if I literally do not understand what is going on in the piece, we have a big problem. Exception to this is OI.

10. THINK!!!!!!!! And do not let the energy wane!

11. Time Signals for DI, HI, DUO, OPP, POI/POE/PRO, OI - I am more than happy to give time signals, but since I am not required to give time signals for these events, I will not hold myself personally responsible if I forget to give signals to you or if you go overtime. It is your responsibility to have figured out time before the tournament started.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

I have only judged Congress a handful of times, so please take what I write with a grain of salt.

In regards to speeches, I do not value speakers who speak at the beginning of a session more than those who speak towards the end, or vice versa. Opening speeches and the first couple speeches (around 1-2 on each side) afterwards should set up the main arguments as of why the chamber should be voting in favor or against the piece of legislation. After the 2nd speech on each side, you should really be clashing with arguments, impacting out both evidence and analysis, and weighing arguments against each other. Rehashing arguments made by other Congressional Debaters or "throwing more evidence" as a response to arguments is unimpressive.

During cross, if you just toss around random questions that do not actually pertain to the debate, your ranks will suffer. Remember to attack ideas and engage with the speaker who just spoke - save the argumentation for the speech. If you get the other speaker to concede something and you are able to use that in your speech, ranks will go up.

Respond to the actual links or the claims themselves and convince me why your claim is stronger. I welcome direct responses and refutations to another Congressperson's arguments, though please make it clear whom you are responding to and what the argument is. For example: "Next, I would like to refute Rep. Liu's argument that this bill would disadvantage states in the Midwest."

I'm a big stickler for Parliamentary Procedure, which means that if you are a PO, mistakes will be costly. Further, if you are acting like a biased PO, favoring certain speakers or debaters over other, you will be dropped.

Also, please note that "motion" is a noun. "Move" is a verb. So it's not: "I motion to adjourn." It would be: "I move to adjourn." PO's, remember that you cannot "assume unanimous consent" - a member of the chamber must ask for unanimous consent.

~~~

Feel free to ask me any questions about the paradigm, both speech and/or debate before the round begins. Or feel free to email me questions about my paradigm at xavier.liu17@gmail.com.

If you are confused about the RFD/comments I have written for either speech and/or debate, please also feel free to contact me whenever you'd like to at the above email.

GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!!! GO. FIGHT. WIN.

Email - benmanens@gmail.com - put me on the chain

Camp Tournament:

1) Don't change how you debate for me - this tournament is for you to learn, so I'll listen to anything you throw at me.

2) Be a good sport - this is a first varsity tournament for many, and the beginning of the end for many others. Make sure everyone learns and has a good time and you will be rewarded with speaker points.

General thoughts:

1) Tech over truth - I like certain arguments and dislike others. This does not change how I evaluate them in the context of a debate and my ideological predispositions are easily overcome by outdebating the other team. That being said, while adapting to my argumentative preferences will not affect my likelihood to vote for you, it may affect the quality of my judging for both sides absent clear explanation and judge instruction.

1b) Dropped arguments are true, but only as long as they are attached to a claim, warrant, and impact. My threshold for what constitutes those three components is low if left unanswered.

2) I have zero experience with the topic. Err on the side of overexplaining rather than underexplaining.

3) I flow on paper, and have never been very neat. I will reward good signposting* and clear judge instruction that frontloads the most important arguments in the debate.

*From Surya Midha's paradigm: "Number everything. 'One, two, three' is preferable to 'first, second, third.' If your gripe with numbering is that it 'interrupts the flow of your speech,' you have incidentally just articulated the most compelling justification for the practice."

4) Final rebuttals should identify the most important issues in the debate and coherently flesh them out. 2NRs and 2ARs too often get lost in the weeds of line by line and forget to extend complete arguments and/or instruct the judge on why the debate so far should lead them to a decision one way or the other.

5) I flow CX. It's a lost art. You can go ahead and waffle or use it as prep time, but smart, well-thought out CX strategies that impact the course of the debate will be rewarded.

Topicality:

1) I default to competing interps, but have recently been more and more open to reasonability if the aff invests time in fleshing it out and making it a part of their strategy. I'm most compelled by aff explanations that use reasonability to weigh substance crowdout as offense against whatever the negative goes for.

2) Reading a piece of evidence that defines a word in the resolution is a very basic threshold for a T interp, but one that less and less T interps are meeting. If you have to spin what the words in your interp card say, you're probably stretching it. Not only does it make it a nightmare to watch, it should, if executed properly, make it very easy for the aff to win on predictability.

3) I've gone back and forth on plan text in a vacuum - I lean neg but oftentimes teams are underprepared for a 2A bold enough to go all-in on the argument.

4) It is the negative burden to establish a violation. Please don't make your 1NC shell say "Interp: [x must do y], Violation: they don't."

Theory and Competition:

1) Condo can (or can not) be a voting issue, everything else is a reason to reject the argument. I dislike that a 15 second argument in the 1AR can be blown up to a 5-minute 2AR, and will hold the line on egregious overextrapolation.

2) I'll vote for dropped ASPEC (and other arguments of the sort), but I will not be happy doing so. Don't drop it.

3) Slightly neg-leaning on condo and process CPs, solidly neg-leaning on PICs, multiplank, agent, solvency advocate, and concon theory, solidly aff-leaning on delay and international fiat. Still, dropped arguments are true, and I will happily vote on conceded or undercovered pieces of offense.

4) The 2NC is a constructive, 1NR is not.

5) You will be best served by ditching whichever blocks you stole from a college round to spread at top speed and instead collapsing down to your best one or two pieces of offense, fleshing that out, and comparing it to your opponent's main piece of offense.

6) I'll default to judgekick unless debated out.

7) I generally prefer competition over theory, but theory bolsters whatever arguments you make about competition. Positional competition is a hard sell, limited intrinsicness, PDCP, and all the other typical process CP perms can go either way. It is the neg burden to establish competition.

Counterplans:

1) Sufficiency framing is both underrated and overutilized. It is extremely helpful in establishing burdens and thresholds in regards to judge instruction, but is only valuable insofar as you apply it to specific internal links rather than a 5-second buzzword-filled explanation at the top.

2) I will reward long, creative advantage counterplans that throw a curveball at 2As. I will also reward 2As that respond with deficits that demonstrate they've thought through the strategic value of their advantages and can creatively apply them. On that same note, solvency deficits are underrated vs process CPs if you've written your aff correctly.

Disadvantages:

1) Try-or-die, impact turns case, and other impact framing arguments of the sort are rhetorically compelling, but not very helpful in terms of evaluating relative risk. The question I ask myself in these debates is which side I vote for will prevent the greatest impact. This also means that saying "timeframe - intervening actors/live to fight another day" absent a specific warrant behind that is not super helpful.

2) Specific link analysis and contextualization is indispensable. Carded evidence is the gold standard, but cleverly spinning generic evidence can suffice in a pinch. Storytelling is key.

3) I don't believe in zero risk unless something damning is dropped, but that doesn't tend to matter much. Quantifying the risk of disadvantages only matters insofar as it is necessary to make a comparative claim, and oftentimes the arbitrary difference between zero and near-zero risk does little to change that comparison.

4) Always down for an impact turn - am not a huge fan of spark/wipeout, but will still evaluate it. Organization of these debates is key, and especially in later speeches collapsing down to a couple of core claims and clearly explaining how they implicate the debate.

5) I have a soft spot for politics and the rider DA. Doesn't mean I'll vote for it (the rider DA goes away if the aff says the right things), but I'll be happy to see it well executed.

Kritiks:

1) The quickest way to my ballot on the aff is winning that your case outweighs. The quickest way to my ballot on the neg is winning a framework interp that mitigates that. I find that oftentimes they are poorly answered and implicate the other, so taking advantage of that will do you a lot of good.

2) I don't mind long overviews in the right circumstances if flagged beforehand. They're helpful to explain necessary thesis-level components of your argument, but counterproductive when they begin replacing line-by-line.

3) I'm somewhat familiar with most common kritiks - afropess, setcol, security, cap, etc. Err on the side of overexplaining if unsure.

4) From Anirudh Prabhu's paradigm, "All debate is storytelling, but K debate especially so." Specific link analysis is not only satisfying to watch, it will make it more likely that you win.

5) The Cap K is my pet peeve. I find it ridiculous that someone labeled capitalism bad a kritik and then could basically read that as an impact turn versus almost any aff. At the same time, aff teams tend to do a poor job at exploiting the tensions between the impact and framework, link magnitude and the perm, etc. I say this not to stop you from reading it, but be aware when it's strategically valuable to extend.

K Affs/Framework:

1) Ideologically, probably not great for the aff. I've never read a K aff nor gone for anything other than FW against K affs, and I believe affirmative teams should affirm the resolution. However, I will do my best to evaluate these debates independent of my own beliefs. Good framework vs K aff debates are my favorite to watch, and many of the judges I look up to are quite middle-of-the-road in these debates so I strive to reach that standard myself.

2) Packaging and framing in framework debates is just as important as the arguments themselves. The team that is more offensive in final rebuttals gains a massive advantage.

3) I find impacts grounded in debate's form more compelling than those related to the content of the debates themselves, not out of personal belief, but in terms of strategic utility. Fairness is probably good, but whether it is an impact is left up for debate - I've gone back and forth, can be persuaded either way.

4) I have a slight preference for the aff to forward one or two impact turns rather than a counter-interp with numerous shoddily extended disads, but oftentimes negative teams do far too little to exploit the offense they could generate from the counter-interp. Regardless of which route you take, the best way to persuade me and excise any of my implicit skepticism is to phrase your offense as if you were answering the question, "why not read it on the neg?" It is not necessary, but it will go a long way to help me vote for you.

5) Specificity, specificity, specificity - on both sides, please explain in concrete detail what debates would look like under each team's model: what affs and off-case positions get read, what those debates come down to, etc.

6) I have never been in a K v K debate, nor have I ever judged one. Please overexplain, and then explain a bit more just for good measure.

Cal '24 Update:

I have been out of competing and coaching debate for two years now. I do not have any familiarity with the current topic. So many people have just become so mean in debate. This is part of why I left and makes me sad. I wish people were nicer and had a basic level of respect for others.

Background

1. Bellarmine '21.

2. Georgetown '21 - '23 (on leave).

3. Assistant Debate Coach at Bellarmine '21 - '22.

The Basics

1. I have no preferences about the arguments you read. My senior year, my partner Adarsh and I defended affirmatives that administered the death penalty to super-intelligent AI, established criminal justice for future space colonies, and endorsed “viral tactics of resistance through hacking digital infrastructure” which destroyed “data that furthers the state’s necropolitical functions.” We spun the most contrived link for the elections DA against affirmatives that modified obscure cyber statutes but also went for the Baudrillard K in our TOC bubble round. Despite that, my heart lies with well-researched positions. My favorite memories in debate are getting into the mechanics of the China appeasement debate and combing through IR journals to cut updates. In short, read the arguments you wish to read and I’ll accommodate you.

2. At the end of the debate, I ask myself what the two or three nexus questions are and use whatever frameworks the final rebuttals have left me with to answer them. It would behoove you to begin your rebuttals with what you think these important issues are and why I’ll resolve them in your favor. This includes impact calculus, but also goes beyond it. Did the 1AR drop case arguments that were applicable to both advantages? Did the 2NR get to the revisionism debate with 15 seconds remaining? The best rebuttals are reflexive; don’t tell me why you’re winning, tell me why you have already won.

3. Add suryamidha [at] gmail [dot] com to the email chain, format the subject as “Year -- Tournament -- Round # -- Aff Team vs Neg Team,” send every card in a Word document (not in the body of the email), and always compile a card document (unless the 2AR is just a theoretical objection).

Stylistic Concerns

1. Number everything. "One, two, three" is preferable to "first, second, third." If your gripe with numbering is that it "interrupts the flow of your speech," you have incidentally just articulated the most compelling justification for the practice.

2. Speed should never come at the expense of clarity.

FW

1. I’ve mostly been on the negative side of this debate.

2. Fairness being/not being an impact begs the question of what an impact is. Fairness, skills, self-questioning and the gamut of negative framework impacts all seem important, but so are other values. The way to my ballot is impact comparison. Choose your 1NC standards wisely and explain why they outweigh the Aff’s framework offense through discussions of their relative importance and the ability of framework to access them.

3. I have no preference for either the skills-based or fairness-based framework strategies. Be cautious that defending standards like movement-building opens you up to Aff impact turns since you’ve granted them debate has value outside of the ballot.

4. Hyperbolic claims about limits can be easily overcome by a well-developed explanation of functional limits.

CP’s

1. Perm texts must be sent in the 2AC.

2. Textual and functional competition seem like good standards to hold CP’s too. Defending positional competition will require a robust definition of what an Aff “position” is.

3. Speak to the normative implications of definitions in addition to reading cards. Forcing Affs to be immediate would justify “do the Aff after our politics scenario” while certainty would allow for “end arms sales to Taiwan, but only if China gives us a dollar.”

4. The “mandates vs effects” articulation of competition has made more sense to me than “yes for DA’s, but not for CP’s.” Mandates are what the plan text defends. Effects are how they would likely be implemented. The mandate of the plan can be ambiguous about immediacy, but the effects could likely be immediate. All of this defends on the Aff winning how the plan would be interpreted (and, more importantly, who gets to interpret it). Negs are best served by complaining about plan shape-shifting and explaining why immediacy and certainty are necessary for DA links.

5. Recognize when it’s strategic to couple/separate the competition and theory debate. That being said, I don’t know about “competition justifies theory.” The CP “China should not go to war with the US” is competitive, but seems theoretically suspect in every direction.

6. Creative permutations have a special place in my heart.

7. For process CP’s, the unprecedented nature of the CP is often what grants the Neg an internal net benefit, but Affs should be ready to generate smart solvency deficits based on those same claims.

8. No one goes for perm shields anymore. It breaks my heart. Think about the political implications if every one of the 50 states (including conservative ones) for the first time in US history unanimously affirmed a certain policy option. There are both sides to this debate but 2N’s seem terrible at answering intuitive presses.

Theory

1. I would love to watch a well-developed theory debate, but block-reliance has ruined everything. If you plan to read your standards straight down and not explain anything comparatively, you’re better off going for a substantive strategy in front of me.

2. Arguments about conditionality are most persuasive when couched in a descriptive claim about the current topic. Is the neg so hosed that they need to throw CP’s at the wall to catch up? Or, is there sufficient literature for in-depth debates? The ability to read DA’s to CP planks is meaningful to me. If the negative can introduce dozens of policy options (some of which would definitively cause a civil war) and choose to go for any combination of them at whim, the affirmative policy literally needs be the 11th commandment to generate a substantive deficit.

3. Other than conditionality and a few other theoretical objections, I’d rather you turn your poor standards into good substantive arguments. For example, the lack of a solvency advocate seems like less of a reason they shouldn’t get the CP and more of a reason why your uncarded solvency deficits should be given an enormous amount of weight. Plan vagueness begs the question of what is “vague.” A much better strategy is reading solvency cards that interpret the plan differently or punishing them for including words in the plan they aren’t ready to defend.

4. Theoretical objections are rarely “dropped.” Either the block made new arguments extending it or you had cross-applicable offense from other flows.

T

1. This is probably the position where I diverge the most from other judges. I suspect I have a higher threshold for what constitutes a negative interpretation and does not immediately lose to “we meet” given some Aff pushback. For example, take the T-Criminal Justice is not Criminal Law piece of evidence that won dozens of debates (including a TOC elim). It reads “Criminal justice, interdisciplinary academic study of the police, criminal courts, correctional institutions (e.g., prisons), and juvenile justice agencies, as well as of the agents who operate within these institutions. Criminal justice is distinct from criminal law…” What? How is this an interp? Just because something is NOT something else does not mean that it cannot be a part of that thing. Texas is NOT the US, but it is part of the US. In fact, this interpretation of the card belies all logic because it defines criminal justice as an “interdisciplinary academic study.” That limits out NOTHING. To be clear, if you have well-researched negative evidence with an intent to exclude, go for it. But, I’m very willing to vote on we meet against poorly written interpretations that do not definitively establish a violation.

2. Affs lose these debates when they’re too defensive. Isolate one or two core pieces of offense (Aff ground, predictability, etc.) and develop them at the top of the 1AR and 2AR.

3. Reasonability is always about the interps and never about the Aff.

4. If the affirmative advances an argument about reading the "plan text in a vacuum," the negative should propose an alternate model of either understanding the plan text or the affirmative's policy.

K’s

1. Technical framework debating will matter more to me than most judges. What it means to “weigh the aff versus the K” is far from a settled controversy and interesting to think about. I’d appreciate guidance on how to resolve offense from both sides.

2. That being said, I’m continually confused by how the Neg’s links interact with their own framework interpretation. For example, if you have said scholarship is the only thing that matters, but then have read links to the effects of the plan, it feels like you’re asking me to evaluate all the bad parts of the Aff and none of the good parts. There are many ways to overcome this: make your framework a sequencing question, narrow the scope of the links, or (my preference) significantly reduce the risk of the case.

3. I think Affs lose these debates most often when they don’t recognize Neg pivots (kicking the alternative, going all in on framework, etc.).

DA’s

1. Often contrived (more a fault of the topic than debaters), but I have very little remorse for new 1AR’s when the 2AC fails to make substantive arguments.

2. Turns case arguments need to be carded if not immediately intuitive.

3. I’d rather you just explain why the parts of the DA you’re winning matter contextually rather than throwing out “link controls the direction of uniqueness” or vice-versa.

4. Evidence comparison is important to me. I will not sift through the card document after the debate digging for a warrant. I expect the final rebuttals to provide the author name and the warrant for most of the cards they are citing in their analysis.

Impact Turns

1. No argument is too presumptively incoherent to answer. If you are correct about how inane an argument is, you are better served by completely obliterating it rather than complaining about its pedagogical value.

2. Risk calculus matters a lot to me. For example, the reason why SPARK seems inane outside the context of debate is because we’re gambling with the survival of the human race. We would have to be incredibly confident that future technologies would actually end civilization for us to roll the die. In debate, a card citing 20 scientists published in a peer-reviewed journal might exceed this threshold. But should it? It almost certainly wouldn’t be enough for us to endorse human extinction in a more legitimate policymaking setting. How confident must we be? Arguments along the lines of “the risk that we are right outweighs the risk that we are wrong” and explaining them contextually is persuasive to me.

3. If a team is going for an impact turn, Aff teams should recognize that they now have the full weight of their internal link. If the Neg is going for DeDev but the internal link to Econ was tech development, Affs should be strategic about explaining how rapid technological progress might be helpful in staving off climate change.

Miscellaneous

1. I learned everything I know from Anirudh Prabhu and Tyler Vergho. Ideologically, I align completely with Adarsh Hiremath. If there’s an issue that’s ambiguous on my paradigm, I would suggest looking through theirs for additional clarity.

2. Rehighlightings can be inserted to demonstrate the other team’s reading of the article was incorrect. They need to be read if they’re introducing new claims.

3. My email response time is always a fault of me and never an annoyance with you.

Bellarmine ’19, Stanford ’23

Put me on the email chain: ashwin.pillai19@gmail.com

*Notes for online debate (ASU 2021) - I haven’t listened to much spreading in the past ~2 years, so I'll miss a lot of stuff if you go too fast.

For context: I did LD for 4 years, primarily on the local and state circuit. I competed on the national circuit for 3 years and broke at the Cal Invitational my junior and senior years.

1] Tech over truth, but truth will help decide an incredibly close (or messy) technical debate for me. The more judge instruction, the better.

2] I’ll evaluate any argument as long as it’s warranted, but as a debater I was most comfortable with philosophy and some Ks (mostly philosophy-based ones; was less comfortable with identity-based ones). Most of my friends in high school were policy debaters, so I'm quite familiar with policy arguments but still very rusty. I'm not the best judge for heavy theory debates.

3] High speaks for good strategy and bonus points if the round is entertaining. Low speaks for ignoring the framework debate (in whatever form that takes place).

4] I’m absolutely down to hear a good slow/traditional debate! If your opponent is traditional, make it as accessible as possible for them, or I'll be irked.

Bellarmine ‘19

UC Berkeley ’23

Email: abhir518@gmail.com – Yes, put me on the email chain. Also, make a card doc for me at the end of the round.

Experience: I debated for four years at Bellarmine as a 2A. I qualified to the TOC my junior year and cleared my senior year. I also reached late elim rounds of the NSDA tournament. I read almost exclusively policy strategies (heg aff, soft left aff, politics DAs, topic CPs, etc.). I debated with Tyler Vergho and was coached by Anirudh Prabhu. They both have thoughts about debate that are extremely similar to mine in case I’m missing something in this paradigm.

I have not judged any rounds on this topic.

1) Assume I have zero knowledge of anything topic related. Explain especially important parts of your affirmative/CP like I walked into debate class for the first time as a novice.

2) If T plans on being a large part of your strategy, I have no idea what the community consensus is on the various words in the resolution. It would behoove you to explain what functional limits/aff ground actually exists on this topic.

Top Level:

Do what you do best. I honest to god don’t care whether you read a K aff, go for politics every 2NR, or think that Baudrillard speaks the truth. I hold myself to a rigorous standard of line by line technical adjudication. Frame debates in manners that serve you. I hate judges that inserted their biases into the debate, so I will attempt to keep my own biases in check. No arguments are too stupid to answer, if they are stupid, answer them well.

What wins debates:

1. Often times, out of the 5 minutes in a 2NR or 2AR, about 30-45 seconds become extremely relevant to any RFD. For this reason, it would behoove both teams to identify the big picture framing issues and explain why that means you deserve the ballot. The C subpoint answer to the one thumper they made is often significantly less relevant than framing through what lens I should view the 2NR or 2AR. This also means both teams could also go around 80% of the speed they normally go and be perfectly fine.

2. Sitting on a couple, well-carded, well-explained arguments. More often than not, this means skipping the fourth off you were going to extend in the block in favor of reading a few more cards, explaining a few more links, or doing more impact calculus on that DA.

3. Technical, line-by-line oriented debating. In practice, this means that K teams should skip that 5-minute-long overview and just embed links where they’re most appropriate on the flow. This also means that FW teams shouldn’t have their 4-minute-long overviews that just explain all their offense. Teams sometimes choose to exclude the nuance presented in the previous speech and instead answer the worst version of their argument. DON’T DO THAT. This makes it significantly easier for me to vote against you.

Clash Debates

If you’re a K team you're probably best off prefing me below truly ideologically neutral judges, but above those who will auto-vote for policy teams. Teams in these debates are best served by doing lots of impact calculus, ballot writing, and argument explanation. Given that evidence is usually a secondary concern in clash debates, the extra “reps don’t shape reality” card is less of a concern to me than you providing me a clear and well-warranted reasons why that should be the case.

Just because this is a clash debate doesn't mean that line-by-line debating is dead. K teams often win big picture framing issues and policy teams often win a lot of the technical minutia. The team that does both often wins this debate.

FW/T-USFG: I do not immediately think procedural fairness is an impact nor that it precedes other impacts without some work by the neg. I think education-based offense that deploys fairness as an internal link is generally more persuasive. Policy teams complain about the 4 minute K overview then have a 4 minute framework overview in the block. Put that stuff on the line by line.

There is also this weird trend of policy teams that believe the TVA will solve everything. If the aff has offense against your performance, the TVA will not solve this. The TVA can, and often does, play an important role in a compelling 2NR, but it usually isn't all 5 minutes. You need to substantively respond to the rest of the aff.

K affs: Read what you want. Be prepared to defend your stuff. I find impact turning neg framework offense to be more persuasive to me than reading a counterinterpretation. If you choose to defend a counterinterpretation you should be prepared to answer questions about predictability and fairness.

Ks: Neg teams usually win in two ways: They either convince me that I should adopt some role of the judge that negates a lot of the affirmative’s offense (i.e. that I should be a educator evaluating the discourse of the 1AC before some hypothetical policy consequence), or win under the affirmative’s framework, (i.e. convincing me that the plan consequentially makes the world a worse place). The entirety of your 2NR should be focuses on accomplishing some combination of these two goals. I have passing familiarity with some critical literature by virtue of having to answer it, but I am now a couple years out from debate so any jargon would need to be explained. In general, the more sweeping the theory, the higher burden I have for proof.

I think teams go for both the alt and FW far too often. Choose your path to victory and commit. A good team will punish your lack of coverage. I will not middle ground some framework interpretation - I will almost certainly evaluate the debate based on either the one presented in the 2AC or block. On balance, I think most teams should go for a FW based strategy otherwise perms and theoretical objections to the alt are quite convincing.

Aff vs K: Similarly, aff teams win in two ways: They convince me of some role of the judge that negates a lot of the negative’s offense (i.e. that you should evaluate the hypothetical consequences of the plan), or you win under the negative’s framework (i.e. that your representations are good and outweigh the downsides). Everything you do in the 2AR should be in service of some combination of these two goals. Affirmative teams often lose by being too defensive. Link/impact turn when you can, stand your ground defending your affirmative, don’t be afraid to engage with the theory. (Note: I personally believe this trend of reading soft-left affs to link less to Ks falls into the trap of being too defensive which makes it easier for me to vote against you).

Excellent FW debating often makes being neg nearly impossible. If you are not focusing on this in the 1AR and 2AR you are setting yourself up to lose.

K v K Debates:

I don’t expect to be in very many of these. If by some strange turn of events, I do end up judging one of these, you all will definitely know more about the theory than I will so please explain any jargon. Both teams should establish what my role is as a judge very early and set up win conditions for both sides. I can go either way on whether the aff gets perms in these debates.

Policy Debates:

Affs: 2ARs should be writing the ballot for me. In about 98% of debates there is a winning 2AR and it usually doesn’t require the 2AR to be extremely efficient or fast to accomplish. It requires the 2AR to identify the 2-3 most important issues and thoroughly explain why the affirmative is winning. Resolve arguments instead of making new ones. 2As rarely think enough about their 2AC. Straight turning a DA or embedding offense on a counterplan can make a world of difference in making the block harder and the 1AR and 2AR easier.

I strongly believe that soft-left affs are less strategic than a 'traditional aff'. This has nothing to do with the content discussed and everything to do with their execution. I was going to evaluate the debate via probability times magnitude anyway, so you telling me that for another 2 minutes doesn’t make sense. Usually the debate ends up coming down to how much you reduce the risk of the DA anyway so it doesn’t really matter.

New affs justify neg terrorism.

DA: Topic DAs are preferred. Politics DAs are obviously fine. Explain the link always, it always makes your position seem more credible than it actually is. Long and well-highlighted cards are preferred to short blippy ones. While evidence is important to me, it is secondary to the debating. I will first look to my flow to see if I can resolve the argument via the debating in the round. If I cannot, I then look at the docs.

CP: By default, I will kick the counterplan unless someone tells me not to. Usually if there’s a topic counterplan, I’m fine with it. Your ability to run cheating counterplans is entirely dependent on your ability to defend the theoretical legitimacy of them. 2As don't go for theory enough against the most abusive counterplans. Process counterplans can convince me best of their theoretical legitimacy when they prove that something substantively different from the aff would happen.

Conditionality is probably good, although sometimes I do dream of a world with neg teams that are stuck to one counterplan.

Topicality: Negative teams going for topicality should have a precise definition backed by a literature consensus. Otherwise, I find myself asking the question “could the affirmative team have known that this was a reasonable vision of the topic going into the round?” Generally, most topicality violations are really bad.

Extra Notes:

Card clipping allegations need a recording, I won’t be following along to check clipping. Pedagogically, you should record your rounds if possible anyways. It often becomes clear how many strategic/technical mistakes you made in retrospect.

Seriously, make a card doc.

A 2NR/2AR given entirely off paper will get a 0.1 speaker point boost. Additionally for every minute of prep you do not use, I will award 0.1 speaker points. I round down (i.e. if you have 30 seconds left, you might as well use all of it).

I strongly consider giving 25s to people who ask for 30s.

If your computer crashes just let me know and we’ll stop the debate while you wait for it to load back up.

I have realized that I take an above average amount of time to decide close debates. This is not a statement about which way I will end up voting.

I think I make faces during rounds often. This is not an indictment of anything you're doing right or wrong. I just make faces when I'm trying to process new information.

Hi! I’m Keshav.

For the Bellarmine Rhetoric Tournament / Novice:

Please be:

- Polite

- Clear

- Slow, or the same speed as your opponent(s)

I like:

- Confident and well-prepared debaters

- Strategic CX questions

- Well organized speeches and signposting

Speaker points:

30 or 50 = :)

29 or 49 = Good

28 or 48 = Above average

27 or 47 = Below average

26 or 46 = Not there yet

25 or 45 = :(

History:

I've debated both LD and Policy for Bellarmine College Prep.

My views are aligned with Benjamin Manens

Bellarmine ‘19, Dartmouth ‘23

Email: tvergho@gmail.com – put me on the chain.

Last Updated: September 2023

Topic Knowledge: I coach for Bellarmine and Dartmouth, but am not deeply involved in topic research. Explain your arguments accordingly.

I have read and voted for all types of arguments. I really don’t care what you say. I appreciate debaters who engage the line-by-line, advance smart and well-researched arguments, and generally seem like they want to be there. The best debaters answer and reference arguments in the order they were presented, crystallize the debate into a few central issues in the final rebuttals, and frame the decision they want me to give by resolving those issues.

Tech over truth, but conceded arguments only have the implications you say they do. Nothing you say will convince me to stop flowing or abandon the line-by-line. Otherwise, any of my predispositions can be easily reversed by out-debating the other team.

Debaters should presume good-faith engagement by their opponents. If your strategy primarily relies on ad hominems, references to out-of-round events, screenshots, or accusations that could have been resolved by emailing your opponents or their coaches before the round, you should strike me.

Affs should probably be topical. I don’t have a strong ideological bias against planless affs, but evenly debated I’m skeptical of most common aff responses to framework. Procedural fairness is not automatically an impact.

Conditionality is fine. Anything else is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

I default to judge kick. If equally debated, I’ll likely err negative as the logical extension of conditionality.

Objections to counterplans are generally better expressed through competition than theory.

You can insert re-highlightings as evidence indicts, provided that the re-highlighting actually comes from the card your opponent read. If it comes three paragraphs later, you actually have to read the part where the author concludes the other way. I will treat this as the equivalent of an evidence indict with added context. Advancing some extrinsic argument always requires reading the card.

Asking for a 30 = auto 25.

For a description of my procedure on evaluating in-round ethics and conduct issues, see here. (Largely stolen from Truf's paradigm.)