Barkley Forum for High Schools

2021 — classrooms.cloud, GA/US

JAMES ALLEN Paradigm

James Allen
Hallsville '9-'13
University of Texas - Arlington '13-'17

First, thank you for participating in this event.  You may not realize it now, but it will certainly pay off in your future. I don't want to tell you how to be or what you are.  I want you to fully realize who you are and be what you are rather than what another thinks you are or ought to be.  

I competed extensively on the UIL, TFA, and NFL circuits in North, East and South Texas as well as the TOC.

I consider myself tabula rasa. Lacking discussion on framework/paradigmatic theory, I will default policymaker/comparative worlds.  Clarify before the round if necessary.

I am not predisposed to reject any particular stylistic elements of argumentation.

On that note, I do have certain predispositions given my experiences:

T- Please shell.  Makes it easy.  High standard for T but will vote for the argument.


DA- My standard for DAs is very high. You will need to do a lot of work in establishing the argument for me to be able to feel comfortable voting for it. To help achieve that end, please give me the coherent thesis of the DA along with clear impact analysis.

CPs- I love counterplans. I especially love well-run, non-generic counterplans. I will vote for a utopian CP.

K- I was a K debater in high school. I consider myself well-read on most K literature and many critical subjects.  If you are skeptical of whether I am (un)particularly receptive, ask and I will clarify. I will vote for Ks introduced in the 1AR.

Theory- must be shelled. I will vote for RVIs. I won't vote for unwarranted arguments. Not a fan of frivolous theory, but what frivolous means is up to interpretation.

Narratives- I love hearing narratives, but you must warrant why they're offense within a framework.

Projects- You will need to do a lot of work to convince me to vote for your project, especially if I believe you are insincere.

Speed- I can handle a 10 of 10 but prefer a rate of 6-8 of 10. Clarity is most important.

Extensions- I will account for the time skew in the 1AR if I feel that it is necessary. You must extend the warrants and implications of arguments in the rebuttals for me to consider it as offense. If I end up having to intervene, I will be considerably displeased.

Flex prep- I am not opposed as long as a consensus is reached among the debaters.

To get 30 speaker points: Don't be excessively catty. Employ a smart strategy in the round. Write my ballot for me. Depict a cohesive story that explains how I should vote.  Analyze offense, offense, offense.  Technical speaking skills are of equal importance to quality of argumentation. 

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask them before we begin the round.

Do remember to care and feel about the subjects we discuss.

Kiosie Abraham Paradigm

I am a former Lincoln Douglas debater, I have participated in Public Forum debate briefly in high school meaning I can keep up with your arguments and follow the as flow sheet as well. The clearer your route to the ballot the easier it is for you to receive my ballot. I looking for the debater that is basically signing my ballot for me. I based Speaker Points actually on your speaking ability as well as your arguments so make sure you are clear. I am okay with most any argument as long as you clearly warranted. Lastly, This is obvious but if you make any homophobic, xenophobia, racist, etc. remarks that automatically lost in the round.

Manuel Acevedo Paradigm

CX: As a policymaker , I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages. I require both sides to provide offense to win. Sufficient evidence is needed for any point made through the entire debate. During the rebuttal speeches, give specific reasons why you don't agree with opposing team and provide supporting evidence. Make sure that during the delivery, you speak clearly in order for me to hear all of your points and watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important and why I should vote for them. Even though I am a policy maker, the basics of CX debate should be followed such as retaining the stock issues. I do not form part of the email chain. I do not like reading speeches. I want to hear it. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speech.

LD: Framework of the debate is of the utmost importance because it will force me to evaluate your impacts before the other team’s impacts and nullifies most, if not all, of the other team’s offense. For any point made during the entire debate, you should have evidential support. During the rebuttal speeches, don't limit yourself to stating you don't agree with opponents stance, give specific reasons why and provide supporting evidence. Give me clear reasons to vote and explain why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. I do not form part of the email chain. I do not like reading speeches. I want to hear it. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speech. I am a traditional LD judge. If you choose to go beyond a traditional LD round, make sure you are understood, are easy to follow, and have evidential support for all claims made.

PF: The summary needs to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the differences exist and are clear and the issues need to be prioritized. Final focus needs to be a big picture concept. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I will evaluate your evidence and expect you to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose me. Keep it tight, simple, and very direct.

Congress: When preparing a speech, make sure to follow standard speech outline and cite your sources. Approach legislation creatively. If you speak later on in round, do not rehash old arguments already brought up by previous representatives. Bring in new arguments to advance the debate. Also, you must clash with opponents. Don't just go up there and give your speech. It's a debate after all. Bring up points mentioned by opposing side, show your view point and not just say they are wrong or you don't agree. Give specific reasons why you don't agree and provide the evidence to prove your point. Have your speech so well prepared that you will be able to defend it during cross and not stumble during questioning. Correct parliamentary procedure should be followed.

IE: I've judged all IEs for 30 years for different circuits and different levels. On interpretation events, I look at who transported me into the story and kept me there. Make sure all movements (gestures, head and other body movements) are done with purpose and should not distract from the selection being presented. On extempt, make sure to speak clearly avoiding excessive word crutches and cite your sources. Follow standard speech outline and approach topic creatively.

Jaden Ackerman Paradigm

UPDATE: I just found out that Tabroom has been giving us a scale to evaluate debaters this whole time and yall were giving out 29s! For what?! I don't inflate speaks but I think I'm an okay judge so your

Put me on the email chain: jadenackerman306@gmail.com

I was a third year in LD that competed on the national circuit for Lake Highland before getting my GED and graduating two years early at 16.

Here's how you should pref me (out of 5):

Ks: 1

Tricks: 1

Theory/T: 1

Phil: 2

Larp:4

I read really weird shit, like affs about Scooby-Doo and BDSM and shit (not Scooby-Doo related BDSM, these were two separate cases), so if you want to read some obscure philosopher who makes u happy or try out a new position I'm the right person to do it in front of.

I default to comparative worlds.

Idc the skill level of ur opponent- just read what you want to read.

Spreading is fine just be clear and slow down for analytics.

Give a trigger warning if your opponent says that something in the aff/neg might trigger them on their wiki or tells you

If pairings come out less than 30 min before the round don’t be a dick about disclosing. Give them a minute to breathe and decide what aff their reading. That being said, if you know what aff ur reading or whether it’s new, tell your opponent.

I read a lot of disclosure theory on the circuit my last year. Like, a lot. You can read it in front of me.

Performance affs are fine just make sure that your music is quieter than you when your talking.

Love a tricks debate but if your coach or teammate wrote ur tricks for u and u can't explain them I can't vote off of them. They function just like any other argument so if they are not articulated clearly I can't vote off of them.

I really dislike LARP. Maybe I'm dumb. Maybe I'm just not into policymaking. I don't know. Obviously read whatever you want and are most comfortable with but with complicated plans you're going to have to explain a little more than usual.

Don't make aprioris verbally if they aren't in the doc in the 1AC.

Cutting out what you didn’t read in the doc before CX won't take your prep time and should be done.

Do not read any graphic descriptions of soldiers dying in front of me or explosions (I'm sorry to all those who want to read Puar, it's probably the only queer lit u can't read in front of me)

Please, please, for the love of all things holy WEIGH. Especially ROB.

No weighing=me being sad= u being sad bc low speaks

If you’re opponent uses incorrect pronoun(s) or assumes your gender I understand that that is upsetting but I don’t think it’s always an independent reason to drop or good ground for a K. Humans make mistakes and dropping them for it doesn’t teach them anything or make the debate space more inclusive. Debate needs to be a place of understanding- not one where you exploit mistakes for a win. That being said if you repeatedly use the wrong pronoun(s) and don’t correct yourself, or disrespect your opponent for any reason relating to their pronouns, gender identity, or say things like “derrr... you look like a (boy/girl)”/try to justify your incompetence regarding misgendering your speaks will be dropped, I will flame your ass post-round and your opponent can read their K’s and independent reasons to drop to their hearts content.

Obviously don't be racist, misogyistic, ableist, homophobic ect. It goes without saying I'll auto drop u with 0 speaks.

Zoe Aronoff Paradigm

For CX/POLICY:

I really love to watch debaters argue something they really buy into themselves. Please, if you have an argument you absolutely adore them run it!!

I base speaker points solely on decorum and presentation. I will distribute points based on how well you seem to understand your argument, how your CX rounds go, your cadence and tone during your speech, etc. I’m dyslexic and I hated when I was judged based on my spreading when I was in debate, so I do not care whether or not you spread. Spreading is fine so long as everyone is doing it (for the purpose of fairness). Debate is supposed to be a fun activity, so please have fun with it! Don’t take it too seriously and don’t be TOO aggressive (a little bit is fine, after all it is CX). Like I said above, I really look for whether or not you understand your own arguments. I don’t want you to just read me evidence and tag lines. In every speech (except maybe the 1AC) I should be seeing analytical arguments.

I like policy arguments (especially during highly contentious political times like these) and think the round should have some focus on policy (since it is ~policy debate~).

Kritiks: With that said, I enjoy listening to Ks and other more “out there” arguments so long as they link to the case and the framework is explained well. If you do choose to run a K please keep in mind that I do not know a lot of the literature myself and it’s better to err on the “explain like I’m 5” side of things. Please don’t take this as a “I should run a K” if that’s your bread and butter as a debater. If you’re going to use an more uncommon K then it might be a good idea to slow down your spreading for better comprehension. If you do make the decision to run a K, do not do a 1off in the 1NC. You either need to attack the case directly or a disad or something. Please do not do 1 argument speeches.

T/Thoery: I don’t like topicality arguments as in my experience they’re usually used for filler and as a time suck. If aff truly is not topical then it’s fine to run T, but I usually just don’t care for T arguments. Basically, if you run it I will listen but it’s not as important to me as other arguments. I feel the same way about theory.

Counterplans: it’s really important to me that CPs have some sort of net benefit, even if it’s minor. Too many planks can get to be really overwhelming and hard to keep track of for everyone so please be judicious with that.

Disads: disads really come down to an impact calculus at the end of the debate. I LOVE a well thought out, detailed impact calculus in the rebuttals. I absolutely hate hearing “we save more lives” or “neg can’t link”. Explain EVERYTHING!! Even if you think it’s obvious!! Debate is a communication and critical thinking exercise, and I do not want to hear lame, general statements like that.

Overall, please don’t throw arguments, try to stick to the flow, and make sure you tell me what I should be voting on. I will not vote based off what I think- I will vote on what YOU convince me to vote on.

If you have any other questions then please do not hesitate to ask me!! I really love debate, and I’m always thrilled to talk to debaters when I judge. Good luck everyone :)

FOR LD/PF/Speech/Prose/EXTEMP/ETC.: I have judged these events before, but have never competed. I look for confidence in your arguments/speech, tone, body language/gestures. If you don’t seem convinced of your argument then I will not be either. Show me the value of your argument through all of these things.

Ibitayo Babatunde Paradigm

Introduction

Tayo (She/Her)

Hi, my name is Ibitayo but everyone calls me Tayo (pronounced Thai-yo), only my parents say Ibitayo. I did Forensics and Debate for four years at Bentonville West High School (2016-2020) and I’m currently a freshman in Academy of Art University. I was extemp co captain my junior year and Speaking captain my senior year in high school.I did a wide array of events from HI to Extemp to BQ to Congressional Debate. My favorite event however is definitely Congressional Debate (I’m that kid that brings their own gavel *smh) I strive for everyone to be comfortable and have fun.

Congressional Debate I love-

-When you have evidence for every single point and citing them correctly

-Addressing the other representatives appropriately (don’t be calling people by they first name in round)

-Extensive knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure

-Actually using the knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure to help the round move along

-Speaking clearly

-Make points that are realistic to the current political situation. If you are going to talk about immagration you better not act like covid-19 doesn’t exist rn.

I really dislike-

-Disrespect. I expect everyone to act more like adults than the actual senate okay.

-Spreading this is congress

-Wasting time. Pointless motions, going way over time, making points on a bill/resolution and not adding any more points or evidence to the subject matter. Wasting time is not a good look for me

-Softball questions, asking questions that are not constructive and are not going to challenge anything. Not answering the question is also very annoying

Debate(PF/BQ/LD) I love-

  • Clash. Really utilizing the CX time to make the points stronger

  • Arguments that are constructive and flow really well

  • Being able to speak in rebuttals really confidently and really explaining why the opponents points are inferior

I really dislike-

  • When competitors don’t use up all of the time they have. If you have four minutes to speak, us it.

  • Disrespect

If you ever have any questions let me know here: Ibitayo.L.Babatunde@gmail.com

Jeremiah Baxter Paradigm

About Me:

In 2011 I graduated from Trinity Preparatory School in Orlando Florida. While I was there I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate, traveling to Harvard, Yale, Glenbrooks, St. Marks, Greenhill, Emory, and Mineapple.

I enjoy and value debate. The ability to exchange thoughts in a mutually beneficial way is a crucial skill and I am thankful that the activity of competitive debate gives competitors the opportunity to grow in that skill.

How I Judge:

I am familiar with DA’s, K’s, and Theory. Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. I will enter every round with a tabula rasa paradigm. I flow well.

If you have any more specific questions, shoot me an email at Jeremiahbbaxter@gmail.com and I’ll get back to you and update my paradigm to cover any unanswered questions.

Lauren Berlin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Amal Bhatnagar Paradigm

Overview

I'm a junior at UC Berkeley and debated in high school. Broke at national and state tournaments.

I was a 2A at Northview High School in GA. I was the 2N in a few tournaments.

I'll listen to anything, but I have more experience in policy-related arguments. That shouldn't discourage you from reading Kritikal arguments, but I will hold you to a higher threshold for them for explanations and warrants.

2AR/2NR needs to have a strong outline for why I should vote for you. Paint my ballot.

Add me on email chain amalbhatnagar@berkeley.edu

AFF

-Keep it traditional. If you're running a non-traditional aff, you have to really explain everything and the threshold for everything is a lot higher. That being said, don't not read a non-traditional aff if that's the kind of debater you are, just make everything clear.

-Focus on case. This is your offense. If you do weak case extensions and analysis, then that does not play out well for you. Paint a picture.

-For FW, how do research and debate look like under your interpretation? How does this round set precedent?

NEG

-Make sure your neg strat makes sense. Don't read 234823423 off case just because you think the 2AC won't be able to answer it. Be strategic and smart about your choices.

-Explain the K. Go ahead and read the most absurd Kritiks if you want but a) prove why I should care b) explain it thoroughly. The alternative should solve the case for the K to be convincing. As a 2A, I hate hitting K's that do not solve the case. Make sure it does. Also, I'm not familiar with a lot of the K literature, so explaining the argument is really important.

-I love a good CP and DA 2NR

-Topicality's great, but case lists are important. I hold T to a higher threshold.

Other

-Do not be block reliant. Debate is about understanding different perspectives of arguments and learning as much as you can. Of course, everyone wants to win, but you won't ever be able to win a big tournament if you just count on blocks and do not understand what you're reading. Judges can smell BS before you even start spreading.

-Condo. 2 is fair. 3 is stretching it. 4 is abusive.

-Don't call me judge

-Easy to get speaker points in CX. Focus on finding flaws in argument and identify warrants in cards.

Aalif Biswas Paradigm

frontline in 2nd rebuttal

extend offense and defense in both summaries

sticky defense is bad

anything in FF must be in summary

collapse

tech>truth

speed is OK to an extent

clarity>speed helps your speaks

>28 only if you comparatively weighing

Hannah Bos Paradigm

Not Submitted

Stephanie Bouchard Paradigm

Former Blue Springs HS Debate 2012

Experience

1. IE: Poetry, Domestic Extemp, Oratory, Congress

2. Debate: Policy, Public Forum

Pref Public Forum and INF and Extemp.

Bekah Boyer Paradigm

Updated for 2020

Top of mind:

· I default to a comparative worlds paradigm. I would like the affirmative to do something; the negative’s job is to prove why that action is bad/undesirable.

· I need a weighing mechanism and offense that links in to that weighing mechanism. Unless given another method, I will default to v/c structure as the mechanism to evaluate & prioritize the round impacts, otherwise. I acknowledge and endorse the advent of multiple, valid methods of argumentation, but I prefer a topic-centered evidence debate comparing pragmatic solutions using CBA, but you do you. Whatever you do, please make an effort to do it well (your arguments must have warrants). Most importantly, I need you to outline how both debaters can expect to access my ballot - particularly if you are employing a non-traditional method of debate

About me:I competed on various circuits, first in policy debate for 2 years, LD for another 2 (and I have even dabbled in extemp and interp), at Colleyville Heritage in TX under Dave Huston. I've worked at Greenhill School as an assistant LD coach under Aaron Timmons since late 2010. I haven't judged at all since 2018 due to job changes, but below is still true and I am apparently old now.


I feel very strongly about evidence ethics in academia.

IF YOU DO NOT SHARE YOUR EVIDENCE IN SOME WAY WITH YOUR OPPONENT (EITHER THROUGH FLASHING, VIEWING LAPTOPS, SHARING COMPUTERS, E-MAIL CHAINS OR PAPER COPIES) I WILL NOT CALL FOR IT AFTER THE ROUND. Exceptions will be dependent on previous disclosure of the citations and extenuating circumstance.

DO NOT CLIP CARDS - Every time you clip a card, a kitten gets kicked. Don't kick kittens; don't clip cards. You will lose the round if you have clipped. I will not be lenient on this issue. I may spare speaker points if you attempt to follow the norms outlined or demonstrate a norm that prevents the harms of clipping, etc. *e.g. "saying "cut the card there" and then IMMEDIATELY marking where it is cut instead of saying "cut the card at (last word spoken)."

Check out this article if you don't understand "card clipping."
<http://the3nr.com/2014/08/20/how-to-never-clip-cards-a-guide-for-debaters/>

I expect cites to be able to be provided for all evidence used. I reserve the right to call for them if I so choose - I may do so randomly or if I suspect something is amiss. Evidence ethics is extremely important, and I will let card-clipping, plagiarism, and forged evidence affect my decision as I see fit - in the past, it has just affected speaker points. If it is an egregious, intentional violation (yes, I determine this) I may vote you down/decrease your speaks/refuse to vote on that argument, even if your opponent does not point it out; if your opponent does indicate that I should punish, I will be more comfortable smiting your points.
If you do not know how to cite something,
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/11/ is a great resource.
I am happy to talk to you about this. Seriously, y'all, people get kicked out university/have their careers ruined for improper, albeit unintentional, citation. I'm not opposed to an entirely analytical case if you don't want to take the time to give credit where credit is due.
One great way to combat this in the community is to disclose your positions on
http://hsld.debatecoaches.org/bin/view/Main/

Speech Docs:

You can e-mail speech docs to bekahboyer@gmail.com

If I'm sent a speech doc, I will only open it during CX to follow along with questions about the evidence. Pointed indictments about evidence will increase speaker points.

Generally, I don’t call for evidence, unless the debaters haven’t gone in depth enough with a contestation or I want to give you tips, but I do feel comfortable calling for evidence when I I want to see it.

What is on my flow is what counts. You will be able to tell if I am lost or confused.
I consider myself alright at flowing, but I am not afraid to admit I am not perfect or even close to the best. That said, I will not vote on something that I:
a) do not not understand
and/or
b) don't have on the flow

o If you want to win an argument you need to start by extending, at minimum, the basic parts of the argument (e.g. You need to extend T/theory violations; ROB/standards/weighing mechanisms if you want me to vote on them)

· IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU EXPLAIN THE LAYERS OF THE DEBATE FOR ME. IF YOU DO NOT WEIGH THINGS FOR ME, I WILL DO SO BASED ON WHAT I THINK (something on which we may not agree) .

What I don't want: having to wade through the arguments and establish my own opinion

Speaking:

· I'm fine with speed, but I'd prefer you to make a couple of really solid arguments than many blippy ones. I will say clear twice per speech before I stop flowing that speech. After a 3rd "clear" in a speech/round speaks will be noticeably affected. Speed is a strategy - I will be annoyed if you go super fast just to make 4 underdeveloped arguments and sit down with lots of time left. Also, now that I'm old (and during e-Debate), please default to going slowly, esp on card tags and theory args.

· Best way to make sure we are on the same page? Be clear. SLOW DOWN WHEN YOU ARTICULATE A WARRANT AND ITS IMPLICATION IN ROUND. I have a terrible poker face. Use that to your advantage. It is obvious when I am not getting something. Loudness and/or clarity is usually more of the issue for me than speed and if I am having a “bad disability day” with my hearing, I will let you know at the beginning of the round so we can all start at a higher volume.

· IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU EXPLAIN THE LAYERS OF THE DEBATE FOR ME. IF YOU DO NOT WEIGH THINGS FOR ME, I WILL DO SO BASED ON WHAT I THINK (something on which we may not agree).

o Pro tip: Give me prioritized voters. This helps me establish that YOU have a strategy and are not just grasping at straws. AND it will increase your speaker points

· Speaker Points, in general-

o I try to average a 28.5

o A good debater who does everything necessary to win with a smart strategy and clear extensions, evidence comparison, and weighing between arguments will receive a 29-29.8. If it is a local, Texas tournament and I think you should break, I will give you a 29+ ; @ TOC circuit tournaments, anything above a 29 means I think you are the bees knees.

o I only give 30sin certain circumstances, usually for a perfect speech, and I will tell you why you got one. In a given season, I usually give 2-3 30s.

o I assume everyone starts with a 27.5 you go up or down by tenths of a point based on strategy, extensions, speaking style, etc --- if tenths aren't available, I will round to the nearest .5. If I round up, I will indicate that on the ballot or in the RFD. Yes, I know this is subjective: welcome to any evaluation of public speaking.

o Protip: If you give me a phrase I write on my ballot, I start you at a 28 automatically instead of 27.5.

-If you are neg and don't flow the 2ar, I will dock .5 speaker point

Argument Specific Questions:
Theory

o I don't like frivolous theory arguments - I tend to find them underdeveloped and not enjoyable to judge. BUT, I love topicality debate, especially if the 2n goes all in on it.

o I default to drop the arg over drop the debater

o The in round abuse story needs to be strong if I am going to drop the debater on theory

o I default to viewing Topicality/Theory as gateway issues, UNLESS other justifications/arguments are given

o If there is not a voter or a violation extended, I will not vote on theory/T.

o I default to reasonability on T if the interp is inclusive not exclusive. I prefer Competing interps because it leaves me less to wade through

o "Reasonability" vs "Competing Interps": Forget the buzzwords: everything collapses to reasonability if the debaters aren't doing comparative work. I would prefer you to have C/I's and substantial clash/weighing against each other's standards OR establish a metric of "reasonablity"

· RVI's –

o I don’t think you should win by being topical or fair; those are obligations and should not be rewarded --- It is unlikely that I will vote on RVI from an I/M on Topicality unless there is demonstrated abuse in the round (you can prove this by running something where the link depends on the interp --- or you can establish it in CX).

o I am more open to independently justified voters against T/Theory than I am RVIs (e.g., T Is racist)

o I am open to listening to RVIs as long as there is clear, obvious weighing between the standards of a competing interpretation!

Default Spikes/Presumption/etc:

· I hate skep triggers and presumption. You can run them, but I will be annoyed. It’s a pretty common strategy... mostly because it's easy. I have voted on them when the lack of clash leaves me no other option and speaks have suffered. Risk of offense means I will unlikely resort to this. Prove to me why you don't need them and speaks will certainly reflect that.

· I just need a reason why those arguments are true, just like any other argument AND how they function as offense/terminal defense. Those arguments have strategic value; I just fear the trend that many debaters employ: blippy spikes as a crutch to avoid substance. If you want to discuss this, please let me know.

Narratives/Micro political arguments

· I am alright with these. I do believe that the debate space can allow the oppressed to speak.

· I am a firm advocate of the consensual nature of all dialogue. The speech act is half talking and half listening: it is undesirable to force people to participate in discourse that would wound them in some way.

· If the narrative is graphic, I expect you to disclose the nature of the discussion before the round starts to warn me, your opponent, and anyone in the room. Feel free to talk to me about this.

"Policy" Args versus "Traditonal" versus whatever:
Debate is debate. An argument is an argument. As long as it has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I'll listen.
o A CP need a net benefit. Solvency deficits on their own do not make a CP competitive – e.g. If the CP solves the aff and the aff solves with a risk of advantage and no unique advantage on the CP, I will affirm.

Perms are a test of competition (Affs should have clearly stated perm texts to minimize confusion and/or potential severance)


Misc. Laundry List of Paradigmatic questions:

· You gotta have uniqueness to win a turn.

· If there is inherent harm in the squo and there is a risk that action would solve for that harm, I will take that action. (meaning I'm extremely partial to "risk of solvency" args). Defense doesn't win debate rounds.

Other Issues

Flex Prep:

I am okay with "Flex Prep" if that means you can ask questions during prep. If your "flex prep" is the practice in which you can apply cx time for extra prep, that's not cool. (ex: "I have 1:42 sec of CX left, I'll add that as prep."


Behavior:
Be kind to each other. We are all here because debate is awesome - though our reasons may vary. Be courteous and polite. Say what you need to say and stay appropriate.

Questions?:
If you want to do a rebuttal redo, ask how to clarify an argument/response you made, or ask me anything post-round, that is definitely alright. I will do my best to help with the time I am allotted.
Feel free to ask me anything I may not have covered adequately/did not address at all.
You can always reach me through e-mail at bekahboyer@gmail.com
If I don't respond to the follow-up email within 72 hours, please email again.

Tl; dr: You do you, but watch my face - if I am annoyed or look confused, proceed at your own risk.

Simone Braithwaite Paradigm

Aight this’ll probably change throughout the course of my like judging career but yeah, here we go for now.

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN: sbraithwaite@guilford.edu

***If you're addressing me call me X.***

I’m X, aka Newark Science SB (she/they), i’ve done LD debate since I was a freshman and policy debate a couple of times since I was a junior. I qualled twice to the TOC (2019 & 2020) and took two tourneys my junior year, Byram Hills and Ridge and got to bid rounds of policy tournaments with 3 different partners. I almost exclusively read identity based arguments from the time I was a sophomore until my senior year. My literature base consists of Alexis P. Gumbs, Saidiya Hartman, Nadia Brown, Lisa Young, etc. This should tell you a little bit about my stance towards Ks

A few paradigm issues (aka TLDR):

1. Ks/K affs/Performance/Non-T>K Theory>Theory>T>Policy>Tricks

2. YOUR 2NR/2AR SHOULD BE WRITING MY BALLOT FOR ME- The best way to get high speaks/my ballot is for my RFD to sound damn near like those 2 speeches. closing the debate is reallllly important, especially in close rounds. I won't do the work for you.

Things I default to-


1. Truth > Tech: Techy arguments make it so that important conversations about race, sex, positionality, etc. get drown out by things that don’t matter like a debater dropping subpoint A8 of impact 35. By truth I mean, big picture debate, not claims that are literally true. Ex: The aff says that black women should sacrifice themselves to save the entire world. The neg should engage with this idea, it’s clearly a bad one. The way tech is used against K debaters is unable to hold them accountable for the ways in which they add to a violent debate space. That brings me to my second point.

2. Debate is not a game. Debate has material impacts for those who engage in it, especially POC. Please be mindful that debate is sometimes some debater’s only option when it comes to funding college or having a platform to speak freely. Also it’s just not unreasonable to consider how it can be a game for some and not for others. You have a high threshold to prove to me why it is (hint: maybe find better, more strategic T shells, friend)

3. Word PICs against K affs are not a good look whatsoever. Unless they do something OVERTLY wrong, like saying the N-word without being black, etc. don’t read it infront of me. It’s violent and abstracts from infinite violence against the group of people they’re talking about. So you’re telling me changing the ‘e’ to an ‘x’ in women will change discourse about black women in gender studies? Yeah aight. Anyways, it’s a form of infinite policing and promotes a bad model of debate. But if you feel like there’s a legit reason to read a PIC go for it! I exclusively read PIKs in the latter half of my senior year.

4. Util framing is kinda ridiculous and anti-black. Not saying I won’t evaluate it, but if your opponent warrants why it is, given that the claim is literally just true, you’re gonna be held at a higher threshold to prove why it’s not. Just saying.

Now the fun stuff:

Ks/Ks affs/Performance: This is what I LIVE for. But only if you know what you’re talking about. If you’re just doing just to do it or for my ballot and execute it poorly, I won’t hack for you. K debate takes work, dedication and reading. If you think that you can override all three layers, read some K off the Wake backfiles and get my ballot, it’s gon be a sad day for you.

Theory/Tricks: Friv theory belongs with tricks, don’t like it, it’s violent, will not even flow it. Disclosure theory is fine EXCEPT when you are debating a black person or you are one. 1. Niggas don’t have to disclose to you 2. Disclose to niggas. Besides that, theory can be really creative and fun and actually substantive/responsive.

T: Traumatizing, mentally exhausting and often times whiney. Fairness isn’t a voter, read it and I will not flow it as an impact. T is often used against black debaters to get out of hard convos. Also like if we being REAL right now, I think theres probably like one or two completely untopical affs per year. Y’all like to run T against K affs to silence their relation to the topic because it’s “too hard to engage with”. Boo-Hoo for you. Ask your coach how to engage. It’s what they’re paid for.

Policy: This is lowkey an unknown for me if i’m being honest. Never debated in a policy way, it’s towards the bottom because I don’t trust myself to judge policy, but if you do, hey, go off.

*Speaker points for me aren’t based off of aesthetics of debate norms, but big picture debate. Meaning if I vote you up on T USFG or something like it, it’ll be a low point win.

Holden Bukowsky Paradigm

Updated 10/19/20 for an overhaul and math stuff

Hi, I’m Holden!
Jack C. Hays HS ‘20

The University of North Texas ’24 (Go Mean Green!)

Put me on the email chain please: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

UPDATE FOR FALL 2020 SEASON: IF WE ARE USING NSDA CAMPUS DON'T SEND DOCS VIA FILESHARING BECAUSE THEY CAUSE THE WEBSITE TO CRASH FOR ME, USE MY EMAIL PLEASE

Who is Holden?

I did debate all 4 years of high school at Jack C. Hays. First two were spent solely in policy, other two were spent mostly in LD (with a little policy thrown in every now and then). I've gone pretty far at some bid and national tournaments.

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater). I am coaching/have coached, or have been contracted by Lynbrook, Evergreen Valley (who I work with on a team based level), and then Northview SD, Claremont GK, McMillen AW, Ayala AM, and LC Anderson BC (on an individual basis)

People I agree with or have influenced my views on debate if you want to use them as a reference –

Nate Galang, Patrick Fox, and Taman Kanchanapalli

TLDR: You do you, just be able to have a coherent argument and don’t be offensive

Tech>Truth

Clarity>Speed

Strike Guide, this is not a list of what I prefer to see, rather what I think I could adjudicate most fairly (ideally I would like to be a one for all of these, but I have yet to explore all of these forms of debate to the extent that I would like):

K - 1

LARP - 1

Theory/Topicality - 1/2

Tricks - 2/3

Phil - 2/3

Triggers – please refrain from reading anything with in depth discussions of anxiety, depression, or suicide that way I can adequately access and evaluate the round. Please give trigger warnings so that debate remains a place in which everyone can participate :)

I flow on my laptop, but am not the fastest typer, so I would put me at a 7.5 or 8/10 in terms of speed. Just be clear, slow down on tags and analytics please

Respect your opponents pronouns or I won't respect your speaks (I have given out 20's because of this, seriously just respect people)

I flow spark on a separate page, this may not matter to you, but it matters to me. Sign post accordingly

How has he voted?

I've judged approximately 51 rounds so far this season on the TOC circuit, I have voted aff approximately 57% percent of the time, this is mostly because 1. skill difference between competitors, or 2. the 2NR most of the time lacks weighing or catching all of the 1AR argument, I have sat once (technically twice but that was on an evidence ethics challenge which isn't a tell of my judging ability but rather a pradigmatic evaluation)

What is debate to him?

I take debate very seriously insofar as I contain a genuine enjoyment from it. I enjoyed competing, but I especially enjoy being on the other side of a ballot, and I also enjoy teaching. That being said, debate is an educational game in which my role is to evaluate the arguments as presented in the least interventionist way possible, I'm probably a lot less ideological than most judges and that's because I do not think it is my place to deem arguments valid or invalid. That means that at the end of the day, you do you to the full extent. If you do what you do best, I will do my best to evaluate those arguments fairly (granted that the exceptions are arguments that are problematic and arguments with no warrant). There are two concrete rules of debate - 1. There is always a winner and a loser, and 2. speech times are set in stone. None of my preferences should matter because you should be making those arguments for me.

What does he like?

I like debates that require little to no intervention. The way you can achieve that is weighing and making your arguments easy to flow (so label them like 1, 2, 3 a-point, b-point, c-point). I am agonistic about content, so do what it takes to get the dub. Warranted arguments are key to the dub though, that means that I only evaluate arguments that are complete (claim, warrant, impact). Collapsing in your speeches is how you get the ability to make good arguments, it shows room for explanation and proficiency that the game known as debate.

A framing mechanism to help me filter the round, whether that be a standard, role of the ballot, impact calc, or fairness v education weighing. All of them help me decide the debate and what should be preferred.

What does he dislike?

The opposite of above.

Being exclusionary to novices, reading K's, CP's, and DA's is fine but if there's any kind of situation where you ask them about any sort of theory spikes and they ask "what's a theory spike," don't read spikes such as "evaluate the debate after the 1NC" or "no aff analytics." That extremely upsets me and your speaks WILL get tanked

Unclear spreading

Not weighing, if you can't tell by now, weighing is how you win in front of me

What will he never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater in the room (yes, that means shoes theory is a no go).

Arguments that say a form of oppression is good, this is the one that will get you downed with a 25.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX (it is binding folks, just be a good person and don’t lie).

Hot takes?

Arguments warranted by out of round occurrences are cool if they don’t devolve into ad homs (see the strikes K read by Greenhill SK in 2017 NDCA finals).

Self-serving role of the ballots are cool, if you can’t beat them then just get better at answering them.

Cheezits are better than goldfish.

Tricks debates is a legitimate form of debate.

Now onto more specific things argument wise-

K-Aff’s:

Impact turns to T are absolutely fine, T can be violent in certain instances.

Love them. Read them, debated them, have judged several of them. They're healthy for the debate space, and don't necessary have to be constrained on relation to the resolution. People running these need to explain what the aff does or else presumption looks pretty good, explanation and implicating your affirmative is how you can easily win these in front of me. For people negating these, don't concede the aff, thats just bad practice and gives them too much wiggle room. Innovative and refreshing strategies are wonderful, especially if they're strategic.

T-FW/T-USfg:

Yes I will and have voted on this (several times). I'd say I'm ideologically aff leaning on this question, but that literally means nothing if you do the work for me. Affirmatives win in front of me in these debate because the negative most often concedes key framing issues (a role of the ballot, an impact turn), or just don't reads off the doc. Negatives win in front of me because the aff doesn't do enough layering, or engage in the framing debate (for affirmatives, line by lining ALL of the arguments is near impossible, so weighing is how you win), or just weigh. Fairness isn't a terminal impact, but could possibly be impacted out to such. TVA’s are important to me, make sure that they’re well-explained on how they access the aff’s framing. I view these as counterplans in the sense that they try and resolve the offense coming off of the counter-interp and the affirmative method, please conceptualize them as such in the round.

Topicality/Theory:

Here are my defaults, but are not set in stone at all -

- Competing interps > reasonability

- Drop the debater > drop the argument

- No RVI > RVI

Topicality is fine, and some of my favorite debates to judge. Definitions quality matters, and having a definition with the intent to define is even better. Unlike theory, arbitrary interpretations probably don't resolve their offense, you need a grounded vision of the topic, not something like "your interp plus my aff." Reasonability most definitely needs a brightline please. Going for the impact turn to T when able to is really underrated, and a valuable strategy if employed correctly. Slowing down a bit on these debates is key, otherwise I will most likely miss something. Weighing in these debates will help everyone, especially me when deciding the round. Condo is good probably, but can be easily convince otherwise (leniency switches with >2 condo advocacies). I lean neg on most counterplan theory as well (that flips if there is not a solvency advocate).

Up in the air on Nebel, just be able to explain your semantics warrants and contextualize them to the topic. Otherwise just go for the limits standard.

Go for whatever shell you want, I will evaluate it, barring these exceptions:
- Theory that includes the appearance/clothing of another debater (so no shoes theory)

- Shells where the interp was checked before round, and there is verifiable evidence that it was checked

LARP/Policy Arg's:

Really cool with this, clear argument interaction and weighing is key in these debates. Evidence quality also matters in these debates more so than others (namely because of the causality that is associated with this style). I default yes judgekick, you just need to tell me to do so in the 2NR. Explanation of link chains is important because often times teams have poor explanation of them. If a link chain is conceded, then extend it briefly (meaning I want at least a condensed version of the impact story) and implicate it, saying "extend x it was conceded" is not sufficient. Counterplans are viewed through sufficiency framing until told otherwise. I need to know what the world of the permutation looks like at least a little bit in the first speech it is introduced. A few good, robust internal links into 2-3 impacts > a lot of bad internal links into 7 different impacts. The DA turning case and it's analysis matters a lot to me, do the work and make it make sense.

K’s:

This is where most of my debate experience has been, and the type of debate I am most comfortable judging, I went for the K a lot. My ideal K 1NC (if it's one off) would have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a topic link), an alternative, and a role of the ballot (along with weighing on the aff page as to why it's a prior question). Having links contextual to the aff, whether that be to the resolution, the reps, or the framing, is good and helps with strength of link. Winning framing for both sides is a crucial part of strategy, and controls the direction of the debate (but does not guarantee the dub). I may know the buzzwords you’re using but always be able to explain what the heck you’re saying. Don’t run a k in front of me just because you think I’ll like it, because bad k debate makes me sad and will make your speaks reflect such. Explain the perm in the first responsive speech please.

Here’s a list of literature bases I am read up on and know quite well:

- Deleuze and Guattari

- Halberstam

- Hardt and Negri

- Weheliye

- Stock K’s (cap, security, etc.)

- Reps K’s

- Scranton/Ecopess

Here’s a list of literature bases I know somewhat/am learning:

- Afropess/Wilderson

- Baudrillard

- Agamben

- Queerpess

- Psychoanalysis

Tricks debate:

These are fine, and can be quite enjoyable if executed correctly (that doesn't mean that you have the right to just extend arguments without implications or warrants). I tend to think that when done well that these debates are some of the most technical and clean rounds to judge. This doesn’t mean do it because you think I’ll like you more, because these debates can also be extremely messy. Messy tricks debates make me sad, clean and efficient tricks debates make me happy. The one thing I DO NOT want to see is like a hidden paradox that’s like at the bottom of a theory shell, that’s what I legitimately dislike and will down your speaks for it. It makes flowing harder and is legitimately bad for debate. Please do not do this and just label it separately as a delineated argument. Please slow down on your 27 point underviews, yes I think they're interesting, but I need to be able to flow them and I can't do that if you're blitzing through them. That doesn't mean go at like regular talking speed, but go at like 70% speed when you're blitzing through those aprioris please.

Phil:

These are also fine. I think that when explained well phil debates can be quite enjoyable, the keywoard in that is explained well though. I think that while I may be best suited to a util v (insert phil here) debate, I am capable of judging any kind of these debates. I think that going beyond the standard "my fw comes before your bc it's a pre-req" is going to help me a lot, which will in turn help you.

Here’s a list of literature bases I know confidently:

- Locke

- Hobbes

- Moral Particularism

- Pragmatism

- Constitutionality

Here’s a list of literature bases I know somewhat:

- Kant

- Rawls

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty

Evidence Ethics:

I would much prefer these debates be executed as a shell rather than having the round staked on them. I hate adjudicating these debates because a. They deprive me of a substantive round and b. Are normally a cheap shot by an opposing debater. As such, if you stake the round on evidence ethics this will be the procedure for which things will go down: 1. I will look into the evidence that is in question 2. Compare it to the claim/violation that is being presented 3. Utilize the rules for which the tournament is using (NSDA, NDCA, etc.) to determine whether or not it is a violation 4. Check with the debater if they are sure they want this to be a drop the debater issue, or to drop the evidence. If it is a violation, then I will drop the person who committed such with 25 speaks if it's a drop the debater issue, if it's not drop the debater then I will not evaluate the evidence and we can debate as normal. If it is not a violation, then I will drop the accuser with 25 speaks if it's a drop the debater issue, if it's not drop the debater then your speaks will be capped at a 28.

Here is what I consider evidence ethics violations in the absence of guidance: 1. If the author concludes in opposition of what is cited 2. If worlds are deleted or inserted in the middle of a sentence 3. If a debater misrepresented what the author says

Speaks:

Across 40 prelims at bid tournaments, I have averaged at a 28.58 in terms of speaks, which means I'm not necessarily a speaks fairy or stingy

A 30 is very hard to achieve in front of me, and the only ones (which has been 2) I have given out is because of the utilization of the challenges

I don't evaluate "give me x amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad utilize the ways to get extra speaks I have below

They're adjusted according to the tournament, but here's a general scale -

29.6+ Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.5 Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 You should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 About middle of the pool

27.6-28 You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

Challenges (Max up to 1 point):

- Open up your last speech with "my opponent was bamboozled in their last speech," if you do it and successfully point out why (A.K.A. slam dunk your speech) then I'll give you a full extra speak, if you initiate and underperform, I'll take away a speak

- Bring me coffee with cream and sugar = +.5

- Come into the room and shout "rev up those fryers" loud enough for people outside the room to hear = +.5

- Bring me food = +.1-.5 depending on how good it is

- If you send pictures of your cute pets in the doc, +.1-.5 depending on how cute I deem them (no snakes please, I have a phobia of them and this will get your speaks docked half a point)

If you have anymore questions about my paradigm, please don't be afraid to email me or ask me in the room.

Happy debating!!!!!!!!!

David Byerman Paradigm

I know a lot of judges pontificate for 1000+ words and detail every element of their judging philosophy. I'm not one of those judges. For one thing, I have a life. For another, my philosophy when it comes to judging is actually pretty simple.

Debate is a competition about COMMUNICATION. It's an argument about ideas. That means that the arguments you make matter and the way you make them matters just as much. I'm a flow judge and will penalize debaters who drop points altogether. Extending an argument by reference or even within the context of clash doesn't take much time. Even if it just seems like you ran out of time, who am I to know whether you actually just have no good evidence to refute your opponent? At the end of the day, if both contestants make good arguments but one has points that they extend that were never addressed, those contentions flow in their direction and may determine the ballot. It's only fair.

But the way you make the argument is often overlooked but SO important. This is particularly true in L/D, which after all is an event steeped in the history of the Lincoln/Douglas debates of the mid-19th century and Public Forum, which traces its roots to Ted Turner's frustration with the deterioration of debate as a contest of communication. Can you imagine Abraham Lincoln spreading? Me neither. I respect your ability to spread, but the cacophony of words issuing from your mouth isn't communication, it's a gimmick, substituting quantity over quality. I can't award you wins on arguments if my flow can't keep up with your rate of speech. And if two debaters clash and each make good points, and I can't quite decide who won the argument of ideas, I'll use speaking ability and persuasiveness to break ties and award victories. I also reserve the right to award higher speaker points to the losing debater. After all, sometimes the better speaker has worse arguments.

I'm not a fan of theory debates. Disclosure Theory, in particular, seems like a very lame way to frame a debate and go for a win. I came for a debate on the merits pro/con on a matter of public policy. That's what this whole exercise is about. I am very likely to judge the round based on who makes the best arguments on that front. I've never considered a theory argument an RFD. It's not to say that I never will... it's just to say that I never have previously.

Professionally, I served for nearly five years as Secretary of the Senate for the State of Nevada and for three years as Director of the Kentucky Legislature. I see facilitating speech and debate as fundamental to the health of our democracy, which let's face it could use more cogent well-reasoned well-informed debates.

I missed my high school graduation in order to go to NSDA Nationals in my senior year of high school, over 25 years ago. Speech and Debate runs in my blood. I love being a part of this and hope you find as much fulfillment out of it as I do. Good luck.

tl;dr Debate is a contest of communications. Speak well, make good arguments, earn my ballot!

Rilee Carson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Saisinzita Cheruvu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Andrea Chow Paradigm

"Adapt to me or get off my lawn."

- Luis Sandoval (Meadows Debate)

I'm a good judge for you if:

  • You want a judge who will attempt to understand the debate to the best of their ability, and attempt to adjudicate fairly.
  • You read a critical affirmative.
  • You mostly go for critical arguments.
  • You like fast, technical debate.
  • You display a ton of personality in your debates.
  • You have a superior defense of a critique of the affirmative.
  • You are great at the topicality debate.
  • You read well-researched disadvantage or counterplan strategies.
  • You have a superior defense of impact turns.

I'm a decent judge for you if:

  • You read an affirmative.
  • You negate the affirmative.
  • You default to generic negative strategies.
  • You have a decent defense of your affirmative.

I'm not a great judge for you if:

  • You assume I am flowing from the speech doc instead of from your mouth.
  • You assume that I know anything about any mumbo-jumbo critique since I read Ks in high school.
  • You're bad at debating the critique.
  • You don't warrant your arguments.
  • You expect high speaker points every debate, unless you radically change my understanding of the debate.
  • You don't demonstrate a mastery of the arguments you've read.
  • You like satire.
  • You go for tricks.
  • You think RVI's are a great reason to vote for you.

I'm an AWFUL judge for you if:

  • You unapologetically defend sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. arguments.
  • You ask your opponent to delete things from the speech doc. The highest speaker points you will receive are 28. I've only ever seen this problem in LD.
  • Your best strategy against a team is theory. Distinct from topicality. Also have only encountered this in LD.
  • You like racing through arguments as fast as humanely possible.
  • You speak unclearly.
  • Your strategy relies on making your opponents uncomfortable.
  • You're disrespectful to your opponents.
  • Your strategy relies on having someone who enjoys LD.

Ok now about me:

  • Andrea, she/her. La Reina '20, Yale '25. Email andrea.nicole.chow@gmail.com
  • Please let me know if I can make any accommodations to make the round safer or more accessible for you.
  • I competed in these events, in order from most to least: LD, oratory, policy, parli, congress, OI
  • I flow primarily from your mouth, and then from the speech doc, so slow down on tags + analytics
  • Explain everything to me like I am very, very stupid... because I am
  • Follow @speechanddebatestories on Instagram!

People who were heavily influential in shaping my understanding of debate (and therefore probably have very similar paradigms to me) in order from most to least:

Leo Kim

Ben Crossan

Kate Totz

Katie Raphaelson

Andrew Overing

Post-Jack Howe thoughts about debate:

  • I don't care what the CA debate handbook says. If your best/only argument against a counterplan is "the rulebook says that's not allowed" then maybe you should be reading a different aff.
  • I was a K debater in high school. That being said, this is not an invitation to pull out your team's spicy Baudrillard backfile from 2016 and make a fool out of yourself. I think K's need to have some kind of alt or offense or something or at least have a really good defense of why they don't need one. I would rather judge a good LARP round than a bad anything else.

Amanda Ciocca Paradigm

PLEASE SHOW UP DURING THE TECH TIME THE TOURNEY HAS GIVEN- plz and thank you

Please add me on the email chain: amandaciocca@gmail.com

Hi, I graduated from West Broward and I attended the University of Mary Washington up in Virginia. I did LD for four years and competed on the varsity policy team at UMW, go eagles. If you think you need to strike me you probably dont, I left LD in high school so honestly fresh starts are a thing lol. Ive judged a ton of rounds on these online platforms so I've learned to be more flexible with extensions and such. However, blippy 2 second args are terrible- its not that difficult to articulate shit lol. Please just make debate an entertaining experience for me and your opponent.

Hi theory kiddos- please stop with the blippy extensions of stuff. It's getting really annoying having to do work for yall. Friv theory is ehhhhh (and by eehhhh I mean it'll cause me to cry internally, doesnt mean I won't vote for it)

Quick Rating Guide:

K-1

LARP-1

Theory-3/4 depends on how you explain stuff

Tricks- 4

Framework- 3

Here is a list of things I was always worried about when I debated, Im going to attempt to make this as simple as possible:

1. I was a LARP debater for 3/4 of my years in LD, and then switched over to K's and a more critical debate style. I appreciate a nice fleshed out K, but also I appreciate really good LARP debate as well.

2. I will try my best to evaluate the round in which you wish it to be evaluated, however I need a clear articulation on how to do so. Yes I do prefer LARP and K debates but do not try to conform to my old preferences. Debate how you would like to debate, I only realized that this was important my senior year so I suggest you all just follow your heart.

3. I will adapt to you. If you are a speed demon then go ahead. As long as you are clear I am totally cool with it. If you like theory I'm totally fine, anything you are comfortable doing I will try my best to adjudicate the round fairly.

4. I think respect is super important, this does not mean you can't be aggressive or throw a little shade in speeches but do maintain a level of decency. Please and thank you.

5. Being on an online forum has revealed some interesting issues that I want to highlight here. Don't engage in microagressions or gross comments in general. Please use proper pronouns when referring to your opponent-they are not an object, they are a person. Please don't say "The judge believes x,y,and z."- you have no clue what Im thinking. Record your speeches in case someone gets disconnected, don't just laugh and be like LOL sucks for you. Also just be a nice person, it's not that hard to adapt strategies for opponents that may or may not have the same experiences as you (I will evaluate the round as such and even if you win, I will indeed tank your speaks for being an asshat) :)

Tolerance Levels:

LARP- I'm fine with LARP debate. Any jargon that has grown on you I will probably know unless LARP has changed drastically in a year. I prefer when you explain the implication to me, if not I have no idea what to do with certain args. This was one of my go-to styles of debate so I am definitely going to be able to make a logical decision at the end of the round.

K's- K's are groovy. I read a lot of identity literature during my senior year so I definitely love these kinds of debate. I think non-t k affs are cool, just need clear explanation why that is good for debate. Don't like when it creates assumptions about your opponents identity because that just creates hostile rounds (that I have definitely had and they are not fun). Over the summer I also dove into a lot of unfamiliar literature to me in order to be able to understand in rare cases I come back to judge high school debate, so I probably am well versed in K debate more than others.

Framework- I love good framework debates, I'm comfortable with standard Util v Kant or more abstract framework debates. I think if you go this route you need to win why your paradigm is ethically relevant, and then be able to win offense/defense underneath that framing mech. In every round I expect some sort of framing to help me evaluate the round or else it makes it very difficult to figure out a decision.

Theory- In my old school years I hated theory, BUT policy has changed me and I am starting to appreciate it a lot more. DOESNT MEAN I DO WORK FOR YOU, SLOPPY DEBATE IS NOT COOL. I don't have any defaults on theory besides norm setting> IRA, I think I need clear extensions of warrants if the debate winds down to theory v (insert anything) or theory v theory debates. From experience theory debate can get messy and that's when it gets difficult for me to judge the round without a form of intervention to try to figure out what is going on. So please make things very clear for me since Theory has not always been my go to. Even if you have known me from previous tourneys, I definitely have had a huge paradigm shift so definitely don't assume I am incapable from judging these types of rounds.

Tricks- I've debated against tricks before but never ran it myself, always thought it was a pretty cool form of argumentation. This is probably my weakest place in regards to judging but that doesn't mean I won't try. If you want to pref me and read tricks then just make sure they are clear and there is an explanation somewhere in the round about how it functions in the round and I'll try my best to judge accordingly. I hate debates that are just sloppy tricks debate, if this applies to you then dont pref me at all like please don't pref me if you just want to meme a round.

Performance- I have a pretty decent ability to judge a performance debate and I think they are pretty dope. However, I don't think that debaters need to degrade their opponent during a round to "get the point across" especially because I think that ruins the integrity of the round itself.

Charlie Clark Paradigm

School Affiliation: No Current Affiliation
College: UMKC/KCKCC/UW-Oshkosh (Outrounds/speaker awards at most regional tournaments and doubles of CEDA)
Experience: 15 years in the activity: 3 years high school; 4 years college; 7 years coaching (KC Central, Olathe North, Neenah, Blue Valley West, Jefferson City, and Marquette University High School (DOD))
Rounds Judged on Topic: 15

Updated 10/5/2020

Add me to the email chain for the round: ctcb57@gmail.com


I'll preface everything by indicating that I'm from the "do what you want" camp. However, since the community wants us to have some guidelines to our philosophy, here they are:

T – I think it’s pretty important, especially on topics where the resolution has words that aren’t very static with their definition. I tend to give a little more weight to education arguments than fairness arguments, unless there is a good limits argument made in the debate. I very much believe that T debates need to be framed to say what arguments are/aren't allowed under each team's interpretation and why that is good/bad. I also think that competing interpretations is the best way to evaluate T. I'm somewhat sympathetic to a variety of T arguments on this topic, so don't be afraid to go for it in the 2NR if you feel that you're ahead on it.

Theory – I'm usually more sympathetic to aff teams on conditionality in the instance that the neg reads 3 or more conditional advocacies. I also believe that certain CP's are abusive (word PICs, consult, conditions), but I'm willing to listen to them. More recently, I've found myself to be more receptive to States CP theory, particularly when the CP has additional planks which accompany the States acting simultaneously. Another argument that I've become more receptive to has been floating PIKs bad, particularly because of the amount of abuse that occurs late in the debates. However, on most other issues I tend to err neg for the sake of having debates about substantive issues. I tend to prefer functional competition over textual competition. Lastly, I usually err to reject the argument, not the team unless there is a very good reason to do otherwise.

K’s – I'm pretty comfortable with the K and usually judge a lot of "clash of civilization" debates. While I'm not completely immersed in all K authors (namely Baudrillard and Deleuze), I'm still familiar enough to adequately evaluate the round. If the alternative doesn't solve itself, I often find myself voting aff. I, like many others, believe that the neg gets the right to the K. Also, I don't necessarily enjoy listening to framework debates against K aff's. I would much rather prefer that you engage their advocacy/argument. However, if there lacks a stable advocacy in the 1AC and the neg cannot get any links off of it, I'm much more inclined to listen to framework. Most recently, I've found myself being substantially more receptive to Framework when there is either a.) Bad ground for the neg provided the aff b.) An advocacy which doesn't not affirm in the direction of the resolution and c.) The aff can be read on the negative i.e. switch side solves. If you are reading a K aff with an advocacy, the best way to be ahead in Framework debates is to really contextualize what your advocacy does and what the ballot symbolizes/does because these are the only way I believe you can get solidified internal links to the offense you'll use against Framework. Honestly, if I can't succinctly explain what the aff does at the end of the debate, it's probably a good sign I won't vote for you. Also, topical version of the aff is a really compelling argument for me. At the end of these debates, the team that is winning the framing of the debate is usually the one that wins the round. Another thing to note is that in K vs. K rounds, I usually find myself voting for the team that wins the direction of the internal links. If that is the locus of your strategy in these debates, you're doing something right.

Performance - I think that you need to have some form of an advocacy that at least affirms the direction of the topic. I still have yet to see many of these debates, so I'm not quite sure how I would evaluate the performance aspect of it, unless it is accompanied by some decent justifications in the 1AC/1NC.

CP’s –All of the theory questions are above. I tend to err neg on the question of CP solvency in the world that the aff doesn't have a DA to the CP or solvency deficit. Also, in the world of the neg PIC'ing out of a portion of the plan, you must have some form of a solvency deficit or I will probably give full weight to the net benefit. Further, I believe that a CP should have a solvency advocate so that we can prevent some of these ridiculous CP text/no evidence arguments. I would say that I prefer these debates more than K debates.

DA’s – Once again, I enjoy these debate more than K debates. On politics, I also tend to give a bit more weight to impact defense than some judges and will not vote because "risk of a link" was uttered by the neg. You usually need to have a fairly convincing link story to easily win these debates. However, when combined with an effective CP or case defense, both of those issues become less important. I am also a huge fan of overviews that explain how the DA turns the case, or creates a solvency deficit for the aff.

Online debate - Please make sure your microphones and headsets are working properly and that you have your video camera on. Often times I have found myself being unable to hear someone because they're either too close to their mic and it's muffled or they have a really bad connection. I will yell clear once, but afterwards I will just try my best to flow you. Also, ensure you're recording this speech elsewhere while you're giving it because I've run into several issues when the debater's computer freezes or NSDA Campus decides to be unfriendly to us. I will keep track of prep time on my own, so please be sure to not abuse this.

Closing notes – This philosophy is just a basic guideline to my thought process in evaluating debates. In reality, you can run whatever you want, as long as you have a defense of it. The main question I try to answer at the end of these debates is "who does the most good?". If you're on the right side of that argument, you're probably going to win the round. Also important to note, this activity is supposed to be academic and professional. This means that you should not be rude to each other. When people do that, it honestly makes the judge feel awkward and very likely to vote against you. For overviews, make them mean something i.e. explain the implications of the argument and then in the rebuttles use it to isolate very important arguments that you happen to be winning. To close, make sure that you have fun in the round, which means have some jokes and lighten up the mood in the room.

Dan Crawford Paradigm

LD:

1. Speak at a normal rate of speed

2. Attack & rebuttal "down-the-line" - val, crit, conts, sub points

3. Be aggressive in CX, but not belligerant

4. Exposit why your val Trump's your opp's val.

CX:

1. Speak at a NORMAL RATE OF SPEED.

2. Hit the H.I.T.S.

2. Exposit harms of opp's plan/case

3. Don't spend too much time on topicality unless it is egregious.

4. Neg doesn't need a cp unless it is vital

Bennett Eckert Paradigm

4 rounds

slow down slow down slow down slow down slow down slow down slow down

Greenhill 2016

Northwestern 2020

In the fall of 2021, I'll be a PhD student in philosophy at MIT.

I coach Greenhill. I am conflicted from ETHS.

Email: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

Newest things

[1] I really do not like when 'philosophy' positions paraphrase a philosopher's argument--often using the philosopher's exact language--and in no way cite that philosopher. I think this is basically plagiarism, and I really do not get why we've made it a community norm to do this.

[2] I default to “epistemic confidence.”

[3] "Warming good" is a bad argument. Most "warming good" authors are hacks. I am very persuaded by arguments about author quals in debates about climate change; I don't get why it is worthwhile for us to have debates about the details of climate science (e.g. about how much CO2 is good for plants) when we could just listen to experts/scientific consensus, and debate about how to act in light of that consensus.

[4] Views that I have that impact how I judge "phil" debates:

- consequentialism is extremely counterintuitive.

- explaining the varying "degrees of wrongness" of different prospective actions is not obviously very important.

- "Categorical Imperative" refers to a lot of things, and it's not clear that they are identical (you should say which of these things you mean if you say "Categorical Imperative"...).

- foreseeing that something will happen as a result of your action does not immediately imply that you intend for it to happen (why would it?).

- ideal theory isn't obviously important, and if it is, then it is probably not because we cannot know that obviously wrong things are wrong without it.

- “epistemic modesty” is generally better for the person defending some non-consequentialist theory than it is for the person defending consequentialism; the impact of extinction under utilitarianism is almost definitely not infinite.

Online Debate

[1] Slow down!!! It is harder to follow very fast online debates than it is to follow very fast in-person debates. I am very likely to miss arguments if you do not slow down, especially on large blocks of analytics.

[2] I've switched back to flowing on paper. This means that slowing down is extra important, and you should give me a little extra pen time when switching between pages (e.g. wait a second to make your first arg on the cp when switching from the case to the cp page).

[3] From Rodrigo Paramo: "here is the procedure i will follow if a student drops off a call, or i drop off a call: students are expected to maintain local recordings of their speeches - if they drop off, they should complete the speech and immediately email their recording upon completing it. i will not allow students to restart speeches / attempt to figure out how much time they had left, particularly in elimination rounds."

If you do not record your speech, then the part that I missed b/c of someone dropping off is gone.

Things to know

[1] I do not flow author names.

[2] I will not vote for exceptionally bad theory arguments. Exceptionally bad arguments include but are not limited to: so-called "role of the ballot spec," "neg may only make 2 arguments," "must spec CP status in speech," "must read an explicit standard text," "must contest the aff framework," and "must spec what you meant when you said 'competing interps.'" By contrast, arguments that are fair game are CP theory, plans good/bad, some spec args, AFC good/bad, etc.

[3] I value explanation a lot. I vote aff in a lot of debates in which the neg goes for a ton of arguments, each of which could be a winning 2NR but end up getting very under-explained. I have also voted for a lot of debaters whose evidence is not amazing but who give very good explanations/spin for that evidence.

[4] I am unlikely to be convinced that something categorically outweighs something else (e.g. .01% risk of extinction outweighs, fairness outweighs everything no matter what, etc.). Weighing arguments should be contextual/comparative.

[5] I think that most "phil" positions are bad philosophy and bad for debate. I like philosophy, but "phil" in LD is not that. I think that many "phil" positions just straight up do not have a warrant and if I do not think that an argument has a warrant, I will not vote for it. I think that "phil" positions should include (probably long) cards defending / explaining their favored moral theory. If your positions do not do that, then I am probably not the judge for you.

[6] I have voted for T/framework against K affs more often than I have voted against it. When I vote neg in T/FW debates, I normally vote on skills-type impacts and topic education impacts, and I almost never vote on "fairness is an intrinsic good." When I vote aff in these debates, I normally think that the aff has done something to mitigate the neg's impact (e.g. a counter-interpretation that solves, link/impact defense) and won a good-size piece of offense for their counter-interpretation. I think the aff in these debates needs to have a counter-interpretation and should prove that that counter-interpretation is better than the neg interpretation.

[7] I don't really understand most "high theory" arguments (Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze, etc.). The bar for explanation is pretty high.

[8] I am will not vote on a mere "risk of offense" argument on theory unless explicitly instructed to do so. The debater initiating theory should generate a real/substantial advantage to their interpretation that I could describe without using the phrase "risk of offense". I think this means, among other things, that there is a meaningful sense in which I "default to reasonability."

[9] “Reasonability” means to me that the person answering theory need only meet a “reasonable” interpretation, rather than the optimal interpretation. “Reasonability” does not mean to me: “evaluate just whether our particular aff should be allowed,” “only demonstrated/in-round/whatever-you-call-it abuse matters,” or “we may ‘reasonably meet their interpretation.’”

I think that reasonability is most persuasive against theory arguments with a very small impact. The best arguments for reasonability argue that requiring debaters’ practices to meet a certain (reasonable) standard, rather than requiring them to meet the optimal standard, produces the best debates. Generic “competing interps is bad” arguments are not great args for reasonability.

[10] Please slow down on theory arguments, especially if you don't put them on their own pages.

[11] I'm not interested in listening to call-outs of or jabs at other schools, debaters, coaches, etc. E.g. I don't want to hear "[School X] always does this!" or "Of course [Debater Y] is going for [Argument A]!"

[12] You cannot "insert highlighting" or a list of what the aff defends. If either the warrant in a card is given by a chart/table or you want to insert a very long list, then you should at least describe what the chart/table says or identify the source of the list, what it's a list of, and that you'll defend it (respectively).

[13] I quickly get lost in debates that use the word "fiat" a lot. I don't think that the terms "pre-fiat" and "post-fiat" are very illuminating; it's not clear to me what they mean in most contexts or what the significance of supposed distinction between "pre-" and "post-fiat" is supposed to be. I also think that using the word "fiat" as a verb is obfuscatory in a lot of contexts; it's not clear to me that "fiatting" an action is anything over and above just saying that someone should do it. Relatedly, I don't think that "truth-testing" means the aff doesn't have to defend fiat or implementation. (This is largely because I don't know what "truth-testing" does to sidestep the justification for fiat, which comes from the word "ought" in the resolution.)

[14] Framework on both sides in K debates is often under-developed. K 2NR's that include a robust framework argument and explanation of how that includes the neg impacts and excludes weighing the case make it much easier to vote neg. Similarly, 2AR's on the K that include robust "exclusive plan focus good" or "let us weigh the case + case outweighs" arguments make it much easier to vote aff. When neither side clearly labels and develops a framework argument, I find it very difficult to piece these debates together/determine what each side thinks I should be evaluating in the debate.

[15] It is fine in principle to send cards in the body of the email. But if your opponent asks you to send them in a document instead, then you need to take your prep time to compile and send a speech doc (or if you are out of prep time, you should start your speech time to compile + send the doc).

[16] When you speech docs, send either all of the analytics or none of them. Sending most of them but selectively removing the ones that you want to go for is cheaty.

[17] T & theory arguments should have a more-or-less explicitly stated violation. (The less obvious the violation is, the more explicit it should be.)

[18] Don't go for tricks in front of me. If you do, your speaker points will be no higher than 26. And there are a number of them that I will not vote on (see below).

Things I Won't Vote On

"Paradox" tricks (e.g. Zeno's Paradox, the "Good Samaritan" Paradox)

A prioris

Oppression good (if you concede that your position entails that oppression is good, then your position is that oppression is good)

Moral skepticism ("both frameworks are wrong; therefore, 'permissibility'" is skep)

Trivialism

Awful theory args

Speaks

Speaker points are largely based on three things: the quality of your arguments, the quality of your strategic decisions, and the extent to which you engage in practices that are good/bad for debate.

Little out-of-speech things also matter for speaks: not stealing prep, giving clear and concise orders before every speech, showing up on time, etc.
I've given one 30 and one 29.9. I would have given a 30 to the person to whom I gave a 29.9 if they had put topicality in the 1NC. I really like T.

Average speaks at bid tournaments so far this year, excluding points decided on clipping/evidence ethics:

Grapevine: 28.2

Greenhill: 28.73

Arthur: 28.32

Nano Nagle/Presentation: 28.42

Disclosure

If you don't meet some minimum threshold for disclosure (the Greenhill tournament disclosure policy requires what I consider the minimum acceptable disclosure) and your opponent reads disclosure theory, then you're going to lose. (I cannot emphasize this enough: you should not pref me if you do not disclose, because you will not win a debate in front of me if you do not disclose.)

The aff must tell the neg what aff they're going to read unless it's a new aff.

At the Greenhill RR/tournament I am going to adjudicate disputes about the disclosure policy exclusively on the basis of who I think is correct. Both debaters can say their piece/explain the situation but I will not decide these disputes "on the flow." To be clear, I'll still evaluate arguments like "must disclose full text/open source/etc." like other normal theory arguments. But I will decide disputes about the disclosure policy such as those about: lying about what the aff said, whether someone didn't disclose tags/cites/whatever, whether someone waited too long to disclose, etc. based on what I think about the disclosure policy. I will not listen to debates about whether the disclosure policy matters/how it's worded/whether your school doesn't have a wiki (you should have foreseen this problem)/how bad the wifi is/etc. If you have questions about how I interpret the disclosure policy, feel free to ask me whenever.

The wiki goes down every year during the Greenhill tournament. When it does, both debaters should make an effort to contact each other to disclose.

Things About Cheating

[1] I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence.

I think that a piece of evidence is miscut if the text of the card is not identical to the text published in the cited article. For further clarification:

  • it starts and/or ends in the middle of a sentence or paragraph (the text of the card, not the highlighting),

  • it starts and/or ends in the middle of a sentence or paragraph (the text of the card, not the highlighting),
  • text is missing from the middle of the card (replacing that text with an ellipsis does not make it okay),

  • the next paragraph or another part of the article explicitly contradicts the argument/claim made in the card,

  • the card is highlighted in a way that modifies or does not accurately represent the author’s claim [Be careful with brackets - I don’t think they always mean a card is miscut, but I’ve seen that they very often do. I think that brackets, more often than not, are bad - if a bracket changes the strength of a claim made by the author, or in some other way changes the *meaning* of the evidence, it is miscut] [also, I think that highlighting only part of a word is the same as bracketing - if you highlight only part of a word, then the word you read is not what the author wrote],

  • the cite lists the wrong author or article title (I hope to decide 0 debates this year on citations - I’ll only decide debates on them without challenges in the most egregious cases).

If I decide a debate on evidence ethics, I will let the debate finish as normal. If the debate is a prelim, I will decide speaks based on the content of the debate and subtract two speaker points from the debater that I vote against. If the debate is an elim, I will submit my ballot and won’t say anything about my decision until the debate is announced.

If both sides read miscut evidence, I will vote against the debater who read miscut evidence first. (I really don’t love this as a way to evaluate these debates, but the only comparable scenario that I can think of is clipping, and that’s how I would resolve those debates.)

I do not plan to go out of my way looking for miscut evidence or checking to see whether every card is cut correctly. If I do notice that something is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads it regardless of whether a challenge is made.

Please do not hesitate to ask questions about this before the debate.

[2] If a debater says that a piece of evidence is miscut in round and their opponent clarifies that they are making an "evidence ethics challenge" (and the former person confirms that they want to make a challenge), the debate ends. I will read all of the relevant stuff and then make a decision. Whoever is correct on the evidence ethics challenge wins the debate. The loser will get the lowest speaks I can give.

In lieu of an evidence ethics challenge, I am also ok with asking your opponent to just strike the cards from the doc/cross them off the flow in cx and have the rest of the debate but calling a challenge if they refuse to do so (this is noble but not required). You could also make arguments about why misquoting is bad, but I'm compelled by a response that basically says "call an ethics challenge or don't make the argument; we'll stake the debate on it." Indeed, I think that if you make an evidence ethics argument, you should be willing to stake the debate on it. If you don't stake the round on it, you'll still win (if they committed the evidence ethics violation), but your speaks will be worse than they otherwise would have been.

[3] Clipping is cheating! I read along with most cards, and if I notice that someone is clipping, I'll vote against them and give them the lowest speaks that I can give. I will not stop the debate unless a challenge is made, but if I notice clipping, I will vote on it regardless of whether a challenge is made. For clipping challenges, I'll follow the same procedure that I follow with evidence ethics (above). A similar procedure that might be helpful to look at is written out more formulaically in the NDCA guidelines: <https://static.squarespace.com/static/53416a18e4b0aa2aaadf85e4/t/53665f81e4b03af4b79e088f/1399218049326/clipping.pdf>. (The NDCA guidelines say that clipping has to be at least 5 words, but that seems to me like too many. Skipping ~3 words is definitely clipping, and skipping fewer (i.e. 1-2) is also bad and potentially a VI!)

[4] Articles about linguistics and such are hard to read/interpret (I have in mind articles about bare plurals, cards from which show up in Nebel T debates). This is not an excuse for miscutting those articles. If a Nebel T counter-interpretation is severely 'selectively highlighted' / is clearly tagged + highlighted to say something that the author's text does not say, then I will vote against the person who read that card on evidence ethics. (This is no different from my view on evidence ethics in every other case, but it seems that people are generally ok with miscutting evidence as long as it's an answer to Nebel T, so I felt the need to make this a separate point.) For discussions of miscut ev commonly read in Nebel T debates, see here and here.

Clayton Engelby Paradigm

I am a junior debating at Missouri State University.

Email: engelbyclayton@gmail.com

TL;DR

I tend to read policy args more often than others. I want to refrain from intervening in the debate as much as possible. Extinction is probably bad but I am willing to hear otherwise. I think debate is good and has had a positive impact on my life. Both teams worked hard and deserve to be respected.

My beliefs

-Aff needs a clear internal link chain to the impact. Teams often focus too much on impacts and not enough of the debate on the link story, this is where you should start.

-I like impact turns that still take norms of morality into consideration.

-Condo is good.

-Fairness is not an impact.

-Kritiks are interesting. Explain your stuff.

-I usually start at 28.5 and go up or down based on performance. Weighing impacts, evidence comparison, stragetic decisions, and judge instruction goes a long way.

Angus Ewington Paradigm

I am a sophomore at UNC-CH, majoring in philosophy and mathematics. I did LD for 4 years in high school.

LD Paradigm

My approach to judging generally centers around the idea that I do not want to be in a position of intervening with the terminology, evidence, etc. in the debate – your job is to well parametrize these so that I can fit the pieces together to reach a decision. There are also some framing issues I take as a sort of ‘default’ going into a round (which is not to say a well-executed argument on your part cannot change my mind) which I will list below. Finally, I try my best to provide a clear analysis in my RFD about how I reach the decision. This analysis generally consists of analyzing the framework debate and then covering all substantive case arguments in lieu of what seems to be the winning or preferable framework.

(a) The burden of the Neg. is to either (i) disprove the resolution or (ii) disprove the position taken by the AFF.

(b) The AFF is charged with generally proving the statement of the resolution.

(c) I will not flow new arguments in the last speeches unless they are explicit responses to a new point made in the previous speech.

Speed/Oversaturation

I am a little old-fashioned in that I do think the statement “quality over quantity” holds some important lessons for debaters. I am tolerant of speed insofar as you stop short of employing breathing tactics that would make me mistake you for a fish. Similarly, I think some people attempt to oversaturate their case. I am not saying that having a lot of evidence is bad. What I am saying is that your case should not be so complicated that the whole 45 minutes of the round is devoted to trying to figure out what it is you are actually trying to say.

FW, Phil

I think it best practice to divulge what sort of philosophy I find myself partial towards; I find Kantianism and critical theory particularly compelling. This does not mean I will not vote for you if you run util, I just want you to be able to warrant it. By “warranting” your framework, I do not mean having the sort of things like “value morality because of ‘ought’.” Similarly, once you get into rebuttal don’t tell me to flow args on the FW if they are explicitly case-related. One of the most common manifestations of this type of thing is someone saying “my opponent’s standard is X, but actually they fail to uphold it on case.” Don’t try and tell me those are arguments against the FW itself. I’m also perfectly fine with you throwing out the traditional style of value and value-criterion since I find that format limiting, but this does not mean I want to give you free rein to be disorganized.

Case

Just a few observations. First, if you are reading carded evidence that enforces an empirical claim, you need to understand that the contents of the card itself are subject to critique. Too often, I think people deify carded evidence, i.e. just because John Doe ’20 says X, X is true. This practice leads to messy card wars where people just throw twenty authors at each other without explaining how I am to evaluate them all and it makes my job hard, and the decision requires more subjective analysis on my part.

Other Preferences

I generally like unique non-stock arguments, heavy emphasis on FW, K debate, and burden demarcation. I dislike cases without much attention to the FW, solipsist or hedging frameworks, poor command of evidence, bad use of prep, and bad allocation of speech time.

PF Paradigm

I hate this.

Michael Fain Paradigm

Hi I'm Michael Fain

UPDATE FOR St. James:
IF YOU HAVE A TKO THEN PLEASE CALL ONE, if ur opponent is trad and ur running k's and t and stuff then you need to call a tko when they drop it and then we can have a discussion and help them prepare for the next time this happens to them.

AHS '20

Auburn University '24

2 years of debate experience, nat circuit and local

he/him/judge

Add me to the email chain: fain1738fain1738@gmail.com

Prefs:

Tricks: 1

Performance: 1

Identity K’s (this comes with a caveat, see Kritiks section): 2

LARP: 2-3

T/Theory: 3-4

Stock K’s: 3-4

Phil: 4-5

High Theory: 4-5

TLDR:

Tech > Truth

I like fuckshit rounds

I’m not very smart, (like I’m seriously an idiot, didn’t do IB, and not going to an Ivy League, or top ranked school like you fucks) be patient with me please!!!

RVI’s necessary

Theres no set rules in debate (seriously)

Default to epistemic modesty

Trad debate good

Flow:

Here's what I need from you:

- Speech docs for every speech, and for everything that isn't analytic, I HATE EXTEMPTED THEORY!!!

- Clear cross application, tell me where the DA flows as a turn to the AC and tell me the exact card.

- Crystal clear card names in the rebuttals

And...

I’m definitely more persuaded by a well executed strategy that makes flow life easier. I’ve seen too many rounds where the flow was clearly won by one side but there was little to no impact calc done. This makes my life extremely difficult as a judge, because there’s no objective right choice between terminal defense w/ impact scenario weighing vs an AC who probably wins the strength of link on the AC and funnels that as a key voting issue. 1A should clearly weigh this scenario and extend in the 2A as why the aff probably comes first as an idea.

RFD's:

I disclose if the tournament permits, I am easily persuaded to give out higher speaks, and I will disclose them. I default to the following.

30: You’re the person people look up to on the circuit for winning all of the big tournaments, or you have the ability to do such.

29.5-29-9: potential to be 30 but like you aren’t

29.0-29.4:very well executed, 2-4 bids a year

28.5-28.9: ur good, will break and get in many bid rounds, can easily have other higher speaks in the tournament, but did something bad this round or something like that

28.0-28.4: u messed up, bad round, i had to do too much work, but you can still be a strong 3-3 or 4-2

27.5-27.9: you mess up multiple rounds, you aren’t spectacular, and need improvement, you probably won’t break much this year, and need to read my paradigm before hand.

27.0-27.4: worse than above

25-26.9: you suck, did something awful or something i didn’t like

Fairness and Education:

I don't like friv T.

Disclosure is a good practice... using it as a way to make people lose... not so sure that is good.

Sports are fair because they have rules, debate is fair because it has rules, unfair rules... well... they aren't fair, so no unfair rules.

I'll leave it at this, I'm sympathetic to rural school debaters, I'm sympathetic to increased representation.

Fairness and education are words that are thrown around far more in the wrong context than the gravity of their importance would suggest they’d be. I’d like to see fairness be applied to accessibility issues, but have time skew, strat skew, grounds and the likes fall under issues of reciprocity that aren’t categorized as “fairness voters”. Like I don’t really know what’s fair in these regards because there’s too many subjective factors that go into prep and strat. Let’s just call them k2 competition or link to education.

On education... big sad face for you to spread phil and tricks w/ education impacts on what’s probably unwarranted theory. If we cared about education we’d be disclosing everything for less experienced debaters and sending them A2 prep after the round.

NOW FOR THE STUFF YOU CAME HERE FOR!!!

No time to read?:

Disclosure theory: ok

spreading: any speed is ok, I’ll say clear to give you a chance to not tank your speaks, opponent has the ultimate say as to how fast you go

clipping: bad

cutting: good

misrepresenting evidence: say your sorry and I’ll scratch off flow

outside help: instant L (gotta have proof)

responses: no new 2n to case, no new 2a to case or extensions, responses to 2N theory are requisite. I like a good analytic

ad hom: probably no

Tricks:

To me it's pretty inconceivable that judges hate tricks. This is the type of debate that's easiest to judge. Don't hide the nibs, a prioris, or the fact that you're running tricks. Be open about it, don't run them without disclosing, don't run them without sending a speech doc. Tricks are best run when they are numbered and warranted.

AFC ————————X—— alternate framing

All neg interps are counter interps ———————X—— yeah no

CX is binding —————X————— no it isn’t u pleb

”what’s an apriori” —————————X— “what are the aprioris”

spikes essential ——X———————— spikes bad

spikes/tricks in OV —X————————— in the UV

Everything is numbered in the doc, nothing is split in the doc, don’t end on 17 and then pick back up with 18 after you read different offense.


*Note* Tricks were probably first run as a way to avoid having a substantive debate with an opponent who probably wasnt the fastest spreader or the most experienced debater. Don't run tricks on less experienced kids or novices, your speaks will be impacted.

Kritiks:

I'll be honest, I'm not the most well versed in K lit. I've debated against everything from psychoanalysis, baudrillard, virilio, fem, cap, semiocap, afropess, queer theory, setcol, and probably some other stuff. This doesn't mean I know what any of that means, the biggest thing for me is that you explain in crystal clear detail exactly what the alt does. Explain to me how your framework gives you access to whatever type of prefiat offense you want to weigh against your opponent. Too often have I been in or listened to debates where it comes down to the prefiat implications of the K and T or Theory voters. I don't know what to pick at that layer of the debate and its hard to evaluate the round. On that same note, don't ever use util calc to try and weigh a K v K debate, please weigh the implications/ paradigm shift and its lasting effects vs the K or aff.

Explain why the ballot matters, saying that there's a "role of the ballot" implies that it should have some of impact in or out of the round. I'm more inclined to side with the debater who explains why their paradigm of why the ballot is necessary under their framework over the debater who claims their paradigm precludes the other.

I also feel like I'm a great judge for you to boss around. Tell me what my responsibility in the debate community is, what is my role in the round. If I'm the chief educator then explain what my job is and what that looks like.

My own personal experience running kritikal arguments most heavily dealt with SetCol. I ran performative SetCol 9/10 circuit level rounds in my senior year on both aff and neg. I'm extremely receptive to kritikal framing from this litbase.

How is my white ass supposed to judge your afrofuturism/afropess/antiblack K round? I’m pretty sure the cards you’re reading for Rotj and rotb aren’t always specific to as to what white folk are supposed to do... so please spend a moment explaining what my role is in the round. This logic applies to me being a straight, male, ablebodied person.

Piks are good

Ks don’t all have prefiat implications

K’s can be beaten by LARP prep

Mindset shift isn’t enough to solve physical problems (unless it is... idk)

LARP:

I only put policymaking debate as a 1 because its easy to judge, flow, and it's probably the most educational form of debate. People who actually get down and dirty with the topic literature deserve the utmost respect and use this activity as it was meant to be used. I'm not a CX hack so your 2 card DAs with uniqueness and link in the same card work for me. I never really was a big plan aff debater, it's not my style, so if you're someone who really likes to run hyperspecific affs, you may wanna read my T and theory section, because 8/10 times you wont actually be having a plan v plan debate.

Pics good --X-------------------- pics are cheating

tell me whats condo in the nc --X------------------- condo bad

policy making first ----------X----------- epistemology first

severance good (CX and 1ar only) ----X------------- severance bad

statements true until proven false ----------X------- u need to provide warrants

policy making debate is pretty simple and self explanatory, email me before round if you have a hypothetical scenario that you wanna see if im ok with or not.

My ideal LARP debate can be applied to trad, and my ideal trad debate can be applied to LARP just sped up.

Performance:

Story time: one of my friends did a performative debate in his last LD round ever and I was instantly intrigued, but I thought that it was a meme more than a form of political activism. Fast forward to Princeton 2019, I found myself paired against a tricks debater who I know I wouldn't beat with a policy aff. I happened to have a SetCol K aff cut, and a speaker, so I called my coach and asked if I could do it, she said yes, and my debate career changed forever.

Performative debate can be the most inspirational and powerful form of debate when done with the right intentions and emphasis. To me, reading a quick little poem with your baudy K isn't really a performance. It's a way to boost speaks, but it isn't something you're doing as a form of activism.

Things that I expect from an activist:

- expressive emotions

- screaming, or the opposite, radical voice changes or presentation

- meaningful music, (include the music you're playing in the speech doc, give me some information about the musician or composer, that shit matters to me)

- presence in the room (this is LD, you're going to be the only activist for your cause in the round, make me feel like this is a protest, a riot, or a rally, I want to feel the desires and voices of the people who stand with you in your fight)

- composure (know the difference between passion, and disrespect, more than likely your opponent isn't here to shut down your movement, they are just in opposition because of tabroom, be nice)

*Note* - I'm just as receptive to irony and memes, but I think that you should probably make it clear that you're doing it under those pretenses. Theres a difference between running a jesus case as a joke and literally sounding like the westboro baptist church.

Topicality:

Unfortunately plan debate means topicality debate or theory debate, which sucks because plans usually are meant to get in deep with the topic and engage with the lit.

I need bright lines for what is practical, what is educational, what is procedurally fair. Otherwise i find it extremely difficult to determine where to side...

Rvis are real

aff probably establishes interps in the AC, all neg interps are counter interps makes sense to me... but this isn’t something that I’m heading into the round with.

Trad:

You are the reason debate is good and fun.

In trad rounds I default to a truth > tech paradigm and gut check a lot more. Framework can matter, but it really doesn’t have to, there’s a lot to trad debate that doesn’t involve framework and this is especially true depending on the topic.

Util, SV, Autonomy, Democracy, Hegemony, and Gov legitimacy are all awesome trad fw’s

Trad can beat progressive, it’s just about time allocation and LBL.

Its all pretty self explanatory.

Put emotion or something behind your speeches, you aren’t spreading so you have so much potential to emphasize your speech but most of y’all choose not to. Don’t make it hurt to listen to you.

General:

I am from Alabama. I have travelled, not extensively, and have lived in the south my whole life. I don’t think that my speech patterns or mannerisms reflect what one would stereotype someone from the south to appear as, but I do find some aspects of “southern lifestyle” and the fact I was raised in a religious household creeping into my paradigm and daily life. Other parts of this are completely random and just me thinking out loud. So here we go...

I like “yes ma’am” and “yes sir”, I will say these things according to your preferred pronouns. I am disheartened that I have yet to be informed of a formal remark that can apply generally to individuals (they/them) so for you I will have to apologize and not regard you with formal rhetoric.

Shaking hands isn’t necessary, sickness, germs, other stuff, is all around and I don’t wanna get sick. With that being said, I always carry hand sanitizer, if you want to shake my hand, DO IT. I’ll use some germ-X and go along with my merry life.

General hospitality and accommodation is a requisite for me, my stand is your stand, my paper is your paper, my pens are your pens, my charger is your charger. No internet? I’ve got a hotspot. Are you hungry? I have a granola bar. Maybe this is indicative of biblical teachings that I would normally reject, but it sure as hell makes us better people and creates a better world.

I recorded nearly all of my rounds in my senior year, great to look back and analyze my speeches and show people that aren’t in the debate community. Record my RFD, record the round. I don’t really understand why people don’t like being recorded, especially if it’s for academic purposes only, but respect their decision.

Asking questions is generally a good thing, I’d like to think I’m 8.2/10 on being able to read people, so I’m gonna be sad if you’re asking a question that is disguised as general interest or inquisition, but really is just you being upset about the ballot. It made me uncomfortable when my opponents did this, and it’s distasteful. ASK ME IN PRIVATE!!! I’m gonna be radical for .0001 sec and say that I’m not always going to be right!!! Shocker... I know, but it’s a reality. I’d prefer it if your coach didn’t yell at me, but maybe I’ve got a thick skull that day and need it, if I’m wrong, I’m sorry, but it’s important to note that I’ve listed out various precautions you can take in order to more securely receive my ballot, and 10/10 you didn’t execute the perfect round, whether that be strategically, verbally, or rhetorically.

Maybe I’m just ignorant, but speech as an event is useless and boring, it’s subjective in nature and is objectively worse than theatre. PF is debate, but it’s the worst of policy and LD. Maybe the event is just in its adolescence, but the evidence standards are bad, the impact calc is bad, the speech as a whole is worse, the nuance is non-existent, and the skills/info you can apply to your higher education career are also non-existent. I hope to never judge a PF round, but if you pass me in the hallway and wanna school me on what PF is “actually like” then lay it on me.

Are you a novice or new debater and can’t respond to circuit arguments? Tell me after your round what you need responses to, I’ll be more than happy to email you my A2 files.

(as a general rule, unless directed otherwise, debaters should refer to their judge as “judge”, it can become confusing during muddled speech as to whom you may be referring to by saying he/she/they with an opponent. Also, I follow the same philosophy for other things in life, refer to your coach as coach, or something formal)

Underview:

I debated LD at Auburn my junior and senior year, I never attended camp, and I only went to a handful of circuit tournaments and performed at sub-par/par level. I don't say this to sell myself short, I just want to make it clear that I wasn't a circuit hack and I wasn't the most well off debater. I spent my short time in debate trying to play catch-up to circuit level debate, this resulted in me losing and learning. I'm not going to pretend that I know everything, but what I do understand is how a debate round should flow and how to evaluate any argument you could think to put in front of me. Vet me with questions before rounds or tournaments, shoot me an email with a question about how to evaluate a given scenario and don't tell me who you are... this is probably the best way to check my ability.

My senior year I read a lot of different stuff, half the time I was a hard LARP'er the other time I spent doing performative debate. Check out my wiki if you wanna see what exactly I am most familiar with. https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/Auburn/Fain%20Neg

Brendin Flinn Paradigm

1 rounds

2020 Update: There are some things within my paradigm that are a little bit different as a result of the online format that we are going to be using this season. Just watch out for those changes.

Background: I did four years of debate in high school (Parkersburg South HS) and three semesters of collegiate debate. My HS experience was mostly lay debate (some exceptions to this), but my collegiate experience is in NFA-LD (single-person policy). I currently coach at Huntington High School in Huntington, WV. I have national outround experience in lay debate and circuit/progressive debate.

LD (Circuit) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR: Start this season slow on speed as best as possible. Give me speech docs. Run (nearly) whatever you want. Debate itself is debatable. Be respectful to your opponent. I don't always flow author names, so referring to arguments without just using author names is key. I will not be nearly as familiar with topic specific lit nor high school K lit.

Ranking of what I'll be most comfortable evaluating:

Policy (Plan/CP/DA debates) > T > K > Performance > skep/permissibility

Speed: 2020 Update As a progress update on speed, debaters really need to go slower on analytics and do a lot more signposting with this online format. Clarity simply isn't the best with the online format unfortunately. Feel free to top speed anything in the doc, but if it isn’t there then please go slower (I’ve had a ton of CXs full of people asking for arguments they missed) ---- The online format makes speed somewhat problematic. Connection issues on any end in the round would be devestating. If I can't hear what you said, then I can't flow it. My recommendation is that you take online much slower, at least for the start of this season (greenhill and valley, for instance). I will also admit that I am of practice with flowing high speed since it is the beginning of the season. That being said, this is your round, you can speak as quickly as you please. This means that I won't punish your points if you go fast and do it well. Don't use speed as an exclusionary tool. If your opponent needs you to go slower, then go slower. Definitely go slower on analytics. I will say speed and clear to the extent possible. With online debate, I'm going to start out not deducting points for calling speed.

Speech docs: I would like to be given the speech docs. I'm fine with speechdrop (actually prefer it honestly), email chains, or flashing evidence (2020 update: RIP to flashing evidence). My email is brndn3379@gmail.com.

General paradigm: I'm pretty tab; the round is yours and the less work that I have to do the better. There are very few circumstances where I intervene in the flow of the round, and you will see those instances in the rest of my paradigm. I probably default to offense/defense in most cases if you don't give me an alternative framework. I will judge the round on whatever framework is given to me and is won in the round. If there are competing frameworks, I really need to hear clear reasons to prefer one framework over the other, I don't want to hear you just repeat your cards from your constructive; give me a clear reason why your framework is better for evaluating the round. Also, you are going to want to link arguments to both frameworks just in case you lose the framework debate, otherwise it becomes difficult for me to justify evaluating your argument (hopefully you already know this, but I've seen too many rounds where the competitors don't). In general, I'm not as familiar with the high school K lit nor the super deep theory debates. I like theory and k's, just don't assume that I already know what you are talking about. Explanation is key. I never had to debate skep/presumption, so if you want to run those then just make sure you explain it to me like I'm dumb (which I probably am).

ROTB/FW: Just give me warrants for the FW, reasons to prefer, and link your args to it and I'll be fine.

Theory/Topicality: Yea, I lump them together. They are constructed in the same way and really function in a similar way so I always have considered them pretty much the same thing. I default competing interps unless I'm told otherwise. It is really to your advantage to read a counter-interp, but if you don't have one or the argument is just a time suck then I am totally okay with you just going for "I meet" and reasonability. Overall, I don't prefer T debates, but if that is your strat I won't stop you from going for it (and of course you should go for it against an Abusive AFF/NEG). I'm probably biased towards disclosure being good if you feel you need to know that, but don't expect to just win disclosure theory because you run it. 2020 update: Please disclose. Just do it. C'mon.

RVIs: More than fine for me. Probably read "AFF gets RVIs" in the AC if you expect to be going for it. Not necessary in front of me, but probably more strategic.

K: Valid arguments. I won't be familiar with a lot of the topic lit on Ks, especially the ones run on the high school circuit, so just lean on the side of over-explaining your kritik if you really want me to vote on it. I will always be more willing to vote on an unconditional K than on a conditional K (if the AFF goes for condo bad, anyways), but I'll still vote on a conditional K if it is won in the round. You also will want to clearly explain the ALT to me so that I can evaluate the ALT/plan/perm debate effectively. Also, if you can't explain your K to your opponent in cross-x then it is going to be really hard for me to justify voting on it.

CP: Pretty much the same thing as the K paradigm here. I need to understand what your advocacy is. The only large difference is that I am more willing to vote on a conditional CP than I am to vote on a conditional K.

Tricks: I don't particularly like tricks that are like "RESOLVED means vote aff" or something silly like that. I do, however, enjoy tricks where a voter is hidden in an advantage or where there is a double link on an argument that baits the other debater to only attack one of the links. Just try to make what you are doing somewhat reasonable and I'll still vote on it. Skep and presumption are okay I guess, but probably not something I'd love to see in most rounds.

Profanity: I don't personally care. The college circuit uses profanity all the time and I think it makes people more comfortable speaking if they are one who generally uses profanity outside of the round. Just make sure that your opponent is okay with it before the round.

Arguments that I don't want to hear: Racism good, sexism good. In general, oppression isn't good and the risk of emotional harm to other debaters outweighs any 'educational value' of allowing those kinds of arguments. I'm generally fine with extinction good as long as you don't violate the above sentiments.

Speaks;

Speaks are based on where I think you will land at the specific tournament. This isn't perfect, but speaks never are.

30: You are taking the gold without a doubt. Literal perfection with no critiques for me to give you. Probably not going to be giving this.

29.5-29.9: Late elims (definition of this depends on the tournament)

29-29.5: More likely to break than to not

28.5-29: On cusp. Maybe break, but more likely to not.

27.5-28.5: Middle of the pack for the tournament.

26.5-27.5: I can clearly point out numerous errors in your performance.

<26.5: You messed up somehow. Usually cheating, being disrespectful.

LD (Traditional) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you scrolled to this section, you pretty much know what should be in a traditional LD round. Give me a solid value/criterion setup and good contentions. I'm fine with speed of course, but if your opponent isn't then do not go for it, especially in a traditional LD round. I'd prefer to not see you run progressive arguments against a traditional debater if that is the pairing in the round, I've always felt it is easier for a circuit debater to go traditional than vice versa. Any other questions you have for this area, just ask me in the round please (it shouldn't be too complex given the nature of traditional LD).

PF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speed: PF is meant to be understood by the public, so I'd prefer you to speak more conversationally than you would in a nat circuit LD round. That being said, I'll still go for it if both teams are up for a lit round.

Argumentation: In PF, I need extremely clear weighing at the end of the round. You can go for pretty much any kind of argument (you can read my LD paradigm to get an understanding of my exceptions) on a contention level that you want, but just be sure to weigh it against the contentions of your opponent before the end of the round that way I don't have to intervene and make my own decisions. Since this is PF, please don't read plans, advantages, DAs, CPs, theory and the like (topicality is obviously fine, but in PF it doesn't need to be a solid Interp, violation, standards, voter debate). Again, if both teams want to debate that way, I'm not going to object, but if one team doesn't want to do that then I'm not going to be happy when it gets run.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is OK in PF. Slow down on the citations though so I can get them down as well as what you are paraphrasing (since I have less time to type than I would in a circuit LD format). All evidence has to be accessible to your opponents (and to me should I call for evidence after the round). Give evidence in an efficient manner. I won't start your prep time on reading evidence until your opponents hand it to you and you start reading and I'll stop your prep when you stop reading. I usually won't call for evidence after the round unless you tell me to, but there are some exceptions that I won't go into detail on here.

First Rebuttal: As second speaker you don't have to respond to the 1st speaker rebuttal in front of me, but you can if you want and it is probably more strategic.

Post-Round: If the tournament allows it, I will disclose so that you know what to be doing in your next rounds. I do this in hopes that it makes your round more educational and my adjudication of it more beneficial for you. Do not post-round me. I understand that losing a round is frustrating (I've been there too, ya'll), but I made my decision as best I could and cannot change it after I disclose. If you think I missed an argument that should have won you the round, then you should take that as an indication that maybe there is a way you can improve how you delivered that argument. Nobody likes post-round debates, just don't do it.

Anything else: Just ask me before the round and I'll let ya know.

Eden Fuson Paradigm

Former political candidate. Campaign worker, director of outreach. Advocate. Leader. Reporter. Former debate student.

I place a high priority on speech delivery - eye contact, poise, etc.

Stock issues matter.

Evidence is the key.

Make me believe what your facts are.

Steve George Paradigm

Rutgers '24

Timothy Christian '20

Pref Shortcut

LARP: 1

K(identity based/cap):1-2

K(postmodern):4-5

T: 2-3

Theory/tricks: 6/strike

put me on the email chain b4 round(smg433@scarletmail.rutgers.edu) and title docs with your school, tournament, and what round it is

Things I will not tolerate:

1. Any discrimination against a minority group

2. Spreading against traditional kids/kids whose second language is English

3. Theory that cites NSDA as a rule

What's up guys, my name is Steve and I debated for Timothy Christian for 4 years. I did 1 year of PF, 1 year of lay LD debate, and 2 years of circuit LD debate. I am currently at Rutgers University in NJ majoring in biochemistry and minoring in critical race and ethnic studies. As per my record as a competitor, I was mediocre at best because I rarely drilled or did practice rounds. In terms of my level of comfortableness, I would say that I am most familiar with identity based kritiks(afropess, setcol, little bit of queerness, etc). This paradigm will break my perspective on each practice of debate--enjoy :)

LARP:

Fine with this. This can be the most simple type of circuit debate, but be sure to weigh mpx AS WELL AS fw if it matters. I need to know why structural violence o/w extinction or vice versa in order for you to have my ballot. As I look back on my career, I realize that a lot of my issues were with how I didn't weigh fw properly so make sure to do that because that can be the difference between wins and losses.

K(Identity/Cap):

I am somewhat comfortable with this because I hired Brianna Aaron to coach me for the last two topics of my junior year, so look at that how you will. I mostly went with anti-blackness, setcol, or cap. Depending on when you have me for judging, I may have forgotten a bit depending on how active I am in the LD community(which probably won't be much once I'm in college). I like these arguments because the literature intrigued me, and although I didn't debate much my senior year I enjoyed reading these in my free time. HOWEVER, just because you read these in front of me doesn't mean that I will automatically vote for you. You should still have smart case turns, framing arguments, link extensions, mpx extensions, alt extensions, etc.

Arguments on non-black people running afropess

Personally, I don't care whether or not your opponent is non-black and running afropess. These are minute issues in debate relative to the grand scheme of how our world operates, so forgive me if I'm not too worried about this. That doesn't mean I won't vote for someone who rebuts afropess by saying that their non-black opponent is reading it. If you point out and say "judge, my opponent is non-black and is reading afropess," then I'm going to need you to articulate your point further because that doesn't explain why the practice is bad. If you add something along the lines of "my opponent is commodifying the experiences of black Americans to win a round," then that is more of a fulfilling argument.

K aff vs T

I don't hold any particular belief on this issue in the community but as I judge I'll see how skewed my decisions are. All I'll say here is do good weighing. T debaters should have solid TVAs in order to guarantee a ballot from me.

Pomo:

I'm not too familiar with any postmodern philosophy other than maybe Baudrillard, but that stuff has always bored me since I didn't understand it, so just keep that in mind if you read it in front of me. However, just because I wasn't interested in it doesn't mean I'll automatically vote you down if you read it. All it means is that it'll be smarter for you to err on overexplaining rather than underexplaining the arguments to me. If you don't want to do that, then don't pref me too high/strike me

Theory/Tricks:

yeah no thanks.

PF Paradigm

I did PF as a freshman and I didn't want to continue after that horrendous year of Ls. I can keep up with the tempo so just remember to weigh your arguments; otherwise, you might not like your speaks. While I understand that util is the main fw used in PF, I might give extra points if you guys read some CRT since I do enjoy that literature and am getting a minor in it. Also, I remember going to some rounds and seeing that when the womxn went up for CF against a male opponent, the male would usually sound condescending and take control, whereas the womxn wouldn't. After watching a round with one of my friends in it, I asked her why she wasn't more aggressive, and she said that she had been given lower speaker points for it in the past. So just so you know, I won't dock points for "being aggressive," but know that there is a fine line between being aggressive and being rude/condescending.

Eliza Haas Paradigm

Quick update for online (10/14/2020): I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I haven’t judged enough fast rounds online yet to know if it will make speed harder to follow; I will say slow or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.

TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.

If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com

Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.

General:

I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.

Arguments:

I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.

However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:

Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.

For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.

Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.

Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.

Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.

For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.

I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).

Style/Speed:

I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.

Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.

I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.

I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.

If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.

Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.

Final Approach to RFD:

I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!

Weigh impacts.

Weigh impacts.

Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:

- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.

- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.

Abigale Hallberg Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rachael Harris Paradigm

updated: 10.10.2020 (COVID-19/online update, see bottom)

email: harrisrach19@gmail.com

(Tab Rasa Judge -- I try to be as Tab as possible)

Hi, everyone, I'm Rachael. I debated for four years at North Allegheny, competing in Lincoln-Douglas debate (and intermittently dabbling in Public-Forum Debate). I was mostly a traditional debater, but I have competed at a few national tournaments in my time (I also qualified to and attended States, NCFLs, and NSDAs during my senior year). Currently, I instruct LD at Classic Debate Camp, PF at Beyond Resolved's Summer Institute, and am the assistant debate coach at Olentangy HS in Columbus, OH. I also write LD Briefs for CDC.

GENERAL DEBATE COMMENTS & OVERVIEW:

1. Please don't be rude or abusive. This will not impress me. At all. (If you do not treat your opponent with respect, I will not hesitate to give you the lowest speaks that tab will allow me to give)

2. I believe in inclusivity in a debate. Please try to make the round as fair as possible. Please do not exclude someone from the round because they merely don't have as many resources or doesn't know as much as you. I'd like to watch a debate round, not a WWE smackdown between John Cena and an infant.

3. "'If you define every term in the resolution, I will drop your speaks by the number of words in the resolution' - Frank Li" - Rachael Harris

4. Signpost. Always. (this should be obvious). Speak names and tags clearly.

5. If you think you've gained any offense in CX, please mention it in your next speech. (I do not flow CX).

6. If you're going to extend something across the flow, be sure to impact and weigh it. I will extend it, but I will not do the work for you.

7. A progressive round is only permissible if both teams agree to it. I will try to evaluate it as best as possible. Please do not expect me to be the 'prog' judge on the panel. I am, in every sense of the term, a traditional judge. (Note: I will be able to spot a lax version of a CP, DA, K, etc. Don't be that kid who runs progressive stuff at a traditional tournament, especially if your opponent has had little exposure to it or is relatively new -- "'that's a war crime' - Dan Hepworth" - Rachael Harris.)

8. I reserve the right to call for any evidence I deem necessary to the round. I will try to wait until the end of the round to do so, but if there is a lot of dispute over one specific card, I'd most certainly like to see it. (Please don't make me question your evidence, though). (You should have evidence for a lot of the claims you make. Simply saying that it is a "logical" argument and that you don't "need" evidence to substantiate a claim will not only waste time, but it doesn't satisfy the normative obligations of a formal debate--and it is one of my biggest pet peeves in a round.)

9. I can handle most speed, but if you're going to spread, please email or flash me a copy of your case.

10. (LD-Specific) Please don't get into any dense philosophy without explaining it.

11. (PF-Specific) Realize that PF defaults to util and that is something I will use to evaluate the round.

JUDGING:

I am a fly on the wall. Debate in the style that you want to. It is always good to be adaptable and able to fit the standards of your judge, but it is also good to have a style of debate that is unique to you.

HOW I DECIDE A WINNER (LD-SPECIFIC):

Note: I will make this evident to both competitors before the start of the round.

I try to be the best LD-Judge that I can. With that said, please try to keep up the normative obligations of an LD debate. Make sure that there is framework clash. Point out the flaws in your opponent's framework and prove why yours still stands, why yours is better, and why your impacts flow through it. If your framework has fallen throughout the debate, try to link your contentions and impacts into your opponents.

For whichever framework that I buy (or still stands at the end of the debate), I will evaluate every argument within it. I will also take into account your voting issues so make sure to flesh them out and make them clear.

(Yes, you should have your own style of debate and not conform to every judge's arbitrary or subjective standards, but you should still uphold the obligations of an LD debate)

**Do NOT read new arguments in the 2AR.

HOW I DECIDE A WINNER (PF-SPECIFIC):

Note: I will make this evident to both competitors before the start of the round.

I will try to be the best PF-Judge that I can. With that said, please try to keep up the normative obligations of a PF debate. Make sure that you weigh your impacts. (PF defaults to util -- greatest happiness, greatest good for the greatest number). Scope, magnitude, and probability are just a few ways to weigh.

I will evaluate which contentions still stand at the end of the debate and which impacts outweigh (but only through the mechanisms that you provide for me).

(Yes, you should have your own style of debate and not conform to every judge's arbitrary or subjective standards, but you should still uphold the obligations of a PF debate)

**Do NOT read new arguments in the FF.

RESULTS:

I will try to give you as many comments as humanly possible. I believe that everyone can always find a way to improve. You can always talk to me or email me after the round if you have any questions about your performance or how I evaluated the round.

I am usually comfortable disclosing (if I've made my decision and I'm allowed) and/or discussing the round. Those usually yield great improvements. With that said, if you try to argue why you should've won when you didn't, I will not hesitate to drop your speaker points to the lowest possible amount that I am allowed to give.

The only W 30 I've ever given was to a girl who clapped her hands and killed a fly in the middle of her 1AR without missing a beat. The bar is set high.

(You can still get a W 30 though. Just try your best and have fun!)

ONLINE ADJUSTMENTS:

I am 100% perfectly okay with students giving a speech again should their connection or audio cut out (or should they be interrupted by a force that they cannot control) at any point. As said above, I believe in inclusivity in a debate, and I would like to maintain that even as we make our transition online. With that said, I do not care how you dress (I'm more concerned with your performance for obvious reasons). If there are any further adjustments that I can make for the round, please let me know.

In terms of sharing docs goes, please use the email at the top of this paradigm. I don't mind an email chain, a shared GoogleDoc, or even a speechdrop.net link. (I would prefer if you wouldn't send cards in the chat, but do what's best for you!)

I ask that you be as respectful as you can during an online round. Please mute yourself while you/you and your partner are taking prep time and especially while your opponent is speaking. I will keep myself muted for the most part, I expect that you will do the same while you aren't speaking.

I don't mind if you keep your camera off as long as there isn't a rule from the tournament admin saying that you should keep them on.

Please keep your own time (prep time, speaking time, etc.). It is a bit harder for me to do these things, especially if I can't see you!

If you have any questions about any part of this paradigm, please don't hesitate to ask!

Lastly, yes, I am the girl who had the Lil Pump K read against her at Harvard 2018.

Good Luck! Have fun! :)

Kelly Hutchings Paradigm

I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.

I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.

Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.

As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:

(1) I think the topic should be debated.

(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.

(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.

Daniel Iskhakov Paradigm

Bronx Science 2015-2019

Pol sci and public policy major at Hunter College

Feel free to run any argument in front of me. I want you to tell me how to vote and how I should view the round. Besides that, I'm down for anything.

Quarantine edition edit: My connection isn't the best so please send the analytics and/or spread like 5% faster so I can flow it, if the argument isn't on my flow I can't evaluate it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Feel free to add me to the email chain: undercommonscustomerservice@gmail.com

tl;dr: run what you want

I decide rounds pretty quickly so don't get offended if I disclose right after the 2AR (on the other hand if it does take a while good job y'all had a close round)

This is more for policy rounds but don't just card-dump, I hate it when teams just spew a bunch of cards at each other and expect me to do all the work.

My paradigm has been greatly influenced by my god-tier debate partner in high school so if you want to give it a look: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=46818

DA

DA should at least have a aff-specific link and not just "Passing criminal justice reform means Trump loses political capital". Make sure impact calc is tight, and good evidence comparison will notch up your speaker points. I want you to tell me a story of how the aff actually triggers the impacts.

CP

Haven't gone for that many CPs, not really my favorite argument. Please slow down for the CP text, especially if it's one of those really long ones. Whatever you run, make sure that you have a clear net-benefit.

FW/T

Unless its not even in the direction of the topic, I won't automatically vote down an aff because it violates your interpretation of framework and the resolution. If there is no significant impact and there is sufficient response from aff, I will weigh education over fairness.

I like to hear cleverly thought out T arguments against K affs that aren't just USFG, but an explanation, again, is necessary.

K

I run Ks very often and love a good K debate but I also hate it when the links for the Ks are not explained well or are just generic. Most of the K debate is rooted in the link debate and you have to be able to do this well in order for me to understand how the kritik functions in terms of the affirmative.

A side note: I am not a judge who thinks you need to win the alternative debate in order to win the round. As long as you can prove that each link is a non unique disad to the aff, and those disads outweigh, I will gladly vote neg. However, winning the alternative debate definitely makes your job a LOT easier. If you do go for the alt, I need to know what the alt is supposed to do, how it is supposed to do it, and why what it does matters. You have to be able to explain the alt well, a lot of debaters do not read the literature behind their kritik and this means they cannot explain their alternatives well or just summarize the tags of the cards when explaining the alt.

Love creative K args, topic-specific Ks are really cool too and I've been finding myself voting for more eccentric and high theory Ks so take that as you will

Ks I've ran: Cap (almost every variant of it: logistics, Dean, etc.), academia (Moten and Harney, Tuck and Yang, etc.), ID stuff (orientalism, set col, queer theory), psychoanalysis.

CJR topic update: I've judged a lot of Abolition Ks at this point in the season and knowing what abolition is and historical examples of how it looks like is important because a lot of the rounds I'm judging are saying its just defunding the police or something, please actually read your alt card before the debate

K affs

I have read K affs the majority of my debate career. Love them, they great. But if it is a nontraditional aff, an EXPLANATION is necessary. If I don't understand what the aff is, what it does, or why it's good, then I will absolutely default neg

Theory

Not the best judge for those kind of rounds, only really have judged like 2 theory 2NRs, just putting that out there

Troll args

Been there done that, just don't be reading random files you found in the backfiles or online without knowing what they mean

Zac Jacobson Paradigm

Zac Jacobson (he/him)

I'm currently a student at Florida State University, double majoring in Sport Management and Public Policy. I will be attending law school in Fall of 2021, and I am currently studying for the LSAT right now. I just recently left the speech and debate community after 7 years of competing in DI, HI, and POI, through middle school, high school, and college. Nevertheless, my high school was debate heavy, so I have judged well over 50 rounds of PF, LD, and Congress. I'll keep my paradigm pretty simple.

Add me to the email chain: zacjacobson12@gmail.com

I am a lay judge. The extent of my flow is basic notes that I will take throughout the round. My number one rule is that you keep it fair and keep it clean. If you attack your opponent(s) personally in any way or if you are just plain rude, I will drop you. No questions asked.

Next, I really like impacts and summaries. You could throw 85,000 statistics at me but none of them will matter unless you tell me why it matters. Sell your stats to me. Sure, the data is there, but I want to know that you fully comprehended this source and you can fully tell me why what you're saying is important.

Also, try not to use exclusionary data because I tend to find it inconclusive and unreliable. If you have to ask if your data is exclusionary, it probably is.

Lastly, I am literally an 80-year-old man. Do not talk fast. If I can’t understand what you're saying, then I can’t listen to what you’re trying to speak.

FOR CONGRESS: It's quality over quantity for me. Do not give me 8 million data points. Do not be upset if you didn't get in a second speech. If you were engaged in the round it will be evident that you didn't have enough time to speak and that's ok. If you had 1 great speech and showed engagement on a bill you didn't speak on, it will reflect similarly to 2.

FOR LD: I never did LD, so please keep your arguments simple. Please do not pull any tomfoolery on me. I'm talking trick arguments and any of that other garbage. As I said, I am an 80-year-old man. Also please understand your value and value criterion, and model your speeches and rebuttals on it. Too often have I seen debaters get up at the podium, mention their value and value criterion, and never elaborate or speak about it again.

What I love about this community is the ability to have our voices heard. Too often are people silenced of their opinions, and the power of debate shows that our voices do actually matter in the status quo. Good luck and have a great round!

-Zac Jacobson

Curtis Jefferson Paradigm

Experience: Competed in LD, Congress & Policy in MS & HS; LD for two years in college. On the IE side, competed in pretty much the entire range of interp and original events, both prepared & extemporaneous, in HS and college. Have judged in high school and college circuits off and on over the past 10 years.

For all formats of debate: Remember that at its core, debate is the art of convincing your audience, through civil discourse, that your position on the resolution (aff/neg) should be upheld. Don't be condescending (to your opponent or your audience), but don't expect the audience (and the judge) to do the analysis work for you. Clear arguments in support of your position, with appropriately connected and explained supporting material, will win over simply bombarding me (and your opponents) with a mountain of potential arguments and piles of evidence. Quality can be more important than quantity; you may extend if your opponent drops an argument, but don't necessarily assume a dropped thread or two wins you the round. Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. I need to be able to understand, follow, and flow; I can't give you credit for points I don't catch as you go along. I don't enter any round looking for specific arguments or issues to be addressed; it is up to you to convince me that your argument/proposal/approach/perspective is superior, within the general expectations and framework of the event format.

LD: I'm a flow judge when it comes to LD. The arguments made in round, the clash between those arguments, and how well you support your position and connect your arguments typically weigh heavily in my decision. Ks and CP arguments are fine by me, though I find it is most effective if you can make very clear links when doing so. I will consider theory arguments, but be sure they do in fact specifically connect to what is going on in the round. I'm not a fan of spreading in LD; I won't drop or mark down a debater if they can do it effectively, but I defer to the quality can be more important than quantity idea in this respect.

Policy: I take essentially a tabula rasa approach when judging policy/CX debates. While stock issues, disads, etc., can (and often do) all play a role in making my decision, I am open to hearing from both sides what issues should be weighed most heavily in determining the outcome of the round--as I recognize the importance of each can change not only based on the resolution but also based on the issues that are raised in the course of the round itself. I will listen to theory arguments, but be careful that they don't end up obscuring the arguments you are presenting in support of your side of the resolution or your plan/counterplan/advantages/disadvantages.

PF: I am open to considering any type of argument (progressive is fine), as long as you clearly link it to the resolution. PF is meant to focus on advocating for a position, so don't get bogged down in specific plans or counterplans for implementation. I generally find it hard to consider completely new arguments in summary or final focus. In my experience, I find I tend to decide rounds based on impacts, so be clear with those and be prepared to convince me that your impacts weigh more heavily than those on the other side. Clash is important. I will consider theory arguments (see first sentence of this section), but I find they can muddle the overall debate if not executed well--just sharing that so you're aware of my perspective.

Hanlu Jin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Katelyn Johnson Paradigm

I vote primarily on frameworks. If you don't have a framework, adopt your opponent's. You should be attempting to win on your framework and your opponent's framework, not telling me why you won on your framework and theirs doesn't matter. If there's two frameworks in a round, they're both valuable.

Speed.I'm okay with mild speed, but not with spreading. I should still be able to understand what you're saying and flow without missing a lot.

Sign post what you're attacking or I won't flow it. I also prefer to see attacks going down the flow (cont. 1 first, cont 2. second, etc.) rather than jumping around. It makes for easier flowing and a more ordered argument.

Jefrin Jojan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jefrin Jojan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Yasmine Kahtane Paradigm

I am a flow judge. If you want me to vote on an argument, make sure it is brought up in summary and final focus. Make sure you also weigh you arguments! Final focus should explain to me perfectly why you win the round. Thank you and good luck!

Mira Kapadia Paradigm

I am a senior in HS with 4 years of competition experience in PF and some experience in LD and Congress.

Email: mimikapadia@gmail.com

I will vote solely on flow (tech>truth). That means signposting is necessary. If you don't signpost effectively, I will try my best to flow but I might miss some responses/frontlines/backlines. Go with any speed you're comfortable with but preferably no Policy hyper-spreading. I'm inclined to give relatively high speaks and give speaks relative to others in the round. The only way you can get below a 27 is if you're disrespectful in round. If you are openly racist, sexist, etc. I will drop you. I don't usually like theory, Ks, or Ts in PF and don't have much experience with them so if you run off-case arguments explain them with clarity and strong warranting. Don't bother with internet, paraphrasing, disclosure, single word, spreading, or alt theories.

What I Expect In Each Speech

Rebuttal

General: Weighing is recommended; I expect you to introduce your framework; OVs, UVs, and observations are cool but unless they're for weighing/defense it's probably a waste of speech time

1st: line by line; if you have extra speech time go for some preemptive frontlines!

2nd: line by line; please frontline

Summary

Extend evidence with author name and don't extend through ink. Don't just read evidence-if you want me to give arguments weight in the round you need to warrant and contextualize your evidence and responses. I'll cross dropped arguments off my flow but if an effective turn was read against it and not properly frontlined, I will flow to opposing team if they terminalize and extend the turn. I won't consider new evidence or offense in 2nd summary but you have some freedom for 1st. Weighing is necessary. Extend your framework.

FF

I don't have any specific preferences for the style of your FF except first, do link weighing and then do impact weighing. All offense/defense had to have been in summary.

Cross

Just don't be rude. It won't weigh heavily in my decision but I appreciate strategic use of CX time.

Evidence: I won't ask for evidence. If someone misconstrues evidence call them out on and I'll cross it off my flow. Even if evidence sounds super fishy, I'll consider it unless you call them out on it.

LD/Policy/Congress: Ask for my prefs before round

Amsh Kasireddy Paradigm

I am a Business student at Georgia Institute of Technology with experience as a CX debater for 6 years. Prior to college, I was captain of the South Forsyth High School team. Throughout the end of my high school years I have judged multiple rounds and was a coach at a local debate institution. I'm an extremely flow judge; but I'll vote you up through if your opponent does not know what a flow is. Greater timeframe=Dub.

Other rules that I tend to agree with from Zakharov Paradigm:

1) Please don't make bigoted arguments or do bigoted things

2) If you want me to evaluate something, please warrant it thoroughly (e.g. don't rely on the existence of a card as a sufficient explanation for your argument)

3) Defense in summary is a choice for the debater (as a general rule, if it's important, you should bring it up in every speech, but this is a matter of personal preference for the debater); responding to 1st rebuttal in 2nd rebuttal is a choice for the debater as well

4) Theory isn't really appealing to me, nor do I think it gels well with the structure/intention of PF, but if there is an instance of actual substantial abuse and the theory is not an excuse for not debating and I'm explicitly told how to evaluate it, I'll evaluate it

5) I'll only call for cards if both sides are saying opposite things about the same piece of evidence and/or I'm explicitly told to call for the card

6) I can flow any level of speed, but spreading will reflect poorly in speaks

7) If you don't bring up a certain contention throughout the rest of the debate I will consider it dropped.

8) Not a fan of K's in PF Debate. I will vote on them if I have to, but I really don't want to.

For LD, which I judge from time to time, all of the above applies (except 3 obviously, and theory is fine but again needs to be well applied, and you can speak quicker than you would in front of a parent but still don't spread please.

Bryan Kim Paradigm

I am a student at UC Berkeley and have competed in Lincoln Douglas debate for four years and Public Forum for two; it is now my first year judging both of these categories.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy:

I'm open to any questions before the round to elaborate on judging philosophy. I prefer that you do not spread debate, and I will judge by what I have on my flow sheet. Establishing a clear value and standard is important, and linking your arguments back to it is also critical. I enjoy clash between the AFF and NEG, and I will also jot down concessions and points made in cross examination. Signposting and clearly laying out your arguments are a positive and your final speeches should clarify your position and explain to me why you deserve the ballot. I would prefer not to vote on theory but will do if I have to

Public Forum Philosophy:

As above, I would prefer if you do not spread debate. The quality of arguments and evidence take precedence over the sheer quantity. Don't just read evidence cards but help explain to me why what you read is relevant in the debate. Do the same for your impacts, go step by step when weighing with your opponents' and communicating which one I should be voting for. I enjoy direct clash from both sides and will check evidence if called for after the round.

SHERMAINE LIGGIONS Paradigm

My experience as a debater spans several years, across events including LD, CX/Policy, Congress, throughout both high school and collegiate national circuits; though several years removed from competing; consistently serving as a judge nationally, from NY to TX to CA.

Rules: They're necessary and well-defined, and formalizes debate procedures. The recent interpretations of procedures - regarding open vs. closed CX; CX during prep; file/data transfer consuming prep-time, etc. - may be applied to rounds only when all parties are agreeable to the proposed interpretations. If at least a single party to the debate disagrees, then the traditional interpretation of the debate procedures will be applied. Procedures provide structure, but shouldn't foster stagnation. Rules, like laws, may be viewed differently from person to person, over time. So long as parties are agreeable to reasonable rules adjustments, they may be applied. I view the role of the judge as mainly silent, but present/involved.

Opinions/Intervention: Neutrality, but knowledgeable! I evaluate information presented to me, with no bias, whatsoever. While I may have familiarity with issues and facts surrounding them, the job of the judge is to evaluate the arguments presented. I generally do not seek to subvert the job of any debater. It is the debaters' job to present cases and to rebut inaccurate information, and to contend with faulty arguments. While personal knowledge may cause me to disagree with that which is presented, it would be incumbent upon the opponent(s) to counter-argue the point. I would not impart personal thoughts; but would instead weigh arguments presented on the basis of what is known to me. If ignorant in an area, I'd rely upon debaters to make the most convincing arguments.

Spreading/Speed: Speed is no issue; articulation/enunciation is. Points intended to be made by debaters will simply be lost if not well-articulated by the debater. I will not rehash items to clear up uncertainties. It is not the job of the judge to figure out the debaters' statements. It is instead the job of debaters to present clearly their arguments such that the judge could properly evaluate the same. An indistinguishable statement is just as good as one never spoken.

Paradigm: Both theory and kritik arguments win favorable votes from me. I am rather neutral on the types of arguments presented. I see no degradation to the advancement of educational debate with kritiks, and, similar to my position on rules, believe that interpretations and approaches may be adjusted over-time and across individuals, moving from more traditional ideas of theoretical debate.

Evidence certainly helps, but should not serve as a debater's crutch. Some may present convincing enough arguments of pragmatism and suppositions that lack concrete evidence. Others may present heavily-sourced arguments, with the expectation that Politico, Fox, Washington Post, Harvard Review, etc. will carry the case for them. I accept that evidence is rarely truly pure. Meaning, for example, that where "a Reuters poll (may) shows XYZ..." that poll/study may be laden with implicit/explicit bias. So, it's the duty of the debater to not only research, but to also present crafty arguments that may not be solely dependent upon a sources. Recency may help when/where more recent sources offer better evidence on a topic; but credibility, is most important. Perhaps there's a more recent study that fails to account for the depth of a previous one. New does not always mean better.

Overall, my philosophy tilts more towards the tabula rasa school of thought. I am a neutral, largely silent, participant allowing parties to work through differences on procedural interpretations; and am open to different formats of argumentation, with no set standard; but, expect to be convinced by on party or another, no matter their style. However, there must be formality to debate. So, understanding the rules as traditionally interpreted and incorporating stock issues for a comprehensive and sound argument would help.

Lauren Lamar Paradigm

I am a senior in college who has 5 years of experience in both PF and Extemp. I appreciate big picture arguments, especially in the final focus. Weighing is extremely important to me in all speeches, but especially in the rebuttal and summary.

Cole Lambo Paradigm

I competed in Parliamentary Debate for 3 years High School and Policy for 1 year. I also competed in Extemp and Impromptu for all of High School. I have been on Rice University's George R. Brown Forensics Society for 4 years competing in Extemp, Informative, Impromptu, and CA. I also briefly competing in the NPDA/NPTE format for a year as well.

Scottie Lawrence Paradigm

Not Submitted

Aaditya Mahajan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Flynn Makuch Paradigm

*******YES, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ON THE EMAIL CHAIN.**************** My email is flynnmakuchATgmail.com. (my first and last name at gmail.)

a few virtual debate things:

-i've found it significantly harder to hear -- audio is less intelligible than in person -- maybe go a little slower or make sure you're really clearly enunciating

-please have your camera on if you're speaking, if circumstances allow

-make sure you get a visual or verbal confirmation that I'm ready before you start seriously i don't know how to make this more clear. ppl keep starting without confirming the judge is ready

-prep stops when you've attached the document to the email

-i'm so proud of everyone debating right now for your drive, determination, and resilience

My pronouns are they/them and my last name is pronounced "MACK-oo."

Debate history: -HS GBN (2x TOC elims, RRs) - College Texas (2x NDT elims, RRs) -Colleges coached: WSU, UCO, Emory, NU -HSs coached: bronx science, edgemont, GBS, westwood, damien -taught at many camps every summer over the last 10 years

TOP LEVEL:

Even though I read as arguments and studied critical literature about race, gender, colonialism, and sexuality in college, my HS background was exclusively "policy," and I continue to do research and coach in both areas.

In the post round, if you'd like to seek advice or challenge components of my thinking or note your disagreement or try to improve or get my ballot in the future or try to understand my decision, I would love to discuss my decision with you! If you are into post-rounding as some weird ego thing where you need to demonstrate that you couldn't possibly have lost a debate by berating the judge, then you should not pref me.

My argument preference is whatever you're passionate about and really know in depth. It's so much more interesting. Also, I would always prefer a highly specific strategy to a generic one regardless of argumentative content.

I take a while/my time to decide debates, so time-wasting during a debate is truly to your detriment.

After the 2XR, please send me a judge doc with the (marked version) of the cards you extended. I will know if there's extra ev, so don't lie and don't include it.

Things I am really interested in:

--lots of evidence comparison!! this often shifts my decisions

--impact/il comparison

--framing arguments and judge instruction

--even if arguments -- recognizing where you might be losing

--beginning the 2XR with what you want the RFD to be

--in depth explanations -- more warrants, less tag lines

--strategic concessions + cross applications

--thoughtful and consistent analytics

--clean line by line

--jokes (very much optional)

--(hate to have to say this) 2NRs that take advantage of 1AR dropped arguments. It will hurt your speaker points a little if there's a clear path to victory that you ignore entirely

Things I am not interested in:

--cruelty

--long overviews - LINE BY LINE is where those overview arguments fit my friends. i promise you can find a spot if u look

--being rude to your partner

--scholarship/behavior that is morally reprehensible

--"if you vote X you'll have to look me in the eye and explain..., etc." type of inefficient judge strong-arming

--multiple paragraph tags

--mumble spreading on the text of cards

--things that happened outside of the round

--highlighting into sentence fragments

When cx time is over, both teams need to stop talking unless someone wants to take prep.

Make sure you time yourselves, because I WILL forget at some point

Pointing out that something was conceded is not the same as extending that argument. Author names or claims without warrants are not arguments. I think I have a higher standard than most for this. A conceded assertion is still not an argument. Yes ofc, your burden of explanation is substantially reduced, but there's gotta be something.

CX:

I almost always flow CX and write down important clarifications/concessions.

Framework:

Things I am interested in:

--the solvency mechanism of the aff, whatever solvency means in the context of the affirmative

--clash impacts in the context of skills gained from debate

--whether the aff is contestable

--a good ol' topical version of the aff that addresses impact turns

--impact framing arguments

--line by line refutation

--well developed impact turns to the neg's interpretation/TVA that don't apply to a counter interpretation

--counter interpretations that address some of the neg's clash/limits arguments

--slowing down when reading consecutive paragraphs of text you have typed for 2nr/2ar

Things I am less interested in:

--affs that are descriptive but not prescriptive -- it's easy to say something is bad, even in a very theoretically dense, educational, interesting way. the more difficult question is determining the best method (not picky about what this is) for addressing or approaching the problem described

--clash/fairness as an impact in and of itself -- it's an internal link to an impact (in my default view, though I end up voting for it more frequently than i would've thought bc people don't answer it)

--long, pre-written "overviews" where you address none of the line by line (both sides are very bad about doing this)

Counterplans:

Whatever is fine. Do what you want, but make sure you can defend it. I truly have no strong feelings/beliefs about conditionality either way, other than it'll be tough to win 1 is bad. But, I decide that like I decide all things: based on the arguments actually presented in the theory debate.

Exception to that -- perms are just no link arguments to the opportunity cost of the CP, so I will probably never vote that dropped perm theory arguments are a reason to reject the team.

DAs:

See plea for evidence and impact comparison above. When I get a stack of cards at the end of the debate, it's going to be annoying for both of us that I now just have to render judgment on each of them with no guidance.

Please make more smart, warranted analytics about why the DA is nonsense. A lot of DAs don't pass the test of being a complete argument if the full text of the cards are read and you just take a second to actually think about it.

These debates are fun, and I look for a high degree of technical proficiency in them.

Ks:

Neg needs SPECIFICITY in your explanation of the aff. Highly specific cards to the aff are not necessary, though helpful, to make specific links, alt solves, turns case, root cause arguments etc. Reference the aff's 1ac ev maybe. Use historical examples maybe. Make logical arguments maybe. All important things. What is the impact to the link in the context of turning the aff? The more contextual your explanation of every facet of the k is to the aff, the more likely you will win that part of the debate and the higher your speaker points will be.

Against policy affs, you will likely win a link, so focus your attentions on defeating the impact turns/case outweighs arguments from the jump. Opposite for k affs -- less focus on impact, instead focus on in depth contextual explanations of the link and how it turns the aff, the alt solves aff impact better, DAs to the perm that aren't just links to the aff, etc.

Finally, almost every argument in the overview should/could be on the line by line.

T

Sure. Not really the debate I want to be deciding because folks rarely do comparative impact calc. It's mid-october and I've judged many debates in HS and college, so I kinda know the topic, but prob don't know all the acronyms.

Let me save you time:

You: "What did you think about [x argument/author name]"???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Me: "I didn't think about it that much because you didn't tell me to/you didn't speak about it enough or in a way that made it relevant to my decision making process."

However:

I do try to be thorough. Debaters have worked hard to get here, so it's my obligation to work hard to assess the debate.

**************

This is the Most Unexceptional cx I've ever seen and a very important video to me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2rgzsO-AMM

If you ask the other team if they like skateboarding or reference this video in any way, automatic 1000 speaker points.

Gene Mandell Paradigm

Speak slowly! Articulate your verbiage with great diction. Please present as few contentions as possible to allow both the affirmative and negative teams to have a quality debate. Always have excellent eye contact with the judge. Take pauses occasionally to allow everyone a break from the intensity of the argumentation. Use wit from time to time to lighten the moment. Never, never be sarcastic against your opponent! Be as passionate as possible no matter what side of the debate you are on.

Monben Mayon Paradigm

[[[[[[[LD]]]]]]]]'

Not best judge for theory

The framework debate should be prioritized in EVERY SPEECH. I prioritize persuasion, TRUTH over TECH, and clarity.

and

Criteria for high speaks: Your arguments are supported by specific evidence and I am able to follow your arguments THROUGHOUT the round (obviously, the winner will get the higher speaker point. I rarely give low point wins.)

and

Read the policy section. It applies to LD as well.

POLICY

1. Whether the politic you're endorsing is institutional or communal, please show up with a method that makes sense and works

- you cant just put a bunch of kritikal literature in an aff, say the world sucks, and be like "at least the conversation is good" OR throw me a whole bunch of inherency about pollution in the South China Sea with one solvency card from a Huffington Post article

- I personally have done more K debate but I also admire the style of traditional debates: state action, counterplans, disads, give me all of it. I'll bump your speaks if you read a disad with a terminal impact that isn't nuclear war or extinction lmao

2. If you're going to go for discourse as an impact/voter, tell me how the discourse you provide affects the demographic for which you are advocating and

- In other words, what does "burning it down",or "the libidinal economy", or "post-metaphysical dynamics" mean for shorty in line at the welfare office? What about that white dude in the coal mine in Arkansas?

3. Cross Ex is binding, say it wit' ya chest.

A hack for my ballet: The more simple the better. Aff should do something and the ideal neg strategy should be some case specific case turns coupled with a kritik or counterplan

[[[[[PUBLIC FORUM]]]]]]

- I've done PF at several national and local tournaments

- Keep in mind that public forum debate serves to communicate complex messages with public forums so your discussion should ALWAYS sound/seem accessible to those who don't debate. No super special language, arguments about what should be"common sense/knowledge", or bad attitudes.

Quick questions and stuff: monbenmayon@gmail.com with the subject line "DEBATE JUDGING"

Jenn Melin Paradigm

4 rounds

Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)

Email for email chains:

melindocs@gmail.com

If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.


-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.


I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.

In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.

That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.

Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.

l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.

I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.

One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.

I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.

I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.

Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.

Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.

I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.

Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.

Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.

You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.

Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.

Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.

Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.

Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.

Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.

Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.

Jimi Morales Paradigm

I probably don't know who you are and more importantly I don't care as my job is to be a neutral arbiter of a single debate. This is advantageous for teams who aren't relying on rep to win rounds.

I like well researched positions that don't contradict themselves unless it's explained in advance or immediately after why those contradictions are ok. the news is your friend. don't assume i know what you mean unless i'm nodding my head.

if you are running ironic positions without explaining or looking up from your laptop, I will take you literally.

don't run a framework without actually explaining what it means, that leaves it up to me or your opponent to interpret it.

flashing is prep and you can just send the first card and then your partner can send the rest as the speech is happening

I'm flowing, if you're sp(eed)reading incoherently I (probably) won't vote for you. my facial and physical expressions will give away whats happening in most rounds. I'm listening to cross-x and you should reference it in your speeches.

ask me specific questions and I will happily answer them.

hook me on the chain jimi.morales@gmail.com

Hari Namdhari Paradigm

Competed in LD and WS at Plano East for four years mainly in TFA but also at some NatCircuit tournaments.

harinamdhari1@gmail.com put me on chains

LD:

These are all just preferences, TL;DR debate how you want to I might give the wrong rfd if I'm in the back of a tricks or phil round.

I should be able to make a decision looking only at your 2nr/2ar flows.

Be CIVIL and strategic and you will get high speaks -- online debate especially makes it difficult to differentiate between being funny and rude so please be respectful.

+.5 speaks for wearing war room drip.

DA/CP/T:

Read them.

Shouldn't have to explain much here. Just do good weighing explaining how the DA turns case or case turns DA.

CP Theory is cool.

Give me some pen time between flows -- 1-2 seconds is enough if I have sheets in order.

Nebel is a meme but sure.

Theory:

I'm good for this. I tended to go for 1ar theory a lot when I debated and I tend to think it's a good thing but that doesn't mean you don't have to answer the hedge if the 1nc has one.

Theory is not just a tool for norm-setting and can be used strategically

Friv theory doesn't exist b/c it forces intervention -- if you win an abuse story it obviously isn't 'frivolous'

No defaults

Paragraph Theory:

Hate it and love it. Almost every 1ar I gave had a few of these arguments in it and I understand why it's needed especially considering how skewed the 1ar is. If you plan on going for it, it should still have a warrant and impact (i.e: condo is a voting issue vs it splits the 1ar destroying engagement key to fairness.)

Policy AFF vs K:

1. AFFs should make arguments as to why they get to weigh the case.

2. Alt solvency needs to be explained in the 2nr unless you are going for the K as a disad to the 1ac. Explain very clearly why they don't get the perm.

3. Assume I don't know the K lit, this is most likely a safe assumption as I've never gone further than reading Harney, and a little bit of Wilderson. I probably will be able to understand debates over more common arguments like afropess, setcol, cap, Puar, etc. But you need to err towards over-explaining anything complicated. (edit: sorta hate pomo)

K AFF vs T-FW:

I've been on both sides of this debate, very rarely read big-stick extinction AFFs alternated between egregiously non-t affs and soft-left affs. However, I went for framework a lot and think it is correct on a truth level, often find myself voting for it because very few teams have a good defense against framework.

AFF:

1. Explain why voting AFF is a good idea non-contextual to FW. Having a nuanced defense against presumption can also be leveraged against

2. Impact Turns don't need a CI but it's strategic to have a competing model of debate that sets some limit or new stasis point for debate that is able to resolve some (if not all) of the offense coming off of T.

FW:

1. Don't spend much time on individual standards (Limits, prep, clash, etc) because let's be honest most K teams will just impact turn.

2. Spend more on explaining the terminal impact of your model. You should approach the round as a question "Why does fairness matter in a world of the affirmative? How do more fair debates solve the AFF?"

3. I don't think the TVA is a CP but it can be good to frame the TVA as advocacy that solves all their offense with the net benefit of clash/testing/engagement/fairness, etc. Think of it as a CP+DA 2NR, makes the offense you have to win so much less when you win the TVA.

4. Turning framework into a state good/bad debate on the case and leveraging that state good offense on T is a very good strategy and will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

Phil:

I read almost exclusively Util and a Kant NC once or twice every topic. I find Phil debate very fun and engaging but I hate how they have died. Kant in the 1nc too often ends up as condo logic or skep in the 2nr which makes me sad but I end up having to vote on it.

Having a strong defense for your framing mechanism is much more useful than extending 6-7 blips to their method, just use the blip storm as a time suck so that you can spend more time on your own flow.

Tricks:

Welp. I will vote for these but I am kinda awful at flowing through them.

PF Specific:

This covers exclusively substance or LARP debates, anything else will be in the LD section of my paradigm. Here is a short version if you don't have much time to read through everything before the round: (all the LD paradigm applies here too)

ill evaluate anything and evaluate arguments however you tell me to in round. These are just my preferences/defaults as to what I believe is good for debate.

Defense has to be extended through speeches

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline everything you want to go for, this doesn't mean you can't kick out of arguments, you just need to

Weighing is never new

New offense past rebuttal is kinda sus.

I have done PF as a middle schooler and occasionally at some locals. I didn't go for the K much when I did LD and almost exclusively LARPed so I feel pretty comfortable judging this event. However, there are definitely a lot of 'procedurals' that PF messes up pretty badly and you need to be mindful of if I'm in the back:

a. Sticky arguments are stupid. You can not make arguments in the last two speeches that weren't extended the speech prior. There is no logical justification for this except that it forces you to extend a bunch of different conceded arguments in which case you can just extend one of them quickly and since it's conceded and explained it is true.

b. Second Rebuttal should frontline everything. Obviously you can concede defense to answer turns on arguments you aren't going for but if you want me to vote on an argument later on, you need to answer everything.

c. Link turns aren't offense w/o UQS. Obviously, this isn't the case for Linear DA's without uniqueness but just keep in mind that if you don't straight turn an argument then your opponents can just say UQS overwhelms the link (insert explanation) and kick the argument which makes your link turn a glorified piece of defense. If you are going for an impact turn this isn't a problem.

d. Weigh. PF'ers spend too much time weighing in the wrong ways. "my impact is bigger" and "My impact has a fast timeframe" isn't weighing. Weighing should be comparative, and not just at the impact level because from what I have seen most PF rounds will end up with the same impact level and no external impact like extinction. Internal link arguments (i.e: CC = crop shortage = ag industry collapses = recession) and x turns y arguments are much better allocations of your time and will be rewarded with high speaks. Remember you only need one good weighing argument, not seven bad ones.

Tate Oien Paradigm

Overview:

Four years of Parliamentary Debate and Congress, as well as one year of Policy and Public Forum at San Dieguito Academy High School. Used to competing in traditional (more lay) Parli, but prefer to compete in circuit/flow as well as judging the latter. Spent a year at the POI Debate Institute at Berkeley. Below are my preferences, if you want me to expound upon them in greater detail, ask me before round. I'm a Freshman at UC Berkeley studying Philosophy and Political Economy, so those topics are my area of expertise. My paradigm is my paradigm, if you think something is unfair feel free to let me know but don't expect me to change my mind without good reason.

Tech vs Truth:

It's a false dichotomy and, in a perfect round, there should be no distinction between the two. But in the event that there is conflict, I'll probably default to tech. It varies from round to round, but more often than not tech provides greater equality in round between both aff and neg.

How I value args epistemically:

Theory > K > Regular Case

My reasoning is theoretical debates frame pretty much the entire rest of the round, and Ks, as unique as they are, are pretty much just a Disad. I default to the idea that debate ought be an educational event and not just a sport, and so I'm more sympathetic to theoretical arguments because they tie directly into that thesis. However, if the K directly attacks that thesis and operates, not just on a normal ideological level, but also in a meta sense where it critiques the fundamental assumptions of not just the aff, but also the debate, then I will weigh the K and the Theory against one another on equal footing.

Weighing/Extension:

I won't flow arguments that aren't extended. When you extend them, you also ought to explain the argument and not just mention it. This isn't a deal breaker, but it helps me remember what your argument was without having to go over my flow again.

Please try and weigh your arguments in the rebuttal/last speech. It helps me judge the round by condensing the main points of the debate. Again, it won't result in an automatic loss, but it is HEAVILY suggested.

Speed:

I can flow at most, if not all, speeds on my laptop. If you're going too fast, I'll say (or type, if you prefer) clear. If you don't slow down, I'll repeat a couple of times but if you don't adjust I will stop flowing until you do. If the other team calls clear, you better show them the same courtesy you show me. If they're clearly being absurd, I'll call them out on it, stop time, and tell them to show you more respect.

On Counterplans:

If your CP doesn't prove mutual exclusivity, I'm just not going to flow it. Simple as that. A counterplan that can be done in conjunction with the plan is so utterly vapid and useless that you should be embarrassed for running it. And no, "funding" doesn't allow you to establish mutual exclusivity. Other than that, go to town, Counterplans make the debate incredibly fun.

However, I'll flow PICs if your opponents don't run theory against it.

On Links:

If you're going to cite any data, especially economic data, you need to have very solid links. Don't just tell me that employment increased after the passing of NAFTA, tie it directly to NAFTA. Explain how free trade led to a growth in positions for the service industry. If you just mention a figure without linking it to the trend you're talking about, I just won't consider it. It's in your best interest to explain yourself as fully as possible.

On Theory:

I'll accept any theoretical argument, so long as it's substantiated. This is certainly the area where I feel the most comfortable judging in terms of non-standard arguments.

On Kritiks:

I'll vote on pretty much any standard negative kritiks, just make sure you fully explain the argument. My main areas of expertise are in Postmodernism (Biopower Ks, Deleuze Ks, etc.), Marxism and Marxian Economics (I'm planning on writing my Senior Thesis on the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall), and Settler Colonialism (Sakai-who is an underrated source for carded evidence in SetCol-as well as Fanon). If your kritik is in an area I'm more familiar with, I'll be more likely to understand it without extra explanation. If it isn't, just try your best to explain it to me and I'll be sure to give it a fair shake.

I /can/ vote on performance Ks, I just prefer not to. Make it very clear what the argument is to the other team, if not it's just abusive. If both me and your opponent don't understand the performance... Then I'll probably hand the other team my ballot (ESPECIALLY if I can't understand it).

Generally, I'm not voting on Aff Ks. They're dumb and abusive. If you want to run it, tell me beforehand and give me the broadstrokes. I'll more often than not just say no, but I'm open to having my mind changed.

Speaks:

I don't really have a set system for determining speaks, but I assign speaks entirely based on rhetoric and actual speaking ability. Think of it like a bellcurve.

25 = 2.1nd Percentile of speakers

26 = 16.1th Percentile of speakers

27 = 50th Percentile of speakers

28 = 84th Percentile of speakers

29 = 98.9th Percentile of speakers

30= 99.9th Percentile of speakers

Weighing Mechanisms:

Justify. Justify. Justify.

If you don't justify your weighing mechanism, and the other team does, I'm using theirs. If neither do, I'll either choose, or maybe use neither! If I'm not given any weighing mechanism, I default to deontology via Rawls Veil of Ignorance. If you don't like that, then you better provide me with a weighing mechanism and justify. Justify. Justify.

If both teams have the same weighing mechanism, I'll just use it, although I still like to know why I'm using a given weighing mech. My biggest pet peeve is people defaulting to Util/Net Ben without ever critically examining it.

Speaking of pet peeves:

1) Please signpost. It makes it much easier for me to flow. I don't even care if it sounds stunted and ugly, just let me know what argument you're making, and what specific section of it we're currently at.

2) Don't be vulgar. I get it in the context of a performance, but otherwise there's no place for it in debate.

3) Politeness... It's both overrated and overhated. To quote my American Cultures professor "Politeness is for rich people and fascists." I'm fine with you getting provocative and even a bit heated, so long as it's proportional to the arguments your opponents make (i.e. if they're lying about something, misconstruing data to a gross extent, or saying something bigoted). For example, my opponents once referred to South America as a "backwards thirdworld hellscape" and when I responded I got heated and ended up calling that a racist argument. I was then lectured by a white women from North County San Diego about how that was a "cheap debate tactic" because her debaters complained. I'm still salty about that to this day, and rest assured, if your opponents say something stupid and bigoted and you call them out for it feel free to be as heated as you want. I'm not gonna punish you for it.

4) That being said, don't be arrogant, especially if you're winning the round. My Dad always told me, when I did debate, to "never kick the puppies." If it's clear you've won the round, be graceful. This won't cost you the ballot, but it betrays bad character and will probably end up being reflected in your speaks.

Tate Oien Paradigm

For email chains: tate.oien@gmail.com

Overview:

Four years of Parliamentary Debate and Congress, as well as one year of Policy and Public Forum at San Dieguito Academy High School. Used to competing in traditional (more lay) Parli, but prefer to compete in circuit/flow as well as judging the latter. Spent a year at the POI Debate Institute at Berkeley. Below are my preferences, if you want me to expound upon them in greater detail, ask me before round. I'm a Freshman at UC Berkeley studying Philosophy and Political Economy, so those topics are my area of expertise. My paradigm is my paradigm, if you think something is unfair feel free to let me know but don't expect me to change my mind without good reason.

Tech vs Truth:

It's a false dichotomy and, in a perfect round, there should be no distinction between the two. But in the event that there is conflict, I'll probably default to tech. It varies from round to round, but more often than not tech provides greater equality in round between both aff and neg.

How I value args epistemically:

Theory > K > Regular Case

My reasoning is theoretical debates frame pretty much the entire rest of the round, and Ks, as unique as they are, are pretty much just a Disad. I default to the idea that debate ought be an educational event and not just a sport, and so I'm more sympathetic to theoretical arguments because they tie directly into that thesis. However, if the K directly attacks that thesis and operates, not just on a normal ideological level, but also in a meta sense where it critiques the fundamental assumptions of not just the aff, but also the debate, then I will weigh the K and the Theory against one another on equal footing.

Weighing/Extension:

I won't flow arguments that aren't extended. When you extend them, you also ought to explain the argument and not just mention it. This isn't a deal breaker, but it helps me remember what your argument was without having to go over my flow again.

Please try and weigh your arguments in the rebuttal/last speech. It helps me judge the round by condensing the main points of the debate. Again, it won't result in an automatic loss, but it is HEAVILY suggested.

Speed:

I can flow at most, if not all, speeds on my laptop. If you're going too fast, I'll say (or type, if you prefer) clear. If you don't slow down, I'll repeat a couple of times but if you don't adjust I will stop flowing until you do. If the other team calls clear, you better show them the same courtesy you show me. If they're clearly being absurd, I'll call them out on it, stop time, and tell them to show you more respect.

On Counterplans:

If your CP doesn't prove mutual exclusivity, I'm just not going to flow it. Simple as that. A counterplan that can be done in conjunction with the plan is so utterly vapid and useless that you should be embarrassed for running it. And no, "funding" doesn't allow you to establish mutual exclusivity. Other than that, go to town, Counterplans make the debate incredibly fun.

However, I'll flow PICs if your opponents don't run theory against it.

On Links:

If you're going to cite any data, especially economic data, you need to have very solid links. Don't just tell me that employment increased after the passing of NAFTA, tie it directly to NAFTA. Explain how free trade led to a growth in positions for the service industry. If you just mention a figure without linking it to the trend you're talking about, I just won't consider it. It's in your best interest to explain yourself as fully as possible.

On Theory:

I'll accept any theoretical argument, so long as it's substantiated. This is certainly the area where I feel the most comfortable judging in terms of non-standard arguments.

On Kritiks:

I'll vote on pretty much any standard negative kritiks, just make sure you fully explain the argument. My main areas of expertise are in Postmodernism (Biopower Ks, Deleuze Ks, etc.), Marxism and Marxian Economics (I'm planning on writing my Senior Thesis on the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall), and Settler Colonialism (Sakai-who is an underrated source for carded evidence in SetCol-as well as Fanon). If your kritik is in an area I'm more familiar with, I'll be more likely to understand it without extra explanation. If it isn't, just try your best to explain it to me and I'll be sure to give it a fair shake.

I /can/ vote on performance Ks, I just prefer not to. Make it very clear what the argument is to the other team, if not it's just abusive. If both me and your opponent don't understand the performance... Then I'll probably hand the other team my ballot (ESPECIALLY if I can't understand it).

Generally, I'm not voting on Aff Ks. They're dumb and abusive. If you want to run it, tell me beforehand and give me the broadstrokes. I'll more often than not just say no, but I'm open to having my mind changed.

Speaks:

I don't really have a set system for determining speaks, but I assign speaks entirely based on rhetoric and actual speaking ability. Think of it like a bellcurve.

25 = 2.1nd Percentile of speakers

26 = 16.1th Percentile of speakers

27 = 50th Percentile of speakers

28 = 84th Percentile of speakers

29 = 98.9th Percentile of speakers

30= 99.9th Percentile of speakers

Weighing Mechanisms:

Justify. Justify. Justify.

If you don't justify your weighing mechanism, and the other team does, I'm using theirs. If neither do, I'll either choose, or maybe use neither! If I'm not given any weighing mechanism, I default to deontology via Rawls Veil of Ignorance. If you don't like that, then you better provide me with a weighing mechanism and justify. Justify. Justify.

If both teams have the same weighing mechanism, I'll just use it, although I still like to know why I'm using a given weighing mech. My biggest pet peeve is people defaulting to Util/Net Ben without ever critically examining it.

Speaking of pet peeves:

1) Please signpost. It makes it much easier for me to flow. I don't even care if it sounds stunted and ugly, just let me know what argument you're making, and what specific section of it we're currently at.

2) Don't be vulgar. I get it in the context of a performance, but otherwise there's no place for it in debate.

3) Politeness... It's both overrated and overhated. To quote my American Cultures professor "Politeness is for rich people and fascists." I'm fine with you getting provocative and even a bit heated, so long as it's proportional to the arguments your opponents make (i.e. if they're lying about something, misconstruing data to a gross extent, or saying something bigoted). For example, my opponents once referred to South America as a "backwards thirdworld hellscape" and when I responded I got heated and ended up calling that a racist argument. I was then lectured by a white women from North County San Diego about how that was a "cheap debate tactic" because her debaters complained. I'm still salty about that to this day, and rest assured, if your opponents say something stupid and bigoted and you call them out for it feel free to be as heated as you want. I'm not gonna punish you for it.

4) That being said, don't be arrogant, especially if you're winning the round. My Dad always told me, when I did debate, to "never kick the puppies." If it's clear you've won the round, be graceful. This won't cost you the ballot, but it betrays bad character and will probably end up being reflected in your speaks.

Conrad Palor Paradigm

***For online debate, please add me to the email chain. My email is conradpalor@gmail.com. I flow debater's speech performances and not docs, but may read evidence after speeches.

General

- I take a tabula rasa approach to judging. I try to keep my evaluation exclusively to the flow. I'll pick up the worse argument if it's won on the flow. I recognize a certain degree of judge intervention is inevitable so here is generally how I prioritize arguments in order. In-round weighing of arguments combined with strength of link, conceded arguments, and absent explicit weighing I default to arguments with substantive warranted analysis.

-I strongly encourage debaters to cut cards as opposed to hyperlinking a google doc. Cutting cards encourages good research skills and prevents egregious miscutting of evidence.

-Please extend author last name and year in the back half of the round. It makes it difficult to flow if you are not properly extending evidence. With that said, I strongly value evidence comparison

- In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and I'm open to newish responses in summary and final focus to these arguments if I deem they were unintelligible in their first reading

- Please collapse

- Defense should be extended in both summary speeches if you want to go for it in the final focus

- Speak as fast as you want. I will yell clear if I can't flow what you are saying

- Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I think debaters are in a particular round

Theory and Procedurals

- I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates, and am more than happy to vote on procedural or theory arguments in public forum.

- I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, but I'm open to arguments on both sides.

- I think theory arguments are theoretically legitimate and should play a role in public forum debate. As such, I have a high threshold for voting on "theory bad for public forum debate" arguments.

- While I am sympathetic to debaters who do not know how to respond to theory arguments in public forum, I encourage debaters to seek online resources, or reach out to myself or others at tournaments for a further discussion as to how to handle these arguments.

-You are welcome to ask questions after the round, and I think it's a constructive part of debate. Please note, I will not tolerate disrespect and if you become hostile to the point where you're not seeking constructive feedback I reserve the right to lower speaker points after the round

About Me

I debated four years in Public Forum in high school at Green Valley, and I have extensive experience and preference for national circuit fast PF.

I currently debate at Notre Dame on the NPDA/NPTE circuit.

Rodrigo Paramo Paradigm

4 rounds

i debated LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. i coach LD @ greenhill.

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

[current/past affiliations: coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18); team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-now)]

I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, but thoroughly enjoy 6 minutes of topicality or framework [like, T-framework against k affs, not kant] if it is delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell. **please read the online debate section of this paradigm.**

I am a bad judge for tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not coach or think about analytic philosophy or tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace in order for me to process and understand all the moving parts - notably, this is also true for whoever is answering these positions. every time i have voted for an analytic phil arg, it has been because the relevant rebuttal tailored its speed to a level where i understood the arguments!

Thoughts I have

0) ***Online Debate***:

  • zoom mics means it is very difficult for debaters to hear me cue "slow" - if you would like me to type it in the chat, i will, but otherwise facial expressions will have to be your best cue. if i am not flowing at the speed you are reading, you will know.
  • i would much much prefer to run the debate w/ cam on if possible.
  • i get... so distracted when there are random notifications going off in the background. would appreciate if that did not occur during your speech, and it will almost certainly make my flow better which is good for everyone involved in the debate.
  • here is the procedure i will follow if a student drops off a call, or i drop off a call: students are expected to maintain local recordings of their speeches - if they drop off, they should complete the speech and immediately email their recording upon completing it. i will not allow students to restart speeches / attempt to figure out how much time they had left, particularly in elimination rounds.
  • if someone drops off a call, please do not steal prep time.
  • fell off a call today at the tail end of the 1nc - when i was able to get back on, the kids were mid cross-x and hadnt noticed! in order to avoid things like this, it will make the round easier for all of us if you figure out a way to be able to see both me and your opponent on screen - non-verbal communication is really helpful for e-debate working at its best, and if we both nod at "everyone ready," you need to be able to see that, not just be waiting on us to un-mute ourselves and speak up! if you do not hear from me or see me indicate i am ready in some form, you should not assume i am ready. one thing i think this means is that "is anyone not ready" is no longer the right question to ask - "is everyone ready" is gonna be key to ensure no one misses anything.
  • slow down slow down slow down slow down slow down. i think online you should be going at 70% or so of the speed you would go in person. if you do not slow down and technical difficulties mean i miss arguments, i will not be very sympathetic to the post round - i have had a lot of kids not be able to hear me bc of the way zoom handles microphones - i am sorry if you do not hear me say "slow", but i cannot emphasize enough the need for you to slow down.
  • i am back to flowing on paper for online debate - adjusting your speed will go a long way towards ensuring i am able to flow your arguments.

1) Miscellaneous New Thoughts I Have Had Recently:

  • this is placed in various places throughout this paradigm, but i figure i will put it at the top: please do not split your 2nrs! you will be far likelier to win if you develop one flow for the 2nr, and will be served poorly by the attempt to go for every 1nc arg in the 2nr.
  • i think the word "unsafe" means something and get uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction.
  • i find the insistence on labeling non-independent voters as independent voters exhausting and off-putting - i will not consider an argument an independent voter if there is not a warrant for why the argument should be treated that highly.
  • there is no chance you get me to exclude/disregard a speech from the debate - i will evaluate every portion of the debate after the 2ar, with relevant content from the 2ar taken into consideration.
  • i don't particularly enjoy impact turn debates. obviously will evaluate them, but... i'd just rather the nc/2nr be something else.
  • i rely heavily on framing claims made by both teams in deciding debates, and i much prefer these claims to break early than late - if neither the 1nc/1ac have particularly clear framing claims, my decision is liable to get wild

2) Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence.

I think that a piece of evidence is miscut if the text of the card is not identical (in both form & meaning) to the text published in the cited article. For further clarification (this list is not exhaustive):

  • it starts and/or ends in the middle of a sentence or paragraph.
  • text is missing from the middle of the card (replacing that text with an ellipsis does not make it okay),
  • the next paragraph or another part of the article explicitly contradicts the argument/claim made in the card,
  • the card is highlighted in a way that modifies or does not accurately represent the author’s claim - i think students & coaches both are far too comfortable highlighting only parts of words/sentences in a way that drastically changes the meaning of a card, and i think this is bad. [Be careful with brackets - I don’t think they always mean a card is miscut, but I’ve seen that they very often do. I think that brackets, more often than not, are bad - if a bracket changes the strength of a claim made by the author, or in some other way changes the *meaning* of the evidence, it is miscut],
  • if a cite lists the wrong author, article title, etc. (I hope to decide 0 debates this year on citations - I’ll only decide debates on them without challenges in the most egregious cases).
  • if a card does not have a citation at all and the debater is asked for it, but cannot provide it, i think this means you do not get that argument. i do not think it would be super hard to convince me that this is a voting issue, but i will not presume that.

If I decide a debate on evidence ethics, I will let the debate finish as normal. If the debate is a prelim, I will decide speaks based on the content of the debate and subtract two speaker points from the debater that I vote against. If the debate is an elim, I will submit my ballot and won’t say anything about my decision until the decision is announced.

If both sides read miscut evidence, I will vote against the debater who read miscut evidence first. (I really don’t love this as a way to evaluate these debates, but the only comparable scenario that I can think of is clipping, and that’s how I would resolve those debates.)

I do not plan to go out of my way looking for miscut evidence or checking to see whether every card is cut correctly. If I do notice that something is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads it regardless of whether a challenge is made.

Please do not hesitate to ask questions about this before the debate.

Evidence Ethics Procedures: the phrase "evidence ethics" means something - if someone says it and their opponent clarifies "is this an evidence ethics challenge," i understand this to mean that the debate ends - whoever has made the accusation wins if i believe the evidence ethics violation is correct, they lose if i believe the accused did not commit an evidence ethics violation - i will not independently end the round if the accused does not ask for this - if they do, i am happy to - words matter and evidence ethics matters - see the relevant section on bennett eckert's paradigm for more of my thoughts on this question. i also believe that debaters should think carefully before accusing their opponents of academic dishonesty, plagiarism, etc. - these are heavy claims that should not be deployed frivolously.

3) Clipping: i have a good ear for when clipping is occurring - if i suspect it is, i will follow along in the speech doc - if i determine i am correct, the person clipping will lose. to be very clear, this does not necessitate the opponent making a clipping accusation - i feel very comfortable making this adjudication on my own. speaks will be a 25.

4) miscellaneous thoughts on Theory/topicality:

  • slow down on it. after that, i will miss your arguments and that will be the RFD. this is similarly true for perm texts etc - dont super care what the doc said if i didnt flow the text near verbatim in the 1ar. if i say "slow" i have almost certainly already missed an argument - do with that what you will.
  • defaults: dtd, no rvi, c.i.
  • im pretty receptive to text of the interp/text of the rotb/plan flaw args - i generally think that when issues arise in those 3 things, they are a result of students not giving much thought to them which is a shame bc all 3 are pretty important in my view - well crafted interps, as well as cxes that isolate plan flaws/interp issues will be rewarded (this does not mean i like /bad/ plan flaw args). i am also fairly willing to check in on semantic i meets against frivolous theory.
  • you should always flash or have written down interp/counter-interp texts readily available for both your opponents and your judges
  • i will likely be easily compelled by a "debaters should not bracket evidence" argument *if* you can execute it well - i have grown sympathetic to this argument as abuses become increasingly egregious
  • my reluctance to vote on bad theory arguments is not because they are bad but because i sincerely dont understand the abuse story on many many shells. some examples: spec status; spec standard; rotb spec; cant concede the aff framework; must concede the aff framework. i am not interested in judging these debates and do not think the feedback i give in these debates is that helpful for anyone involved. good theory debates can be great, but i will feel comfortable saying "i did not understand the abuse story so i did not vote on this shell" (this also applies to framework v k affs)
  • "in the interest of disclosing my own bias, i think the best debates happen when both teams are able to reasonably predict what arguments will be read (with the exception of new affs + unbroken neg positions). i am unsympathetic to arguments about disclosure that do not contest this point. even if you cannot post broken positions on the wiki for whatever reason, it is my belief that you should be willing to provide them, in good faith, to your opponent upon request in some way." - anna
  • Generics: in the past i have made clear that the nebel argument did not make a lot of sense to me. in many ways, i am still receptive to the "pragmatics first" school of thought. however, nebel 19 (the second one) is compelling. i intuitively believe that a world where debate has plans is a better one, but jake has convinced me that our topic wordings do not often justify that world. i will obviously still judge these debates based only on what happens in the round, but i am newly receptive to the nebel argument (this is primarily true for the semantic claims. given that, please slow down on it if you read it - portions of the grammar stuff still confuses me at the speed of a debate round, so please slow down)
  • theory and topicality are different and i think this implicates what the 1ar is expected to do to respond to each. it also implicates what topicality vs theory interpretations (and counter interpretations) are expected to include. under competing interpretations i do not believe the negative should ever let the aff get away with a theoretical counter interp that does not interpret the semantic meaning of the terms in the resolution

5) miscellaneous thoughts on T-Framework

  • i do not think i have ever been convinced by the claim that judges have a jurisdictional constraint to only vote for topical affs - i do not foresee that changing [really, *any* jurisdictional constraint is unlikely to be compelling to me bc it is a claim that just kind of is incapable of a particularly good warrant]
  • the claim behind a good framework shell is stronger than just “the resolution determines the division of aff and neg ground.”
  • your shell should define a word in the resolution besides just "Resolved:"
  • pretty close to 50/50 voting record in clash debates last time i ran it

6) miscellaneous thoughts on permutations:

  • i do not understand why the aff would not get perms in a method debate - i have never seen a compelling warrant and can't really think of one - thus, the default assumption on my part is that the aff does get perms and it is a fairly uphill battle to convince me otherwise
  • i will not grant you the perm if i am uncertain about the perm text b/c the articulation between 1ar and 2ar was different - to that end, perm texts should be more than "perm do both" - *especially* in the 2ar, and you should always flash or have written down perm texts readily available for both your opponents and the judges

7) miscellaneous thoughts on the Kritik

  • i am so deeply deeply unreceptive to and uninterested in this trend of explaining new identity categories with the same form and language of antiblackness literature. if you do not have a psychoanalytic warrant, dont claim you do! if you do not have evidence identifying a structural antagonism, i do not know why you are using that language! if your authors don't discuss social death in the context of the identity group you are discussing, you probably shouldn't either.
  • kritiks i have spent a lot of time thinking about: deleuzean scholarship, queer theory (a lot of authors fall under this second category), borderlands
  • kritiks I judge a lot: afropessimism, settler colonialism
  • kritiks I don't really get: baudrillard [i am far far more receptive to baudrillard on the negative than on the affirmative, but i think it is a kinda uphill battle against identity affs in front of me]
  • i think that the best k affs will have a defense of why *debating the aff* is good - not just why *the aff* as an object is good - why is the process of reading it in an environment where the neg must respond to it good? (in other words, the affirmative should answer the question of why it is good to read non-t affs on the aff, not just in debate)
  • i really enjoy a good performance debate
    • i think that people often attempt to go for performative offense when all they have done is read cards that are formatted in a normative way, at a conventional speed, and where later speeches revert to a hyper technical style of debate - i am *very, very* skeptical of the level of offense that these performances access - to get access to a "we change debate" claim, you should... do something I haven't seen before. a performance debate should not be indistinguishable from a policy debate, and these days almost all of the ones i judge are. that is a real shame.
  • my threshold for "debate bad" is fairly high - my presumption is that there is a lot of value in debate, and that is why I have stuck around for so long.
  • arguments about communication being bad/inaccessible need to explain my ability to comprehend the kritik if communication is impossible - how did i understand that i should vote aff/neg, why is this not an internal contradiction between the form/content of the position, etc.

8) miscellaneous thoughts (strategy):

  • i am not particularly interested in and do not believe that i can be entirely objective in warming good debates - fair warning.
  • i am a bad judge for IR heavy debates - happy to judge them, but you should not assume i am comfortable w/ what the different flavors of realism / other IR theories are.
  • Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if the card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. The 1ac/nc should have evidence of high quality, and the 1ar/2nr/2ar should have explanation of that evidence of a similarly high quality
  • if the 2nr is split that is a bad sign for speaker points - it also is liable to implicate your ability to win the debate - very difficult for me to imagine giving higher than a 28.8 for a split 2n.
  • i will not vote for a position/argument i do not understand - this includes poorly explained kritiks, sloppy link scenarios on a disad, dense ncs that are delivered too quickly, and theory shells whose abuse story i can not adequately explain back to the debaters. when the 2nr goes for too much, i often vote aff. when the 2ar goes for too much, i often vote neg.
  • given how clear it is to me that no one could flow a debate round as it is delivered, i am cool w debaters tossing out a "slow" at their opponents if they can't flow them at top speed
  • clarity is important for high speaks but more important than how you sound is making strategic decisions in the 2AR/NR collapse in the 2nr/2ar
  • if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it i think that likely means the 1nc arg is underdeveloped. that issue should be resolved pre round, not by relying on 2nr cards/new args - i think this is particularly true of very short topicality arguments - a sentence or two of standards will likely not be enough to beat a 1ar thats just like "hold the line" (a similar logic applies to 1ar theory args!)
  • I love a robust debate on the case line by line - I do not love a case debate that is just three disads read on the case page, or that dumps generic case turns on the page with no signposting / interacting with cards from the ac - this is particularly true when you read all the generic turns and then do the line by line after.

9) miscellaneous thoughts (rules of debate):

  • i can't think of any instances where a debate round would be better if it included personal invectives against specific debaters/institutions/etc - i can think of many when it is worse for it.
  • on flashing: i think if you send a doc with a lot of analytics that you do not get through, you cannot just refuse to tell your opponent what analytics you did/did not read
  • i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.
  • flex prep means asking questions during prep time - in no world does unused CX time become prep time
  • speech times dont change presumption (and neither do other random theoretical warrants - i will presume negative if the negative defends the status quo, and affirmative if the negative does something to flip presumption (read: defends more change from the status quo)) - people should deploy presumption more against affirmatives that do not defend anything!
  • i generally do not believe you can merely "insert" a list of what the aff defends/specifies - I think this is functionally equivalent to not reading it. if the negative asks me to hold the aff to the text they read, not what was in the doc, i will gladly do so.

10) on trigger warnings:

The onus is on debaters planning to read positions about potentially triggering issues to ask those in the room for permission to read the position. Spectators may leave, but judges and opponents do not have that option, meaning there is an expectation that if one of them objects to the triggering position, the position will not be read. If a debater does not adjust their strategy after being asked to, they will start the round with a 25. If you do not ask before round, but someone is triggered, speaks will similarly be docked. If there is no trigger warning but no one is triggered, the round will continue as normal.

The question for what necessitates a trigger warning is difficult to objectively delineate - if you have a reasonable suspicion someone could be negatively impacted by your position, ask before you read it - explicit narratives are probably a good starting point here. Trigger warnings are contentious in debate but I've seen students negatively impacted in rounds because they were not present and have engaged in conversations with other coaches that lead me to conclude something along these lines is necessary.

This (admittedly strangely) probably means I'm not the judge for "must read a trigger warning" shells.

https://medium.com/@erikadprice/hey-university-of-chicago-i-am-an-academic-1beda06d692e#.bqv2t7lr6

This article is very good at articulating my views on the importance of trigger warnings
It is not up for debate that if someone was triggered on account of your failure to adequately make use of trigger warnings, you'll be punished through speaks and/or the ballot

Roopa Patel Paradigm

I am a debate coach in Georgia. I also competed in LD and PF. Take that for whatever you think it means.

  • LD - Value/Value Criterion - this is what separates us from the animals (or at least the policy debaters). It is the unique feature of LD Debate. Have a good value and criterion and link your arguments back to it.
  • PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. I want to see CLEAR evidence clash.
  • Speed - I like speed but not spreading as if it is policy. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. I can keep up with the amount of speed you decide to read at, however if I feel that your opponent is at a disadvantage and cannot understand you then I will put my pen down and stop flowing and that will signal you to slow down.
  • Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
  • Casing - Mostly traditional but I am game for kritiks, counterplans - but perform them well, KNOW them, I won't do the links for you. I am a student of Toulmin - claim-evidence-warrant/impacts. I don't make the links and don't just throw evidence cards at me with no analysis.
  • I like clash. Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
  • Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.
  • Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.
  • Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules. Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
  • Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, it isn't on the flow), who made the most successful arguments and Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with some low point wins. I am fairly generous on speaker points compared to some judges. I disclose winner but not speaker points.
  • Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.
  • Questions? - if you have a question ask me.

Evelin Pedro Paradigm

Not Submitted

Joe Perretta Paradigm

TL;DR: I'll vote for whatever you persuade me to vote for. The only things I can't be persuaded about are 9/11, the 2000 election, or that I should trust the government. I'll do other things with the government (like vote for a plan that dramatically expands its influence), but I won't trust it, so don't ask me to. Speakers points are awarded for good speeches, good teamwork (which includes prep time allocation), and good jokes; cordiality is irrelevant to me, civility is not.

Other shtuff:

This is a general paradigm for all events, so I'll bore you now with my hollistic experience in forensics and you can draw whatever conclusions you wish. I did competitive speech in high school for four years (student congress is not a debate event). I won the student congress TOC and a bunch of other national tournaments and I directed the congress camp at Texas for four years. I did parliamentary debate (APDA, BP, CUSID) for the first two years of college, then policy debate at Wake Forest and Emporia State in my final three years. I was never very good at policy debate when I competed: but I learned a lot. Arguments are what's important to me. Now I do policy work for HHS.

Sydney Petree Paradigm

Not Submitted

Marko Petrovic Paradigm

send link chains to markotpetrovic@gmail.com if you intend to spread

About me:

I am a student at Princeton University. In high school, I did two years of LD, two years of PF, and a few tournaments in BQ and Congress.

PF:

Framework:

I am a firm believer that if no framework is given in PF, then I should weigh with a cost-benefit analysis. I personally do not believe that PF rounds should be done with anything other than CBA as the framework because we already have a style of framework debate; it's called LD. That being said, if a framework is given, please make sure you respond to it and do not let it just flow through the round; if their framework is actually useful and not abusive, I might weigh it in my decision.

Crossfire:

I love PF for the crossfire. Be respectful but do not let people push you around. I want to see which side has actual questions for their opponents and which side has actual debating skills. That being said, I do not flow crossfire and if you want any impacts to come out of the crossfire and make it on the flow, you must restate them in one of your following speeches.

Summary:

Make sure you mention everything you want to mention in your final focus in this speech. Don't just give me a second rebuttal; give me also a preliminary conclusion. Tell me what is happening in the round and explain why your side is winning.

Final Focus:

Include the information from the summary. No new evidence. Make sure your impacts and voters are clear and direct. The more back I have to search through the flow for your impacts, the less likely I am to find them and be able to weigh them on your side.

Evidence:

Everything should have a card to go with it; do not make bs arguments without a card to back you up. I buy logic to an extent, but that comes with caution; do not make large conclusions and expect me to buy them. I rarely check cards but if there is a massive evidence clash, I will be checking them to make sure that neither side is pulling something funny.

Voting:

I am a flow judge by heart. Use every speech to reiterate why you should win and make sure you explain to me what is happening to each argument. Is the argument you stated in constructive flowing through? Is your opponent's claim still standing? And, most importantly, why are these stances true? Also, make sure to signpost well and tell me what you're attacking or referencing so I can flow your side better; a cleaner flow means an easier ballot.

Also- Theory has no room in PF.

LD:

Framework:

The framework should be the premise of the round; if you drop your framework, you're essentially dropping the round. Your framework is your ultimate impact; if you drop your framework, you drop your impact

As usual, logical conclusions are ok but keep in mind, being asked for a card and not having one is not a strong stance.

LD Kritik:

If you run a K, be sure to extend impacts. Debate is set on the premise of impacts so make sure your alt stands clear and explain why you have won the round very clearly. AFF Ks generally do not run well with me but if you think it works well and has impacts then give it a shot- I’m down for trying anything.

LD CP:

I absolutely love a good counterplan. If you run one, make sure you prove uniqueness and respond the inevitable perm.

I am ok with any kind of CP or PIC as long as you are unconditional. Being conditional makes no sense; are you advocating for that CP/PIC or is it that unstable we should not rely on it?

I also adore res plus cp, but make sure you explain how you're unique and why I should value your plan over the Aff's in terms of impacts.

LD DA:

If you run a DA, just like with a K, make sure you draw out your impacts and how your side provides any solvency. Just attacking your opponent doesn't just make you the automatic winner - give me a reason why voting your side is better than your opponents.

LD AFF:

Be CREATIVE! You have to affirm the resolution, but you can still do a lot! Think creatively and make arguments that have an impact! If the flow is a wash on both sides, I will have to weigh impacts so make sure you make yours VERY clear!

Also - Affirmative = affirm the resolution. period.

also also- I have normally debated in mostly traditional LD circuits. I can flow theory but make sure you explain why that theory matters and why I should uphold it.

William Phong Paradigm

Torrey Pines '19

Pronouns: he/him

Email: williamphong10@gmail.com

*conflicts: Torrey Pines HS, Advanced Tech Acad

General

- I’ll vote for almost anything as long as it isn’t morally abhorrent

- go a bit slower bc of online debate, thanks :)

- Read whatever you want as long as you can explain it

- If you have any questions just ask before round or you can msg me on fb/email me

Defaults (can be changed if you make the args)

- Neg on presumption

- Drop the debater, competing interps, no rvi

CP - Should solve the case or part of it, have a solvency advocate, and be competitive with the aff. PIC’s are fine, 1-2 condo is fine, also open to aff theory against them.

DA – Disads are great, higher quality disads > higher quantity of disads.

Kritiks – My knowledge is mostly towards more basic k’s like cap, security, setcol, etc. It’s your job to articulate the k to make sure I understand - I'm not well read on a lot of lit bases and I might not know the jargon you use. Contextualize the k/links to the aff. High theory – really interesting but the extent of my knowledge is a 30 min lecture from Ronak and a bit of source reading so probably not a good idea.

K Affs – I like them and read them, but I don’t favor either side of the debate more than the other. Make sure you explain what the aff actually does.

Topicality – Convince me that your model/interp of debate is better than theirs.

T/FW - TVA arguments and case lists help me visualize the interpretation.

Theory – Good theory for me includes things like 50 state fiat bad, floating piks bad, disclosure, etc. Friv theory - I’ll still vote on it but the threshold for responding lowers the more friv it is.

Phil – I find philosophy interesting but I only have base level understanding of anything not util.

Tricks – 0 experience

Speaking Scale (Stolen from Mihir)

30 - Your debate will most likely be one of the best I’ve seen. Execution was flawless and strategy was unique and executed correctly.

29.5 and Up – You're one of the top debaters at the tournament and debated as one of the top debaters at the tournament.

29 and Up – Above average debate and minor errors. I expect you’ll be in elims

28.5 and Up – Mediocre debate where you made some flaws but found a way to get the W

28 and Up – This round was fairly disappointing, had several mistakes, and missed opportunities to win

Below 28 – There are several issues with this round that made it hard to watch

Below 27 – You have engaged in some problematic practice that should not appear in another debate that was either offensive or cheating.

Greg Pratt Paradigm

I have judged PF, LD, Congressional Debate and IE over the past ten years.

I will first say I admire and appreciate the ability of high school speech and debaters to adjust to this new world of zoom. This fall I have seen amazing IE performances and extremely high level debate. Please do not be concerned with the synchronous events if there is a technology issue. Most tournaments clearly outline procedures and do not be concerned that a technological glitch will impact my decision. It won't.

You should consider me a parent judge. Most of the following paradigm will relate to debate. I trust that the comments outlining my PF and LD philosophy will provide sufficient information for Congressional debaters.

Speech

As an IE judge I am open to and admire all types of material. My focus will be on your performance. I will try to provide an engaged audience for your performance. I am particularly interested in your ability to convey emotional depth and authenticity through your use of physical gesture and vocal variety and intensity.

Debate

I will flow the debate and consider both the speeches and cx as the basis for my ultimate decision. Varsity debaters should consider me a parent judge. I do not handle speed - DO NOT spread. If you are unsure about your speed you are talking too fast. If I cannot flow your argument I cannot evaluate it for decision. So please slow down!

I am a traditionalist so debate the topic. What I mean by this is we come together to explore a topic. Not a theory or an alternative view of the world. Therefore let's debate the topic - no progressive debate in the round.

How I'll evaluate the round:

With my flow.

Please frame the debate for me.

Weight impacts

Clearly make links

Analyze magnitudes

Give voters

To win my ballot make a clear traditional framework analysis.

Tell me what value/criterion/standard should be highest in the round, and prove that your side of the resolution fulfills that standard.

Warrants: I need to understand why and how a claim creates specific impacts. If I don't understand your warrant or if it just doesn't follow, the only way I'll vote on it is if your opponent drops it entirely.

Finally debaters should be respectful to each other and have fun. There is no reason to ever be disrespectful. In the unlikely event this happens it will be reflected in reduce speaker points and a note on the ballot for your coach.

I am a parent judge and Mr. Paik (see his paradigm below) perfectly captures my expectations and philosophy in a way that I suspect all high school debators can understand. While I am clearly not the judge that Mr. Paik is, I incorporate all of the comments below in my judging AND I am relieved and pleased that an accomplished coach reflects my views on speaking, speed, argument over evidence and theory/kritik.

The following is Peter Paik Paradigm.

Coach of the nationally acclaimed speech and debate team of University School in Ohio. He coached and judged virtually all high school speech and debate events over the years with experience at all levels: national, state, and local. His biggest claim to fame as a coach is that his PF team (DiMino and Rahmani) won the NSDA national championship in 2010. His school has also won the NSDA School of Excellence in Debate Award 8 of the last 12 years.

(1) GO SLOWLY. I cannot emphasize this enough. Going more slowly will greatly improve the thoughtfulness of your arguments and the quality of your delivery, and doing so will make it much easier for me to comprehend and be persuaded by your arguments. No matter how many pieces of evidence or blocks or turns or rebuilds you present, if your opponent just clearly presents ONE intelligent point that strikes me as pertinent and insightful, I am likely to side with him/her at least on the particular issue, and perhaps vote for him/her altogether.

(1a) In terms of your case, to be as specific as possible, in the hopes that you will actually heed my words about speed, the ideal PF case should be no longer than 600 words total. If your case is much longer than that, and you go faster in order to squeeze it into 4 minutes, it's highly likely that I will simply not catch and process many of your words - so you may as well not have said them in the first place.

(1b) In terms of the later speeches in a round, be selective, be strategic, and sell me the goods. In rebuttals, give me your ONE best response to your opponent's argument - maybe two responses, at the very most three. In the second half of the round, collapse to your ONE best voting issue and give your ONE strongest reason why it is true and your ONE strongest reason why it should be considered significant. I'm not going to count all your points just because you said them - You just have to make ONE good point count. (But don't try to do that just be repeating it again and again. You have to explain why your opponent's attack on it should be considered insufficient.) And point out the ONE most critical flaw in your opponent's argument.

(2) More advice on presentation: because we are doing debate through Zoom, it is MORE important that you pay attention to your delivery, not less. It's much harder to hold people's attention when you are speaking to them online than when you speak to them in person. (I'm sure you know this to be true as a listener.) So if you just give up on presenting well, you're making the obstacle practically insurmountable. On the other hand, if you put some real effort into speaking as well as you can in this new online format, you'll likely stand out from many of your opponents and your points will likely be understood and appreciated more than theirs.

(2a) Be clear: Do everything you can to be as clear and easy to understand as possible, both in your writing and your speaking.

(2b) Vary your delivery: Indicate what are the most important points in your speeches by changing up your voice. You should emphasize what is really important by changing the pace, the pitch, the volume, and the tone and also by using pauses. Your speech should not be one, long unbroken stream of words that all sound the same.

(2c) Eye contact: I know it's very hard but try to look up at your camera as much as possible. At least try to show me your face as much as you can.

(3) I don't believe that theory or kritiks should be a part of Public Forum debate. If you run either, you will almost certainly lose my ballot. I don't have time now to give all the reasons why I'm opposed to these kinds of arguments in PF. But I want you to have fair warning of my view on this point. If your opponent has not read this paradigm (or is blatantly disregarding it) and runs a kritik or theory in a round and i am your judge, all you need to say for me to dismiss that argument is that PF debate is intended to be accessible to all people and should directly address the topic of the resolution, and then continue to debate the resolution.



I am among the most traditional, perhaps old-fashioned PF judges you are likely to encounter. I believe that PF should remain true to its original purpose which was to be a debate event that is accessible to everyone, including the ordinary person off the street. So I am opposed to everything that substantively or symbolically makes PF a more exclusive and inaccessible event.

Here are 3 specific preferences related to PF:

1. SPEED (i.e., SELECTIVITY): The slower, the better. What most debaters consider to be slow is still much too fast for the ordinary lay person. Also, speed is often a crutch for debaters. I much prefer to hear fewer, well-chosen arguments developed fully and presented persuasively than many superficial points. One insightful rebuttal is better than three or four mediocre ones. In short, be selective. Go for quality over quantity. Use a scalpel, not a machine gun.

2. CROSSFIRES: Ask questions and give answers. Don't make speeches. Try not to interrupt, talk over, and steam-roll your opponent. Let your opponent speak. But certainly, if they are trying to steam-roll you, you can politely interject and make crossfire more balanced. Crossfire should go back and forth fairly evenly and totally civilly. I want to see engagement and thoughtfulness. Avoid anger and aggressiveness.

3. THEME OVER TECHNIQUE: It is very important to me that a debater presents and supports a clear and powerful narrative about the topic. Don't lost sight of the bigger picture. Keep going back to it in every speech. Only deal with the essential facts that are critical to proving and selling your narrative. If you persuade me of your narrative and make your narrative more significant than your opponent's, you will win my ballot - regardless of how many minor points you drop. On the other hand, if you debate with perfect technique and don't drop anything, but you don't present and sell a clear narrative, it's highly unlikely that you will win my ballot.



LD Judging Preferences:

1. VALUE AND VALUE CRITERION: I think that the value and the value criterion are essential components of Lincoln-Douglas debate. They are what most distinguish LD from policy and public forum. If your advocacy is NOT explicitly directed toward upholding/promoting/achieving a fundamental value and your opponent does present a value and a case that shows how affirming/negating will fulfill that value, your opponent will win the round – because in my view your opponent is properly playing the game of LD debate while you are not.

2. QUALITY OVER QUANTITY: I think that speed ruins the vast majority of debaters, both in terms of their ability to think at a high level and in terms of their effective public speaking, which are two things that are supposed to be developed by your participation in high school forensics and two things I very much hope to see in every debate round I judge.

Most debaters cannot think as fast as they can talk, so going fast in an attempt to win by a numerical advantage in arguments or by “spreading” and causing your opponent to miss something, usually just leads to (a) poor strategic choices of what to focus on, (b) lots of superficial, insignificant, and ultimately unpersuasive points, and (c) inefficiency as debaters who speak too fast often end up stumbling, being less clear, and having to repeat themselves.

I would encourage debaters to speak at a normal, conversational pace, which would force them to make strategic decisions about what’s really important in the round. I think it is better to present clearly a few, significant points than to race rapidly through many unsubstantial points. Try to win by the superior quality of your thinking, not by the greater quantity of your ideas.

While I will do my best to “flow” everything that each debater presents, if you go too fast and as a result I miss something that you say, I don’t apologize for that. It’s your job as a debater not just to say stuff, but to speak in the manner necessary for your judge to receive and thoughtfully consider what you are saying. If your judge doesn’t actually take in something that you say, you might as well not have said it to begin with.

Because I prioritize quality over quantity in evaluating the arguments that are presented, I am not overly concerned about “drops.” If a debater “drops” an argument, that doesn’t necessarily mean he/she loses. It depends on how significant the point is and on how well the opponent explains why the dropped point matters, i.e., how it reveals that his/her side is the superior one.

As a round progresses, I really hope to hear deeper and clearer thinking, not just restating of your contentions. If you have to sacrifice covering every point on the flow in order to take an important issue to a higher level and present a truly insightful point, then so be it. That’s a sacrifice well worth making. On the other hand, if you sacrifice insightful thinking in order to cover the flow, that’s not a wise decision in my view.

3. WARRANTS OVER EVIDENCE: If you read the above carefully, you probably realized that I usually give more weight to logical reasoning than to expert testimony or statistics. I’m more interested in seeing how well you think on your feet than seeing how good of a researcher you are. (I’ve been coaching long enough to know that people can find evidence to support virtually any position on any issue….)

If you present a ton of evidence for a contention, but you don’t explain in your own words why the contention is true and how it links back to your value, I am not likely to be persuaded by it. On the other hand, if you present some brilliant, original analysis in support of a contention, but don’t present any expert testimony or statistical evidence for it, I will probably still find your contention compelling.

4. KRITIKS: While I may appreciate their cleverness, I am very suspicious of kritik arguments. If there is something fundamentally flawed with the resolution such that it shouldn’t be debated at all, it seems to me that that criticism applies equally to both sides, the negative as well as the affirmative. So even if you convince me that the kritik is valid, you’re unlikely to convince me then that you should be given credit for winning the round.

If you really believe the kritik argument, isn’t it hypocritical or self-contradictory for you to participate in the debate round? It seems to me that you can’t consistently present both a kritik and arguments on the substantive issues raised by the resolution, including rebuttals to your opponent’s case. If you go all in on the kritik, I’m likely to view that as complete avoidance of the issues.

In short, running a kritik in front of me as your judge is a good way to forfeit the round to your opponent.

5. JARGON: Please try to avoid using debate jargon as much as possible.

6. PROFESSIONALISM: Please be polite and respectful as you debate your opponent. A moderate amount of passion and emphasis as you speak is good. However, a hostile, angry tone of voice is not good. Be confident and assertive, but not arrogant and aggressive. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.

of University School in Ohio. He coached and judged virtually all high school speech and debate events over the years with experience at all levels: national, state, and local. His biggest claim to fame as a coach is that his PF team (DiMino and Rahmani) won the NSDA national championship in 2010. His school has also won the NSDA School of Excellence in Debate Award 8 of the last 12 years.

(1) GO SLOWLY. I cannot emphasize this enough. Going more slowly will greatly improve the thoughtfulness of your arguments and the quality of your delivery, and doing so will make it much easier for me to comprehend and be persuaded by your arguments. No matter how many pieces of evidence or blocks or turns or rebuilds you present, if your opponent just clearly presents ONE intelligent point that strikes me as pertinent and insightful, I am likely to side with him/her at least on the particular issue, and perhaps vote for him/her altogether.

(1a) In terms of your case, to be as specific as possible, in the hopes that you will actually heed my words about speed, the ideal PF case should be no longer than 600 words total. If your case is much longer than that, and you go faster in order to squeeze it into 4 minutes, it's highly likely that I will simply not catch and process many of your words - so you may as well not have said them in the first place.

(1b) In terms of the later speeches in a round, be selective, be strategic, and sell me the goods. In rebuttals, give me your ONE best response to your opponent's argument - maybe two responses, at the very most three. In the second half of the round, collapse to your ONE best voting issue and give your ONE strongest reason why it is true and your ONE strongest reason why it should be considered significant. I'm not going to count all your points just because you said them - You just have to make ONE good point count. (But don't try to do that just be repeating it again and again. You have to explain why your opponent's attack on it should be considered insufficient.) And point out the ONE most critical flaw in your opponent's argument.

(2) More advice on presentation: because we are doing debate through Zoom, it is MORE important that you pay attention to your delivery, not less. It's much harder to hold people's attention when you are speaking to them online than when you speak to them in person. (I'm sure you know this to be true as a listener.) So if you just give up on presenting well, you're making the obstacle practically insurmountable. On the other hand, if you put some real effort into speaking as well as you can in this new online format, you'll likely stand out from many of your opponents and your points will likely be understood and appreciated more than theirs.

(2a) Be clear: Do everything you can to be as clear and easy to understand as possible, both in your writing and your speaking.

(2b) Vary your delivery: Indicate what are the most important points in your speeches by changing up your voice. You should emphasize what is really important by changing the pace, the pitch, the volume, and the tone and also by using pauses. Your speech should not be one, long unbroken stream of words that all sound the same.

(2c) Eye contact: I know it's very hard but try to look up at your camera as much as possible. At least try to show me your face as much as you can.

(3) I don't believe that theory or kritiks should be a part of Public Forum debate. If you run either, you will almost certainly lose my ballot. I don't have time now to give all the reasons why I'm opposed to these kinds of arguments in PF. But I want you to have fair warning of my view on this point. If your opponent has not read this paradigm (or is blatantly disregarding it) and runs a kritik or theory in a round and i am your judge, all you need to say for me to dismiss that argument is that PF debate is intended to be accessible to all people and should directly address the topic of the resolution, and then continue to debate the resolution.



I am among the most traditional, perhaps old-fashioned PF judges you are likely to encounter. I believe that PF should remain true to its original purpose which was to be a debate event that is accessible to everyone, including the ordinary person off the street. So I am opposed to everything that substantively or symbolically makes PF a more exclusive and inaccessible event.

Here are 3 specific preferences related to PF:

1. SPEED (i.e., SELECTIVITY): The slower, the better. What most debaters consider to be slow is still much too fast for the ordinary lay person. Also, speed is often a crutch for debaters. I much prefer to hear fewer, well-chosen arguments developed fully and presented persuasively than many superficial points. One insightful rebuttal is better than three or four mediocre ones. In short, be selective. Go for quality over quantity. Use a scalpel, not a machine gun.

2. CROSSFIRES: Ask questions and give answers. Don't make speeches. Try not to interrupt, talk over, and steam-roll your opponent. Let your opponent speak. But certainly, if they are trying to steam-roll you, you can politely interject and make crossfire more balanced. Crossfire should go back and forth fairly evenly and totally civilly. I want to see engagement and thoughtfulness. Avoid anger and aggressiveness.

3. THEME OVER TECHNIQUE: It is very important to me that a debater presents and supports a clear and powerful narrative about the topic. Don't lost sight of the bigger picture. Keep going back to it in every speech. Only deal with the essential facts that are critical to proving and selling your narrative. If you persuade me of your narrative and make your narrative more significant than your opponent's, you will win my ballot - regardless of how many minor points you drop. On the other hand, if you debate with perfect technique and don't drop anything, but you don't present and sell a clear narrative, it's highly unlikely that you will win my ballot.



LD Judging Preferences:

1. VALUE AND VALUE CRITERION: I think that the value and the value criterion are essential components of Lincoln-Douglas debate. They are what most distinguish LD from policy and public forum. If your advocacy is NOT explicitly directed toward upholding/promoting/achieving a fundamental value and your opponent does present a value and a case that shows how affirming/negating will fulfill that value, your opponent will win the round – because in my view your opponent is properly playing the game of LD debate while you are not.

2. QUALITY OVER QUANTITY: I think that speed ruins the vast majority of debaters, both in terms of their ability to think at a high level and in terms of their effective public speaking, which are two things that are supposed to be developed by your participation in high school forensics and two things I very much hope to see in every debate round I judge.

Most debaters cannot think as fast as they can talk, so going fast in an attempt to win by a numerical advantage in arguments or by “spreading” and causing your opponent to miss something, usually just leads to (a) poor strategic choices of what to focus on, (b) lots of superficial, insignificant, and ultimately unpersuasive points, and (c) inefficiency as debaters who speak too fast often end up stumbling, being less clear, and having to repeat themselves.

I would encourage debaters to speak at a normal, conversational pace, which would force them to make strategic decisions about what’s really important in the round. I think it is better to present clearly a few, significant points than to race rapidly through many unsubstantial points. Try to win by the superior quality of your thinking, not by the greater quantity of your ideas.

While I will do my best to “flow” everything that each debater presents, if you go too fast and as a result I miss something that you say, I don’t apologize for that. It’s your job as a debater not just to say stuff, but to speak in the manner necessary for your judge to receive and thoughtfully consider what you are saying. If your judge doesn’t actually take in something that you say, you might as well not have said it to begin with.

Because I prioritize quality over quantity in evaluating the arguments that are presented, I am not overly concerned about “drops.” If a debater “drops” an argument, that doesn’t necessarily mean he/she loses. It depends on how significant the point is and on how well the opponent explains why the dropped point matters, i.e., how it reveals that his/her side is the superior one.

As a round progresses, I really hope to hear deeper and clearer thinking, not just restating of your contentions. If you have to sacrifice covering every point on the flow in order to take an important issue to a higher level and present a truly insightful point, then so be it. That’s a sacrifice well worth making. On the other hand, if you sacrifice insightful thinking in order to cover the flow, that’s not a wise decision in my view.

3. WARRANTS OVER EVIDENCE: If you read the above carefully, you probably realized that I usually give more weight to logical reasoning than to expert testimony or statistics. I’m more interested in seeing how well you think on your feet than seeing how good of a researcher you are. (I’ve been coaching long enough to know that people can find evidence to support virtually any position on any issue….)

If you present a ton of evidence for a contention, but you don’t explain in your own words why the contention is true and how it links back to your value, I am not likely to be persuaded by it. On the other hand, if you present some brilliant, original analysis in support of a contention, but don’t present any expert testimony or statistical evidence for it, I will probably still find your contention compelling.

4. KRITIKS: While I may appreciate their cleverness, I am very suspicious of kritik arguments. If there is something fundamentally flawed with the resolution such that it shouldn’t be debated at all, it seems to me that that criticism applies equally to both sides, the negative as well as the affirmative. So even if you convince me that the kritik is valid, you’re unlikely to convince me then that you should be given credit for winning the round.

If you really believe the kritik argument, isn’t it hypocritical or self-contradictory for you to participate in the debate round? It seems to me that you can’t consistently present both a kritik and arguments on the substantive issues raised by the resolution, including rebuttals to your opponent’s case. If you go all in on the kritik, I’m likely to view that as complete avoidance of the issues.

In short, running a kritik in front of me as your judge is a good way to forfeit the round to your opponent.

5. JARGON: Please try to avoid using debate jargon as much as possible.

6. PROFESSIONALISM: Please be polite and respectful as you debate your opponent. A moderate amount of passion and emphasis as you speak is good. However, a hostile, angry tone of voice is not good. Be confident and assertive, but not arrogant and aggressive. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.

in Ohio. He coached and judged virtually all high school speech and debate events over the years with experience at all levels: national, state, and local. His biggest claim to fame as a coach is that his PF team (DiMino and Rahmani) won the NSDA national championship in 2010. His school has also won the NSDA School of Excellence in Debate Award 8 of the last 12 years.

(1) GO SLOWLY. I cannot emphasize this enough. Going more slowly will greatly improve the thoughtfulness of your arguments and the quality of your delivery, and doing so will make it much easier for me to comprehend and be persuaded by your arguments. No matter how many pieces of evidence or blocks or turns or rebuilds you present, if your opponent just clearly presents ONE intelligent point that strikes me as pertinent and insightful, I am likely to side with him/her at least on the particular issue, and perhaps vote for him/her altogether.

(1a) In terms of your case, to be as specific as possible, in the hopes that you will actually heed my words about speed, the ideal PF case should be no longer than 600 words total. If your case is much longer than that, and you go faster in order to squeeze it into 4 minutes, it's highly likely that I will simply not catch and process many of your words - so you may as well not have said them in the first place.

(1b) In terms of the later speeches in a round, be selective, be strategic, and sell me the goods. In rebuttals, give me your ONE best response to your opponent's argument - maybe two responses, at the very most three. In the second half of the round, collapse to your ONE best voting issue and give your ONE strongest reason why it is true and your ONE strongest reason why it should be considered significant. I'm not going to count all your points just because you said them - You just have to make ONE good point count. (But don't try to do that just be repeating it again and again. You have to explain why your opponent's attack on it should be considered insufficient.) And point out the ONE most critical flaw in your opponent's argument.

(2) More advice on presentation: because we are doing debate through Zoom, it is MORE important that you pay attention to your delivery, not less. It's much harder to hold people's attention when you are speaking to them online than when you speak to them in person. (I'm sure you know this to be true as a listener.) So if you just give up on presenting well, you're making the obstacle practically insurmountable. On the other hand, if you put some real effort into speaking as well as you can in this new online format, you'll likely stand out from many of your opponents and your points will likely be understood and appreciated more than theirs.

(2a) Be clear: Do everything you can to be as clear and easy to understand as possible, both in your writing and your speaking.

(2b) Vary your delivery: Indicate what are the most important points in your speeches by changing up your voice. You should emphasize what is really important by changing the pace, the pitch, the volume, and the tone and also by using pauses. Your speech should not be one, long unbroken stream of words that all sound the same.

(2c) Eye contact: I know it's very hard but try to look up at your camera as much as possible. At least try to show me your face as much as you can.

(3) I don't believe that theory or kritiks should be a part of Public Forum debate. If you run either, you will almost certainly lose my ballot. I don't have time now to give all the reasons why I'm opposed to these kinds of arguments in PF. But I want you to have fair warning of my view on this point. If your opponent has not read this paradigm (or is blatantly disregarding it) and runs a kritik or theory in a round and i am your judge, all you need to say for me to dismiss that argument is that PF debate is intended to be accessible to all people and should directly address the topic of the resolution, and then continue to debate the resolution.



I am among the most traditional, perhaps old-fashioned PF judges you are likely to encounter. I believe that PF should remain true to its original purpose which was to be a debate event that is accessible to everyone, including the ordinary person off the street. So I am opposed to everything that substantively or symbolically makes PF a more exclusive and inaccessible event.

Here are 3 specific preferences related to PF:

1. SPEED (i.e., SELECTIVITY): The slower, the better. What most debaters consider to be slow is still much too fast for the ordinary lay person. Also, speed is often a crutch for debaters. I much prefer to hear fewer, well-chosen arguments developed fully and presented persuasively than many superficial points. One insightful rebuttal is better than three or four mediocre ones. In short, be selective. Go for quality over quantity. Use a scalpel, not a machine gun.

2. CROSSFIRES: Ask questions and give answers. Don't make speeches. Try not to interrupt, talk over, and steam-roll your opponent. Let your opponent speak. But certainly, if they are trying to steam-roll you, you can politely interject and make crossfire more balanced. Crossfire should go back and forth fairly evenly and totally civilly. I want to see engagement and thoughtfulness. Avoid anger and aggressiveness.

3. THEME OVER TECHNIQUE: It is very important to me that a debater presents and supports a clear and powerful narrative about the topic. Don't lost sight of the bigger picture. Keep going back to it in every speech. Only deal with the essential facts that are critical to proving and selling your narrative. If you persuade me of your narrative and make your narrative more significant than your opponent's, you will win my ballot - regardless of how many minor points you drop. On the other hand, if you debate with perfect technique and don't drop anything, but you don't present and sell a clear narrative, it's highly unlikely that you will win my ballot.



LD Judging Preferences:

1. VALUE AND VALUE CRITERION: I think that the value and the value criterion are essential components of Lincoln-Douglas debate. They are what most distinguish LD from policy and public forum. If your advocacy is NOT explicitly directed toward upholding/promoting/achieving a fundamental value and your opponent does present a value and a case that shows how affirming/negating will fulfill that value, your opponent will win the round – because in my view your opponent is properly playing the game of LD debate while you are not.

2. QUALITY OVER QUANTITY: I think that speed ruins the vast majority of debaters, both in terms of their ability to think at a high level and in terms of their effective public speaking, which are two things that are supposed to be developed by your participation in high school forensics and two things I very much hope to see in every debate round I judge.

Most debaters cannot think as fast as they can talk, so going fast in an attempt to win by a numerical advantage in arguments or by “spreading” and causing your opponent to miss something, usually just leads to (a) poor strategic choices of what to focus on, (b) lots of superficial, insignificant, and ultimately unpersuasive points, and (c) inefficiency as debaters who speak too fast often end up stumbling, being less clear, and having to repeat themselves.

I would encourage debaters to speak at a normal, conversational pace, which would force them to make strategic decisions about what’s really important in the round. I think it is better to present clearly a few, significant points than to race rapidly through many unsubstantial points. Try to win by the superior quality of your thinking, not by the greater quantity of your ideas.

While I will do my best to “flow” everything that each debater presents, if you go too fast and as a result I miss something that you say, I don’t apologize for that. It’s your job as a debater not just to say stuff, but to speak in the manner necessary for your judge to receive and thoughtfully consider what you are saying. If your judge doesn’t actually take in something that you say, you might as well not have said it to begin with.

Because I prioritize quality over quantity in evaluating the arguments that are presented, I am not overly concerned about “drops.” If a debater “drops” an argument, that doesn’t necessarily mean he/she loses. It depends on how significant the point is and on how well the opponent explains why the dropped point matters, i.e., how it reveals that his/her side is the superior one.

As a round progresses, I really hope to hear deeper and clearer thinking, not just restating of your contentions. If you have to sacrifice covering every point on the flow in order to take an important issue to a higher level and present a truly insightful point, then so be it. That’s a sacrifice well worth making. On the other hand, if you sacrifice insightful thinking in order to cover the flow, that’s not a wise decision in my view.

3. WARRANTS OVER EVIDENCE: If you read the above carefully, you probably realized that I usually give more weight to logical reasoning than to expert testimony or statistics. I’m more interested in seeing how well you think on your feet than seeing how good of a researcher you are. (I’ve been coaching long enough to know that people can find evidence to support virtually any position on any issue….)

If you present a ton of evidence for a contention, but you don’t explain in your own words why the contention is true and how it links back to your value, I am not likely to be persuaded by it. On the other hand, if you present some brilliant, original analysis in support of a contention, but don’t present any expert testimony or statistical evidence for it, I will probably still find your contention compelling.

4. KRITIKS: While I may appreciate their cleverness, I am very suspicious of kritik arguments. If there is something fundamentally flawed with the resolution such that it shouldn’t be debated at all, it seems to me that that criticism applies equally to both sides, the negative as well as the affirmative. So even if you convince me that the kritik is valid, you’re unlikely to convince me then that you should be given credit for winning the round.

If you really believe the kritik argument, isn’t it hypocritical or self-contradictory for you to participate in the debate round? It seems to me that you can’t consistently present both a kritik and arguments on the substantive issues raised by the resolution, including rebuttals to your opponent’s case. If you go all in on the kritik, I’m likely to view that as complete avoidance of the issues.

In short, running a kritik in front of me as your judge is a good way to forfeit the round to your opponent.

5. JARGON: Please try to avoid using debate jargon as much as possible.

6. PROFESSIONALISM: Please be polite and respectful as you debate your opponent. A moderate amount of passion and emphasis as you speak is good. However, a hostile, angry tone of voice is not good. Be confident and assertive, but not arrogant and aggressive. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.

Peyton Reeves Paradigm

Lee's Summit High School (MO) 18'

Mo State 23 (?)' (NDT/CEDA and NFA-LD)

Pronouns are They/Them.

Email Chain-

Preeves22@gmail.com

"I'm going to flow your speech. There is nothing you can possibly do to stop this short of concede. What's worse, I'm even going to decide the debate based on said flow and said flow alone."

Tech > Truth

Don't have to affirm the USFG, but should be something about the res - it's there for a reason.

I know the general thesis of most K's, doesn't mean you get a pass on explaining them.

Theory is cool, condo is good to some extent - you can argue where that extent is.

Pen time is good.

average - 28.5, you can go up or down from there - if you send cards in the body of an email with yellow highlighting, -.1 speaks, gives me a headache and i am red-green colorblind so i literally cannot read it.

as long as you don't break tournament rules and everyone gives two speeches within time constraints, i don't care what you do

Ashley Rihani Paradigm

Hi, I'm Ashley(she/her)!

I debated in high school LD debate for four years, qualifying for TFA state twice, NSDA nationals, and clearing at a couple of bid tournaments. I also had some success in UIL circuit. I was a mentor for W.in Debate my senior year.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

TL;DR:

K- 1

non-T/Performance- 1

Policy/LARP- 2

Theory- 3-4

Phil- 3-4

Tricks/Friv Theory- 4

General:

- This should go without me saying, but I'll evaluate anything unless it is racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. and could potentially harm someone or a group of people (means give trigger warnings and use preferred gender pronouns).

- DISCLOSURE: I do not care. If you can justify not pre-round disclosing then do it (I am really lenient about this for identity ptx, but if you aren't pre-round disclosing for the purpose of being annoying, you probably won't win the theory debate). Put me on the email chain: rihaniashley@gmail.com disclose analytics too........

- slow down online pls

- In the case of disconnections: make sure you are recording your speeches. CONSIDER THIS A WARNING.

- Extend/compare warrants and weigh!

- Tell me what layer of the debate comes first or else I might make a decision that you will not like.

- DO NOT assume that I have done research on the topic. Hint: I have not!

- Creative arguments make me very happy (speaks will be boosted).

- Strategic collapses make me very happy (speaks will be boosted). The 2AR/2NR should absolutely not come down to everything

- Do not read an argument if you do not have the agency to do so :( Too many white debaters read things like anti-Blackness and then do absolutely nothing in the real world when their activism is needed the most. They clearly do not understand or have to go through experiences and are just trying to win the ballot. Makes me angry!

- On the line-by-line, numbering arguments makes flowing much easier for me.

- I think long overviews are underrated. When done right, they can be super strategic (be very specific when re-grouping args).

- give me a nice ballot story, make the decision really easy for me...

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Long version:

K:

Love! I am very familiar with most types of kritiks. I still would love a nice overview though with strategic re-groupings!

Quality Links>Quantity Links. The more specific they are, the better.

Explain alt solvency very thoroughly. I think floating piks are super strategic and wish they were utilized more.

The only types of tricks that I genuinely like are K tricks.

Emphasize impact framing and analysis! Weigh!

non-T/performance:

YES! Make it unique. More non-conforming performances seem much more effective to me. If you decidedly read a performance that looks/sounds like every other case, I'm just going to be confused as to what the performance is achieving.

The more creative answers to T you come up, the more I will love you.

Rather than only giving me this form of debate good justifications, explain why engaging with this form of debate is good.

If you have other strats besides fw I will be very pleased.. like I said, creativity wins me over more

Phil:

It's fine. Do not assume that I am super familiar with your phil. Be sure to explain it super well and in-depth if you want me to vote on it. I am not deeply familiar with a lot of white phil (sad face) that debaters read like Baudrillard, Deleuze, etc., but I am super familiar with a bunch of non-Western literature. I am definitely not the judge for dense phil debates. I am going to be lost.

T/Theory:

I only think it is good when there is actual abuse... I enjoy substantive debates much more, but if this is your A-strat then go for it.

Defaults: competing interps, no rvi, dtd

Go slow on analytics! I suck at flowing as it is. I'm not flowing from the doc.

Substantive T debates are much more appealing. Draw out turns/DAs to the method

Clearly establish impacts to standards. Weigh!

Friv theory: keep in mind, I'm only here to make money. If you decide to read friv theory, I will evaluate it, but I'm not going to like it. If I'm going to have to listen to you talk, the least you can do is make the conversation have some sort of significance.

Policy/LARP:.

Compare evidence. Weigh. Extend warrants.

I have become worse and worse at understanding jargon in these debates, just be very thorough in your explanation instead of making me sit there and try to figure out what "the net benefit to the perm and the uniqueness in the alt of the status quo hijacks the internal link of the impact" means.

CP- more specific to the aff makes them much better; should have some net benefits

DAs- yes!

Tricks:

No :( If you are reading tricks for the sake of losing your opponent then bringing up a 3-second blip that was "conceded" and expect me to vote on it, you're going to be disappointed.

If I don't flow it, I won't vote on it... it's simple. Either make it blatantly obvious or don't go for it. You're also going to have to explain it super super super well.

Haritha Sigili Paradigm

I graduated from Columbus High School and did 3 years of LD debate.

Speaks: I speak somewhat fast in debate, so I can handle speed when flowing but do not spread. If you decide/must speak fast or spread, create a speech doc and add me to the email chain @ hsigili01@gmail.com

If you are making an important point, you need to slow down to make sure I catch everything I need to.

Argumentation:

1. I am more of a traditional debater. However, I am open to progressive styles of LD, but honestly I don't like/know Theory, K, etc. I am more comfortable with CPs and DAs though. So, keep in mind that I am not too familiar with it so if you're gonna do it, do it well.

2. I vote off the flow. You need to be responding to every argument that's brought up in the round, including their responses to your arguments. Please sign post because it makes my life so much easier. That being said, I don't really flow card names (i.e. Doe 19) so if you're gonna address or extend it in a later speech, use the tagline otherwise I don't know what to do on my flow.

3. The framework debate is the most important thing at the end of the round. If the framework debate is lost or no one wins, then I look towards the contention level.

4. If anything important happens in cross x, make sure you bring it up in speech because I do not flow in cross.

5. Voters in your last speech are very helpful for me to make my decision.

Otherwise, if you have any other questions, please feel free to ask or email me at hsigili01@gmail.com !! :)

Neal Singal Paradigm

Background:

I debated for four years in Public Forum for West Windsor-Plainsboro South and I'm currently a sophomore at Georgetown University. I will vote off the flow unless you blatantly miscut a card in which case you will automatically lose. Please feel free to ask me anything else before the round if I don't cover it here.

Things I like:

-Consistency between the summary and the final focus. These two speeches should be parallel in that they re-iterate the same points that you think win the round for you. This means proper extension of arguments (ie warrant and impact extension) in both speeches.

-Weighing. You're probably not going to win every single argument in the round, so I want to give me tangible reasons as to why the argument you should win the round based on is more important than your opponents'. Beyond just regular magnitude, scope probability, I really like teams who get more creative with their weighing (ex: Strength of Link, Clarity of Impact, etc). Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost. Weighing should start as early in the round as possible.

-Cross-fire. I think this really shows how good you are as a debater and not how much you can read off your laptop. Good cross-fires will boost your speaks and if you get a concession please use it throughout the rest of the round (that's what actual debate is about).

-Unique cases. Listening to the same cases for the entire tournament can get boring, but if you have something that's new and interesting I'll boost your speaks by 0.5-1.0.

-Jokes, just don't force them.

Things I don't like:

-Speed. I can handle some speed but I don't write too fast and have always preferred the original PF speed. You can usually get the same quantity of arguments out by just improving your word economy instead of picking up your speed.

-Theory. Despite popular opinion I think debate is about the actual topic and the research everyone gets to do before a tournament. If you read me theory I just think you are trying to avoid debating your opponents. If there is a serious problem in a debate I will take it to Tab anyway (you will win as well), so just focus on the actual substantive debate.

-Off-time road maps. If I hear "their case then ours" your speaks are most likely getting docked.

-Preflowing after the coin toss.

David Slaughter Paradigm

I always get certain questions it seems at the beginning of rounds relative to what my paradigm is or is not or perhaps what I might identify as voting issues. I have an extensive background in debate both at the high school level and college. I debated for Bellaire High School from 1973 to 1976 and then again for four years on a full debate scholarship at HBU here in Houston. I competed in CX mostly and at a national level in college. It's been awhile, but I have been judging off and on now over the past 12 years and I do have some opinions or perhaps advice. First of all, like any good judge ought to insist upon, my decision in any given round is based solely upon what the contestants themselves argue, extend and persuade me of. I do actively take down cites on almost all evidence read especially during the 1AC or Pro. Surely, we all know there can be no new arguments brought up during rebuttals. I would hope debaters at all levels do understand that it is about winning arguments through extension, clarification and through direct clash made throughout the round by all participants especially decided during rebuttals. I look for which team extends most effectively and persuasively. I am often asked if I can handle speed or the flow. I try not to be rude when I might say in retort to any one of them there is simply no way they or anyone else could ever be any faster than he and I were while debating the likes of Harvard, Georgetown etc. way back in college. Nevertheless, speed can still kill sometimes (an argument) as it may become lost on the deaf ears of a lay judge. So, in my mind you have to make your evidence and arguments count untl the very end. I do accept most arguments as presented during a round especially those well defended with evidence, logic and with reasoning. I believe in a professional courteous exchange between both parties especially during crossfire or CX at al times. The cross fire time in my mind is precious time that can be well spent not trying to make an argument or set the record straight, but rather it is a time that can help teams seek and gain clarification for their own purposes or one that if effectively orchestrated might indeed be setting a trap or one that may even be testing a strategic position. Responses given in cross fire are binding and if properly employed can make a difference in the round. Lastly, you might be surprised how many debaters do not do a great job telling a judge why they should choose to vote one way or another or in their favor. It all starts with those first two speeches in which clash is to be fully expected very early on. I do not give decisions or feedback at the end of a round. We all know better than to do that don't unless its an elimination round My ballot will certainly make it crystal clear to both parties why I voted the way I did and I will say it once again, my ballot will not be based upon my own suppositions, inclinations or personal opinions, period. For the record, debate is meant to be fun, exciting and yes, highly competitive. I view forensic activities as a whole as though it is preparation that has the potential to help one properly distinguish between theory and the real world later. Side note, when it comes to extemp, it's not really that hard folks. You just need a catchy introduction, one that you purposely plan to use to tie back into the very purpose and answer to the question posed when you near the conclusion of your speech. You need three key points to stand behind, ones that someone might actually remember and you should most certainly make every effort to fulfill all of your time. In terms of Congress, I have judged this one many times over the past 12 years and I love it. It is all about the numbers. How many bills you chose to speak on. Your ability to question effectively when called upon and it helps if you try and visualize Congress debating a bill. You want to line up other representatives who will actually vote your way. I hate to be so bold but truth be known, I am he kind of judge I suspect most good competitors want in their round. Its gonna be fair, its gonna be won or lost by you and I will use my ballot to help you get better going forward.

Ray Smith Paradigm

NEW ONLINE/LOCKDOWN/2020 PREFERENCES

Everyone is giving each other all kinds of breaks, and I'm here for it. Let's try to survive this together. I'm just grateful that Speech and Debate can still be done semi-normally, unlike almost every other extra-curricular. The tech problems and other issues we will face during tournaments are able to be overcome. I have miles of patience for you, and I am on your side. Let's do this.

Online judging experience so far: Zoom, NSDA Campus, Accelevents and Yaatly.

Pre-pandemic paradigm:

Have you ever had a judge write "YAAAZZZ" or "SLAY MAMA" in 72 font on your ballot?

You will today.

EXPERIENCE:

Coach of a high school team, 13-14 to 17-18. Assistant Coach, 11-12 and 12-13.

My state is strongly Catholic Forensics League, so their events are what I have the most experience in: PF, LD, Congress and the standard slate of IE's. I have been a Parliamentarian a few times. I have done small numbers of rounds in the events less popular in Virginia: BQ, policy, POI, Extemp Debate, original spoken word and world schools. I have also done a little Ethics Bowl, Model UN and theater competitions.

Teacher, 2005-present. Drama, Public Speaking and Spanish.

TED Talk Coach for local TEDx conference, 2017 and 2019.

On the team in high school. Did Policy (death penalty), Poetry and Prose.

In an informal, non-competing debate club in college.

Tournament judge from 90's to present.

Education was a second career for me after 15 years of varied work experience, so I come at this activity with the practical aspects at the front of my mind. Public speaking is undeniably a key to success for any job you have or any hobby that involves other humans. This means that I de-emphasize, when I can, the "game" aspects of this activity and focus on the rhetoric - how persuasive your speech actually is - and how an audience would feel watching it if it were 7:30 am in an office park conference room. In real-world public speaking, there is no separation between good speakers and good debaters. Being forced to listen to a sales pitch or a history lesson or an opening argument at 7:30 am makes your audience demand both, so argue well AND speak well. Logos AND pathos. No successful trial lawyer holds a piece of paper 6 inches from their face without ever looking up. No one giving a TED talk starts every paragraph with "Ok, so..."

My objectives for and experience in high school public speaking have created these preferences. I adjust them as needed based on the standards of the region:

  • Stand while speaking unless the rules of the event/tournament ask you to sit.
  • All speaking is timed. "Road maps" count as part of the speech and will be timed.
  • Only spread if you know how to do it.
  • AFF/PRO sit stage right of the judges in order to lower the chance of ballot errors.
  • You can only time yourselves if everyone has a timer. If one of the debaters doesn't, I will ask everyone else to turn their phones completely off then I will be the timer.
  • If you're using your phone, please turn the sound all the way off, including alarms.
  • If you ask to see an opponent's evidence between speeches, that counts as part of your prep time.
  • Observers are not allowed to have phones or computers out.
  • At the end of the round please wait until you leave the room until you start chatting. This is so you don't unintentionally talk about the round in front of me.
  • No badgering during cross-ex. This isn't a courtroom drama. If you keep cutting off your opponent in order to look more powerful than he is, you won't look like Tom Cruise getting Jack Nicholson to admit that we can't handle the truth. You will look like someone who's grumpy because he didn't get enough sleep last night because he had to be on the bus to the tournament at 4am.
  • Don't ignore current events related to the topic. More clearly stated - I dislike when a team wrote a case in summer debate camp, then a big change happened in North Korea or Catalonia or whereever, but they didn't change their case. I can almost guarantee you that if your opponent includes the effects of major current events, you will lose because you will appear unprepared.
  • By the time you read this paradigm it's probably too late to change, but it disappoints me when a whole team has the same case, and I have to hear the exact same case whenever I see a team from your school. Or worse, when everyone in an area went to the same debate camp and a bunch of people are using the same 4 contentions and I have to judge that lack of original arguments for 13 rounds in a row.

Speech/IE preferences:

No forensbots. If you are giving us a speech that you've polished so much that it shines, make sure your eyes aren't dead. If this is literally the 50th round you've performed this piece, practice it with a friend and tell her to tell you truthfully if you look like a soulless automaton. If you're going to be on Broadway, you better be ready to BRING IT 200 nights in a row, let alone 6 rounds.

My entire life is spent watching young people speak. I notice everything: swaying back and forth; shifting foot to foot; grabbing the bottom of your blazer; pacing too much; purposeless, repetitive gestures. I was once in a final round in which I ranked a speaker 7 because she kept smacking her lips every other sentence. The other 2 judges didn't notice and each ranked her first. There is nothing wrong with any individual movement or tic, but if you repeat that movement too often, I will see it and tell you. Watch videos of yourself to notice and reduce your own tics. Mine is thigh-slapping, but I have it under control.

Rachel Thibodeaux Paradigm

Rachel Thibodeaux

Email Chain: r.thibodeaux99@gmail.com

Fullerton College 2018-2019 Parli & Policy Debater

CSU Long Beach 2020-Present Policy & Parli Debater

Role of the Ballot: You define what the role of the ballot is. The duality of debate is this: there are rules meant to be followed and rules meant to be broken, neither being mutually exclusive. Tell me how I should be voting, I am fine voting in nontraditional means as long as you win the argument that is how I should vote. This means evidence and reasoning. I lean tabula rasa, but let's be honest, people who say that are liars. Although I try to be as impartial as possible, I still have a few methodologies that I default to when deciding a round:

I vote strictly off the flow. If I didn't get it down, it doesn't count in the debate. That means your spreading needs to be clear before you try to pick up speed. If I have to say, "clear" multiple times during your speech you're wasting my time and yours. With that being said, you must extend your arguments to keep it in the debate. If it isn't extended, I won't vote off of it.

Weigh your args. I need to see some impact calculus. I try to not insert myself into the round, and instead let you tell me what the evidence means in the round. This also means that even if you have amazing evidence, unless you explicitly tell me why it's amazing and effectively apply it, I will not make any arguments for you. A round can be changed all based on the framing of args. I do like to see debaters show me they understand they aren't winning all args, but highlight why the ones they are winning are the most important. Try to keep framing grounded in the reality of the debate.

Evidence. Cards must be used effectively in the round. Name the author and extend to make it easier for me to organize the debate - this benefits you the most, that way I don't have to spend time trying to locate what card you're talking about. Having a Parli background does make me more accepting of analytics. I hear a good argument I will acknowledge it and take it into account even without a card.

Feel free to run a K or K Aff. A good link story is everything! If you perm, don't drop it. For the K Aff just throughly explain how your Aff links to the topic. I'm not particularly convinced by K Affs that don't link at all... makes T go for Neg. In general tho, a T usually goes for Aff. I personally prefer the soft left aff, but that's just what I enjoy to run. Ks are great and I think they're productive to the debate space.

I love strategic and pointed CXs. Be precise in the questions you ask. Use your time wisely. Bring up their answers in your speech for anything to flow. You can be respectfully aggressive. If you're disrespectful it lowers your speaks.

Tech > Truth.

At the end of the day, debate is an extremely enriching and fun competitive activity. Try not to take a loss to your heart or a win to your head. Debate is hard to navigate, but I hope you all stick with it and find your own groove and place in the community.

Steven Thomas Paradigm

please include on email chain exo812@my.utsa.edu

I did not competitively debate during my scholastic career, but have participated in moot courts and have been part of deliberative bodies.

I have strong background in history and Political science as well as many of the modern political theories and philosophies.

That said I put value on logical reasoning and command of your argument above all else. Quality if your argument over quantity of arguments or points made. Speak clearly and try to keep jargon to a minimum.

I value those whose arguments are well composed and logically structured and can control clash.

Caution on K, it has a place but not in some events. I look quite dimly at Ks in LD that fail to link to the resolution.

Also be nice, if you try to intimidate or otherwise game opponents I will take a dim view on it . Be courteous, and don't try to steal prep, I will not look favorably on that. Be ready to act or announce prep as soon previous speaker ends or cross is complete.

Aaron Timmons Paradigm

2 rounds

Aaron Timmons

Director of Debate – Greenhill School

Updated – April 2019

Please put me on the email chain – timmonsa@greenhill.org

New for the TOC 2019 – I am the Director of the Global Debate Symposium and for this summer I have hired Spencer Paul and Vishan Chaudhary from Harvard Westlake, and Ishan Bhatt from St. Andrews of the list of competitors that will be in the 2019 TOC competing in Lincoln Douglas.

Lincoln - Douglas Philosophy

I have coached debate, and been a classroom teacher, for a long time. I feel that when done well, with agreed upon “rules of engagement”, there is not a better activity to provide a training ground for young people. That said, at some point, most of the adults have left the building as it relates to national circuit Lincoln Douglas debate. I find many of the things that are now commonplace, are antithetical to the things that I love about debate. In fact, many of these practices are not educational, but also make the activity unsustainable in any meaningful way to sell to administrators, parents, new coaches, or even a new generation of debaters.


I have taken some time to reflect on how I judge debates, and have revised my paradigm. It would behoove you to read it if I have the potential to judge you. If you do not like what you read, strike me.

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is parallel to that of an instructor. I will evaluate your performance. At this stage in my career, I have no interest in being the “most preferred” judge in the pool. In fact, what I see is that many in the Lincoln Douglas community (as opposed to policy debate); make preferences more based on personal relationships, than the relative experience/paradigmatic perspective of the critic. I see my role as to set a fair, but stringent, set of expectations for the students I am judging. At times, this means advancing expectations that I feel are best for the students and, at times, the broader community as well. At this point, I am also not shy to share those thoughts and expectations. I see myself as a critic of argument if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label. Unlike many claim to be, I am not a blank slate. If I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round, I will intervene. I WILL do my best to be an objective evaluator of your argument but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode arguments is just not true (nor do I personally think it is true for anyone).


Below please find a few thoughts as to how I evaluate debates.

1. Speed is not a problem. In most of the Lincoln Douglas I judge, clarity IS a problem. I judge high level policy debates quite a bit and while they are quiet fast, I don’t see clarity as much of an issue with the top teams. Please understand that unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together does not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think it might. I reserve the right to yell “clearer” once or twice. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable.

2. I feel theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas, and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex”, that said it can’t be unlimited. The idea of reading a “counter shell” against a theory argument is one of the silliest practices I see in contemporary debate. Before the proliferation of theory in Lincoln Douglas I thought RVI’s were silly. They have a place in contemporary LD. I DO NOT think jettisoning the case and going all in on the RVI should be the A strategy in the 1ar. While I like competing interpretations, in the end, I feel even that view is filtered through my perspective of reason/what is reasonable/the best lens for debate. Some intervention is inevitable as we judge.

3. Evidence is important. In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues (particularly empirical ones), in addition to a comparison of competing warrants in the evidence, is important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, I am likely to prefer your argument if the comparison is done well. All students should have full cites for materials.

4. I am not a “blank state”. I also feel my role as a judge is to serve a duel function of rendering a decision, in addition to serving a role as educator as well.

5. Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic etc will not be tolerated.

6. I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other teams arguments. At its foundation, debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.

7. Answer questions in cross-examination. Cross-ex is binding. I do listen carefully to cross – ex.

8. Although I know you have figured it out, Lincoln Douglas does not have a 2AC in the same way that policy does. 1AR’s that advance lots of offense on many negative positions will be rewarded with high points.

9. Debating with a laptop is a choice, if you are reading from a computer I have three expectations that are nonnegotiable:

A) You must jump the documents read to the opposition in a timely manner (before your speech or at worse IMMEDIATELY after your speech) to allow them to prepare or set up an email chain.

B) If your opponent does not have a laptop you need to have a viewing computer OR surrender your computer to them to allow them to prepare. The oppositions need to prep outweighs your need to prep/preflow in that moment in time.

C) My expectation is that the documents that are shared are done in a format that is the same as read by the debater that initially read the material. In other words, I will not tolerate some of the shenanigan’s that seem to exist, including but not limited to, using a non standard word processing program, all caps, no formatting etc.

10. Many debaters have been instructed, or watched others run, “metaethics” with some success. My experience is that many debaters have a very superficial grasp of what this even means. Make sure to explain, and compare your position against the position of your opponent. A good rule of thumb is to assume you don’t win every argument and frame things in an even /if perspective.

11. I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While perhaps interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.

12. I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.


13. Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seems silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card doesn’t mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clash are a necessary component of debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument.

14. I feel it takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.

15. Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.


Please ask me specific questions if you have one before the debate.

Anthony Tresca Paradigm

For CX Debate, I am a stock issues judges; I love stock issues and think they will guarantee a fruitful debate. However, I really am willing to listen to any argument as long it makes SENSE.

Please, do not force me to listen to some overdone kritik that does not link any way to the affirmative teams case. I also think that debate should be a communication activity; I think every word is important and I would like to hear all of them. If you can make yourself understood while spreading, go for it. If not, that is ok; I believe in quality of arguments over quantity.

Most importantly, have fun and be respectful to all in the room.

Zaid Umar Paradigm

I did PF in high school. Broke at a few circuit invites, qualified to the NSDA tournament twice and TOC silver, and was Top 8 at the CA state tournament junior year.

I'm an Economics and History double major @ UC Berkeley (class of 2022) and compete in British Parliamentary debate occasionally now.

GENERAL PREFS

1. Talking fast is fine. I'm also good with spread if I have your speech doc.

2. I am okay with you running kritiks as long as you warrant, link, and impact it very well. No K AFFs, these are not topical. I prefer you stick to case debate because I understand that better and think it's more educational, but if you're really passionate about your "alternative" argument then by all means run it. You'll just really need to explain to me what's going on or you'll lose me. Exception: I think some form of arguing for ending the world as a K is pretty OP. Interpret that as you will.

3. Don't run theory. I think it's stupid and a waste of time. I'm cool with you pointing out issues regarding T or Condo though. CONDO BAD.

4. I'm 100% tabula rasa. Act as if I'm a blank slate on the topic.

5. Tech > truth. I will accept anything you run without intervention. Two exceptions:

a. if your opponent rightfully calls out a bigoted argument (i.e., something racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, islamaphobic, anti semitic, etc), I will view it as such and may drop you depending on the severity and definitely tank your speaker points.

b. if there are conflicting pieces of evidence (LD or PF), and no one explains why their card should be preferred, I will call both and make my decision on which one to weigh more based on the merits of each (recency, methodology, scope, etc). Even if cards are weighed, I still might call from both teams if I have doubts.

6. I put my pen down for the most part during final speeches, so I want you to clearly and succinctly explain to me (i.e., give me numbered reasons) why I should vote for you. Weighing directly at the impact level is also super important here.

PUBLIC FORUM PREFS

1. Please don't frontline case in your second speech (hint, that's what summary is for!). That is such a waste of time. I'd rather have you give me a full 4 minute rebuttal.

2. I'd like a 50/50 split offense/defense in summary. Doesn't have to be *exact* but a general guideline to follow.

3. Always give offtime roadmaps after the 1NC.

PARLI PREFS

1. Asking/attempting AND answering POIs is a good way to get higher speaker points. Don't spam your opponents with POIs though. Just enough for me to know you are engaged in the debate.

2. Tag teaming is fine, but you need to repeat what your partner says.

3. Always give offtime roadmaps after the 1AC.

LD PREFS

1. Always give offtime roadmaps after the 1AC.

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the Yale Tournament:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

If you have any questions email me: zaidumar@berkeley.edu

Deepti Vajapey Paradigm

Not Submitted

Andrew Vermillion Paradigm

Policymaker paradigm, but open to all arguments.

Quality > quantity of arguments.

Speed isn't an issue, but analysis of arguments > speed. Evidence is necessary but shouldn't be a substitute for analysis of that evidence. Reading 6 cards without telling me why they matter in the round doesn't give me much of a reason to vote on those cards/args.

Feel free to ask specifics prior to the round.

Natalie Yehezkel-Stolarski Paradigm

I competed for 5 years in policy (two in college). I've been judging Policy since 2010. Right now I also coach HS LD.

I try my hardest to be tabula rasa, but I'm also a person.

Major things that make me different from other judges:

1) I'm somewhat hard of hearing - try to talk way louder than you would. This is usually only a problem during physical (not online) tournaments, and in rooms with a lot of echo.

2) Calling for evidence - I hate doing it. Tell me what their evidence says or doesn't say. You have their speech doc. I don't like reading and I don't like taking up RFD time to read stuff that should've been explained.

3) I don’t like spreading through warrants - I know that the debate community has made it the norm that judges read through speech docs as they’re being read. I’m not a huge fan. That being said, I guess I’ll follow along if I must, but I do dock speaker points for clarity more so than most judges.

4) Try to be pleasant.

5) K's on the Neg and their Aff refutations:

Aff: Don't over-rely on framework, perms and theory. Read these arguments when they really make sense, not out of fear of engaging the substance of the K. Make sure that the K actually violates the rules you want to set up before spending time setting up those rules.

Neg: Don't be lazy! Read specific, offensive links with well-explained alts that are both paradigmatic and can be translated into action that helps people. You can advocate for specific solutions (that may or may not be state policies) as examples of a broader and more general alternative. Find a good balance between examples, explanations, and warrants/proof.

David Yi Paradigm

****Last Updated: Florida Blue Key 2020****

****I recently made a major change to my paradigm. Please see the section labeled “Tricks”****

Background

Hi! My name is David. I’m a third year pre-med major at Purdue University. I aspire to attend medical school in a couple years. I did LD debate for duPont Manual High School (Louisville, Kentucky) from 2014-2018. I broke at almost every bid tournament I attended and reached multiple bid rounds. I mostly LARPed, but I enjoyed reading Ks and T/Theory too during my time on the circuit.

Short Version

· Add me to the email chain: dsyi12400@gmail.com

· I will vote for any well-explained argument that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I believe debate is a competitive research game, but I think everyone should do whatever floats their boat, so tech > truth

· Don't do/say anything offensive or hurtful

· Start slow and then go as fast as you want—online debates make this incredibly important. I’ll yell clear as much as I need to—just don’t ignore me

· Pop tags and author names

· Warrant to warrant comparisons win rounds: if their DA says X and your link turn says Y, explain to me why I should prefer your link turn. Make clash explicit and do the work on the flow for yourself. Otherwise, be prepared to receive a decision with which you’re unhappy

· I appreciate good signposting in rebuttals: tell me where on the case or off you’re on (i.e. framing, link, impact, line by line, etc.)

· Number args if you can

· I love good impact turns—bonus speaks if you can end the debate with these

· Be mindful of how much time you take to flash/email the speech doc. Prep ends when the doc is compiled; flashing/emailing isn’t prep

· If you make a Star Wars reference, I’ll add +0.2 to whatever your speaks were supposed to be. I’ll add +0.4 if it's a Darth Vader or Yoda quote. Don’t be afraid to “do it”

Feel free to ask me questions about my preferences before the round. Have fun and good luck!

Long Version

Likes

· smart, logical args

· weighing that is contextualized to your opponent’s args

· good overviews in rebuttals

· fast and efficient tech skills

· strategically written cases

· being funny (if you’re really good and make me laugh, you might just get bonus speaks)

· good CX

· good case debate

· demonstrating a thorough understanding of the literature you’re reading

· numbering args

· ethos—persuasion actually matters—surprise!

Dislikes

· slurring words during the speech

· rambling CX answers that clearly waste your opponent’s time

· bad evidence

· power tagging

· lack of weighing

· being rude

· going for everything in your last speech (although this is justified sometimes)

LARP/Util

· I have MAD respect for people who have a single util aff for an entire tournament/topic and know how to defend it tooth and nail against everything

· Your extensions need to have warrants—even in the 1AR/2AR. That being said, all it needs to be is an overview of the advantage. Just tell me what the aff does, what it solves, and how it does so. The more a warrant in your aff is contested, the more thorough your extension of that part of the aff should be

· You HAVE to do impact calc and weighing. If you don’t I won’t be happy. This includes weighing extinction scenarios against each other. Why do people forget they can do this??

· Read impact defense. It makes it a lot easier to prove why your offense outweighs

· Extinction scenarios are really fun!!!! If you win that extinction precludes Kant in front of me then I might give bonus speaks—but you have to actually win it

· Great evidence comparison will get you good speaks. This is critical in this type of debate

· You don’t need to read evidence for everything; smart analytics are good too (especially when you're responding to these positions)

· All types of CPs are cool, but don't blame me if your opponent reads theory

· CPs should avoid a DA to the aff, so just saying “CP solves better” isn’t a DA to the perm

· The best DAs have good turns case args and these should be brought up in the 2NR—I find these persuasive

Ks

· I’ll probably have a basic understanding of whatever K you read (I learned a TON from coaches and prep mates throughout the years), but I will not vote for you unless YOU explain your theory to me

· These positions tend to be inherently nuanced and the evidence varies from author to author. If I’ve learned something new from your K, I’ll be much more impressed than if you read a generic K (this applies whether you’re aff or neg). I’ve seen some innovative K affs recently, so surprise me!

· Your 2NR better be easy to flow. I don’t want to sit through a ridiculously long overview that requires me to sift through my flow after the round to determine what responds to what. Your speaks will not be amazing

· The most important thing for you to do is to explain the interaction between the K and the aff. Explain why it outweighs/turns the case/why the perm fails/why the K is a prior question

· Shorter tags are easier to flow

· Try to have a text to your alt, but texts for framing args aren’t necessary

· Your aff doesn’t need to be topical

T/Theory

· I’ve started to enjoy T/Theory debates a lot more than I used to. They demonstrate whether debaters have good tech skills and whether they know how to defend their personal convictions about debate as an activity. If you’re willing to be persuasive and you’re serious about defending your interp, then go for it

· I don’t have “defaults” in the sense that the debaters need to justify these things, but I guess I “default” to the norms of the activity, which seem to be drop the debater, no RVIs, and competing interps (unless justified by debaters that I should do otherwise)

· PLEASE weigh standards—especially when there are a ton of args interacting in the round. This is so important in theory debates

· Don’t forget to weigh between shells when necessary

· I adjudicate on a strength of link style on various layers of the theory debate, such as on paradigmatic issues or voter weighing (i.e. if you have a ton of offense to education, and they have a tiny amount to fairness, the fact that fairness slightly outweighs is probably not sufficient to vote for their shell)

Phil

· I think phil debates are some of the most interesting debates to watch if both debaters are able to contextualize real world examples that illustrate their ethical theory—this is hard to do, but when done well it’s very impressive and makes my job easier

· Make sure you explain your args if they’re really dense. I'm generally good on most framework authors

· Being able to weigh between framework warrants is probably the most important skill in a phil debate—without it, framework debate is hard to resolve

· Don’t try to go for too many justifications in later speeches—you have to contextualize why the justification you go for matters in the context of your opponent’s framework. Too many phil debates end up being two ships sailing past each other in the middle of the night

Tricks

· I used to be willing to vote on tricks (and I have), but I’ve recently decided that I am no longer willing to do so. I’d much rather listen to a beautiful 6 minute 2NR that goes for a K that is meaningful to the team or a strategic 3 minute 2AR that goes for an advantage and does amazing impact calc. I empathize with debaters who have committed hours and hours to research/prep about the topic or literature of choice because I believe in hard work—that’s what I did back in the day, so I want to reward students who are going through the same thing. It would be a shame for me to have to drop a kid who has done pages and pages of card cutting to defend their one util aff to a kid who extempted a half second a priori or tautology claim that got drowned out from my laptop’s audio feedback. Trix just ain’t for this kid

Case Debate

· I really like it when the NC makes carded args that are specific to aff offense

· Signpost on the case and number your args. For example, if you’re reading 3 turns to the first advantage, tell me you’re on the first advantage and number your args 1, 2, 3—this makes it easier to flow

· If you’re aff I’ll be happy if you strategically write your aff/have a clear game plan for the 1AR to defend against case dumps

Final Thoughts

· That's basically it! In high school I had such a great time with debate. I was fortunate to never have any serious drama or traumatic experiences during my time in the activity and I think that everyone should be able to say the same. I hold my peers to a high standard, and I hope you all help each other to do that as well. As someone who is now out of the activity, I cherish the years that I debated. It was a major part of my life. You all should make the most of every moment and do your best so that you don’t have any regrets.

· A terrible AP Physics teacher I had in high school once told me that you can only be unhappy about an outcome if you’ve truly put in every ounce of effort and you still don’t reach your goal.

· Disclaimer: A lot of this was borrowed from Kieran Cavanagh—some from Alan George. Shout out to them for letting me borrow their content.

· May the force be with you!

Sharon Zachariah Paradigm

LD

No spreading or progressive arguments. I like to see direct contention class and Value VC debate.