Online Debate Institute Camp Tournament
2020 — Online, TX/US
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
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
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
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).
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-
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.
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.
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
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.
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
- Hardt and Negri
- Stock K’s (cap, security, etc.)
- Reps K’s
Here’s a list of literature bases I know somewhat/am learning:
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.
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:
- Moral Particularism
Here’s a list of literature bases I know somewhat:
- Comparative worlds > truth testing
- Permissibility negates > affirms
- Presumption negates > affirms
- Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty
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
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.
Arjun Chopra Paradigm
I am most competent to judge K and LARP debate, and least competent judging highly technical rounds like trix and theory (that doesn't mean I hack against it, just I probably won't evaluate rounds the way you want me to).Long Version: About me:
Hi, I am Arjun and I am a senior at Blair Academy. I was relatively successful in HSLD, though the success of a debater should tell you neither what kind of coach they are nor what kind of judge they are. I primarily read critical and performative arguments centered around race, gender, and sexuality. Right now my conflicts include Blair Academy, Unionville, Bridgewater-Raritan, and the Hill School.
I also work for the Youth Passion Project as the Chief Governance Officer. If you are interested in learning more about the Youth Passion Project, talk to me before or after the round or send me an email.Pre-round stuff:
Email chains are cool, but don't be afraid to read off paper, I did that a bunch and support it. As long as you have everything set up before round, I'll be happy.
K - I love the K, live the K, understand the K (so don't BS me, I know what your authors say), PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't read K's in front of me you don't understand (so just because your coach says to read a K... Don't read it unless you really understand your lit). I much prefer identity-based K's over PoMo, especially because I think they are a lot more accessible, and I don't have as much depth into PoMo lit, so EXPLAIN what you are saying at normal speed, it can be just a sentence, but I need to know what you are saying. If you are a novice or don't have much experience, I think identity Ks really easily fall into the trap of engaging in the oppression Olympics, but please refrain from that (it's not what your author would have wanted).
If you are reading a K-aff, I love hearing some creative advocacies, but I really don't care if you are non-T, in fact, I think a lot of K affs benefit from not being topical.
I'm probably going to have some background understanding of your literature regardless of what you are reading, though I am very well-read in more identity-based arguments like fem, queer/quare theory, antiblackness, setcol, and ableism.
I need a good explanation of DnG, Baudrillard, Lacan, and Bifo, though I do sorta understand them. Anything else should probably have a very good explanation for me to vote on it.
I will hack against transphobic fem even if no args are made in-round, white feminism really doesn't sit well with me either (just gonna put that out there)
If I am not obligated to do anything after the round, I would love to have a convo about K lit you are interested in or read, I always want to learn more, especially if your literature is identity-based.
T - So... I think T falls into one of two categories, framework, and more nuanced T debate. I am all for you reading T-FW against a non-T aff, and I am partial to hearing must-implement, though I won't intervene I think it is a little boring. On the other hand, I 100% can adjudicate a T debate, but frivolous T is a little upsetting. I want to hear semantics arguments, but not jurisdiction because I will vote on whatever I want. I don't have defaults: if you don't give me paradigm-issues/voters I will not vote on it. I am open to RVI's, but I don't like the idea of winning an RVI on a semantic I meet, but I am totally open to hearing it. If T begins to look like too much like theory (READ: spec is not T) I will evaluate it differently.
Phil - I am not very well versed in analytic (white people) philosophy, I understand Kant and virtue ethics, but a lot of the stuff that is read on the circuit right now is quite frankly ridiculous, I will hold your explanations to the same standard as K lit, that means if I do not understand it, I will not vote on it.
Tricks - So I used to really hate these, but I think they are kinda funny now, I do not want to flow 7585703 aprioris so just be tasteful. I think K tricks are really fun, and random normal tricks are great, but don't read them against an opponent who obviously won't be able to respond to them.
LARP - I think LARP is fun and cool, I can adjudicate these debates, but they can get boring, so make it interesting, otherwise, I might give you low speaks. The trend I see in circuit LD is to read a whole bunch of DA and CP, I don't think this is an especially interesting way to debate, but if this is your thing, go for it. When defending util, if you say something offensive, I will tear up my flows, put on headphones, give you a 25 L and your opponent a 30 W, walk out of the room and get myself food. Otherwise, be nice, I don't like the Parfit card that says identity doesn't exist, so take it out of your util FW in front of me, and I am really bad at flowing/adjudicating TJF's, they are fine, but I think they are not very good arguments and I need a REALLY good explanation as to why these matter for me to vote on them.
Theory - ahhhh, the bane of my existence. I think theory is fine, but I see a lot of theory debates becoming impossible to evaluate. GAH please weigh AND RESPOND TO YOUR OPPONENTS WEIGHING. I am being super dramatic but you will be more dramatic when I make a bad decision. I have no defaults, I will not vote on theory that doesn't have any voters or paradigm issues. I am open to paragraph theory, when it is done correctly, like paragraph condo theory, not the billion theory spikes y'all are reading instead of a 1AC. I like condo debates, they are interesting, but not AFC. If you feel where I am going, good! if not, refer to my handy-dandy explanation:
Theory I like:
cheaty (consult, etc.) CP bad
apriori's / NIBs bad
Theory I don't like:
AFC, ABC, AEC, ACC, ETC.
Must spec... anything
K's are cheating
Weird solvency advocate theory
Speed - I can flow most speeds, I personally am not super fast, but anything up to and around 350 WPM is fine, I will call loud, clear, slow, etc. if needed. I will wait three to five (READ: 3-5) seconds for you to become intelligible, if you don't I will call again and again until either you have become intelligible, or your speech time ends. I won't deduct speaks for the first 3-5 times, but beyond that I will, but more importantly I won't be able to catch what you are saying, thus I won't be able to flow it.... so you may lose the round.
Disclosure - I really like disclosure. I think it is very good for the community at large, especially small schools. That being said, if your opponent does not know what the wiki is, you shouldn't read disclosure theory. If you read disclosure in an interesting way (as a K, instead of the normal theory shell) I will significantly boost your speaks. Moreover, I am extremely partial to hearing disclosure read against big schools if they didn't disclose the AFF or if they have bad disclosure practices in general.
Flashing/Prep - Personally, given the high-level debates that occur, I think 4 minutes of prep is not enough, so I will give you up to 6 mins IF you discuss it with me and your opponent before the round (and obviously if I am not on a panel). That being said, because I am so lenient with prep, please don't steal prep. I expect to be on the email chain, my email is email@example.com
Misc - About the sass during CX and speeches, I know a lot of judges don't like it, but I love it! That being said, if you are being gratuitously mean, I will intervene. Just remember sass will get you high speaks, but if you are making the space unsafe, I will stop the round and it'll be very embarrassing for you.
Speaks - I think speaks are up to the judge and the judge alone, thus I will attempt to adjudicate the debate without bias, but your speaks will 99% of the time reflect how I feel about your arguments. So, I can be a speaks fairy... sometimes. I will give you a 30, if what you read in round causes a good discussion within the round. Double 30s can be awarded as well along these grounds:
If you bring me food, I will increase your speaks.
If you are slower than the general circuit speed, I will give you higher speaks as well.
If I am bored during the round / it is a theory debate, I will give you lower speaks.
I will attempt to start at a 29, but then again, I will deduct speaks really fast if I don't like you.
If you disclosed the entire season, with full round reports, AND open sourced with highlighting, you will automatically get +1 speaks. If you disclose badly/don't disclose at all you will get no higher than a 28.5. An exception will be made for UDL's.
STOP MISGENDERING PEOPLE, I will take a tally of how many times you misgender your opponent and will take 0.7 point off for each time you do so. I.e.: if you misgender your opponent 3 times, you are getting -2.1 speaks. If you misgender your opponent, or anyone else, I will wait until your speech ends and tell you to apologize, then allow the debate to carry on. If your opponent makes misgendering a voting issue, please be gracious, and take the L with class.
Benjamin Cortez Paradigm
Email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
Loyola '21 - 4 years of LD
I'm filipino that would vote for Biden if old enough - He/him or they/them
My argumentative history is as follows:
Of my past 5 affirmatives, all have defended the implementation of a policy action, all have defended util, 4/5 defended a plan, and 3/5 had an extinction impact. I can't ever recall a 2AR where I went for theory.
Of my past 40 or so 2NR's vs. plan affs, 5 have been T, one security K, one cap k, one abolition k, 10 or so on impact turns, and the rest have been a DA/CP/Case defense.
This paradigm is written based on how I view debate, how I adjudicate rounds, and how I believe you should adapt to me. I always valued honesty when doing prefs so even if you disagree w/ it know it's the truth
If I'm missing something in this paradigm, it's because my belief about X issue is either so obvious that it doesn't need to be stated or non existent because I don't care and you can do whatever you want.
Cliffnotes - Must read for prefs and pre-round
1 - Tech > Truth but if I can’t explain the argument back to you or your opponent I’m not voting on it even if it was conceded. I believe it is more interventionist to fill in a missing warrant than it is to disregard a conceded argument without a warrant. I also agree with Ishan Bhatt's opinion on claims, warrants, impacts, and their relative importance:
"Different arguments have different thresholds for success. Any judge that walks into a debate and considers “suffering bad” and “suffering good” to be premises of equal worth is interventionist and wrong. Your arguments do not start at 100% risk—they start at whatever risk your justifications for them imply. This means the implications of your arguments in front me will not be derived from the claim, but the warrant."
2 - Pretty unbiased on what policy arguments you can read save for literal oppression good. Among other things, I went for rider disads, the UK counterplan, ice age, Trump foreign policy good etc. so I'm very liberal in what you can read. Despite this section being the shortest in my paradigm, if my argumentative history didn't already indicate it, this is always my favorite style of debate.
3 - My experience with the K has been writing and cutting a bulk of my teams answers and writing a medium sized security file. Generally, Affs get to weigh the case; the alternative probably doesn't solve; the theory of power is highly likely wrong; and extinction almost definitely outweighs. However, if epistemology first, ontology, floating PIK, framework or any of the other miscellaneous K tricks are dropped and warranted, I would probably vote negative. If it matters, I know IR K's decently well, the basics of cap, the basics of abolition, and a rudimentary outline of setcol/afropess.
4 - I think that debate is a game that's at its best when both sides can adequately prepare for and engage with each other's arguments. Planless affs should probably forward a counter interpretation based within the resolution that says we should shift our stasis point of engagement as opposed to saying all engagement and predictability is bad. Absent major technical concessions, I'm incredibly skeptical of claims that say framework is akin to genocide, policing, or psychological violence. If you want examples of what planless affs I would like to see, see Wake EF's aff on Healthcare/Executive power, North Broward MR's aff in TOC finals, or any of the "we demand" affs that still float around today. If your affirmative has no relation to the topic, I'm probably going to vote negative 9/10 times. I'm probably best for procedural fairness but also fine for testing/skills/dogma etc. Switch sides and the TVA are smart and under utilized. Disads to the TVA are probably negative ground.
5 - I do not think one aff a topic is a good norm nor do I think that debate authors should be defining the predictable limits of the resolution. However, I do enjoy topicality debates when they're about actual legal/policy definitions, and when they lay out an in-depth vision for the topic. Far too often negatives rant about thousands of combinations affirmatives rather than pointing out why core negative ground is important and lost.
6 - I'm not persuaded by counterplan theory if the neg has a solvency advocate or there's substantial topic literature around the topic. Most of the time, affirmatives are better suited going for smart perms, solvency deficits, and case outweighs versus "cheaty" counterplans. If you rely on definitions of should/ought/resolved for competition, you're probably cheating. Competing off of normal means is fair game.
7 - I think in a vacuum conditionality is good. I see myself voting aff when there's an egregious number of planks (like 7+), when uniqueness counterplans are used to get out of 1AR/2AC straight turns, when the negative drops dispo solves, or the negative reads only defense.
8 - I am not a fan of cheap shots or tricks. This is the only part of my paradigm where I am firmly "truth over tech." One line ASpec, blippy independent voters, 10 second condo etc. just won't be evaluated. Often times, I'm left wondering "What is [X] an internal link to? Why is that bad? Why is that a reason to drop the team? Not answering these questions means I give your argument 0 credence.
Specifics - most of these are either beliefs held by most judges, things that won't matter unless the round is really close, or procedurals
Warrant comparison > Author comparison - Would much rather prefer "our studies assume yours, sample more countries, and sample from a longer time period" than "we have a phd and you don't"
Zero risk is sometimes a thing - There is zero risk on 2014 midterms; There is no zero risk on warming is an impact
Disclose cites at a minimum. Ideally, disclose as much as possible. Would rather you read it in good faith than as a frivolous cop out. Novices of big programs should disclose. New small schools should also disclose but be nice about it. Bonus speaks for open sourcing 1AR cards.
Presumption always flips neg unless the neg reads a counterplan or K
Judge kick requires instruction.
Will never vote on Death good (Will vote on the Death K)
Insert re-highlighting for defense and read it for offense. It needs to be the literal text that they cut. Paragraphs before/after must be read even if it's defense.
In the 1NC, Analytic counterplans need a minimum explanation of how it solves the case besides "that's their [author] evidence." Highlight their ev and insert it.
My speaker point range is roughly 26.8-29.5. I give around a 29 if I think you should break, and as such, will adjust to the pool. I will not punish you for good humor, dripping sarcasm, or minor cursing. Average is about [28.6] across  rounds (probably inflated).
Please be nice to novices. The last thing I want is for a freshman to quit debate because they got spread out and up layered at max speed in their very first debate round. You can be fast. Just don't read overly complicated arguments when it's clear you don't need to.
K Framework interpretations and justifications need to be in the 1NC somewhere. 2AR's simply need to point out the new 2NR fw stuff was new and move on.
If it wasn't already clear, strike me if you read tricks.
Unless the 1AR read an impact turn, I'm INCREDIBLY skeptical of new 2NR cards.
Lenient on what constitutes a warrant/what requires an extension in the 1AR. "Ground - overlimits to one aff which destroys in-depth research and clash" is about the bare minimum for me to consider it a complete argument
Default Epistemic modesty. I think it makes a lot of sense and you should answer it charitably instead of whatever bastardization you think it means.
Default fairness and education good, competing interpretations, and no RVI's.
I will be looking for ways to actively vote against the RVI.
My experience with policy debate comes from 3 weeks of CNDI (1N/2A), breaking at the camp tournament, watching a few rounds in person, and watching 20 or so rounds online. Take with that what you will.
The incompleteness of 1NC arguments is directly proportional to how lenient I am on new 1AR arguments.
Clipping requires proof and earns an L20. If I notice it and I'm not pressured by time, I'll let the debate finish so I can reward speaks to the other debater appropriately.
Cutting out whole paragraphs/sentences in the middle of a card or altering text with malicious intent (including but not limited to deleting "not" or fudging the numbers) also earn an L20
Cutting in the middle of a paragraph, leaving out dates/authors/article titles or bad copy pastes (accidentally leaving off the first or last few words of the card) mean I strike the card off my flow. Most of the time these are honest mistakes and I don't feel comfortable handing teams an L20 just because their computer broke while cutting cards.
Please do not use ellipses. Just use size 2 or size 4 font.
-5 respect for
Asking for a new doc if only one card was marked
"Are oh bee"
Non-applicable ontology claim
"What's an apriori/floating pik"
"We don't defend implementation" (????????????????)
Sreyaash Das Paradigm
Currently a senior debating LD in high school, 2 career bids, cleared at eTOC
I've competed in Policy and PF as well - the below paradigm should be flexible enough across all debate divisions
Email chains are good for evidence ethics and accessibility, spreading or no spreading.
Some quick notes and preferences:
1) I'll call clear/slow 3 times, so do be clear.
2) I like fast and efficient debates, so feel free to uplayer and spit out blippy analytics but make sure they're warranted arguments
3) Tech> Truth. Crazy args are fine, but the threshold for answers get lower. Higher level debates should always incorporate some level of truth behind arguments.
4) Non negotiable: speech times/rules, prep can be CX but CX can't be prep, compiling a doc is prep but flashing/emailing isn't, there's no "clarification time" before CX, clipping and ev ethics.
5) I'll disclose speaks. I think its a good norm to follow.
6) Don't let the type of debater you are facing effect your arguments. Basically, you can read whatever you want even if its against a lay debater, you don't have to debate traditionally. Exposure to different forms of argumentation on both sides is what spreads education within debate, regardless of experience. Only condition is that you should be nice and reasonable: spread but send docs, be nice in cx, and your speaks will be boosted. Be sketchy and tricky just to get an easy ballot, and I'll nuke your speaks.
7) "If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time- win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes." ~ Stephen Scopa
8) I disclosed with good practices - open source with round reports and first/last 3. If your wiki is a model of what I believe to be good disclosure norms, show/tell me before the round and I'll bump up speaks.
9) Arguments and their truth level start at 0 and work their way up based on effective warranting. Conceded claims don't mean I automatically vote for them if they were originally unwarranted.
Note: Just because things like certain things are ranked low, DOESNT mean I won't vote off it, nor does it mean I don't enjoy it. I pride myself on trying to be as flex as possible, so feel free to run virtually anything. 1 = Most familiar/Best at judging this. 4 = Least Familiar/Worst at judging this
Policy/Larp - 1
Kritiks - 1
Theory - 2
Phil/Tricks - 2
I'm serious with these pref ranks - I'm comfortable with judging any form of argumentation
Defaults: Judge Kick, ev > analytics
Be smart and do link analysis
Politics and process args are fine, higher bar for explanation tho
Zero risk is a thing
Explain cards - these debates are won with good analysis AND evidence
Ev comparison is key - don't make me spend 20 minutes reading through all the cards
1ARs - read theory vs CPs, low bar for case extensions if its simple
2NRs - answer theory vs CPs, please structure the collapse
Don't forget to kick out of things
Defaults: F/E are voters, drop the debater, competing interps, rvis
Standard weighing is dead - plz do it
Paragraph theory is fine
Be clear on standards so I at least have the standard name flowed
Terminal D on a shell is possible, so even if its competing interps, there has to be offense isolated at the end of the round.
Send interps/counter interps plz
Combo shells are cool, reasonability is persuasive versus them
Dont be a doc bot the entire time
Link analysis contextualized to the aff is cool, it isn't enough to win your theory of power
Framework (weigh/cant weigh case) determines the result most of the time - win it
Buzzwords don't mean anything - just because the 1ar didn't explicitly say the words "Role of the ballot" doesnt mean there isn't defense on the kritik's theory of power
These Affs should have isolated a problem and proposed a method or model
Personal narratives hold little weight to me since the ballot isn't a referendum on one's identity
Reading a K aff isn't an excuse to not be technical, same for the 2NR on T
Fairness/Clash/Research is cool, do weighing if going for T
No preference in a K aff v. framework debate - I've been on both sides
Nuanced framework interps and warrants are cool (sabotage, passive voice, etc.)
Defaults: epistemic confidence, comparative worlds
I'm cool with anything - the denser the phil the more explanation required
I think this type of debate still requires some level of interaction with actual offense
Spec phil affs are cool and I wish I saw more
Defaults: presumption negates unless the neg defends an advocacy, permissibility affirms
If it's gonna be a tricks round, delineate all arguments and dont be sketch in cx
Rebuttal extensions have to point me to what I am extending on the flow
Slow down on blips - flowability is key
Otherwise, I'll vote on anything explained.
I was a trad lad for a year, so you can have a traditional round, though I'd prefer otherwise.
Substance > V/VC debate
Frameworks are so arbitrary in lay debate, half the time theres no distinction between 2
I vote off the flow, ethos/pathos boosts speaks but won't just get you the ballot. Contrary to most beliefs, even traditional debate is based off of some level of technicality.
I think speaker points are based off of arguments made, and the strategies taken to attempt to win the round. As long as I understood you throughout the round, and you made sound strategic decisions in the round based off my paradigm, you'll get high speaks.
Zac Davis Paradigm
Yes email chain email@example.com
My paradigm is long but still a work in progress, email me if you have any paradigm questions.
I have lots of thoughts. I bolded the things that will mostly matter when prefing or judging LD, the rest only applies to 1-0.1% of rounds I judge. In most rounds I will have an easy ballot on the technical level, these opinions only come in when I am forced to resolve two competing truths that are relatively equal on the tech, they can all be overcome by giving better speeches. (The exception is in-round violence)
Why did I put them in then?
One of the most frustrating things to me as a debater was judges telling me per opinions on arguments in the rfd that could have been in the paradigm, if I judge you and you think I should add something from my rfd to my paradigm please tell me. This way we can avoid people losing on affs because I just don’t feel the aff’s don’t clear the presumption burden even though the aff did great debating etc.
How much I like the args/how much in favor of you I would unconsciously err in close debates probably
0- 0 off, the order is case.
1 – Good Ks, Good/Topic specific Phil, Great theory
2- Good Theory args (condo good/bad, pics good/bad), Good unique LARP (new politics scenario), Good unique tricks (I found Alphabet spec funny the first time I saw it, I didn't the fifth time. Be creative) , Generic Ks (cap k with generic links)
3- Tricky Phil, (your tricky northeast Kant frameworks from 7 years ago), Bad Larp
4- Bad Theory (shoes theory)
5- Bad Tricks (resolved apriori)
Biggest Influences in Debate: NEEDS WORK
Organized my paradigm based on yours, which is perhaps unsurprising since I helped with it.
I attended both Victory Briefs Institute and RKS at Wake Forest, and both shaped my perspective and education in debate.
CMC 2024, yes I’m a first year out, but I coached and judged a lot in high school and worked with camps such as interning at the Victory Briefs Institute. I would not recommend ordinal 1ing me even if you agree with my views, since I’m still learning.
My name is Zachary Davis. I did Circuit LD for 3 years and qualified to the Junior and Senior Year Tocs, with an even 3-3 record junior year, and Coronavirus ending TOC senior year (2020 generation). Before LD I did both Public Forum and Parli for two years. I also dipped into policy occasionally mostly in my freshmen and senior years. I’m choosing to coach rather than debate in college.
I mostly read Ks, but went for theory and larp positions as well. My ideal neg strats were one off k or nc, 2 off k + t, and 5 off k, t, theory, cp, da.
I’m a technical debater/judge, in most cases I’d rather judge a theory debate than a traditional debate. Despite this, many debaters don’t realize how incoherent pers are too spectators, so err on the side of overexplanation, especially in the 2nr and 2ar, if there’s no warrant I won’t vote on it. Concessions mean I evaluate warrants/arguments as true, but if there is no warrant, than there is functionally nothing to vote on and nothing conceded.
Despite this I think the broader community trend to emphasize an ideal position as a tabula rasa judge is both an impossible goal and a false ideal.
What do I mean by this? 1. It’s impossible for judges to leave past experience and argument biases at the door. 2. Tech matters but truth does too, just because I agree technical debate is important, I disagree with only tech mattering which incentivizes debaters to read blatantly false arguments that have good time trade-offs ranging from spikes to incorrect das, because pointing out the fallacies takes longer than reading. 3. However I do think the judge should attempt to leave all past opinions surrounding the topic at the door i.e. even if I think nuclear arsenals are really bad, I shouldn’t let that convince me to vote aff if the debate becomes a stalemate.
Why do I, the debater, care? It’s likely that this won’t impact 99% of rounds I judge since I will usually act as a tech based tab judge, and I won’t actively intervene i.e. reading articles of the cards you read, unless asked too. However this means I am more persuaded that the reading of false arguments doesn’t just mean those argument are wrong and go away, but can be won as a drop the debater voting issue. I won’t intervene and make those arguments voting issues though, and I think there are degrees of wrongness.
1. Don't be sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, or a classist jerk in the round.
2. I strongly believe in trigger/content warnings, if you think there’s a chance your arguments would benefit from them, read them before your first speech, or the speech in which the content begins. Be prepared to read different args.
3. Do not misgender your opponents or judges, intentional or otherwise. I would generally recommend defaulting to "per" if you do not know someone's pronouns and to use "my opponent" “aff/neg” “person” etc. They/them isn’t gender neutral. I don’t want to debate or explain pronouns in this space either, post-rounding me on this issue specifically is unwise. I’ll publish a follow up at some point that you can check for my reasons.
4. Debate however makes you the most comfortable. I have zero preferences whether you sit or stand etc. I don’t care whether you ware shoes etc. My only clothes opinion is that schools should not force debaters to wear formal clothes. I don’t care what individual debaters choose to wear, and think policing debaters presentations is bad and as such want to work against schools doing so. I’m conflicted about punishing individual debaters because it’s not the fault of the debaters because of the school policy (so I’m not the judge for reading friv formal clothes theory against trad debaters), but I hope I along with other judges (such as Alan Fishman) help shift schools to change this opinion.
5. Don’t read identity positions if you aren’t of that identity. I will easily vote on arguments such as non-black debaters should not read afro-pessimism.
Usual Evaluation Flow chart looks like this:
1- Figure out the winning framing, use that framing to isolate which impacts matter.
2- Look through independent voters/arguments that attempt to uplayer the framing
3- Find Offense with warrants/full articulated arguments under the framing
4- (Take into account turns to see which way the offense flows)
5- Weighing between arguments, conceded arguments have full weight and often therefore outweigh, weighing arguments defense etc come in here.
6- If I can’t evaluate the debate on the above both debaters messed up and I start to account for implicit clash followed by my preferences/background understanding to fill in the gaps.
Do what you are good at, I’ll adapt to you, more than you should need to adapt to me.
I value framing more than average judge.
In round articulation is important, I’m going to evaluate your evidence how you explain it to me, if you explain it poorly I won’t grant you additional implications that weren’t made explicitly. Similarly don’t attempt to morph implications that weren’t there, every conceded argument in the 1ar is not a potential drop the debater 2ar (unless set up in the 1ar), so if you want me to vote on the 7. On the k it should have an implication in the 1ar.
I won’t vote on new offense in the 2ar and have a low threshold for 2ar responses to new 2nr offense absent circumstances in which I feel I must intervene i.e. slurs.
Risk of Offense>presumption, if your last speech only has defense you will probably lose the round. I will only vote on presumption if it is a major strategy, there is no offense in the round, or the round is a mess/I have no idea what’s going on anymore.
Cards vs Analytics, I value analytics and low author qualification evidence higher than average. I think unless your argument needs scientific evidence, or polling data etc. i.e. whether nuclear winter would cause extinction or whether Trump is predicted to win the 2020 election, it can be analytic. I don’t inherently value cards more than analytics in the way many judges view author qualifications meaning their opinions are somehow more legitimate. You don’t need to find cards to say every thing you want to say, you just need a warranted argument. In most cases analytic = card.
Offense>Defense, but defense matters it helps the weighing debate.
I default Epistemic confidence (aka I only evaluate impacts through the winning framework, not a mix of frameworks) , I have not heard a brightline that makes sense or a way too evaluate epistemic modesty that’s not just use my framework even if I lose, usually I think you would be better off spending your time winning framing or making arguments as to why your offense links under the opponent’s framework than going for epistemic modesty, but hey if you win a good brightline that makes sense I’ll use it.
Applying framing when responding or going for high layer issues i.e. ks, theory, and independent voters is good and makes decisions cleaner.
Weighing is great especially when it goes beyond impacts. Weigh between links and internal links, do evidence analysis and comparison, weigh between layers etc. Weighing clash is often what separates good debaters from great debaters.
People’s understanding of fiat is bad this article explains many of my thoughts https://www.vbriefly.com/2019/12/28/two-dogmas-of-fiat-by-jacob-nails/
Case first because case on top, and I value case more than average. Against an aff with 2 advantages, if the 1ar concedes two carded case turns one for each advantage, and the 2nr does a good job extending and warranting both of them, absent a higher layer I will be voting neg. The aff must win more offense on case then the neg, otherwise I have an easy neg ballot on case.
Specific case is always better.
Pick and choose what to contest well.
Terminal defense is a thing, but risk of offense is compelling when I don’t know the brightline.
Default reasonability, but I prefer Competiting interps, I only default reasonability because debaters who don’t establish paradigm issues usually aren’t reading reasonable interpretations, or generate offense. If you want to win reasonability>competing interps you need a brightline.
Default Drop the argument>Drop the debater
RVIs are winnable but default no RVIs, I never went for RVIs as a debater and ld is getting more and more influence from policy so these seem to be on the outs, but 1AR is short and probably deserves a tool to beat back neg friv theory, if you’re going for this in the 2AR/2NR I think it’s strategic too commit hard and not just throw one in for 10 seconds.
I don’t evaluate intent that can’t be proven one way or another. I default that debaters intend to have good-will and be educational unless proven otherwise.
Paragraph theory – you can do it, it’s not an excuse to not have paradigm issues, I think having an explicit interp can be good for more complicated theory, but like condo bad is condo bad. I also only really think it makes sense in the 1AR, I think 1nc or 2nr should probably use shells, but do what you want.
Collapsing too one standard can sometimes moot most other responses on the theory flow, but sometimes it can’t, especially when debaters read two standards that relie on the same warranting i.e. if we have a condo bad shell with clash and time skew, clash relies on the assumption of time skew that the aff could not have engaged sufficiently in the neg positions, going for clash and assuming responses to time skew don’t apply can be dangerous. Generally I think if you are going for theory pay attention to every response on the flow, because conceding a one line response can often be damning in these debates.
I think condo’s bad I’m probably 60-40 aff on this debate, but also think condo bad theory time skews the neg. I also think both sides of this debate would benefit from innovation.
Default Drop the debater, all other defaults same as theory.
I think some larp affs are more non-t than many k-affs
I find the Limits concerns of Nebel T compelling (like 70-30 neg) and the semantics also flow neg but I don’t value semantics highly.
I don’t want to incentivize debaters learning how to beat back tricks, I don’t think it’s an educational skill
I probably know your literature but explain it to me like I don’t, you can use jargon to refer to concepts that would take hours to explain, but do so at your own risk I recommend being able to win any round without relying on them.
Not a fan of root cause at the impact level, sequencing and prior question type arguments can be compelling when well warranted.
Links of omission can be links, they are the worst type of links but I’ll vote on them, especially if I have a good card or reason why these things are specifically omitted from discussions.
Specific links are good, but having a solid generic link with specific analysis is underrated.
Severence bad is a good arg, I’ll vote on it.
Aff vs the K
Default perms are tests of competition not advocacies, can be persuaded otherwise.
Please give a perm text
Put offense on the k and respond to framing and the k tricks.
Do whatever you want, reject the res or debate if you want or don’t. I mainly defended my affs as whole res general principle, and think those are the most topical versions of these affs.
T-fw vs K affs
Need a text
Not a fan of pics and word pics, but obviously will vote on them.
Trad Debate and Debating vs Trad Debaters:
Trad debate and trad debaters are repeatedly disrespected by circuit debate elitism. Don’t be an elitist prick, most everyone starts out as a trad debater, those who don’t are lucky enough to be exposed via an older sibling or teammate. Circuit debaters should be open and encouraging to trad debaters at circuit tournaments, especially relating to issues like disclosure.
For trad debaters if you pull up to an octos bid in varsity, I expect you to be able to beat opponents who can spread, I will not force circuit debaters to trad debate trad debaters, because that denies the hundreds of hours those debaters spend to develop circuit skills. That’s not to say trad debaters just should take the L, I think trad debaters can win these debates by focusing on their arguments and doing good comparative analysis and making intuitive responses. One of the best substantive debates I had on my Da Bomb psychoanalysis aff was against a traditional debater at Berkeley who made great intuitive analytic responses which were difficult to deal with.
In my own career and as a judge I highly value pushing new arguments, types of debate, and reorienting both the form and content of debate, and reward clever innovative argumentation with higher speaks. This is usually done by performance and kritikal debaters, but this can be new da tricks with politics, or creating new voters on theory shells etc. At the same time, don’t expect me to vote on it because it’s new, please tell me how to evaluate it.
Collapse the debate to 2 flows max, when crossapplying tell me from what flow you are taking the arg and slow down if you want me to catch it well.
Make the most strategic choices, missed opportunities will be punished less than strategic mistakes, but please don’t read shoes theory when the neg is defending condo advocacies, pick better strategies.
Number analytics and name your arguments (i.e. analytic Das)
Having fun and making debate fun for your opponent
Having the email chain ready to go when you enter the round
Lying and rude behavior will reduce your speaks.
Being sketch in cx is a cx strategy, but fumbling or avoiding questions results in worse speaks, good answers increases speaks.
If you are unclear I’ll yell clear twice (maybe more if I’m feeling generous) and then stop flowing if you don’t get clear/slow down. Your speaks won’t be docked initially, they will be docked based on your response. There are degrees to being unclear, some will just result in lower speaks.
More random thoughts
I’m more down with shadow extensions than most, I’m not gonna treat them like full arguments but like if your opponent concedes 3 das that should count for something and you should still collapse to one. You can shadow extend to basically get the offense from the previous speech, I’d vote on it before presumption but it likely won’t factor into my decision.
Personal beef between debaters is better solved out of round, and uncomfortable too evaluate, that being said I’ve been in and seen other debaters in powerless positions regarding top down support and needed to take charge through per’s only medium – debate. As such if there are screenshots etc. of an opponents harassment I’ll drop them and attempt to resolve the matter according to the wishes of the one who experienced the violence i.e. whether that involves a conversation between the two debaters, or me lecturing the debater etc. The Debate community needs to stop ignoring this stuff otherwise it spirals out of control out of sight.
Flex prep is okay, you can ask questions during your prep time, you can also use your cx time for prep but your speaks will probably take a hit.
TLDR: paradigm is mostly the same as LD, do what you want.
I know you're probably bummed you got an ld judge in the back, but it's not all bad, I unfortunately barely competed in policy at my school because I was the only one interested (therefore I initially did Lincoln Douglas because of the lack of the partner). However I was somewhat involved in the policy debate scene, and most notably attended RKS the Wake Forest Policy Camp and got to quarterfinals at the camp tournament there. Overall I'm going to evaluate these debates as close to policy as I can, but obviously I have some ld influences. You'll find I'm less open to frivilous theory than you may expect and some ld judges are, but have a lower bar for theory then you are probably used too. In general I probably have lower thresholds for warranting than most policy judges, although due to time I expect arguments to be better fleshed out in policy than in ld. Also you can still read traditional philosophy if you want too in front of me like Kant, but I doubt many policy teams will want to have those rounds.
For Public Forum
I'll evaluate these debates using my background, feel free to run progressive arguments in front of me, just don't spread against debaters who can't or try to actively make debate inaccessible. I did Public Forum for my first 2 years so I feel comfortable evaluating the more stock debates as well. Don't start a shouting match in cx or repeatedly cut off womxn.
Zion Dixon Paradigm
Hi, I'm Zion Dixon. I am a rising junior at Strake Jesuit. My qualifications include 7 toc bids and clearing at the etoc my sophomore year.
Add me to email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
My views on debate are very similar to Simone: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=77592.
However I will evaluate any and everything as long as it is warranted and explained enough for me to explain why I voted on it. The exception is anything that I feel makes the round or debate space unsafe or violent I will vote you down immediately, including but not limited to: racism, sexism homophobia, ableism, lack of trigger warnings.
Non T affs I love but I expect you to be well prepared for T-framework.
Tricks and friv theory is funny but if you read it against a performance aff or id pol position I hope you get clowned. If you extempt things during these online debates it is not my fault if I miss it and I won't feel bad.
Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument, reasonability against all other types or friv shells. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.
For High Speaks
- be clear and take into account audio situations with online debate
- be strategic and collapse strategically
- make the round entertaining
- If you are Black
Other things that will get you a hot L or tanked speaks 1. if you are mean to less experienced debaters. 2. if you are stealing prep. 3. if you manipulate evidence or clip. 4. if you are not Black and read afropess. 5. if you mispronoun your opponent
I rushed through this so if there is anything you are still curious or confused about after reading then just ask me before round.
Faizaan Dossani Paradigm
I’m Faizaan Dossani. He/Him. Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Read whatever you want unless it's problematic. I will call you out on it even if your opponent doesn't. I've debated for three years for Westlake High School. Competed in LD on the local and nat circuit, and broke at TFA my junior year, and would usually go positive at most bid tourneys. I also taught at ODI this summer.
I am honestly open to pretty much all styles of debate, as long as they aren't problematic. I think debate is a game with educational value and freedom. This basically means that I am tech>truth, but still care about maintaining the pedagogical value and accessibility that debate should have. I think every argument must have a claim, warrant, and impact in order for me to feel comfortable voting off it. Do that plus a ballot story and we’re gucci.
UPDATE FOR VIRTUAL DEBATE
PLEASE RECORD YOUR SPEECHES!! I will not let you re-summarize your arguments or redo a speech if you cut out. If you forget to record and start cutting out then we will have a problem. I will give you time to rejoin the server if you have to, but all I ask is that you record your speeches.
I primarily read these arguments. I mainly read Settler Colonialism and Anthro, but am quite familiar with a lot of k lit (Afropess, Disability Pess, Cap, and most identity politics). I have an extremely basic understanding of high theory (Deleuze and Neitzche), but you will probably need to overexplain a bit.
- KNOW THE LIT!!!! Overviews accompanied with good line by line are nice.
- Explain the alt to me in a direct way so that way I know what it means and what it does
- I think reading pess args when you don't identify with that certain group is bad.
K Affs/ Non-T Affs (1)
I have a pretty decent experience reading K affs, as I read a lot of Settler Colonialism, Islamaphobia, and Wynter affs. I feel pretty comfortable evaluating these debates and think they are fun.
- I think that you need to defend some sort of advocacy text, ie. your methodology that can solve back for the impacts so your aff actually does something
- Do not antagonize your opponents for trying to understand/engage with your aff. I will kill speaks if you do this.
- Give trigger warnings
- For performance, give reasons for why your performance is unique in rupturing debate. I'm down for whatever you want to do with the debate space (ie. music, movement, poetry, etc)
I tend to find k v k debates more entertaining, but I still enjoy a good topicality debate.
- Clean T debates are ones that control the internal link to the affs pedagogical value, leverage fairness > education, and respond to the impact turns. If you aren’t doing that then oop. ;-;
Theory usually wasn’t an off in my strats, but I think good theory debate is fun. Bad theory debate means that you are just regurgitating the shell and not actually explaining how I should evaluate the abuse story.
- I won't default any paradigm issues; just make the implications yourself
- 1AR theory is strategic, but I feel like people only read completely frivolous shells which is really weird cuz usually the neg is the one with the abusive strat.
- Go a little slower when speeding through mega theory underviews so I know what's happening lol
I read a lot of LARP and stuff, and I think that LARP debates are always fun, and feel pretty comfortable evaluating them.
- DO WEIGHING!!!, otherwise, I won't know which impacts you want me to evaluate first which means I have to intervene :(
- I feel like evidence comparison is underutilized
- I think reading like 198729038 offs and then just going for the one the aff had like 8 seconds to respond is a lazy strat, but I guess I will vote off it
I barely read any complex framing other than Mouffe. I’d rather not hear a debate over a bunch of white philosophers throwing hands over ethics or agency tbh
- I find the Kant vs Util debate stale (not saying that you shouldn't read these FW’s individually just know that debates purely centered around these two theories bore me)
- explain your complex buzzwords to me, examples boost speaks
I have a love/hate relationship with tricks. I don’t mind an underview with some spikes, but I don’t like a lot of the paradoxes. (Spark, GCB, etc.) I think a lot of the tricks are stupid in nature, but I guess I will evaluate them.
- I think tricks v k rounds are some of the best debates and am open to both sides, I think trying to interact with tricks with theory definitely gets very confusing.
- Don't be sketchy, if your opponent asks what the aprioris are - tell them, don't dance around the question
I give speaks based on my experience in the round. This takes into account strategy, argument quality, and clarity.
- Don't be a dick in CX, Good CX = :)
- Throwing in jokes during your speeches is always a plus
- Clipping = L25
- Quality > quantity, analytics > card dump
- You will most likely get between 28-30, anything else means you probably did something I didn't like.
I know debate can be stressful, so just be happy and have fun :)
Spiro Hoxha Paradigm
I debated LD for Westside High School for four years, went to a few National Tournaments, and got a state qual my senior year. Make me laugh +.5 speaks for good memes and puns.
Short Paradigms - if you're lazy, but you should read my longer paradigm.
I'm disabled slow down on tags and key analytics or have those analytics on a speech doc. Also if you have a bunch of analytics I would appreciate it if you put enough space between the so it's not just a giant blob of text. It's easier to flow that way.
If you're going to read anything graphic include a trigger warning.
T and Theory - 3
Phil - 1
Ks - 2
Policy/Larp - 2
Tricks - 4 or 5*
*If you're one of those people whose primary strat is to hide a bunch of un-flagged a-prioris and tricks in the 1AC or 1NC and blow one up in the 2NR or 2AR. Strike me and pray to the GCB that you never have me in the back of the room. If you want to read a-prioris highlight or label them in your first speech.
Long Paradigm -
My paradigms are a guideline for debaters but can change depending on how you tell me to evaluate the round, if you have any questions email me:
CX IS BINDING - DO NOT FEIGN IGNORANCE OR LIE IN CX.
T - The violation should not be generic, you should point out how they violate in the shell, and your offense on the shell should be contextualized specifically to that instance of abuse. Describe how that abuse uniquely harms the standards you have set for the round and how that ruins the round and/or is a bad interp. of the topic.
(Non-T Affs) - I'll vote for them, but I'll admit that I am biased towards TVAs and that non-topical affs turn the debate into a monologue. That doesn't mean you shouldn't go for them, just either outweigh or have intuitive responses to those arguments.
Theory - I have a gripe against frivolous theory, reading theory is smart when (1.) the abuse is legit: ex. pics, or (2.) when it's smarter to read theory than to engage on the substance level. However, I don't like when debaters bait theory as a primary strat, I'll still vote on a frivolous shell, but it's going to be an uphill battle for you. I assume reasonability unless you tell me otherwise.
If you don't weigh between the different interpretations of debate in the round and tell me why yours is better when running a counter-interp. It will be very hard to evaluate theory.
Phil - When I say phil I mean like modernism and age of enlightenment type stuff, utilitarianism, Kant, Locke, etc. Whether it takes the form of traditional value criterion debate or you're just setting a standard, I have a soft spot for phil args, so going for these args in front of me is super chill. Don't slack off on the flow though (phil debate doesn't mean sloppy debate), winning framework doesn't necessarily mean you win the debate, you must prove that voting aff or neg is better for your respective framework.
Kritiks - I've read cap, ableism Ks, settler-colonialism, security, dabbled in Deleuze, and I'm familiar with Wilderson (never read Afropess though). Yet, don't assume I've read your lit base. If I try to contextualize the kritik to the aff or try to conceptualize it for you because you don't explain it to me, 1. that's judge intervention, and 2. I might make a conceptual error because I'm human. Try not to drop the alt, but if you do, explain to me why I should still vote for the kritik. Know your lit, it's super cringe if you don't. If you read a bunch of jargon with 0 explanatory power and shift what the kritik does throughout the debate, I will not be kind to you or your speaks.
Kritikal affs are cool. Try to be topical, if you're not, be prepared for good T debate or defend why that shouldn't matter or whatever.
Policy/Larp - I love a good plan, I appreciate a good solvency advocate, stay up to date with your uniqueness evidence, weigh really well, know your evidence, all that cool stuff.
Tricks - I never ran them, if they're funny I'll tolerate them. If it's generic and lazy, I won't be as amused.
You're one of the best debaters here you did everything I was expecting of you.
29.5 - 29:
You're a great debater, you did really well, absent 1 or 2 critical elements.
28.5 - 28:
You did okay, made a few mistakes on the flow, but whatever.
27.5 - 25:
You did something that was considered taboo like reading a K AFF against a novice from a small school. Exercise some reasonability when considering what is taboo. It's not anything inherently ethically problematic, but...why? Depending on how severe the integrity of debate was compromised and other context dependent stuff, you could be on either side of this sliding scale.
You did something really bad like (racism, sexism, etc.) and depending on the severity I might kill your speaks. If you make it on here. The highest you can get is 25 speaks, and that's assuming that you are a novice, you didn't know any better, that you didn't mean to, that you tried your best to be ethical, etc.
Jonathan Jeong Paradigm
Swerve me? ye cannot swerve me, else ye swerve yourselves! man has ye there. Swerve me? The path to my fixed purpose is laid with iron rails, whereon my soul is grooved to run. Over unsounded gorges, through the rifled hearts of mountains, under torrents' beds, unerringly I rush! Naught's an obstacle, naught's an angle to the iron way!—Herman Melville in Moby Dick cited by Spanos in An Anatomy of Empire
Ethan Elasky is a perfect specimen.
Top level: i vote on arguments with judge instruction. An argument is something that has a claim, warrant, and impact in the first speech it is presented in. I've never seen a trick that has risen to this standard. I don't know why a 2 second hidden resolved apriori means that I have to disregard every single other portion of the flow and judges who do so are in my opinion, intervening the other way.
Policy: These rounds are largely impacted by impact calculus, which is often even more important than nitty gritty technical things. A 2NR going through the motions on "oh we outweigh on magnitude, time frame scope, probability, and everything else in the world" is not a helpful form of judge instruction.
Evidence quality matters. If there's not enough argument resolution in the round (which there never should be), evidence will be the deciding factor.
Kritiks: Kritiks need a framework argument and this does not mean a vacuous ROTB claim. It is nearly impossible for me to vote negative absent the negative advancing one unless you are fiatting the alternative (which I'm also for). If the aff wins that the round should be evaluated through causal consequences of the plan, I think the negative is far behind.
K aff vs. Framework: Counterinterpretations need to beat the arbitrariness DA. This means that unless you are impact turning everything (which I don't like but I understand its strategic), you need to either have counterdefinitions or win a uniqueness claim through your aff's theory of power justifying your counterinterpretation. CI: Your interp + our aff, CI: direction of the topic are literally laughable.
Dylan Jones Paradigm
Last updated for novice policy at Plano West
- Plano West 21’
- i've debated in LD for four year, clearing at every bid tournament ive been to so far senior year and earning a bid at greenhill. i did policy like twice at locals my junior year and i was a 2a.
- Email: DylanJ724@yahoo.com
- they/them pls and thanks.
- as a debater in the past 2 years, ive read 2 out of like 8 or so affs that defended a plan, the rest were questionably topical and planless, and all of them were critical, but my favorite aff defended a plan that makes voting for mr blobby compulsory. 2nrs in clash debates have always been cap, but i know how to go for framework and i read it in my 1ns. 2nrs against policy/phil affs have always been the K. the two times i did policy we read a setcol aff with a plan, baudrillard and framework in clash debates, and various CP/DA/case strats against affs with a plan.
Tricks: *read the tricks section tbh* 2-strike
- good debating can change most of my predispositions. i try to be agnostic on content, but obviously thats a little hard. arguments need to meet a minimum threshold of warranting to be evaluated. its more interventionist to think suffering bad and suffering good need to meet the same threshold for warranting.
- being sexist, homophobic, or bigoted in any way is an L0. misgendering, intentional or not, drops ur speaks by 1 up to -3 before its an L0.
- if ur speeches are like *blip blip blip* and then infinite sandbagging in the 2 i will be unhappy. LD has almost become too technical, and i seek to evaluate somewhere in the middle of policy and LD.
- I spend the most time thinking about this type of debate and i feel most comfortable adjudicating it. pref me highly if this is your thing - irl im a deleuzian anarchist.
- I'm the most familiar with "high theory" (useless word), but i've seen most common authors often enough to kind of understand them. authors I read the most in and out of debate are: heidegger, deleuze and/or guattari, baudrillard, edelman/baedan, various pieces of anarchist lit, fisher (rest in power), semiocap, land, and negarestani. this is not an excuse for poor explanation - even if i know what you're talking about you need to know what youre talking about too.
- links should be to the plan and ur alt should actually do something.
--- i should understand what either ur aff does or what the links/alt are after the 1a/1n, its really silly for me to expect somebody to respond to an argument that literally nobody in the room understands.
- reps matter, people should have to justify them, and its silly to pretend that they dont. ill entertain reps dont matter but my threshold is high.
- I'm comfortable having my RFD be "I dont understand x" if you do a bad job at explaining ur shit. do better. dont just go *buzzword buzzword buzzword floating pik* and expect a ballot.
- *this is for LDers only, policy kids: u have different norms and can actually read so go crazy* please dont read Afropess or radical black scholarship if you dont have the agency to do so. It's uncomfortable and black members of our community have constantly expressed they would prefer if you didn't. The highest speaks you will get if you choose to do this is a 27. if you do this in an elim you risk losing the round. if you do it against a black debater while being non-black its an L20. While i think ethical non-black engagement with the literature is good, LDers have convinced me that is not possible given the way debate currently functions. If LDers learn to read and understand the lit base, maybe this will change, however, as of now, this is a hard rule.
- i am more comfortable than you would think in these types of rounds - you should pref me highly but your top spot would b better given to someone like rex.
- good evidence and good warrant comparison is appreciated. having 2 good advantages with robust internal link work is better than like 9 extinction scenarios.
- i love impact turn strats - 6 minutes of impact turns on case is one of my favorite strategies to watch.
- I am neg leaning on every CP interp, condo is good, all forms of counterplans are good, and it will be an uphill battle to win otherwise. I recognize the strategic value of these arguments and I wont hack them down but I hate them and my threshold for answering them is low :).
- zero risk is a thing.
- politics debates are an abomination - politics disads are so generic and so lame, i hate hearing them.
- "lots of centrist judges between policy and K debate are perceived as K hacks because they hold policy debaters to the same standards they do K debaters, and a lot of people who go for fascism religiously forget that they have to warrant stuff" - a quote i heard in discord VC one time.
--- re the above: if ur extension is "russia is revisionist that causes heg collapse and great power wars because the US is offensive realist" i will be extremely upset. dense IR concepts take more than a sentence to explain, u should do that. perms are another argument that do this a lot: 1ar articulation of perms is terrible, its literally just "perm: do both" which isnt an argument and ill evaluate it as a new argument in the 2 when you inevitably sandbag for 3 minutes and list off 50 net benefits that j weren't there. all of this is to say - you need to warrant ur stuff out more please.
T (framework v k affs):
- i am comfortable sitting in framework v k aff debates. pref me highly if you're a-strat is reading k-affs OR framework.
- your interp should be able to articulate a defensible stasis point for prep and clash.
--- counterinterps should also do this. i will laugh @ u if its smth silly like "ur interp + our aff"
- my ideal counterinterp in clash debates articulates terminal defense to the impacts of the shell with a top-level impact turn that the C/I resolves.
--- if this isnt ur deal, 2 minutes of impact turns are fine, its just in your best interest to have a counterinterp that solves for most of the framework shell.
- conversely, good framework debaters have a robust warranting of the internal links between their model and the terminal impacts of the shell and do good impact calc.
--- if ur going for procedural fairness, dont b a coward. j say "debate is a game and cheaters deserve to lose." +.1 speaks if that exact line is in ur speech somewhere. i will admit that procedural fairness is less compelling to me than the clash/testing/portable skills collapse, but if ur a hard fascist ill respect u more if ur straight up abt it.
- reasonability, dta, and rvis are all a hard no. they're totally incoherent to me - i dont understand how a K aff can be reasonably topical, what dropping the advocacy looks like, or why being topical justifies the other team losing.
T (v policy affs):
- marginally less comfortable in T v policy aff rounds, but i can still evaluate it. i just havent had to think about it much as a byproduct of only reading planless affs. pref me somewhere on the upper end of mid-tier if this is your thing.
- any model of debate that only allows for like one aff on a topic is a bad one to me. im most compelled by topic literature, and semantics is generally uncompelling to me. jurisdictional claims dont make any sense.
--- re: nebel: i do not understand the upward entailment test nor do i understand why that means plans are bad. i strongly dislike nebel and winning it will be an uphill battle in front of me - pref me lowly if nebel is your a-strat against specification. just do more prep tbh.
- reasonability: maybe? i can see a briteline that's actually coherent in these debates. DTA and RVIs are still a hard no.
--- bad debating means i will begrudgingly vote on an rvi if its conceded - im not gonna hack against you if its objectively the correct strategic option.
- maybe? pref me somewhere in the middle. i think super high level theory debates are too technical and throw a lot of standards around with little weighing and it makes them hard to resolve. pref me higher if you can do a good job of weighing and making it resolvable - pref me lower if you rely on me to fill in the blanks and resolve offense between two blips on my own.
- paradigm issues r actually debatable here. u actually have to do work on the top half of the shell if ur going for theory :))).
- extend implications. DTD needs to be extended for me to vote on a shell.
- friv theory is fine I guess, not my favorite but it can be interesting and funny sometimes (sleds, dinosaurs, etc.)
--- I'd much rather sit through a silly friv theory debate than a disclosure or spec debate.
- if someone obviously doesnt violate im not voting on ur shell - people get lazy on violations and i have no idea why.
--- people are so bad at writing good interps that my a-strat against theory teams at this point is "you violate, spirit over text is true" or "i meet, text over spirit is true."
- probably not, i know next to nothing about phil outside of kant and deleuze. i should be on the lower end of your pref sheet.
- explain it to me like I am a child - i know nothing about ur author.
- you should have a syllogism. unless its like util.
- emod: no <3
- not defending implementation: no <3
- induction fails: no <3
- i dont want to judge the recycled massa/robby underview and skep file. strike me if ur not gonna innovate. new tricks are a maybe, pref me somewhere in the middle.
- i think tricks are fun when done well but miserable to watch when done poorly, i expect ill feel similarly about evaluating them.
- you need to explain to me why winning a trick warrants disregarding every other flow/argument. i have never seen someone do this successfully.
- you have to be ethosy to win these. we all know ur arguments are dumb, play it up and convince me to vote on them. i reserve the right to just not vote on a trick because i feel like it. is it interventionist? maybe, but i dont care.
- weigh between offense. if ur winning an apriori implicate it (does it outweigh a conceded rvi? why?)
- delineate spikes or i wont flow them. this is non-negotiable. anything else is ableist.
- if you do smth violent like going for indexicals to take out an aff abt oppression ill decide that under my index ur speeches suck and u deserve an L25 :))))))
- ive changed my thoughts here. there really isnt a briteline for what violates evidence ethics but generally i think it has to be maligned. i dont think cutting one sentence out of the first paragraph of one card is an ev ethics violation, but cutting a bunch out of the middle probably is. if an author doesnt say what you have claimed they have said, its probably ev ethics. what i mean is - this is probably TBD on a case-by-case basis.
- recutting evidence is probably a better strat than staking a round on ev ethics. i hope to not have to adjudicate any round over the validity of evidence.
- its annoying when people go for ev ethics because they know they will lose substance and are looking for a cheap shot win. please dont be that person. it has to be maliciously miscut.
- if someone initiates an evidence ethics challenge, its an L0 for whoever loses it and a W30 for the winner.
- i try to be nice with speaks, im stingy with 30s, but a 29+ shouldn't be too hard to get. If you get lower than a 27 you did something offensive.
- slightly k leaning on k v framework debates. probably 55/45 bias, barring a voting record to prove it.
- buffet 2nrs annoy me, collapse even if ur winning every flow.
- high threshold on extensions, arguments need a warrant and an implication extended for me to evaluate it. warrant and implicate more than u think u need 2.
- high threshold on independent voters - absent something egregious i find claims that someone made the space unsafe uncompelling and trivializing to throw around.
- all arguments are on the same layer until theyre weighed. the one with the least weighing is the bottom. i can forsee a world in which extinction outweighs condo if someone fumbles the bag if that explains what i mean.
- NEW: If you are dedicated to the bit and willing to troll for 45 minutes, pref me highly. this is hilarious and i want to see dumpster-fire shitposting rounds. i went for zerzan a couple times my junior year and my schtick now is reading nick land.
- *this is for LDers only, policy kids: u have different norms and can actually read so go crazy* please dont read Afropess or radical black scholarship if you dont have the agency to do so. It's uncomfortable and black members of our community have constantly expressed they would prefer if you didn't. The highest speaks you will get if you choose to do this is a 27. if you do this in an elim you risk losing the round. if you do it against a black debater while being non-black its an L20. While i think ethical non-black engagement with the literature is good, LDers have convinced me that is not possible given the way debate currently functions. If LDers learn to read and understand the lit base, maybe this will change, however, as of now, this is a hard rule.
- if you made it this far: congrats! here are some things you can do to get speaks bonuses:
--- follow me on spotify and show me you did it (+.3)
--- tell me what ur favorite song on any of my playlists is (+.1)
--- going one off case and doing it well (+.2)
--- reading like 6 minutes of case turns in the 1NC (+.3)
--- have a funny zoom background or discord name (+.1)
--- if you make good jokes ill bump speaks, if you make bad jokes ill lower them and be mad at u for not being funny and making me uncomfortable and i will probably make it clear u are unfunny and then u will be sad and probably have a damaged ego. (+ up to .3, - up to .5 if ur rly unfunny)
--- if u know me and know ppl im friends with/talk to/that coach me, bully them for 45 minutes and u will get a 30
--- "If i get to the room before you do if you throw open the door and say in a voice that everyone within 20ft could reasonably hear "REV UP THOSE FRYERS" you get .5 extra speaks" - Nathan
Murphy Jones Paradigm
Heyy, Im Murphy!!
Please put me in the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm currently a senior at centennial high school and have debated for my whole high school career. I have qualified and debated at TFA state, UIL regionals, and other high competing tournaments.
TLDR- Please give me a coherent argument to evaluate
What I like
I love debates that have a lot of genuine clash, I can just about flow anything so please go wild with whatever you want to do. I am not a super technical debater so you may need to adjust for me. Please make it clear what your winning or losing on!! I do not and will not intervene on the debate YOU need to make it clear what your winning!!
What I wont vote for
I will not vote for frivolous theory, I personally believe that it is a bad norm for debate and will not vote for it. On the other hand if their is a clear sign of abusiveness i have no problem evaluating theory in the round. I am also not super informed on high theory so please make sure to reexplain some things for me. Other than that I will flow any arguments!!
I love K's and I will vote on them. I am most aware of antiblackness and afropess literature, and will vote you down if you are white reading it. I am fine with K affs and non topical k's as long as you justify why they are important.
Off case positions
Fine with flowing them and love to hear them!! Just make sure that you make the tags are easy for me to understand.
Any questions you have please dont be afraid to ask me in round!! (I had to make this quick)
Anastasia Keeler Paradigm
hello ;-;! My name is Anastasia (Ana sometimes idk people just started calling me Ana so i go by that now) Keeler. I am a sophomore and have debated for 2 years for Westlake High School on the local and semi-national circuit, i broke at some bids and qualified to TFA state and taught at ODI - but don't let that fool you! I am a 3478 year old female (she/her pronouns) t-Rex. if you bring me food, or are funny in round, that will automatically give you 30 speaks. (please bring me food)
some ppl ive been coached by: Nolan Burdett, Chakra Jonnalogadda, Robby Gillespie and Patrick Fox for 2020-21 season
some ppl who have influenced my debate style: andrew lee, faizaan dossani, amanda chen, amanda huang, sesh joe
EMAIL: email@example.com - yes, i would like to be on the chain
pls be nice to each other and respect pronouns and triggers!! If you offend your opponent or do not respect their pronouns and they are visibly uncomfortable, this will result in extremely low speaks. I want to judge GOOD rounds and I don't even care how good you may be, if you're an asshole that didn't make for a good round. I give speaks as you deserve it, I have a very low threshold for people being rude so that will probably give you a 26-27.
Pls dont post round me. pls dont post round my friends. Im fine w u asking questions ab strategy and what to do better next time, but dont go "why did u drop me" or "i think i should have won" i default submitting my decision after RFD is over and everyone is gone, being an asshole will tank ur speaks. bringing ur friends to be a gang of assholes will tank them even more. WHY DO PPL DO THIS???
Im probably tech > truth but dont make like obviously incorrect arguments
U can go fast but slow down on analytics especially online
i won't time yall xoxo time yourselves please
Things i will drop u for:
- reading an idpol K that u do not identify with UNLESS the author says it is okay/the debate norms say it is okay. that means DONT! READ! AFROPESS! IF! YOU! ARE! NOT! BLACK!
- purposefully being an asshole
- being extremely rude to a novice for no reason
- "eval after ____"
- impact turning: oppression, racism, violence, etc
Sum things that may get u a 30 or just high speaks:
- bully rob sosa, tricks debaters in general, phoenix pittman, faizaan dossani, sarah zheng, leah yeshitila, dylan jones or nathan reed
- make a funny pun
- ask me what my favorite level of geometry dash is
- read the entire bee movie script in round
- play 100gecs during ur speech
- follow me on spotify @anastasiaskeeler (i swear i have good music taste)
Yeah ok i used to larp a lot but its not very fun so i dont do it anymore. yall need to weigh pls. I won't judge kick, i think 2ars on case turns r rlly powerful and cool.
I really enjoy T/theory if it is executed well. I think it is a great way to check back on abuse. I default No RVIs, Competing Interps, and Drop the Debater unless told otherwise.
this is the most based style of debate end of story
Ks I am familiar with: DisabilityPess (I read), Anthro (I read), Alienation (I read), Cap (I read), Wynter (I read) afropess, sectol, baudy, delueze, fem, etc etc etc
always have a clear link, RoB, and alt, or else what is the K even doing? If you have ontology claims, MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THEM.
I am familiar with a lot of framework and Phil affs. just explain everything and make sure that what you are saying actually makes sense.
I dont like these. If u read these i will probably sigh loudly. I can eval them but speaks will be low and i will be sad. Spikes at the top as well as spikes delineated is true. Spikes K is true. i have a learning disability, trust me on this one.
Phoenix Pittman Paradigm
Last Updated July 23rd 2020
Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Coached by: Patrick Fox, Perry Beckett and Aditya Iyer
Tech > Truth
This paradigm will bounce around like my thoughts so sorry ig.
History of me: Debated at Lindale for 4 years, did LD the whole time. Forced to do lay debate for freshmen year and the 1st half of soph year, taught myself progressive's basics the second semester of soph year. Went to TDC soph-junior summer and learned more in those 2 weeks than I did in 2 years. My school hired Pat and Grayson for me since I was a lone wolf my junior year. Founded the Online Debate Institute with a few friends (a free online camp for those who can't casually throw 3k on a camp or if they could, do not have the transportation means). Then I went to 42 days of camp between my junior-senior year on just $200 (hell yeah accessibility) and got really invested in phil/theory/kritikal arguments. I know Baudrillard slightly (read the robinson series and ran it like once), bifo very well (read four of his books), Psycho moderately well (watched a lot of rounds and have gotten a few one-on-one lectures) the Cap K really well (got 12 hours of in-lab lecture with it at TDC). I know most phil ran in debate - even if it's super obscure I probably atleast am somewhat familiar with it. I primarily read Phil positions and theory. Once I started getting into phil, I hired Perry and Aditya -- I am not a tricks debater I swear lmao
Paradigm you actually care about: I will evaluate every argument made minus the usual bad args (racism good, homophobia good, any idenpol oppression good impact turn really) If it's wacky like warming good but dropped or undercovered and you tell me why I'll vote on it. I am not super familar with alot of K literature - like Bataille, Puar, Deleuze although I have an idea - this being said I will always still vote on them given a reason too. I do not like non T k affs, although I won't instantly vote you down for it, just means I have a lower threshold for T Framework because I think fairness first, can't weigh case, etc are true args. I really like helping people, so please ask me questions after the round. I do not have triggers except super vivid accounts of depression/suicide will make me seriously uncomfy. I appreciate good voters in the 2N/2NR and 2AR that tell me what to vote on and why I should vote on it. "the 2N/2AR should begin with the RFD" - Aimun Khan
Random update I need to add: If you are not black and you read a position that is pessimistic about the nature of blackness (Whether that be Warren, Wilderson, Barber, Brady, Gillespie, Sexton, etc) I will automatically give you an L25. I am not apt to change on this position - Non-Black Afro-pessimism is so extremely morally repugnant I cannot put it in words. If you read that same position as a non-black debater AGAINST a black debater that is an L20 and I will attempt to contact your coach or school or whoever possible.
I have a low threshold for arguments against Jurisdiction standards because Jurisdiction is just blatantly wrong and probably the worst theory standard that's ever been read - I got into an argument with Rob Sosa on this and I literally said "even if it was true and judges had some supreme obligation that controls the ballot that they dont - it would still be a horribly unstrategic standard to go for that any theory debater would shit on"
I also have a low threshold for arguments against "eval after x speech" - My main coach, Pat doesn't even flow them. Literally if you respond at all to these arguments I won't vote on them. I mean that - if you just say "eval after the 1ac is dumb and unfair" I won't vote on eval after the 1ac.
Debate should be mostly line by line, big overviews with embedded clash are hard to flow and unstrategic - Pat always said overviews should be as short as possible. This means do explanatory work on the LBL - i.e put the link extensions on the perm.
CX is binding and if you violate CX I will not be ok, your speaks probably won't be either. (i.e kicking an uncondo CP)
You need to extend args in the 1AR to go for them in the 2AR. No New 2AR args/No New 2N args (unless responding to something made in the 1AR, but if it's attacking an arg in the AC, that's not ok) I do evaluate new 2ar/2nr weighing because weighing isn't a new argument but rather an extrapolation of a previous argument i.e if the Aff read a LARP aff and did "Case outweighs the DA" in the 2AR even if weighing wasn't done in the 1ar I will evaluate the weighing. Weighing is not an argument but rather an implication and an explanation.
One of my biggest pet peeves in my competitive history was Judge Intervention, so that means I will try to be the judge I wanted when I competed, for instance, while I dislike trix, I'll evaluate them the same as any other argument I'll just be sad while doing it. When I say this is my biggest pet peeve, it drives me WILD, like I can give stories of judges who auto-downed me because they politically disagreed (I came from a semi-rural area and ran cap bad, that's really all I need to say) meaning I will evaluate everything that's not making your opponent or another debater uncomfy.
If you say "For a brief off time roadmap" "Completely cold conceded" "extend that across the flow" "this flows aff/neg" I will be very sad because that gives me lay flashbacks and actually hurts my soul. They're also just so inefficient, unnecessary, and bad.
I looooooveeee me some theory debates - Deadass I spent like 2 months just purely writing my theory file and watching Evan Li/Zach Lu/Zach Siegel rounds on youtube.
Presumption negates - The aff is a change from the status quo, much like how you wouldn't pass a useless law, you wouldn't have a change without a reason to do so.
Permissibility negates - ^^^^ see above ^^^^
IVIs are fine but the more you read the lower the threshold I get for responses i.e if you read 6 IVIs in the 1n to split the 1ar while strategic I will have a lower threshold for the 1AR to respond to them.
Do not extemp spikes in cards a) I probably won't catch it b) I will not vote on it c) I will tank your speaks
Speaks: I begin at 28.5. The ways to boost your speaks are
1. being nice and polite to me and your opponent (although don't be so nice that I know you're only doing it for the speaks, like don't be fake)
2. Good strategy
3. Good speaking in general (I am not a boomer judge I promise I just like clarity)
4. Not triggering your opponent - If your opponent has triggers on their wiki, and you still read something that hurt them I will immediately give you an L20 if not L0 if I can - Access is first and education is second.
5. Good disclosure norms - (I know it's not the job of the judge to determine norms in debate that are not discussed in round so this will not be drastic I will give you +.5 speaks for good disclosure norms :) i.e if you show me your wiki and there's a lot of open source, round reports, etc)
6. I would say buy me food but I don't wanna let rich kids make me a speaks fairy - so while I would love food because I'm always hungry I won't boost your speaks because I understand some kids can't afford to buy 6 judges food just so they can break.
7. Make fun of my students or my friends or my coaches - Here's a list for you if you wanna choose one, Roberto Sosa, Leah Yeshitilia, Vishal Sivamani, Ritvik Sriram, Ana Keeler, Holden Bukowsky, Patrick Fox, Perry Beckett, Aditya Iyer, Gabby Lea, Gunner Brown, Dylan Jones (sad spongebob with emo hair is literally dylan) and probably a few more I can't think of.
8. As the great Charles Karcher once said, "Nicely formatted verbatim docs is sexy" i love formatting
Prefs for you:
Larp - 1
Ks - tbh 2 or 3
Phil - PLEASE PREF ME AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE I LOVE PHIL DEBATES - 1
Theory - 1
Trix - for the love of god strike me if you are running tricks, I will evaluate them but I will also TANK your speaks.
If you wanna post-round me, go ahead I like being post-rounded (it's never happened before) I don't like being post-rounded cause I wanna like
"own" you or anything I just want to understand how my judging paradigm could be better. Even if you think you're hostile or whatever, just go ahead I'm fine with it. If my RFD is bad you deserve to tell me that it's bad.
Jack Quisenberry Paradigm
Hey I’m Jack! I went to Northland in Houston, Tx. I did LD for 4 years and competed on the national circuit for 3. As a judge, I will try to be as tab as possible. Although I don’t think there is a true “tab” judge, I’m pretty confident that I can adjudicate debates with a blank slate. My favorite part of debate was thinking about different strategies, so if I think you make good strategic choices, you will probably get really good speaks. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains at email@example.com
Policy - 1
Theory/T - 1
K (security, cap, set col) - 2
K (anything else) - 3
Tricks - 3 (I don't want to judge this, but I'm fine if need be)
Phil – 4
- Fairness > Edu
- 1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory
- comparative worlds
- no RVIs, competing interps, dtd
- sufficiency framing
- Above all, I want you to debate the way you debate best. I want debaters to read what they know and are invested in.
- Disclosure is good. I am willing to vote on any sort of disclosure argument.
- I will vote for anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I won't vote for anything that doesn't.
- Don't split your 2nr
- In the world of online debate - please send your analytics and go 70% normal speed.
- I have an extraordinarily high threshold for any argument concerning out of round practices (except disclosure).
- Clipping/ethics challenges will result in an L minimal speaks. False accusations will result in the same.
- Debate should be a safe space. If you are sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist or something similar, you will be dropped with minimal speaks.
- This is what I am most comfortable with. I prefer plans to have tight scenarios that have big impacts instead of spamming absurd scenarios or soft left scenarios. Please know your aff like the back of your hand.
- Impact turns are amazing and should be used a lot more. I think debates that involve them turnout to be some of the most in depth and fun debates to watch.
- I think having good evidence is extremely important, but having good spin and ev comparison is what wins these debates. In these debates I will probably read cards at the end of the round to confirm that the spin is valid.
- PTX DA is great. My only request is that your uniqueness is not old.
- All CPs are good with me. I love CP theory debates.
- Affs should be able to weigh the plan
- I would much prefer links to the action of the plan
- Your speaks will suffer if your links are overly generic
- Throw out the big overview for more lbl.
- I think using examples and pulling lines from the aff to contextualize links is very persuasive.
- Please explain how the world of the alt solves/interacts with the world of the aff and the links.
- Answer 2 questions- 1. What does the alt look like, and 2. how does it solve the links? That’ll make my job very easy.
- K affs have a pretty high threshold for explaining solvency and what the aff does.
-The threshold for winning debate bad/should not exist is very high.
- I tend to slightly lean neg on T-FW especially when the affs model of debate does not include a role for the negative.
- Affs should have counterinterps that solve large portions of the neg offense
- Please utilize the TVA
- The 2nr needs to explain the differences in the models of debate you endorse, and why that matters/has an impact.
- I prefer the fairness 2n to the clash 2n.
- I tend to think that 2nrs on framework that don't go on case put themselves in very tough positions.
- No mention/hint at the k being a floating pik in the 1nc means the 2ar gets answers.
- Don’t expect me to know what your buzzwords mean.
- I'll be honest, I probably shouldn't be in the back for a dense k v k debate (unless it's like x aff v cap).
- Affs should have a framework.
- Don’t assume I have read your literature. BUT, I will still evaluate just like I would any other type of debate. I just need a very clear extension of why your framework comes first/is true.
- The only framework arguments besides util that I ever read in debate were Kant, Hobbes, and Rawls.
- I don't know why but I really like logcon.
- Truth testing is all good.
- I'm probably not the best for debates that come down to permissibility triggers.
-Not a fan of skep.
-Please don't pref me if you are looking for in depth phil v phil debates.
- SLOW DOWN
- I will evaluate these arguments the same as every other argument.
- Most of these arguments are very silly and easy to answer, but it seems like debaters either over invest or do not answer them at all.
-A prioris are fine but incredibly stupid.
- I love these debates.
- These debates are about competing models of debate/topic
- The frivolous nature of some of these arguments does not factor into my decision. Although, reasonability tends to become easier to justify.
- I can't express how important weighing is in these debates.
- If you are going for semantics you need to have a very clear explanation of the grammatical intricacies of the topic wording.
- I think reasonability bright lines are just counterinterps.
- I'm totally cool with paragraph theory
- I will probably err on the side of giving higher speaks.
- Clarity is VERY IMPORTANT. If you are unclear and I miss a “game changing” argument – that’s a you problem.
- Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, good CX, etc).
Ishan Rereddy Paradigm
Last updated - 9/27/20
Garland HS - '20
University of Texas at Austin - '24
Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Conflicts: Garland (TX)
LARP - 1
T/Theory - 2
K - 2-3
Phil - 2-3
Tricks - tbh just strike
TLDR: Just read the bolded stuff
Background: Hey I'm Ishan (pronounced E-shaun). My pronouns are he/him and I'll use they/them if I don't know you. I debated for Garland High School for 4 years in LD and competed on the national circuit for almost 2. I broke at several nat circuit tournaments, got a bid round, but never bid - do with that what you will - also broke at NSDA nats and was in octos and trips of TFA State for the past 2 years. Debate focuses/expertise include: LARP, T/Theory, and generic Ks and phil (Cap, Security, word PIKS, Kant, etc.)
People I agree with/have been coached by who I may or may not have modeled this paradigm after: Khoa Pham, Alan George, Bob Overing, Devin Hernandez, Vinay Maruri, Patrick Fox
My senior year wiki in case you care:
debate is a game
Tech>Truth with the caveat that burden of proof>burden of rejoinder - I'm not going to vote on a conceded argument if I can't explain the warrant/impact - the bare minimum is saying this argument is shit because XYZ.
CX is binding
DTA>DTD (except for T/condo)
1AR theory is cool
Presumption goes neg (absent an alternate 2NR advocacy)
(Tbh these don't matter as long as you make the argument for the other scenario)
Ev Ethics: (PLS READ)
- I didn't enjoy rounds that were staked on this a debater so I obviously won't as a judge. However, this doesn't mean you should not call out your opponent for a violation.
- If/when an accusation is made, I will stop the debate and determine if the accusation is true/false. Whoever is right about the accusation gets a W30, and whoever is wrong gets a L0.
- Reading an ev ethics shell is not the same as an accusation and I will evaluate it like a theory debate, so you might as well go for the accusation. That said, winning "miscutting ev good" is a hella uphill battle and probably the wrong decision.
- PLEASE have complete citations - if you don't and it is pointed out by your opponent, I will not evaluate the argument/card and your speaks will drop. Make it a voting issue! It's your responsibility as a debater to cut good ev.
- Don't intentionally clip cards - I will follow along in the doc to prevent this as much as I can. If I notice this in prelims, it's an L0, if I notice this in elims, it's an auto-L. Seriously, don't do it. >:(
- Brackets theory is fine, especially considering how egregious violations are becoming.
- Don't miscut your ev (cutting out counter-arguments/modifiers, breaking paragraphs, etc.) - If I notice this in round, it's an auto-L.
General notes I think are important:
- BE NICE, bigotry of any kind will result in an L0 and me reporting you to tab.
- Debate is fundamentally a game, but it is also a very competitive game that can get very messy. If at any point in the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, let me know verbally or by message and I will stop the round to help you in any way I can.
- If you are hitting a novice or someone who is clearly behind in the debate, don't be mean. Go for simple strats (2 or less off, no theory, 50% speed, etc.) and err on the side of good explanations. Doing so will result in me bumping your speaks.
- I'll call clear/slow as many times as a need to be able to flow. If you don't listen after 5+ times, that's your fault and your speaks will suffer.
- Please do NOT start off your speech at max speed, just work you way there.
- If the tournament is online, I understand tech issues will happen, so I'll be pretty lenient.
- Get the email chain set up ASAP. Sending docs in between speeches shouldn't take that long. Don't steal prep, I'll know and drop your speaks.
- Speech times and speaker order are non-negotiable.
- I'd really prefer you don't interrupt another person's speech, even if it's a performance. CX is obviously an exception.
- Performances that justify voting for anything outside of the debate realm (e.g. dance-off, videogames, etc.) are not persuasive to me. If you're conceding the round (exception), however, just let me know ahead of time.
- I know my paradigm is not short and you might not have time to read it, so ask questions if needed - I won't be an ass about start time unless tab forces me to - I think debaters should always read their judges' paradigms and take them to heart since it often results in better debates/speaks. That having been said, I'd rather see you debate well with a strategy you know than a strategy you're bad at just because you're trying to model what I did as a debater.
- My favorite style of debate an the one I'm most familiar with
- Link/impact turns require winning uniqueness!
- I think doing your impact calculus/weighing in the 2NR/2AR is fine - idk how the alternatives are feasible - making your weighing comparative/contextual is a must. I think debates about impact calc are really interesting and carded meta-weighing will get you far.
- If your extensions don't have a warrant, you didn't extend it - I won't do your work for you. (Ex: The aff does X and solves Y by doing Z)
- I'm perfectly fine with reading evidence after round, especially if was a key contestation point. Also, call out your opponents on having shit evidence. Debate fundamentally requires well-researched positions.
- Having clever analytic CPs, especially when the aff is new, can be really strategic - negs should always exploit aff vagueness, especially on questions of solvency.
- I really liked going for theory as a debater, but often felt discouraged by judges who hated frivolous theory. That's not me though so feel free to go for it - with the exception of egregious arguments like policing people's clothes - also keep in mind that intuitive responses to friv theory are pretty effective. Reading bad/underdeveloped shells does not equate to reading friv theory and will make me sad.
- Please slow down on theory interpretations and analytics and number/label your arguments - especially in underviews - I don't type very fast - seriously tho stop blitzing theory analytics
- I think paragraph theory is cool and prefer it most of the time. I don't think you need paradigm issues, but if you know your opponent is going to contest it, you might as well include them.
- I think going for reasonability is under-utilized and strategic, so doing it well with up your speaks. However, you need to have a counter-interp that you meet, even when you go for reasonability. I don't think a brite-line is always necessary, especially if the shell was shitty and you have sufficient defense.
- I'll resort to defaults absent any paradigm issues, but they are all soft defaults and I'd rather not, so literally just make the argument for the side you are going for.
- Winning the RVI isn't a super uphill battle with me, but I find that it often is a poor time investment.
- Having CIs with multiple planks (provided you actually construct offense with them) is cool/strategic.
- Weighing between standards, voters, and shells is just as important here as it is in LARP!
- I ran and debated Nebel T a lot as a debater, so i'm quite familiar with the nuances. If I can tell you don't know what this argument actually says e.g. you don't know what semantics being a floor/ceiling means, your speaks will suffer.
- I'm quite fond of topicality arguments and think they are a good strat, especially against new affs. That being said, if your shell is underdeveloped or you can't properly explain an offensive/defensive case list, the threshold for responses drops.
- Having carded interps and counter-interps is key.
- I don't care about your independent voters unless you can actually explain why they're a voter.
- T-fw/framework (whatever you wanna call it): I read this argument a lot as a debater and this was often my strat against k affs.
- Procedural fairness is definitely an impact, but I will gladly listen to others e.g. topic ed, skills, clash, research, etc. and I often find these debates to be very interesting.
- Contextualized TVAs are a must-have.
- Contextualized overviews in the 2NR are a must-have as well. If I wanted to hear your pre-written 2NR on framework, I'd go read my own.
- I think disclosure is a good for debate, but I'm open to whatever norm is presented in round. I think reading disclosure theory, l even at locals (provided you also meet your interp) is fine. I was a small-school debater and I disclosed all my stuff with full cites and round reports. I think first 3/last 3 is a minimum, but you do you. Open-source, full text, round reports, new affs bad, etc. are all shells I feel comfortable evaluating like any other theory debate.
- This is the only theory argument about out of round abuse I will vote on.
- I have a good understanding of marxist cap, security, afropess, and humanism. I have a very basic understanding of deleuzian cap, baudrillard, and saldanha. That being said, I can't vote for you unless you properly explain your theory to me and you should always err on the side of over-explanation when it comes to the links, alternative, turns case arguments and kritiks your judge doesn't know front and back.
- The K needs to actually disagree with some or all of the affirmative. In other words, it needs to disprove, turn, or outweigh the case. Actual impact framing>>> bad ROB claims.
- Please don't spend 6 min reading an overview - if i can tell someone else wrote it for you, I will be very sad and drop your speaks - if your overview is contextualized to the 1ARs mistakes, however, I will be very happy and bump your speaks up.
- I think CX against the aff and CX against the K are very important and I make an effort to listen. Pointing out links in the aff and using links from CX itself are cool. I also find that sketchiness in CX is acceptable to some extent (ex: it's a floating PIK), but I'd prefer you not be a jackass to your opponent. If you make an effort to actually explain your theory, links to the aff, and alternative sufficiently, I will make an effort to up your speaks. Absent a sufficient explanation, the threshold for responses to K plummets.
- I think K tricks/impact calc args (alt solves case, K turns case, root cause, floating PIK, value to life, ethics/D-rule) are under-utilized.
- Please have a good link wall with contextualized links from the case!
- The words pre/post-fiat are inconsequential to me. Just do proper impact framing.
- I think these strategies can be very interesting and these debates tend to be very fun to listen to. However, I'm not the best person to evaluate dense KvK rounds (not that I won't).
- If your K aff has no ties to the topic whatsoever, don't read it in front of me, it won't be a fun time for either of us.
- Your aff should should be explained with, at the bare minimum, a comprehensible, good idea. If I can't explain what I think your affirmative/advocacy does, the threshold for responses, along with your speaks drop.
- The 1AR vs T-FW/T-USFG should have a robust counter-interpretation that articulates a vision for the topic. Having counter-definitions is a good thing to do. "Your interp plus my aff" is not convincing.
- I'm more lenient to 1ARs with case arguments that apply to T, but I'm very hesitant to vote on new cross-apps in the 2AR unless they're justified.
- I'm most familiar with Kant since it was one of my generic strats, although I know some basic Hobbes/Testimony/Rawls.
- Please slow down on phil analytics/overviews as well.
- Be able to explain the difference between confidence and modesty and go for one in a rebuttal.
- If you can't explain your NCs syllogism in a way that I can explain it back, I'm not gonna feel comfortable voting on it.
- I think using examples to prove how a philosophy allows for some morally repugnant action is strategic.
- Please do proper weighing between framework justifications (if both sides keep repeating my fw precludes/hijacks yours without comparison, I will be sad and dock speaks)
- This is likely the type of debate like/want to see/feel comfortable evaluating the least. However, if this is your bread and butter, don't let that discourage you. That being said, if even I can tell you don't know how the trick you read interacts with the debate, your speaks will suffer.
- I'm from Texas and never debated in the Southeast or Northeast, so if you're from those states, err on the side of over-explanation.
- I'm probably going to be more lenient to you if you're not reading 30 hidden a prioris and skep triggers, so just keep that in mind.
- If you aren't winning truth testing, I'm probably not going to evaluate any of the tricks.
- I view presumption as a reason the judge should vote aff/neg in the absence of offense. I view permissibility as whether the aff/neg actions are permissible under some ethical theory/ in a world without morals. Winning skep will rely on you winning either 1- moral facts don't exist, 2- moral facts are unknowable, or 3- all moral statements are false.
- I'm generally pretty nice with speaks so long as you're clear and debate well - I prefer strategy over clarity but hey why not have both - I'll start from a 28.5 and go up or down depending on the round.
I'll up speaks for doing the following:
- ending a speech early (<2 min) - up to +0.3 depending on strategy (I would prefer a shorter/concise and conversational speech to a repetitive long one especially when debating a novice)
- bringing me a sprite - +0.1 or +0.2 if its cold
- if you actually buy me boba and its good - +0.5, -0.1 if its bad
- keeping me interested in the debate (interesting affs, bold NCs, good/funny CX, etc.) - +0.1
- a good anime/kpop reference - +0.1 per good reference, -0.1 if its bad
- if you bring me food and its good - +0.3 if its good, -0.1 if its bad
- beating me in pokemon showdown - https://play.pokemonshowdown.com/ - up to 0.5 depending on how bad you beat me but - 0.1 if you lose >:))
- funny memes/shitposting inserted in the doc - +0.1 per good meme, -0.1 if its bad
- being dripped up at the tournament - up to +0.3 depending on drip level
- making a funny joke/reference about people mentioned in this paradigm - +0.1 per good reference, -0.1 if its bad
(online tournaments especially)
- having a funny/cool zoom background - +0.1
- having seamless audio/video - up to +0.3 (i won't dock points if your internet is shit)
- showing off your pets - up to +0.3 depending on cuteness
Ethan Ross Paradigm
Update: strike me if you read tricks.
I debated in policy for 3 years and LD for the better part of 1 (uchicago '24 now). Most of my judging concerns overlap in both events but I'll make some distinctions below. In high school, I focused on critical arguments revolving around capitalism, security, queer theory, and Baudrillard. I'm generally tech over truth unless you say something morally reprehensible and the bright line for that should be obvious. Please do line-by-line and number arguments. If there's an email chain, my email is email@example.com.
It's really hard to evaluate k's if the link is questionable, so try and prove specificity. I like listening to compelling alternatives/visions of how debate or the world could change to accommodate the ideals in your theory of power. K v K debates are my favorite and it's fun to watch how the perm debate unfolds. Infusing line-by-line with aspects of your literature is super persuasive to me. If you're reading something that isn't mainstream I'd appreciate more explanation than usual. Long overviews are questionable. Framing in the round is a huge deal and so is backing up your claims in your last speech. If fiat is bad because it's "semiotically corrupt," and with no other explanation, I probably won't vote on it.
If you're going to go for it don't waste any effort. Stick to your impacts and any external offense you have. The same goes for K Affs defending against framework. If you're attempting to flip debate on its head then go all in - trying to defend the halfway point between sticking to the topic and impact turning fw/t is probably not a sustainable strategy. When you're running t or fw it would help if you engaged with a K Aff methodologically on both case and the t/fw flow, I find that compelling. I can vote either way in these debates.
Fine with any T debate but I believe the following: affirmatives may specify. Do with that what you will. (joke)
I love a good disad. By good I mean 1. having uniqueness 2. linking not being totally terrible. The better you are at detailing how this outweighs case, the more likely I am to vote on it granted you're winning everything else. Not much else to say here.
As a general note however you want conditionality to be framed in the round is how I will evaluate it, as long as you win it. I don't have any strong opinions on this. Love all kinds of counterplans and I'm open to hearing you justify them theoretically.
I'm probably not going to be heavily involved in topic research so explain everything to me as if I don't have topic knowledge. Politics DA's with fresh off the press uniqueness is kind of a guilty pleasure of mine.
Some Phil, trix, and theory (especially in blips or defending unconventional interps) might go over my head if you don't explain it well. In the rebuttals please try and number arguments and I'll evaluate any and all offense. I'm going to hold you to a higher threshold for theory than some people might (i.e. impact things out in the rebuttals and don't just spend a minuscule amount of time going for a round-ending argument) and I don't lean one way or another on any interpretation so I go with the flow. Also, don't go for too many things in the 2NR.
I don't like it when people say things like "game over" or "star/circle/hexagon this on your flow." If you say the "the jig is up" in your final speech I'll give you a +0.1 boost.
Roberto Sosa Paradigm
high speaks if you make a topical big chungus refernce. youre welcome dylan
sup my name is roberto sosa, i go to cardinal gibbons and im a rising junior
TLDR i will vote on any warranted arg as long as it isnt racist/sexist/homophobic and etc just if i think its a bad arg ur speaks probs wont look great
trigger warnings r a good thing and u should give them if ur depicting graphic violence
ive changed my mind i really dont like larp unless ur gonna make it a really clear round
order of what i think is cool
Phil (not tricks)- 1
K- 1/2 depending on the K
Tricks- 2/3 depending on how creative you are
LARP- 5 its so boring
order of how comfortable i am evaluating each
K-1/2/3 depending on the K
more in depth thoughts:
yeah i like this
id like to think i know a lot about ethics/ political theory and i think these args are p cool
some of my favorite authors are mouffe and levinas
if you're making a preclusion arg dont just say your fw precludes theirs, pls warrant and explain
same for hijack args
i default to competing interps no rvis dtd
fairness is a voter and probs comes before education but i can easily be convinced otherwise
pls weigh weigh weigh, theory is so annoying when people dont weigh
friv theory shells are fine
i prefer short OV and then LBL more than OV with lots of interaction but at the end of the day its your choice
the Ks im most familiar w are lacan, various queer theory authors and cap but i'll evaluate anything
if you're reading like baudy or something try not to be overly jargony
im not voting on a floating pik unless you hint to it being a pik in the 1n
creatively topical kaffs are super cool imo
same for other k tricks, hint at them in the 1n
i think creative tricks are cool
i think non creative tricks are boring
dont be ableist. ur speaks will suck. ill be easily persuaded by ableism args
please dont extemp random shit in the middle of a card or something
i changed my mind im not voting on eval x after y, if you read it anyways ur getting an L
if ur reading spikes delineate them or im not flowing it
yeah i think this is boring but ill evaluate it
please read an actual util syllogism with warrants, not just the baseless assertions that seem to be common
condo is fine ig
probs will have a hard time evaluating a really close round
epistemic modesty: dont.
if you bully nathan reed, dylan jones, or phoenix pittman ur speaks will be high
if you spent 20 seconds of your 2n or 10 seconds of your 2ar explaining why tacobell is bad you will also get high speaks
Immanuel Victor Paradigm
* Update for Jack Howe (and any tournaments after): please don't read eval after the x speech in front of me. These debates get very confusing since most debaters never articulate what evaluating the debate after x speech looks like.
*Update for Holy Cross: I did an extensive amount of traditional debate in my career, so I would consider myself a pretty good judge for traditional rounds. I am more than happy to listen to a standard v/vc debate. Also, if you are a traditional debater debating against a circuit opponent, please feel free to message me on Facebook or email me with any accommodations that you need. The National Circuit does tend to be elitist towards traditional debaters, so I want to do what I can to mitigate that environment.
Hey y'all! I debated for Mountain House High School for 4 years, one of them on the national circuit. Cleared at a couple of bid tournaments, Qualified to NSDA in Policy, and CHSSA State in LD.
add me to the chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
TLDR: you do you, and I'll evaluate accordingly. I'll vote on any argument with a warrant, given that it is not violent or oppressive (things like racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, etc.) - these arguments will result in an L20 potentially lower speaks. I will be recording rounds for the sake of clipping (with permission of course), and if there is a claim that someone in the round is clipping, I will look back at the recording and make a decision. If you are caught clipping, it's an L20, but if the accusation is false then it's an L20 for the accuser.
I average speaks at around 28.8. Things that will raise your speaks include good collapsing and good strategy (also humor! Debate is supposed to be fun!!). Things that will lower your speaks are overwhelming novices or just being unstrategic.
Phil - 2 (not excessive reliance on trix)
Policy/Theory - 1
K - 2 (never read one but trust me I'm really good at evaluating this)
Trix - 3 or 4
Things I went for: Policy and K affs (Speeced Plans and Agamben/Baudrillard), Phil NC's, Lots of 1AR theory and Topicality, CBW Disads on the JanFeb topic, Set Col (on the standardized testing topic), Truth-testing, A Rawls AC.
Yes RVI's (both sides get this)
Presumption flows neg
Yes 1AR theory
Any arguments will override my defaults.
Thoughts about arguments
I don't want to make this long, so I'll just list things that you should keep in mind while arguing K's and Trix in front of me (Policy args are p simple - just prove why the plan's a good idea, or why the plan is a bad idea).
K's - cool with K affs. I am a better sell for debate bad than you think. Explain your theory of power and what that means for the round. K tricks and Floating PIK's are cool, but theory on that is warranted. I will vote against a K on presumption if there's a warrant. Kick the alt of the K if you want, just tell me how to vote for you in that case. I definitely lean more towards k aff in a kaff v tfw debate, mostly cuz tfw debaters don't articulate their fairness impacts strategically.
Tricks - If you're shady in cross, you won't be happy with your speaks. Defend your aprioris and NIB's and win on them. I think theory against apriori's is fine, but I think TT takes out theory (you have to make that argument). Innovative tricks will earn you high speaks and a smile on my face.
Phil - Explain your syllogism and how it interacts with your opponent's framework/offense. If they don't get offense under your framework, explain why. Don't spam me with preclusion arguments, actually clash with the opposition framework. I'm a good sell for deontological frameworks and induction fails.
Ask me any questions if I haven't covered a topic you need to know. Good luck and let's have a fun round!!
Leah Yeshitila Paradigm
note - this is for the odi camp tournament
hi ! my name is leah (you can call me leah or leyu, either is fine - she/her !) and i am a debater at garland high school
ADD ME TO THE CHAIN - email@example.com
i am most comfortable going for LARP/K positions. the kritiks i know best are afropess, warren, spillers/hartman - positions like deleuze, baudrillard, and psychoanalysis are definitely not my fortes, but i have learned enough to evaluate these debates well enough, just be sure to explain everything well. ive gone for t/theory alot to so do your thing : )
t/theory debates are also fine !
my favorite kinds of debate (for this specific tournament)
- short cut
1 - LARP
1 - K
1 - theory/t
2 - high theory
3 - phil/friv theory
4 - tricks
LARP v K
K v Framework (i dont really default any specific way - i will buy things like impact turns, and debate bad args - but i am also convinced by solid 2nrs on framework - look at patrick fox's paradigm for a good explanation of this)
LARP v LARP (the classic LOL)
theoy/t debates writ large are fine !
non t affs (esp w black debaters) are super dope and i love to hear them !
my least favorite kinds of debate (pls dont make me evaluate these debates sigh)
tricks. full stop. :)
phil is a type of debate i dont know NEARLY enough about - it would be in your best interest to not go for phil in front of me
disclosure is probably good, but i definitely air on the side of black debaters not NEEDING to disclose their positions.
debate opinions (take them as you will)
1 - debate is not just a game. yes it is a competition, but it is also a place where POC, and black students express themselves. there are material impacts for black/POC - some of which can show themselves through trigger warnings - dont be violent, k thanks.
2 - ANY form of racism, homophobia, sexism, ableism, lack of trigger warnings, etc - all of which WILL get you downed with an L-20.
3 - i default to competing interps, no rvi's, DTD - the more friv the shell, the lower threshold i have to beat it back. PICs and condo are probably good.
5- PLEASE SLOW DOWN FOR QUICK ANALYTICS. i sometimes find myself missing them, esp with the nature of this tournament being online.
5 - please weigh.
6 - other things that will result in you getting the L or/and lower speaks - misgendering your opponent, stealing prep, manipulating ev, reading pess as a non black person, being rude to novices !
7 - simones takes i find extremely compelling/i find myself agreeing with a lot of it - https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=77592
things i like to see/good speaks !
1 - collapsing !!
2 - GOOD 2nrs on framework
3 - making fun at the admin/instructors at ODI
4 - if you happen to be black
5 - make the round fun or interesting
1 - being toxic throughout the debate is a no
2 - try and have docs ready to go - just so we dont run over time tm - other than that have fun !
3 - if you want to postround - try to keep it constructive ! try not to be rude, as we have been having trouble with it.
Sarah Zheng Paradigm
Hewwo uwu my name is sarah and I'm a junior at Dulles. I debate national circuit (with varying levels of success) but i also dabble in trad debate in my local circuit so if u wanna impress me w/ ur amazing lay debate skills im down for that too.
1. I'm tech> truth but tbh I can't really promise that im like 0 truth. I'll evaluate any argument (problamatic ones notwithstanding) but those arguments have to have warrants (it would also be helpful if those warrants went past 2-word phrases like "chilling effect")
2. I do mostly k debate and the occasional larp round for those policy judges. I also do like local circuit stuff which i guess u can file under larp(?) and most of my other knowledge comes from whatever my teammates do and i just kinda tag along with.
3. I am familiar with most general norms on the circuit (like probably u should disclose) but not rlly the in depth ones (like do round reports is good now?)
4. Please trigger warnings for things like violence especially if you’re going to have graphic descriptions. You can read anything in front of me but pls lets try and make debate a safer space ?•?•?
5. I don't time oops if u don't call out ur opponent when they go overtime thats on you
6. I realize debate can be a really stressful space. If there is anything that can be done to make the round more accessible (such as different highlights, trigger warnings, etc) for you please let me know and I will make sure it happens! In addition, if you ever feel like the round has become unsafe just let me know or email me and I'll stop the round and we'll figure out where to go from there.
id pol k = 1
high theory k (like baudrillard, foucalt) = 2
larp = 1
Theory/trix = 3 (just pls don't try to be too sneaky and slow down on important stuff or I might miss them as well :/)
Phil = 2/3
Love these. I would also like some engagement with k affs that aren’t recycled shells pls but if t-fw is ur go to i get it too. Other than that I’m pretty familiar with this style because it’s the style I tend to do most often just give me ur overviews don’t forget the line by line too much. I’m most familiar with queer theory, wynter and I know my way around generic Ks but for others err on the side of explaining more (you should have some explanation regardless but just make it a little more elementary if it’s not something I’m familiar with). Especially for high theory/ more not material ks, like Ill probably understand it because i know the worlds kinda screwed up but i prob wont get ur big words w/o explnantion. That being said although I am most familiar with this style of debate doesn't mean I don't like other styles. In fact I'd much rather you go for larp/phil/whatever you do well in front of me than go for a k badly.
Im bad at math so u’re gonna have to do a lot of the weighing for me other than that I think this debate is pretty intuitive. Have good evidence do weighing maybe don’t concede T and it shouldn’t be too bad.
I’ll be honest this is the type of debate I’m worst at, but I do know when I’ve lost a round so maybe I’m better at adjudicating them than I am at reading it? I will most definitely miss some arguments if u just blitz them out at normal speed so you’ll prob have to slow down. Other than that see my “pls warrant” point above and we’ll be good.
Nothing is a voter until you tell me it is AKA justify your voters pls
This is the type of debate I’m least familiar with. I’ve never ran a phil ac or bc in my career so I don’t really know how these rounds play out. I know the basics (hijack, ____ collapses to ____, etc) but have no idea how these interact (ie what happens if both of u make hijacks?) so ull have to do that comparative work for me. I just assume I go in knowing nothing (not hard for me ;3) and whichever framework seems the most true based on what was said in the round at the end is the one I go with. Mayb that’s a bad way to judge these if u want me to do it differently ull have to tell me in round
I'm also not that familiar with EM and how all the nuances with it works (like how a hijack/ collapses to arg affects the probabliity calculus that I have to do) so if you run em you just gotta be super crystal clear or I will just use my probably not very educated opinions and we'll all be sad. also see the not good at math part above