Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV

2017 — NV/US

Mike Bietz Paradigm

6 rounds

Head Coach: Harvard-Westlake School, Los Angeles CA |

Use for sharing speech documents. No more email or flashdrive problems. The affirmative should have this ready to go before the round starts.

Jonah Feldman, coach at UC Berkeley, summed up a lot of what I have to say about how I evaluate arguments


I do not believe that a dropped argument is necessarily a true argument

I am primarily interested in voting on high quality arguments that are well explained, persuasively advanced, and supported with qualified evidence and insightful examples. I am not interested in voting on low quality arguments that are insufficiently explained, poorly evidenced, and don't make sense. Whether or not the argument was dropped is a secondary concern...

How should this effect the way I debate?

1) Choose more, especially in rebuttals. Instead of extending a lot of different answers to an advantage or offcase argument, pick your spots and lock in.

2) If the other team has dropped an argument, don't take it for granted that it's a done deal. Make sure it's a complete argument and that you've fully explained important components and implications of winning that argument.

His full paradigm:

More stuff:

I never thought I'd have to say this, but you have to read aloud what you want me to consider in the round. Paraphrasing doesn't count as "evidence."

The affirmative probably should be topical.

I think that I'm one of the few circuit LD judges who votes affirmative more than I vote negative. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must engage. Being independently right isn't enough.

I would probably consider myself a policy-maker with an extremely left bent. Answering oppression with extinction usually doesn't add up for me. I'll take immediate, known harms over long term, speculative, multi-link impacts 90 out of 100 times. This isn't paradigmatic so much as it is negatives failing to engage the affirmative.

Given my propensity to vote affirmative and give the affirmative a lot of leeway in defining the scope of the problem/solution, and requiring the negative to engage, I'd suggest you take out the 3 minutes of theory pre-empts and add more substance.

Topicality is probably not an RVI, ever. Same with Ks. Today I saw someone contend that if he puts defense on a Kritik to make debate a safe space, the judge should vote for him because he'll feel attacked.

Cut your presumption spikes. It's bad for debate to instruct judges not to look for winning arguments. It also encourages debaters to make rounds unclear or irreconcilable if they are behind on actual issues.

Where an argument can be made "substantively" or without theory, just make it without theory. For example, you opponent not having solvency isn't a theory violation. it just means they can't solve. Running theory flips the coin again. So it's both annoying and bad strategy. Other examples might include: Plan flaws, no solvency advocate, and so on. Theory IS the great equalizer in that it gives someone who is otherwise losing an argument a chance to win.

Cross-x cannot be transferred to prep time.

Some annoyances:

- Not letting your opponents answer a question. More specifically, male debaters who have been socialized to think its ok to interrupt females who have been socialized not to put up a fight. If you ask the question, give them a chance to answer.

- Ignoring or belittling the oppression or marginalization of people in favor of smug libertarian arguments will definitely not end up well for you.

- People who don't disclose or they password protect or require their opponents to delete speech documents. I'm not sure why what you read is private or a secret if you've read it out loud. The whole system of "connected" kids and coaches who know each other using backchannel methods to obtain intelligence is one of the most exclusionary aspects of debate. This *is* what happens when people don't disclose. I'll assume if you don't disclose you prefer the exclusionary system.

Some considerations for you:

- if you’re reading such old white male cards that you have to edit for gendered language, maybe consider finding someone who doesn’t use gendered language... and if you notice that ONLY white men are defending it, maybe consider changing your argument.

- if you find yourself having to pre-empt race or gender arguments in your case, maybe you shouldn't run the arguments.

Alexander Campbell Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Christian Eng Paradigm

6 rounds

My name is Christian Eng and I am happy to be judging, welcome to the tournament. I worked in both the restaurant and mortgage loan business, I am currently a substitute teacher with CCSD in southern Nevada. I have one year of policy debate experience, during the academic year of 2013-2014 I competed in Novice/JV for coach Jacob Thompson at UNLV.

I believe that the purpose of an argument is to both persuade and educate. I want to clearly know what you are advocating. If you feel like you have won certain arguments, give me clear statements defining why. It has been some time since I have been around debate and I am comfortable with a high speed debate, but if I am your judge, I highly recommend you take this opportunity to relax, slow down to a pace that is slightly faster than that of a regular conversation, and deliver some of your favorite arguments. I like impact comparisons and clear links.

Please include me in your email chain, my email is, this will help in the event that I need to review evidence after the round. I have my inbox linked to my phone, so if you have any questions, cannot find the room, or will be running late, please feel free to email me.



Trimaan Malik Paradigm

3 rounds

My name is Trimaan Malik. I debated LD, PF, and Congress in high school. I was a policy debater for one semester for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

I am a pretty straightforward and easygoing judge. I care more about what you are saying than how well you speak. I look for a clear and concise road-map so everyone in the debate understands the arguments.

Please make sure you flow in policy. It is not a good sign when you respond to an argument that was not said in the round, but you saw it on the speech doc.

In PF debaters should have evidence to back up their claims. Even if they make amazing arguments their speeches hold no merit without evidence. They have to remain topical. PF is not the place to provide an "alternative". Just focus on the topic and you will be fine!

For LD I look for the value/value criterion and framework to see if it really applies to your arguments. I am not too strict about evidence in LD, but I am more of a traditional judge and I like to have analysis in the round. It is good to hear a piece of evidence, but I want to know how it applies to your arguments. Although I prefer classic LD debate, as a judge it is my responsibility to treat every round fairly regardless of my preferences but I prefer no spreading during the debates. I can still understand spreading, thanks to my debate class at UNLV (thanks Dr. Thompson!), but I would like to preserve some element of classic LD for progressive cases.

Most importantly, show respect to your opponent(s). I want to make sure the environment is comfortable for everyone so nobody feels like they were screwed over.

Sergio Martinez Paradigm

2 rounds

See record below.

Chloe Norvell Paradigm

4 rounds

I'm a senior at The Meadows, and this is my fourth year as a policy debater. Email @ (that's three L's). 

- I'm not familiar with the new topic as of January so it's extra important to EXPLAIN things. Make it easy for me to vote for you and it's more likely that I will. 

- Don't run theory.

- K's are fine as long as you understand them and can clearly explain them.

- DAs/CPs are chill.

- Clarity > Speed.

- Know your evidence and know it well. 

- I'm going to time you and my time is final.

- Sign post. I beg you. Tell me where things should be going on the flow. Make sure you're giving warrants and weighing args.

- I like overviews. Weigh arguments against each other. Tell me what's happened in the debate and why you should win. 

- Be funny + don't be a jerk. 

- Show me your flow after the round for good speaks. 

- Bring me a snack for even better speaks. (@ASU kids, waffle fries and polynesian sauce are my jam.)

Joshua Prine Paradigm

2 rounds

I've been a Speech and Debate coach since 2016 and have a background in teaching philosophy, literature, and critical theory. I'm most familiar with Public Forum, though I have exposure to Lincoln-Douglas, Parliamentary, Congress, and Speech events as well. I do flow, but I can't always flow as fast as you speak, so I appreciate taglines and signposting.

Public Forum: Make your impacts clear, and do a lot of weighing. If you're not interacting with the opponents arguments and weighing impacts, I've got nothing to vote on. I like to pay attention to cross, but you should bring it up in your speech if you want me to put it on the flow. Don't bring up new information in Final Focus if you value your speaks. I don't vote on extinction impacts without empirical evidence.

Lincoln-Douglas: I'm OK with theory and performance; I don't like tricks. I won't vote for phobic arguments

Ghada Shehab Paradigm

2 rounds (Start an email chain right away please)

Basically, I'm familiar with most progressive/traditional arguments. So feel free to run whatever you want.

If you have questions, please ask before round.

Techniciality before anything, I judge that first.
Theory is fine, but break it down and tell me why its a voting issue. I don't do RVIs. Counter-interp's are better than "we-meet". But go about it whatever way you want.
I feel very strongly about calling your opponent a "cheater". I think there are better ways/words to show that you are being put at a disadvantage during the debate round.

Some dropped arguments are honestly useless for the whole picture of the debate. Just because you extended a dropped argument that does nothing for you doesn't mean I'll vote it up.

Topicality is also fine and I will evaluate it first if I think your opponent is being unfair. I do strongly believe that for fair engagement inside of the debate space, the affirmative should be somewhat topical. However, this is up to you to convince me how to vote off of that.

K's are great. I'm familiar with most of the K's circulating around, and with a lot of the literature of K's. But if you're going to be reading something out of the ordinary, articulate and explain it to me.
(I will say this; however, most people that run structural violence K's tend to group minorities in hierarchies and solve for the "most oppressed"; this strategy is wrong and offensive).

Philosophical arguments are also very cool. I love Philosophy. However, you will need to explain it to me if its out of the ordinary.

Traditional LD is also awesome. If you're going to do Traditional LD, then i'll put a little emphasis on the V/VC debate. I love good framework debates! I HATE cross-benefit/cost-benefit analysis frameworks, if you do read that, just know i'm disappointed.

I've seen a few performance cases and I loved them, if that's what you do, go for it.

I don't flow Cross-Ex, but I listen. If there is something that you want on your flow, bring it up in your speech.

SPEED - Speed is great, go as fast as you want BUT taglines, plan texts and/or advocacies should always be conversation speed. If I don't hear it, i won't flow it.
Intensity is fine, just don't be rude.
Speaker Points - I never give 26 or lower, if I do, you're super offensive and/or rude.
& Always give voters.

-If you wanna transfer CX time to prep; go for it.

I also call for evidence a lot.

If I don't understand something, you will know from my face expressions. I will expect you to explain it to me if you notice that I don't understand your argument. I can't vote on something that doesn't make sense to me.

Things I hate:
-Males talking over Females in CX is a pet peeve of mine.
-Being a Male and being over-aggressive to your female opponent will earn you a 25 or lower.
-Knowing that your opponent is traditional and then reading like 2 K's or 8 off is also un-educational and unhelpful. A good debater knows how to adjust and win off of that. I'm not saying I won't vote off of it, I'm just saying its unproductive inside of the given debate space.
-K's with no alts aren't K's.. Seriously.

-- i'm EXTREMELY tired of progressive vs. traditional debates. If your opponent is traditional, adjust. That's what good debaters do.

Sudhakar Srinivasan Paradigm

2 rounds


I am a parent. Pref accordingly. 

Curtis Wardle Paradigm

6 rounds

Curtis Wardle


TLDR: debate however you would like in front of me. I'll evaluate whatever you give me to the best of my ability.

Tech beats truth in front of me every time. I don't care if the T was frivolous, I'll drop the most generic aff in the world if they lose the T flow.

Speed: 6. If you aren't clear, then it makes my job infinitely harder. If you spread through the standards on T, Theory, and other analytic arguments, I won't feel guilty if it doesn't make it onto the flow. I can only evaluate what I was able to flow.

K: cool

CP: Cool

DA: Cool

FW: Cool

T: Go for it

Performance: Go for it.

Over/underviews: Please

Non Topical affs

I am open to new uses of time, performance, and affs that are not topical. However, I feel it is the burden of the affirmative to provide solid framework telling me to evaluate the round differently than if I were a traditional policymaker.

Topicality I'll be honest here. As aff, I was frequently non topical and as neg I read T all of the time. I am okay with T hacks, and I won't punish an aff outright so long as they can provide ample reason why their aff would be preferrable to the topic. I will default to competing interps on T debates generally.

Spec args I actually thing it's pretty valuable. I would rather see a spec arg than an agent CP.

Nebel T: You can read it, but its a vertical battle to me. Whole res is stupid. I would much rather see infinite affs on the wiki than listen to an infinite amount of PICs. Don't tell me you couldn't read anything against the aff if you're compotent. Force them to defend generics, read a K, go for an abusive CP. I don't really care, but the notion that negs should get infinite access to DA and PIC ground because they aren't feeling like doing prep work doesn't fly for me. You didn't have 15 minutes before the round to prep out your opponent, you had infinite time to prep out conceivable positions.

Debate authors: this is my pet peeve. Debate people are great for advice at camp, they're not gods on the T flow. Cut it out. "Don't use me in round," Steve Knell, 2015


I diverge from most policy judges in that I actually enjoy theory. However I have some specifics.

1. If you make me vote for disclosure theory, I'll hate you

2. Condo is legit, severance is fine. Agent, process, and inherency cps are are legit theory violations.


I don't really feel like I should have to put a section in here for K's but, here we go. I was a K hack that read Queer Theory/Ableism all of senior year. I believe that the K is a valid argument, and provides great (if not real world value,) intellectual value. I am familiar with queer, fem, and ableism literature as well as biopower. If you choose to read other identity critiques or something that isn't a "generic K," I may call for evidence. I will evaluate arguments I am unfamiliar with to the best of my ability.


Most CPs are totally able to be permed. I require debaters explain how the permutation is functional first, and evaluate whether or not the perm harms the integrity of the kritik if that becomes relevant. I am happy to grant perms, but if you do not tell me how the perm would function, I will most likely conclude neg.


Honestly, disads are my least favorite arguments. If you want me to vote for it, you're best going for a CP/DA strategy.

Other things about me

  • Kanye, Migos, Uzi, and Yachty quotes will grant extra speaks
  • Drake references are minus points
  • Sass is welcome. Being an asshole is frowned upon.