Bruce Rogers Speech and Debate Tournament at HCHS
2017 — Warner Robins, GA/US
Novice Policy Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideWoodward Academy '20
Last Updated: 02/06/19
Add me to the email chain: 20aajani@woodward.edu
Experience on the Topic: I attended GDS for 3 weeks over the summer and have been debating varsity all year.
My greatest influences in debate and what a good debate should look like have been Bill Batterman and Maggie Berthiaume. Please feel free to look at their paradigms as well...
Bill Batterman — https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=&search_last=batterman
Maggie Berthiaume — https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=1265
General
Flow on paper and by ear. Clarity over speed. Don't steal prep. Both partners should be keeping time. Give a road map and sign post. Mark cards not only verbally but also physically so you can send your opponents a correctly marked version if they ask for one. If your partner gives you cards to read in the middle of your speech, I will not start cross ex until those cards are sent out.
The 2NR and the 2AR are definitely extremely impactful on the result of the debate. You must articulate your arguments thoroughly in these speeches. Extend an impact — impact comparison is very necessary. Cite authors and evidence for me to look back at in close debates. On the contrary, you can't just bring all this out of the blue in the last speech. Make sure your arguments are extended throughout the round or else I cannot evaluate them.
Be respectful to your opponents. This means make sure they are ready before speaking, do not intentionally exclude analytics from documents you send out, do not speak loudly in the middle of their speeches, and do not be aggressive in cross ex. Being respectful is a heavy influence on speaks.
It's better if the person who just gave the speech is answering all the questions in cross ex, but tag teaming is fine as long as you aren't dominating another person's cross-ex.
Don't go for multiple things in the 2NR. This also means the status quo is not always an option. I will not kick a CP for you.
Speaker Points: https://the3nr.com/2016/04/15/an-updated-speaker-point-scale-based-on-2015-2016-results/ +in-round courtesy
Non-Traditional Affs
Read a topical aff please :)
Kritiks
I’m not the guy for high theory debates or for debates that rely on winning framework. Links should be a DA to the plan. Specific links and an in-depth explanation are the best way to convince me to vote for a K.
Theory
It will be very hard to convince me to vote on a theory violation other than conditionality bad when there are 3+ conditional off-case. Of course, I will vote on obvious voting issues such as racism bad and sexism bad.
T
I am pretty impartial on topicality when it comes to policy affirmatives. Make sure to elaborate on what the impacts are if you read a topicality violation and if you have to answer topicality.
CPs
If you do not read a solvency advocate in the 1NC, please read one in the block and give me thorough explanation of what the CP does in the block with evidence. If you do not read a solvency advocate in the 1NC, I will also be more lenient on the 1AR for answering the CP. All that being said, the best thing to do is to read a solvency advocate in the 1NC.
Process CPs are a little difficult to win against a perm when I am judging, but they are definitely still a viable 2NR option with good analysis and articulation.
DAs
Please prove that the disad outweighs and turns the case. You have to win every part of the DA to win the debate, with or without a counterplan.
If you are reading a DA with a CP...
I will vote for sufficiency framing with a great enough probability of the DA. If the CP solves 100% of the affirmative, any risk of the DA is probably a reason to vote negative.
If you have any other questions, please ask before the round starts. I will happily answer.
Woodward Academy '20
University of Virginia '24
Email chain: ghanate.nishita@gmail.com
People who taught me how to debate and their paradigms:
Bill Batterman: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=10298
Maggie Berthiaume: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=1265
Meta Comments
1. Respect your opponents. Don't do silly things or make fun of your opponents.
2. The document that you send out should be the exact same document that you are reading from your computer. Not only will you be depriving me the opportunity to read along with you, but you will also be giving me the impression that your arguments are bad enough that if your opponents knew what you were saying they would win.
3. I care the most about clash and nuanced arguments. The best debates are ones with aff-specific strategies that show off what both teams know about the topic. I am not impressed by winning debates on State CPs that fiat out of everything or affirmatives without a solvency advocate with contrived advantages. Engage the literature.
4. I read evidence at the end of a round. It doesn't make or break my decision, but I definitely would lean more to the side of being a "truth over tech" judge.
5. You can win absolute defense in front of me. It's hard but not impossible especially if your opponent reads cards that clearly conclude in the opposite direction or leave out an internal link.
Critiques
If the point of your kritik is to say words that your opponents won't understand, I will not understand what you are saying either. Avoid jargon. Try to explain your arguments more. I am familiar with the most common critiques (capitalism, anti-Blackness, settler colonialism, militarism, feminism, abolition).
I think aff-specific kritiks or generic kritiks with aff-specific links can be an amazing strategy especially if it's a core of the topic kritik (IE the abolition K on the CJR topic). However, I think too many "K teams" get away with reading silly links, links of omissions, serial policy failure, the fiat double bind, or any other K trick you can name. The best K debates are the ones that actually pinpoint something that the aff has done or something in their plan that is in fact bad. I'm not saying that all links should be to the plan, but I am saying that all links should be grounded in the 1AC. If the goal of your kritik is to clash with the aff from a new angle (IE reform vs transformative justice), you're on the right track.
Topicality
For not trying to be topical teams:
I think that teams should read a plan text especially in sub-varsity levels. Debate isn't a forum designed to provide a survival strategy or create a community of resistance. It is inherently a competitive space. Teams that do choose to read a non-topical aff should be prepared to defend every part of the 1AC through the end of the 2AR. CX is binding and I will hold you to what you say regardless of what you say in later speeches.
For teams with a plan text:
I enjoy T debates with concise impacts that actually attempt to exclude affs that shouldn't be a part of the topic. For this reason, T-Substantial is extremely persuasive to me given how well it limited the immigration and arms sales topic. As such, giving me a case list of not only what you include but also what you exclude is going to be extremely persuasive. But, I'm probably not going to vote on an interpretation that excludes a core of the topic aff.
'Planicality' is a non-starter for me. It's silly to think that adding the word substantial (or any other words in the resolution) all of a sudden makes your plan topical. It encourages poorly written plan texts that are incredibly vague so the aff can spike out of DAs while also doing all kinds of things that have no relation to the topic. It also poses an unfair burden on the neg as they now not only have to defend T to limit the scope of the plan, but also win substance as well.
Theory
I generally believe that the only voter is conditionality(No, {insert letter here}SPEC is not a voter), but I can be persuaded that some other theory violation is a voter especially if the theory violation is egregious.
Hiding ASPEC (not putting it on a separate flow) is a great way to lose speaker points for both negative debaters. Calling out your opponents and making hidden ASPEC an RVI is a great way to add to your speaker points.
Impact debating matters just as much in theory debates as it does in any other debate. If you don't have an impact and articulate why it matters more than your opponent's, I will likely not vote for you.
I will not judge kick unless the neg explicitly asks me to and the aff doesn't provide a theoretical reason not to. Keep in mind that if the neg has "dropped" the aff's advantages, a judge kick only benefits the aff.
Counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy are likely not competitive. Permutations, even perm: do the counterplan, do not have to be topical, as in they only have to meet definitions of the words in the plan. Similarly, I don't think Agent CPs are competitive unless the aff has specified their agent or read an advantage to their agent.
Disclaimer
While these are my general opinions of debate, I am by no means a norm setter or emotionally attached to them. I can always be persuaded by what happens in a debate round.
Gmail chain (or questions): callumguo@gmail.com
University of California, Los Angeles '23 (Microbiology and Immunology)
Woodward Academy ’19
Last Substantively Updated: 11/10/23
Short Version + Novices (est. 40 sec. to read)
Flow.
Be nice.
Be clear.
Have fun!
Time yourselves.
It’s probably not a voting issue.
Be an evidenced critic, not a cynic.
Do not request a marked copy in lieu of flowing.
Depth of arguments should take precedence over quantity of arguments.
Tag-teaming is always "allowed" but almost always bad for speaker points.
An argument must be complete and comprehensible before there is a burden to answer it.
Write my ballot for me at the top of your late rebuttals, without using any debate jargon or hyperbole.
"Marking a card" means actually clearly marking that card on your computer (e.g. multiple Enter key pushes).
If you advocate something, at some point in the debate, you need to explain the tangible results of your advocacy without relying on any debate or philosophy jargon.
Spreading: CLARITY IS KEY. If I don't hear it, it will not be flowed, and it was not said.
Don't be rude. Don't say offensive things. Don't steal prep.
Otherwise, do what you want
Emory '21
Edina '17
T-USFG
I'm down - but don't assume I'll vote neg just because you go for it. Have debated on both sides throughout my career.
Procedural fairness can be a thing if explained well.
Ks
I'm more familiar with traditional Ks (Neolib, Security, the works), identity-based Ks, and other structuralism Ks. But everyone should be explaining things anyways.
Disads
Love em.
Impact turns
Love em more.
CPs
Don't have preferences on theory. Slow down a little from your top speed, especially if you think it will matter at the end of the round.
I'll judge kick if you say it in cross-ex or the 2NR.
Hi, I'm a third-year debater from Woodward Academy and I have had debates on the immigration topic.
My greatest influences in debate and what a good debate should look like have been Bill Batterman and Maggie Berthiaume. Please feel free to look at their paradigms as well...
Email: 20ssurapaneni@woodward.edu
General
I prefer clarity over speed and don't steal prep. I expect both teams to time their prep and speeches. Be respectful to your partner and opponent. Tag Teaming during cross-ex is fine, but don't make it excessive. I will not be kicking CPs for you.
Non-Traditional Affs
Read a topical aff please :)
Kritiks
I’m not the guy for high theory debates or for debates that rely on winning framework. Links should be a DA to the plan. Specific links and an in-depth explanation are the best way to convince me to vote for a K.
Theory
It will be very hard to convince me to vote on a theory violation other than conditionality bad when there are 3+ conditional off-case. Of course, I will vote on obvious voting issues such as racism bad and sexism bad.
T
I am pretty impartial on topicality when it comes to policy affirmatives. Make sure to elaborate on what the impacts are if you read a topicality violation and if you have to answer topicality.
CPs
If you do not read a solvency advocate in the 1NC, please read one in the block and give me a thorough explanation of what the CP does in the block with evidence. If you do not read a solvency advocate in the 1NC, I will also be more lenient on the 1AR for answering the CP. All that being said, the best thing to do is to read a solvency advocate in the 1NC.
Process CPs are a little difficult to win against a perm when I am judging, but they are definitely still a viable 2NR option with good analysis and articulation.
DAs
Please prove that the disad outweighs and turns the case. You have to win every part of the DA to win the debate, with or without a counterplan.
If you are reading a DA with a CP...
I will vote for sufficiency framing with a great enough probability of the DA. If the CP solves 100% of the affirmative, any risk of the DA is probably a reason to vote negative.
If you have any other questions, please ask before the round starts. I will happily answer.
Daniel Wakefield
TOC | NDT | Judging for the UGA Debate Tournament
I'm a former college debater who's been out of the activity for a few months. My main ideological bias is wanting to see debaters commit to a certain strategy. If you like condo, read double digits and ask me to judge kick planks. If you like the K, read your weird stuff and impact turn something about the aff that the 2a has left unquestioned. If you like debating straight up and down, then show me your research and don't get pushed around by nonsense. I flow as best I can, read cards that are read in the debate round, and almost never read an argument I agreed with during my time in debate. Best of luck and don't take it too seriously.
0 Rounds judged on the water topic.
Top Level
I enjoy judging debates. The best way to get high points is to be excited about your argument. Most of my thoughts as a judge are centered around wanting to judge rounds where debaters enjoy themselves.
The best way to get my ballot is judge direction. This means doing impact comparison at the top of your 2xr and then contextualizing the line by line to that impact comparison. The most important questions for me are why does the disadvantage/k outweigh the case? Why is a predictable but imprecise topic more preferable to a precise yet unpredictable one?
If you open source your evidence, please tell me after the 2ar and I'll bump your speaks. Open source is awesome. If you don't read traditional forms of evidence, posting a few sentences about the types of arguments you made/ evidence you read also works. Feel free to post round me.
I'll flow you and your partner talking in whatever manner you feel is appropriate save speech times being enforced. If one partner doesn't talk the whole debate they'll get a 0, but I've always thought having the repeat what your partner prompts you about is a little ridiculous.
I won’t vote on things outside debate.
Asking questions between cx starting and your speech ending makes me sad. It's ok to use cx time asking for clarification.
Yes please send a card doc.
I'm a mandatory reporter for the purposes of judging the UGA Debate tournament.
Theory
I'm better than most as a judge for conditionality bad, mostly because the 2nr is generally awful at defending it.
I've spent a decent amount of time thinking about competition. Currently I'm in the textual + functional competition camp, though I'm very intrigued to see a justification otherwise. I'm not sure why the presentation of a solvency advocate would make a counterplan more competitive, it certainly doesn't seem to make an aff more topical. Count me in for any well developed responses to the above (maybe functional alone?)
I'm a better sell for competition theory than "x" counterplan is bad. Most 2ac interpretations seem pretty arbitrary. Maybe consider a universally applicable counterplan theory argument (counterplans must use the same actor as the affirmative) rather than one designed to just beat the negative's counterplan (nga bad.)
The K
The fiat K is great at taking you from the 1-5 to the 3-3 bracket. Not as good for getting you to clear/ win big elims.
I enjoy judging K debates. The wonderful part about the K is that you get to impact turn almost everything the other team says/does. A 2nr that is offense first and picks a few key points to out debate the 2ar on will get high points and a W. The easiest way to lose these debates is to either bite off more than you can chew, or to prioritize not that great defensive arguments over a fleshed out link or impact debate.
My main ideological bias here is to err against voting for arguments made for 10 seconds or less that then become a voting issue. You're much better off putting your cards on the table as soon as possible. If you want to say predictions are impossible, say it in the 1nc and every subsequent speech. If you're on the other side of this debate and are reading a giant heg good aff, why bother extending no link/ perm arguments that you don't intend to go for?
If you are reading an argument with an alternative, please read it somewhere other than the case page.
Policy throw-downs
Love them! The two things I care about most in these debates are judge direction from the 2nr/2ar, and how the evidence read in the debate supports that judge direction.
Similar to my thoughts on the Kritik, I reward debaters who recognize that they're in a losing position and make a bold choice to attempt to salvage the debate. If you're getting out carded 3-1 on a disadvantage and are behind on several key pieces of defense, consider risking it all for a 1ar impact turn to the 1nr's new impact module.
Topicality
T debates are wonderful when teams read comparative evidence about the meaning of specific words and/or phrases in the resolution and then contextualize that evidence into impact comparison. If "Limits" as a value should be upheld over "Legal Precision" than it matters little how legally precise your interpretation evidence is. I think both the 2nr and 2ar should begin with impact comparison in these.
Generally I'm a big believer in how debatable a given interpretation is (usually some combination of both a limited and predictable topic) but I'm willing to hear explanations otherwise.
Planless Affs
Framework has gotten odd recently. In the debates I've judged/seen, teams are prioritizing shotgunning a lot of bad arguments and not spending much time on their good arguments. I'd much prefer one well developed substantive response for "at: Fairness" then a bunch of one liners that you don't intend to go for. Counter interpretations are fine, but a big offensive push against the process of debate is more important.
I enjoy hearing T debates on this subject, though there is a special place in my heart for negative teams who commit to an impact turn and/or a topic disadvantage.
Unrelated Thoughts
I debated under the AUDL ambassadors program, and am conflicted with quite a few schools as a result. I should not under any circumstance be judging Grady/Midtown HS, Decatur, Roswell, Rockdale, and Drew Charter for example. This hopefully should never come up, as I've conflicted myself from all of them, but there's not a universal "Atlanta Urban Debate League" conflict option. I also coached a singular northview team for the TOC in 2021 and have conflicted myself from those two debaters.
Judge Philosophy
Name: Lisa Willoughby
Current Affiliation: Midtown High School formerly Henry W. Grady High School
Conflicts: AUDL teams
Debate Experience: 1 year debating High School 1978-79, Coaching High School 1984-present
How many rounds have you judged in 2012-13: 50, 2013-2014: 45, 2015-2016: 25, 2016-17 15, 2017-2018: 30, 2018-19: 30, 2019-20:10, 2020-21: 40, 2021-2022: 35, 2022-2023:6
send evidence e-mail chain to quaintt@aol.com
I still view my self as a policy maker unless the debaters specify a different role for my ballot. I love impact comparison between disadvantages and advantages, what Rich Edwards used to call Desirability. I don’t mind the politics disad, but I am open to Kritiks of Politics.
I like Counterplans, especially case specific counterplans. I certainly think that some counterplans are arguably illegitimate; for example, I think that some international counterplans are utopian, and arguably claim advantages beyond the reciprocal scope of the affirmative, and are, therefore, unfair. I think that negatives should offer a solvency advocate for all aspects of their counterplan, and that multi-plank cps are problematic. I think that there are several reasons why consultation counterplans, and the States CP could be unfair. I will not vote unilaterally on any of these theoretical objections; the debaters need to demonstrate for me why a particular counterplan would be unfair.
I have a minor in Philosophy, and love good Kritik debate. Sadly, I have seen a lot of bad Kritik debate. I think that K debaters need to have a strong understanding of the K authors that they embrace. I really want to understand the alternative or the role of my ballot. I have no problem with a K Aff, but am certainly willing to vote on Framework/T against a case that does not have at least a clear advocacy statement that I can understand. I am persuadable on "AFF must be USFG."
I like Topicality, Theory and Framework arguments when they are merited. I want to see fair division of ground or discourse that allows both teams a chance to prepare and be ready to engage the arguments.
I prefer substance to theory; go for the theoretical objections when the abuse is real.
As for style, I love good line-by-line debate. I adore evidence comparison, and argument comparison. I am fairly comfortable with speed, but I like clarity. I have discovered that as I get older, I am very comfortable asking the students to "clear." I enjoy humor; I prefer entertaining cross-examinations to belligerent CX. Warrant your claims with evidence or reasoning.
Ultimately, I demand civility: any rhetoric, language, performance or interactions that demean, dehumanize or trivialize fellow debaters, their arguments or judges would be problematic, and I believe, a voting issue.
An occasional interruption of a partner’s speech or deferring to a more expert partner to answer a CX question is not a problem in my view. Generally only one debater at a time should be speaking. Interruptions of partner speeches or CX that makes one partner merely a ventriloquist for the other are extremely problematic.
Clipping cards is cheating. Quoting authors or evidence out of context, or distorting the original meaning of a text or narrative is both intellectually bankrupt and unfair.
There is no such thing as one ideal form or type of debate. I love the clash of ideas and argumentation. That said, I prefer discourse that is educational, and substantive. I want to walk away from a round, as I often do, feeling reassured that the policy makers, educators, and citizens of the future will seek to do a reasonable and ethical job of running the world.
For Lincoln Douglas debates:
I am "old school" and feel most comfortable in a Value/Criterion Framework, but it is your debate to frame. Because I judge policy frequently, I am comfortable with speed but generally find it is needless. Clarity is paramount. Because of the limited time, I find that I typically err AFF on theoretical objections much more than I would in a policy round.
I believe that any argument that an AFF wants to weigh in the 2AR needs to be in the 1AR. I will vote against new 2AR arguments.
I believe that NEG has an obligation to clash with the AFF. For this reason, a counterplan would only be justified in a round when the AFF argues for a plan; otherwise a counterplan is an argument for the AFF. The NEG must force a decision, and for that reason, I am not fond of what used to be called a 'balance neg.'
Email: womboughsam36@gmail.com
UGA Law '27
Georgia Tech '23 (History and Sociology)
Woodward Academy ’20
Topic Knowledge: I have judged a lot of debates and worked at ENDI this past summer.
Last Substantively Updated: 1/7/24
ㅤ
Short Version + Novices (est. 45 sec. to read)
"Debate like an adult. Show me the evidence. Attend to the details. Don't dodge, clash. Great research and informed comparisons win debates." — Bill Batterman
Flow.
Be nice.
Be clear.
Have fun!
Time yourselves.
It’s probably not a voting issue.
If you read a plan, defend and clarify it.
Do not request a marked copy in lieu of flowing.
Be an evidenced, well-reasoned critic, not a cynic.
If you stop prep and then re-start prep, take off 10 seconds of prep.
If you don't have your video on in online debate, I will struggle to stay engaged.
An argument must be complete and comprehensible before there is a burden to answer it.
Focus on depth in argument. It's more engaging and is the only reliable way to beat good teams.
Write my ballot for me at the top of your late rebuttals, without using any debate jargon or hyperbole.
"Marking a card" means actually clearly marking that card on your computer (e.g. multiple Enter key pushes).
If you advocate something, at some point in the debate, you need to explain the tangible results of your advocacy without relying on any debate or philosophy jargon.
There has been a significant decline in the quality of speaking since online debate started because debaters became less familiar with speaking directly to the judge and because judges gave more leeway to the absence of clarity due to the computer instrument. Judges should never have to rely on reading along with the speech document in order to flow tags/analytics. If you have no intonation nor emphasis during tags/analytics/rebuttals, you are a bad speaker.
ㅤ
ㅤ
More Stuff (est. 1:30 min. to read)
ㅤ
Debate
I really enjoy debate. Debate is the most rewarding activity I have ever done. But debate didn't always feel rewarding while I was doing it. Accordingly, I hope that everybody prioritizes having fun, and then learning and improving.
From Johnnie Stupek's paradigm: "I encourage debaters to adopt speaking practices that make the debate easier for me to flow including: structured line-by-line, clarity when communicating plan or counterplan texts, emphasizing important lines in the body of your evidence, and descriptively labelling off-case positions in the 1NC."
Purging your speech documents of analytics and then rocking through them will be just as likely to "trick" me into not flowing an argument as it will be your opponents.
ㅤ
Case
I will vote on absolute defense.
ㅤ
Critiques
Explain; don’t confuse.
It is anti-black for debaters that are not black (team) to present afropessimist arguments. This practice exists because of the anti-blackness or cowardice of some non-black educators in debate. Frank Wilderson III claims that he "grieves over" debate's appropriation of his work (“Staying Ready for Black Study: A Conversation”).
Postmodernism— Debaters often mischaracterize ornamental absolutism in philosophical writings as almost-theological dogmatisms about how the world operates. This is anti-modern, not postmodern. <— I don't know if that paragraph makes any sense.
I've seen a few debates exclusively about personal identity that were extremely distressful for both sides. I think it's really weird when a high school student prompts a rejoinder from their peers to a pure affirmation of their identity. Please don't make me adjudicate it.
ㅤ
Non-Topical Debates
"No" to aff conditionality. Defend your aff and comparatively weigh offense.
Please stop referencing college debate rounds that you only know about thirdhand.
ㅤ
Theory
The more conditional advocacies there are in the 1NC, the worse the debate usually is.
I am sympathetic to affirmative complaints about process counterplans and agent counterplans that do nearly all of the affirmative. These counterplans, with the States-multi-plank CP in mind, tend to stagnate negative topic innovation and have single-handedly ruined some topics (Education).
ㅤ
Extra
I almost always defer to technical debating, but in close debates:
I am a degrowth hack. T: Substantial against a quantifiably small aff is fun.
I am easily convinced that Bostrom-esque "extinction first" is incoherent and can justify repulsive ideologies.
I strongly believe that China is not militarily revisionist. I think Sinophobic scholarship is festering in debate.
With respect to "Catastrophe Good" arguments, "we must die to destroy a particle accelerator that will consume the universe" is less convincing to me than a nihilism or misanthropy argument. I value accurate science.
Lastly, don't purposefully try to fluster the judge if you want quality post-round answers.
ㅤ
Cheating
In the instance that a team accuses the other of clipping, I will follow the NDCA clipping guidelines (2).
Strawmanning is an ethics violation as per the NSDA guidelines.
(1) https://the3nr.com/2014/08/20/how-to-never-clip-cards-a-guide-for-debaters/
ㅤ
More References
https://the3nr.com/2009/11/03/judging-methodologies-how-do-judges-reach-their-decisions/
https://the3nr.com/2016/04/15/an-updated-speaker-point-scale-based-on-2015-2016-results/ (I inflate this).