Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament
2018 — Northbrook and Glenview, IL/US
Alwin Alex Paradigm
automatic 30 if you go for buddhism.
Zac Angleton Paradigm
derby debate coach. debated at campus for 4 years and 1 year in college.
LD: value criterion debate is the most important, each debate should say something along the lines i achieve my V/C as well as access my opponents value better. if the V/C debate goes unaddressed by both sides i default to who spoke prettier. your case should support your V/C case debate is import in disproving your opponent cant access V/C. that being said if the V/C debate is close/even i will then look evaluate the case.
PFD: very traditional this isn't policy, dis ads plan text ks are a quick way to lose my ballot. i prefer a slightly above conversations speed level.
T-aff should be topical, if neg runs T i feel like it should be all in T or no T in 2nr at all. neg needs to impact t out and weigh it also just saying they arn't topical they lose is not okay explain why topically is bad what is the tool we use to weigh it and what happens when we don't use this tool.
K- im good with most ks however don't assume i know the lit of them. explain it well. the alt is the most important thing on the k, if i dont understand how the alt solves or the alt doesn't make sense i probably wont vote on it.
CP- im good with most cp's i don't like topical CPS but on this topic those are hard to come by. so i am willing to listen to topical CPS,
as far as theory goes I'm good with you making them args but most of the time reject the arg not the team is sufficient.
condo- is really the only thing that i would vote on if there is actual abuse. not just bad time management.
disads- i like more true scenarios, good with most disads as long as your bases are covered. parts of the disad that i value the most in order
i think the link debates is one of the most important parts of the dis-ad debate.
case- case is important, one important thing to not is that on solvency try or die doesn't makes sense to me if this is the only argument you have on Solvency. you either win the solvency flow or you don't its not try or die, im old school in the sense of stock issues if you lose one (specifically solve ) you typically would lose the round.
framework- if no no FW is read i default to impact calc, however i framework is fine, just because you win FW doesn't mean you win the round it means i weigh the round though that lens, yes it does help your odds of winning but doesn't insure it.
last notes- i find my self looking down when people are speaking its not out of disinterest its because it helps me focus better on what your saying and not on an annoying tick you may or may not have.
Hannah Buzil Paradigm
University of Illinois 2021
Debated 4 years of policy at GBN (2013-2017)
firstname.lastname@example.org ----->email me with q's or for the email chain
I can't find my old philosophy so this will have to do; it's the short version.
TLDR: Be fun to judge. I'll vote on anything that's explained well. I haven't judged on this topic. I love a good da + case debate (it's my fav). Read Charlie Foster's paradigm, it's great.
TOP LEVEL STUFF:
I haven't judged in a bit, and not on this topic so please keep that in mind. I'll vote for pretty much any argument, especially the more I understand it. I was a 2n, if that tells you anything. I really really really like when arguments are articulated well and explained without too many buzzwords. Clarity>speed for speaks.
Love 'em. Explain them well and I'll love theme even more.
I love them as well, especially when they are specific to the aff/advs. I'm good with any counterplans as a starting point but aff can obviously convince me otherwise.
Not my favorite, mostly because I have trouble understanding them. Just make sure if you go for this or are defending against it you explain your arguments very well and avoid buzzwords.
Love it, but probably not the best thing to go for on this topic, as I haven't judged on it yet. If you do go for it or are defending against it make sure to really explain the violation and impacts.
Do what you think is best. Again, I'm not well versed in K lit and I never went against a lot of non-traditional affs. As long as you make me understand what you're arguing and why you should win, I'll have no trouble voting for you.
Clear road maps, sign posting, and contextualizing your argument to the overall debate are always good.
BE FUNNY. DON'T BE MEAN. DON'T STEAL PREP. I like good cross-ex, especially when it's applied to later speeches. I like nuanced arguments that are well explained throughout the debate.
Michael Cho Paradigm
Korean-American born and raised in Iowa
Currently a Second-Year at the University of Iowa with a double major in Psychology and English and Creative Writing.
Graduated from Iowa City West High School.
email@example.com -- put me on email chain pls
I was a policy debater at West for 4 years. I loved Disad + Case. I honestly really miss a good Disad debate. I read a plantext. I went for framework. I read Cap, Biopol, Security, etc. I was a policy robot.
Now I am a debater for the University of Iowa and mainly run Bataille, Baudrillard, Post-Modern style arguments. My level of knowledge on these topics are Intermediate. I know more than the average judge, but less than what would be considered "well read."
I am willing to vote for any argument. I think if you debate it well enough, you deserve the ballot. This means I will always try my best to understand your argument and try to figure out how it works.
I'm of the firm mindset that debate is a performative act. Means you have to defend and justify the means of your performance.
I don't care what you do with your speech time. If you end cross-ex with 1 minute left, feel free to just use it as prep. If you end a speech with 2 minutes left, feel free to just use it as prep.
Things I'm Good At
I read evidence whenever I can and am able to understand most arguments if I read them during prep. It's easy for me to sort through evidence and warrants.
Things I'm Bad At
I'm not the best when it comes to super technical debates. I'm better at card comparison and arguments with a lot of depth.
I'm not super well versed in identity based literature. I understand how arguments like Afropess, Orientalism, and Queer Pess work. But, it's at a preliminary level at best. I need to get more into the literature and wish I knew more.
I'm not great when it comes to Theory debates. IE: Condo Bad, Vague Alts Bad, etc. I find myself very unwilling to vote for these arguments unless it was cold conceded. Teams need to prove clear in round abuse/severance.
I try my best to come off as happy and caring. I don't want my presence to cause deep fear. I want everybody to be happy and feel good. BUT, I'm pretty emotional and I'm visual about it. If I think an argument is dumb, you'll probably be able to tell.
Gabe Cook Paradigm
Debated at Missouri State and graduated in 2004
Executive Director of DEBATE-Kansas City until 2017
Assistant Coach and then Head Coach at Barstow starting in 2018
Yes, I want to be on the chain, and please be as efficient as possible with the emailing. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
I am open to almost any argument, but I defer policy. I like a compelling narrative, especially in the link debate. I value both technical skills and argumentative truth, but I defer to what I consider the truer argument when the debate is very close. Clarity and flowability will increase speaker points and chances of winning.
T - I defer to reasonability on T and I do not mind larger topics. That doesn’t mean I won’t vote on T if you win the argument. I find ground loss to be an intuitively important standard. I want both sides to explain the model of debate your interp creates and impact why it’s comparatively better.
Non-T AFF - I don’t mind framework debates and I will vote for who made the best arguments. I have generally preferred for the AFF to find a way to be topical, but I increasingly see reasons why teams choose the non-topical path. I think the best standard for non-T AFFs is that they need to prove it is not possible to ethically support the resolution. I believe you need a topic link and a clear method for the negative engage. I also lean towards believing you do not get a perm in a method vs. method debate.
Case - Here is where I copy and paste from every judge paradigm and say I want more case debate. I dislike AFFs with lousy internal links, and I will reward NEGs that take the time to point out flaws in AFF ev.
K - I find myself voting for the K a fair amount, and against a good number of AFFs, it is the best strategy. You need a specific link, and I appreciate it when debaters use lines from the 1AC to get a link. I am open to voting on presumption/turns case. But you need to explain how the K actually eliminates solvency and/or turns the case, and contextual examples help. I am most familiar with core kritiks like neolib or security. High theory Ks like Baudrillard are my least favorite and I am the least familiar with them. This means you should define key terms from your literature.
By default, I evaluate ontology, epistemology, discourse, and AFF consequences through the lens of link and impact rather than as something resolved or excluded by debate theory.
I generally believe the negative should have the flexibility to run a K and disads. However, a blatant contradiction may provide grounds for a performative contradiction that gives credence to AFF permutations and diminishes the solvency for certain alternatives. You can frame DAs as consequences within the system you are critiquing to help avoid a meaningful performative contradiction.
DA - The starting place is to be on the right side uniqueness. Then I need a compelling link story contextualized to the AFF. Impact comparison is obviously essential. I will vote on effective AFF criticism and/or takeouts of low probability disads.
When I debated I went for politics often, and I still cut a lot of politics cards. For me, the uniqueness research determines the viability of any politics DA. I don’t like forcing a story because of the links or impacts. I also don’t like shady politics DAs. The story should be clear in the 1NC and you shouldn’t win because the 2AC was confused about your argument. If teams run intentionally confusing stories, I will allow the 1AR new answers. I do appreciate nuanced and clever link stories, and I will reward NEG teams that have a compelling link story.
CP - I like core of the topic CPs and smart PICs. I dislike mechanism CPs with little topic literature that really only compete at a textual level. I also dislike consultation CPs. This doesn't mean I refuse to vote for them, but that I am receptive to theoretical objections and solvency arguments.
Condo/Advocacy Theory - I believe that the NEG should get one conditional CP and one conditional K. If the K alt is rejection, then I don’t think it counts as an advocacy. Or I think you can have unlimited dispositional advocacies. I dislike giving the NEG multiple CPs because I think it’s unfair to the 2AC, reduces depth, and gives the NEG too many high reward - no risk arguments. However, the community seems fine with multiple conditional CPs/Ks, and debate theory is a challenging 2NR. When teams run three or more conditional advocacies, by default, I will give the AFF more argumentative leeway in the 1AR and 2AR.
29.6 – 30 – Approaching perfection to perfect.
29.1-29.5 – Excellent
28.5 – 29 – Above average to very good.
28.4 – Average
28.3– 27.7 – Slightly below average to below average
27.6 – 27 – Below average to well below average.
26.9 and below – Bad to potentially offensive.
Jorge Cotaquispe Paradigm
Old-school policy debater. I.E not that big of a fan of spreading and K AFFS. I support the belief that you should have to debate the topic.
. The majority of the weight from my final decisions will come from how the debate is framed in the end and which the role of the ballot is argued to be more significant.
Definitely would say I respect the T but do not believe it should be the only defining factor in the round. I understand its use and how it is interpreted but would prefer if its coupled with other arguments
Generally not a fan of the K. Please have a solid understanding of what the alternative of your K looks like and what that looks like in the world of the debate. I am fairly open minded about the types of kritik that are run. But once again please make sure they actually link to the case and are thoroughly argued.
Jigar Dhimar Paradigm
Northside College Prep ’14
Connecticut College ’18
Yes add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Background: I debated for four years at Northside Prep but haven’t been too involved in the activity since I graduated. I judged at a few tournaments while I was in college but this will be the first year that I’ll be judging more consistently/at more tournaments for what that's worth.
Topicality: I enjoy judging topicality debates when they are in-depth and nuanced. I tend to default to competing interpretations but can be persuaded otherwise. If the interpretation is something "silly," then the aff should be able to beat it without help via me giving the neg’s interpretation less weight. I don’t have very much knowledge going into this topic so be careful of this if you decide to go for T.
Theory: I generally default to reject the argument not the team for most theory arguments unless you work to convince me otherwise. Condo is usually good but is an argument where I can definitely be convinced to reject the team. Make sure you're clear, I flow on paper. A few well thought out and articulated arguments will go much farther than a bunch of blippy arguments that are not well explained.
Kritiks: Some things that are important to win a kritik in front of me include having a clear and concise explanation of what the alternative is, mitigating the risk of the aff, and contextualizing link arguments to the aff. I will consider myself a policymaker until you tell me otherwise. I find that most role of the ballot arguments are self-serving and arbitrary and really are just a way of saying that a certain impact should come first. I don't pretend to read philosophy in my spare time so you absolutely must be able to distill those long boring kritik cards that you read at hyper speed to an explanation I can understand. If I don't understand what you're saying, I won't vote on it.
Disads: I like them a lot. Comparative impact calc and turns case arguments are always appreciated. Make sure you have a clear link to the affirmative. It is possible to win no risk of a disad but you have to work hard for it. Not really persuaded by politics theory arguments.
Counterplans: I like them a lot too. I like smart, specific counterplans. In most cases you’ll need a specific solvency advocate for your counterplan or it’ll be an uphill battle trying to get me to vote for it. Counterplans that result in the plan are probably not legitimate.
- Tech over truth (in almost all cases)
- Tag team cross-x is fine as long as it’s not excessive.
- Don't let your kritik overviews / theory blocks become a blur.
- Asking a team what cards were or were not read in a speech doc is either cross-x time or prep time.
- I won’t kick the K or the counterplan unless the 2NR explicitly tells me.
- Be respectful to your partner and opponents. If you aren't, your speaker points will reflect it.
- Insert this re-highlighting: I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate.
Charlie Foster Paradigm
4 years of policy debate at Glenbrook North
Order of coolness:
Super wuper cool--DAs with sick turns case, affs with a framing page used well (utilizing each card on the page), cheaty counterplans, aff specific DAs/CPs, line by line, impact calc on every flow including theory and T, rehighlighting cards the opponent used
Super cool-- generic/topic DAs, extinction affs, normal policy stuff, framework
Cool-- Ks on the neg
Not so cool but will still vote on with plenty of explanation-- affs without a plan, high theory or identity Ks
Not cool--Interrupting speeches or CX excessively, not flowing, no clash
Super wuper not cool--Gabe Burdeen
Stay cool fellas!
Colton Gilbert Paradigm
I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge.
Include me on all email chains, please firstname.lastname@example.org
I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole
I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just to be running them, do not run your arguments if you don’t think they can win you the round!
I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim.
Saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me.
My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author’s use.
I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.
I see framework as slightly different from T so I evaluate it differently as well. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.
These debates, for me, generally come down to an issue of fairness. K affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.
Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.
Brandon Gitles Paradigm
Updated for UMich 2018
TL;DR-- "email@example.com"- Anthony Valiaveedu - Jon Voss
Actual email is firstname.lastname@example.org
My philosophy is no different than that of any other very, very policy judge. Don't read a K and you can do what you want.
I have almost no experience with the immigration topic so super specific topic intricacies are going to need to be explained to me.
Some more specific thoughts
Topicality: I like limits. Aff proliferation is kinda bad so if your interp can solve prolif decently, I'll probably like it. Clearly articulate standards and impacts and I'll vote for it.
Critiques: I have no experience with reading or researching K's and because of that I really don't like them. It'll be hard to win a K in front of me.
Counterplans: Read anything. Counterplan debates are the best.
Disads: Nothing like a good DA and case debate. I miss those especially after the EduTrashtion topic.
Framework/K Affs: See the fake email address above.
Theory: Very under utilized part of debate for anything other than a time skew. I went for condo bad a few too many times when I shouldn't have but that's because the theory debate is fun. If you extend theory, go slow please. It sucks to flow.
Gordon Kochman Paradigm
Last update: 2/11/2020
-TLDR: do what you do best, and if you do it well, I’ll try my best to be fair, receptive, and interested
-Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
-I try not to read evidence if I can help it, which means I won’t open your speech docs until the end of the round, and I’ll only do so if needed. I won't follow you in the speech doc, so if you're gonna blaze through your theory block, you might want to reconsider.
-I try to keep a straight face during speeches. If I'm being expressive, then something horrible/funny/important/etc. just happened.
-Please be kind to each other
-My last name is pronounced “coach-man,” but you can refer to me as Gordon. Whatever you do, PLEASE do not call me "judge."
-My debate experience: I debated for four years at New Trier High School (2009-2013) and for two years at Whitman College (2013-2015) while the team existed during my tenure. I’m a former 2N/1A. I’ve been involved in coaching and judging since I graduated high school. I'm a lawyer in my day job.
-Affiliations: New Trier High School, Whitman College, University of Wisconsin, Homestead High School
-Co-founder of the Never Spark Society with Tim Freehan
-I mostly debated policy arguments and soft-left K arguments. I fully understand how these arguments are bad and boring in their own way, so simply because I debated these arguments in the past does not mean that I think they’re the best, most interesting, or correct arguments. I’m open enough to recognize there are multiple ways of debating and engaging with the resolution, both from my time as a debater and later as a judge and coach.
-Disclaimer: What is included in this paradigm is meant to help you decide where to put me on your pref sheets, strike from your strike card, or adjust your strategy before the round. Most of this paradigm includes my predispositions and (unless otherwise noted) NOT my closely-held beliefs that are firm and unshakable.
-Please be kind to each other and don’t be racist, sexist, ableist, or any other variation of rude/intentionally horrible.
-To the extent required, this is a communicative activity that encompasses speech. As a result, I will only flow what you say in your speech (open CX is fine). Unless provided a performative reason, I am not a fan of multiple people participating in a speech or playing a video/audio clip.
-Debate is a game, and I’ve had the pleasure to enjoy it as a game. However, I understand that debate is more than that for some people (it’s how they afford their education, it’s their job, it’s their community, etc.). I try to comport myself such that everyone can have the experience in this activity that is enjoyable. Simply because I have enjoyed debate in one way does not mean that other debaters need to conform to my experience.
-There are obvious formalities in a round that exist no matter what. These include: one team must win, speaker points must be awarded, etc.
GENERAL DEBATE PREDISPOSITIONS:
-Tech over truth in the abstract and to a point. Generally, the more “true” your claim is, the less tech you need to win it (and vice-versa). The same goes for how big of a claim you’re making. The bigger the claim, the more work that’s needed. It’s gonna take more than a one-liner to win a claim that a mindset shift occurs post-economic collapse. Arguments are claims with warrants. One-line conclusory statements aren’t gonna cut it if you don’t provide a warrant.
-Things I likely won’t vote for: I would recommend that you use your common sense here. If your argument is overtly and/or intentionally racist/sexist/homophobic/etc., then you might want to reconsider. Not only do I not want to be in those rounds, but I don’t think the team you’re opposing wants those arguments in the round, either. As a co-founder of the Never Spark Society, this might tip you off to some types of arguments I don't enjoy...
PREDISPOSITIONS REGARDING SPECIFIC AREAS OF DEBATE:
-My thoughts regarding "non-topical" affs are probably what most people want to know up-front. I never read these affs when I debated and would spend a large amount of time planning how to debate these affs, but as a judge, I don’t really harbor any animus towards these affs. I don’t think that my thoughts here should be dispositive one way or another in these rounds. If you win your argument and explain why that means you win the round, then you should win. Despite my following thoughts on topicality versus policy affs, I'm SIGNIFICANTLY less persuaded by procedural arguments on framework than by method-based arguments on framework. In other words, I'm less likely to vote on "fairness" than an argument about how we should engage with the state or try to produce change.
-Topicality (versus policy affs) is about competing interpretations of the topic. This also means that potential abuse is a sufficient reason to vote neg on T. I would extend T into the block in a majority of my rounds and think I have a relatively lower threshold for voting on T against policy affs than most judges.
-I tend to lean neg on most theory and default to rejecting the argument unless provided a reason to reject the team. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a winnable argument, and there are certainly theory arguments that are stronger than others (conditionality is significantly more viable than no neg fiat, for instance). Regardless, this shouldn’t deter you from using these arguments on the aff. As a former 2N I do have a proclivity to protect the 2NR, so be absolutely certain that your 2AR will be an extrapolation of 1AR arguments if this is your ultimate strategy.
-Most CPs are fine, with a few exceptions. Consult CPs, for instance, are probably bad. I'm fine with CPs that have internal net-benefits to generate competition. I can be persuaded by perm do the CP args on the aff.
-Is the politics DA a thing? Eh, probably not (RIP). Will I vote for it anyway? Absolutely.
-Regarding Ks, I would read soft-left Ks with a general policy strategy and go for them on occasion. I’m by no means an expert in any specific K literature. I’m not very familiar with a ton of high-theory or postmodern arguments, so your burden to explain them is relevant. The more “out there” K you plan to read, the more explanation you’ll need. I should be familiar with your argument at a basic level regardless of what you read, but it is unlikely that I understand the nuances of your specific argument unless you can explain them to me. If you’re curious if you should read your K this round or how much work you should put into your explanation/overview, I would recommend reading it with more explanation rather than less. If you can adequately explain why you should win as a result of the K, then you should win.
-I’m a huge proponent of impact turns, which unfortunately aren’t as utilized as I’d like. However, I’m not a fan of some impact turns like spark (lol), wipeout, etc.
Tyler Kotler Paradigm
Debated 4 years at Cypress Bay High School '18, Washington University in St. Louis '22 (not debating)
Qualled to TOC junior and senior years
Please add me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Spin/explanation can go a long way against stronger evidence. Analytics are good too, especially when there is an obvious hole in an argument.
Please try to maintain a solid line by line and avoid extremely lengthy overviews. Numbered arguments (esp starting in the 2AC) help too. I flow by lining up arguments, and if things get messy, maintain 2AC order.
Knowing your own evidence well is really important and helps boost speaks when you can explain it well while extending it or answering CX questions about it.
Tech>truth for the most part, but make complete arguments.
I don't have much prior knowledge on the arms sales topic this year, so just make sure more specific things are explained.
Impact turns, re-highlighting evidence, speech efficiency are great.
I'll start by locating the most important parts of the debate. The 2nr/2ar should make it clear what is most important in the debate and why you are ahead in those areas, especially in a debate with a lot of moving parts. This will naturally give me a lens to begin picking out the central questions.
I'll determine who is ahead in these parts of the round based on my flow. If there is a question that is too close to figure out, I will read the evidence relevant to this part of the debate. However, I really want you to guide this part of my decision! - Don't leave it up to me to read all of the relevant evidence and figure out on my own what out of the slew of 1nr/1ar cards will determine the direction of uniqueness on the politics DA - compare your evidence, use the warrants, explain to me why yours are better.
After answering the relevant questions, I'll compare them. Some issues in a debate will matter more, and this is where I'll figure out questions of offense. Framing arguments, turns case, impact comparisons, etc all factor in. Then, whichever team has more offense will win.
I didn't read these in high school and didn't go for the K much either. I'm obviously open to them though. This just means that you need to be clear with explanations, as I'm more familiar with the neg's framework arguments. These affs should be in the direction of the resolution and not be negative arguments - advocate for a change from the status quo.
For framework debates, don't expect me to take an argument and cross apply it to other parts of the debate unless I'm told to. I'm not a fan of one side making arguments in long narrative format and the other side extending arguments on the flow. On the other hand, I'm lenient towards the neg if the aff's strategy is to speed through blippy arguments until the 2ar. On the aff, winning/beating back the internal links to the neg's offense plus a strong risk of your own seems most effective.
I'm relatively familiar with the basic ones (cap, security, etc) and least familiar with high theory (Lacan, Baudrillard, etc), so I definitely require greater explanation for these.
Unless the negative is significantly ahead on framework, I tend to side with the aff being able to weigh the case, and I feel like the aff can often collapse into the middle ground (IE: rhetoric matters, but shouldn't exclude the process of weighing impacts) - fairness, policy education, and cost benefit analysis arguments make a lot of sense here. 1ar's are often blippy on framework, though, and the neg can definitely capitalize in the 2nr on this.
Please do not disguise tricky K arguments until the 2nr, make them blips in a long 2nc overview, etc - be clear with them. The "alt solves the case" shouldn't suddenly materialize in the 2nr, and I'll be lenient towards 2ar explanations against it if that's the case. Spend the time in the block to unpack these arguments. Examples are also great, especially when extending the impact/alt.
Perms on the aff can be explained to mitigate links, so I think the neg should have specific links to the aff and the perm. Explain how framework implicates the perm - IE: winning rhetoric first means the perm severs the aff's reps and isn't legitimate.
Love a nice CP/DA strat. I'm neg leaning on most CP theory. However, that should not dissuade you from going for theory, and there are definitely some process CPs that are pretty illegitimate. Whichever side you are on, it's most important to avoid shotgunning subpoints and moving on. Be efficient in theory debates, but slow down, focus on your best offense, maintain a line by line.
On the aff, especially vs process CPs, don't just say perm do both, perm do the CP and move on. Setting up smart permutations and defending them can sometimes solve the net benefit, and the aff should set up a standard for competition in these debates (textual, functional, etc).
Courts affs that say USFG in the plan text have been sneaky this year and last. I can be convinced that the aff's solvency/advantages talk about using the courts and creating CP competition based on this.
Turns case and impact calc are key, just don't neglect the the rest of the DA.
Create a coherent story of the DA and win the framing - explain why uniqueness controls the link or vice versa if relevant to the DA debate.
I don't think the 2ar must have offense against the DA to win the debate - a no link press with some impact D, for example, plus winning an impact on case with impact calc can be very effective.
Often love T debates too. I default to competing interpretations, offense/defense paradigm unless told otherwise. I'll vote on reasonability, but I see winning your CI with a stronger piece of offense than the neg's offense as a better 2ar if you have the option. I see T debates kind of like DA debates, which means you should mitigate the internal links of their standards.
Limits often seems to be the best neg piece of offense, and you should impact it out and explain why it outweighs/IL turns aff ground, predictability, etc - same thing on the aff against limits or ground or whatever other standard the neg goes for.
Max Kruger Paradigm
I debated for 4 years at Glenbrook South. I am currently a Freshman in college at the University of Illinois.
Email: email@example.com (I want to be on the chain).
This basically sums it up https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Voss%2C+Jon. Read a plan and you'll like me as a judge.
Topicality: Not a huge fan of big T debates. I am not super familiar with the topic so unless the violation is blatant or dropped it's a nonstarter.
Critiques: I won't vote on most critical arguments unless I am thoroughly convinced (this includes speaking in more than just buzzwords). This means forming a coherent link story and having some way in which the alternative can solve the impacts. I've never been a fan of high theory (ie. Baudrillard, Deleuze, etc) just save me the pain and don't read it. That being said I have voted fairly regularly on well explained critiques like capitalism and security.
Any questions not answered by me or Voss? Just ask me.
Robbie Levin Paradigm
Niles North ‘18
Debated in high school for four years at Niles North. I qualified to the TOC twice (2017,18). Have not judged a lot on the arms sales topic so be careful with acronyms. I will try to be as open-minded as possible and I am willing to vote on any argument granted that it is impacted out and explained. Below are some specifics.
Link probably controls the direction of uniqueness.
Politics- have a CP with it because your disad probably sucks. This is very situational so do not be discouraged into reading it especially if its coherent.
Turns case is really important.
Link turns case is awesome.
8 minute 2NC on case and a 1NR on the disad will get you some extra speaker points.
CPs that compete off of the word “should” etc. are not competitive and if the aff answers all definitions and does coherent line by line on theory you will not win.
Advantage CPs and PICs are great.
Will kick the CP unless told not to (if the CP is conditional).
Condo is probably good.
Default is towards competing interpretations, but reasonability is actually really persuasive to me. You must explain the impact to limits, ground, precision, etc. for it to be a persuasive reason to reject their interpretation (likewise with overlimiting and other aff arguments). Impact comparison is good.
Case lists are super important for your interp and theirs. Explain the vision of your topic and what affs exist/what are the core affs.
Please dont go for T if you dont have to. I would much rather watch a debate about the topic. You should really only go for it if the aff is blatantly untopical or you just didnt do a case neg and its your last resort. Its much more fun to watch debates where you go for a PIC, Advantage CP, Aff specific DA, and even politics than a generic T argument.
Make sure your links are not about the world and make sure your alt overcomes those links or you wont win.
Please do line by line and dont put everything in the 2nc overview.
You need to win some substantive link to the aff, their reps, or some assumption intrinsic to the aff. These don't necessarily need to be carded, but should have some logical or contextual explanation of the link. Using lines of the other team's ev is good.
You must either win a mutually exclusive alternative that resolves the harms of the kritik, or framework that obviates that consideration entirely (which is REALLY hard to do). Weighing the aff is probably good.
Perm double bind is raw if contextualized.
Pomo is a no-no.
Not the best for identity debates.
Death and extinction are very bad. Non-negotiable.
If you read one I am probably not the judge for you given every 2nr my senior year consisted of framework. I will still vote for you, but i will have a MUCH higher threshold for aff arguments against framework and the neg usually needs to really mess up to lose these debates. Heres my position - it never made sense to me why non-topical affs are accepted in the debate community. When I competed, I came to debate about the topic not what we should be debating about. Debate is already an extremely hard and intense activity so why make it even more difficult with forcing teams to explain to the judge why other debaters shouldn't cheat. I did zero prep my junior and senior years but I can see why a 2N who cuts a bunch of awesome case negs gets frustrated when he or she shows up to a tournament and has to go for framework three times.
Here are some specifics ---
Debate is a game (for the neg: explain why tho).
Fairness is an impact (for the neg: explain why tho).
The ballot does nothing for grassroots movements (for the neg: explain why tho in 10 seconds max).
The ballot is not key to a certain group's survival (for the neg: you do not have to explain why).
I DO NOT think the government is monolithically racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. so I am very persuaded by TVA(s) and contingency arguments as long as they are explained and the neg gives historical examples of good policy change/progress. Government bad sometimes=/=government bad always, therefore, reject the resolution because government. This is also true for going for Ks on the neg. The reason we are here is to talk and learn about what the government should do.
Dropped arguments=true arguments.
An argument is a claim with reason(s) that claim is true, i.e. "perm do both" with no explanation is not an argument, that is just words.
Tech>Truth in most cases.
Good cards> a lot of cards.
Clarity matters a lot. Slow/efficent debating is better and more fun to watch.
Be yourself. If you're funny, be funny. If you're serious, be serious.
Daniel Lewis Paradigm
For Policy Debate:
I started my debate career probably long before your parents met, much less before you were born. I was a Prosecuting Attorney under Janet Reno and still practice occasionally when I'm not teaching or at debate tournaments. I prefer and my expertise is in policy round argumentation but I can be convinced to vote for critical argumentation when done correctly. Barring tournament rules, Flash time is not prep. Email speech docs. Points are between 28-30, barring bizzarro argumentation, presentation or decorum (This does not include personal narratives or performance arguments with a purpose - they are fine). If you speak (debate) worse than the other debaters in a Round, you will get lower points. Quick and clear is OK. Unclear is not. I will let you know at least once - then it's up to you. I will read evidence in a close debate when I think it is at issue because cards exceedingly often don't prove what they are being offered to prove. You have to point it out unless I think the claim is outlandish.
See the above. I was a policy debater. So LD theory which deviates from policy may be lost on me. You've been warned. Critiks and CPs are ok. So are theory args against them. Standard frameworks which stifle all critical debate won't fly. Tell me why your framework should be applied in this debate.
Walter Lindwall Paradigm
I am currently an assistant debate coach at Niles West High School. I competed in Policy debate for four years at Niles West and have also competed in NPDA-Parliamentary and NFA-Lincoln/Douglass debate for four years at the University of Illinois Urbana/Champaign. I served as the Debate Captain for UIUC during my junior year, teaching and coaching new members and running our team's practices. My background is in political science and public policy as well as some critical theory so I like to think I am generally well versed in issues usually being discussed during competitive debates.
I highly encourage flowing, clarity, in depth analysis, and argument comparison. (like impact calculus).
I'm very flexible as I have debated very policy as well as critical positions throughout my debate career. I am a flow judge above all else, so if the right arguments are made and extended, I will vote on that. While I have some minor argument preferences, I will generally remove my biases from the round and judge each debater's arguments on its merits.
If you still have questions, ask me before the round or email me.
You can contact me at: Walter.firstname.lastname@example.org
Conflicts: Niles West
Imran Makani Paradigm
Background: Current coach at Von Steuben HS (Chicago), formerly with Whitney Young HS (Chicago) and University of Illinois
Tournaments Judged on Immigration Topic: CDSI, Niles, GBX JV Opener, New Trier, CDL T1 (Blue & Maroon), UMich, CDL T2 (Blue), Glenbrooks, Dowling, CDL T3 (RCC)
Number of Years Judging/Coaching: 14
-Please include me on the e-mail chain: email@example.com
-You can go as fast as you like and argue what you like.
-I'll give you an extra 0.3 speaker points if you put cites for most of the evidence you read on the wiki and show me you did after the round. *Do this before I submit my ballot.* Open sourcing is up to you.
-I love giving detailed feedback and strategy suggestions to the teams I judge--but, I'm usually too sleep-deprived at tournaments to be articulate and thorough in person. If you email me questions, though, I promise I'll respond thoughtfully. I've seen and thought a lot about clash of civ debates and "death is not an impact" critiques, so I might be helpful if you're getting frustrated by those debates.
1. I believe debate is almost all spin, so please don't get so bogged down in the line-by-line that you never explain what the big picture for my decision looks like.
2. Arguments aren't just claims; they need some reasonable warrant and a tie to an impact that merits priority. Dropped claims, therefore, do not necessarily equal wins to me.
This is where I'm more controversial:
3. I read along with your speech doc. I do this to better referee for clipping as well as to get a snapshot of the context of your evidence. For the most part, I won't intervene to trash your evidence, but I will usually know which cards lack relevance to the claims they're being used to support. When making my decision, I'll give more weight to warranted analytics than power-tagged or misinterpreted cards.
4. I flow cross-ex questions and answers. This helps me decide kritiks and many other arguments that carry a lot of spin or are very dependent on characterization during the round.
5. I read more theory than news and lean radical left politically. I work for UDLs to make debate more accessible and inclusive, and I'm passionate about that. Two consequences:
a. I'm probably more pliable than is average to teams who challenge conventional norms and heuristics in the activity, especially if they give good reasons for why it helps make the activity more accessible and/or meaningful to kids who otherwise get excluded from national circuit debate.
b. I'm also more willing than average to take K literature seriously and consider it my burden to figure out a basic understanding of it to evaluate the round, rather than demand that debaters explain the literature to me as if I was a five year old. I understand the value in students developing these explanations, but usually consider the demand for them unreasonable in an activity where we are largely relying on shared knowledge, judge expertise, evaluative heuristics and jargon to evaluate a broad scope of material at a high level within a very abbreviated, competitive format. If you are facing literature you don't understand, you should show me in your speeches that you are trying to read and characterize it. Then explain why I shouldn't do work to understand their lit any better than you've understood it (e.g. explain why that would hurt rather than help fairness and education for the competitors).
Me: I do tournament operations and grant writing for "Chicago Debates" (the Chicago UDL). I majored in philosophy. I have two years of high school debate experience (at Whitney Young) and one year of college (at DePaul). My high school didn't travel but my partner and I did win the City Championship and cleared at Maine East and Evanston. We ran a policy/K hybrid aff and went for plan flaws and other procedural arguments often on the neg.
The bulk of my training to judge comes from my many years coaching, teaching and judging debate. I've coached several TOC qualifiers from Whitney Young, including: Kevin Hirn and Misael Gonzales; John Vitzileos and Jeron Dastrup; Marcel Roman and Hanna Nasser; and Christian Palacios and Kat Sears.
Line-by-line: I've gotten more lax on wanting you to do "they say/we say" in recent years. As long as your speech seems to be engaging all the key points of your opponent's last speech, I'll make the appropriate connections for you.
Evaluation: I'm big picture. I try to determine through the round what's converging as the highest priority objective for voting, then try to decide that issue with the truth claims on the line-by-line. I want you to think the same way and articulate this convergence for me. Process the debate and consolidate the one or two issues that are the gateway between your highest-priority impact and your opponent's. Your final speech should include the phrase "The gateway issue in this debate is..." to get a wedge into my RFD.
I flow to build up my understanding of your claims and reason to vote, not to "punish" a side for dropped arguments. Whether dropped arguments warrant a loss depends on how you tie them into the highest priority objective that converges in the debate.
My Speaker Points System:
I start you at 27, then give you more points for each of the following:
1. Sounding good (0-0.5 points). I want to understand what you're saying and feel engaged when you speak. Note that, even though I am usually following on the speech doc, I'll yell "clearer" if I can't understand you without the doc. If I have to do this a few times and your speech doesn't improve, I stop evaluating until it does.
2. Arguing and extending warrants, not tags (0-1.5 points). This is most important to me and applies even to your opponent's arguments. Figure out the warrant to their argument by reading the card for it, then answer them on that level instead of just denying the tag of their argument. Almost all of your arguments should be comparisons of the warrants, quals, and assumptions of your evidence against theirs. It's not good if you're taking little to no prep to read your opponent's evidence, and I can see it. Take your opponent's literature seriously and show me that you're thinking through a synthesis of the arguments on the board, rather than just repeating snippets of the tags you read in your first speech.
3. Demonstrating content knowledge (0-0.5). The cards you read should be just a sample of your research, background knowledge, and thinking about the arguments in the round. I want to hear your voice in the round (e.g. through your making historical analogies; developing and making new applications for your evidence; offering characterizations of your opponent's evidence and how I should weight it against yours, etc.).
4. Thoroughly refuting (0-0.5 point). Be proactive about keeping the 1nc-case and 2ac-offcase orders of arguments, and reference those even if your opponent is wavering on that order. If the debate itself is becoming unwieldy, with too much going on to address everything, then it's time to do some argument selection and simplify the debate. Embedded clash usually works for me since it's actually processing the debate at a high level.
6. To get the 30, show off your wit and/or intelligence in addition to doing the above. Make good jokes, fill your analytics with things most people don't know, etc. When I give you a 30, I'm acknowledging that beyond technical excellence, you have a highly developed personality as a whole in this activity and it is flourishing.
I try to adapt my evaluation to the kind of debate that the students I'm judging want to have. The more you tell me about how I should evaluate the round, the better I will be able to adapt. I'm fine with seeing debate as any kind of forum you want, as long as you give reasons for it.
Each argument requires three things to be taken seriously on my flow: a claim, a warrant, and an impact (I consider evidence/data a part of warrants). If something you said is dropped but lacks these components, I will not vote on it. Keep this in mind when you are banking your last speech on any dropped arguments: Have they been warranted and impacted? Better to do it late than never.
In some sense, I am truth over tech. I do see myself as constrained to being a scorekeeper in the round, but in addition to keeping track of what you say, I make the call on whether it rises to the level of an argument. If your claims aren't reasonably consistent with basic facts and assumptions I rely on for coherence, then regardless of what your opponent did or didn't say, they won't register as arguments to me. I think you have to exercise transpersonal rationality just to get your points across to the judge, let alone refute your opponent.
I understand the competitive nature of the game and act in earnest to not be interventionist, despite the above. To me, good judging requires critical self awareness while evaluating, not being a blank slate. I'm not going to endorse dogmatism or illogicism just because something has been dropped. I am very skeptical about tabula rasa philosophies of judging and think they are often implausible on their own terms.
You should cite historical and contemporary examples, attempt to use logic to show the invalidity of your opponents' claims, and defend the quality of your evidence. You should avoid arguing as if you have a monopoly on what's true in the round. Decide what the best reasons would be for reasonable people to believe your opponent, and explicitly deal with those reasons in the process of explaining why the ballot should ultimately go your way. I find this method of giving credit to your opponent to be much more effective than dealing with opposing arguments superficially for fear of making them too strong.
If you have time, go as far as to supplement the line-by-line by thinking about the best reasons why a reasonable judge would disagree with you, and explicitly deal with those reasons to clear any reservations on voting for you. That is what clean victories are all about.
Ultimately, I see the round as a place for you to show off what you've thought about and are an expert on, whether that's the politics of a region, global economics, philosophical contentions surrounding how and what we know, or the educational theory of debate. I prefer that you read longer cards rather than shorter cards, that you explain and analyze at least as much as you read and cite, that you answer the warrants of your opponents' arguments, and that you talk about your own evaluation of the debate in your speeches.
Before the round, ask me in private about how I would vote on a specific issue or situation if you don't want to disclose your strat to your opponent.
Politely ask if your opponent is prepping if you have suspicion, because I'm probably too lenient with them or not aware of it.
Don't hold back on questions about my decision, because it might help you at the rest of the tournament and/or give you a better sense of how to pref me.
Use my e-mail address (firstname.lastname@example.org) after the round so you can ask more questions, get cites, and so on if you need.
Clinton McClure Paradigm
I debated for Morgan Park High School from 2002-2004. I judged policy debates since 2004. I was an assistant coach for two schools in Chicago between 2008 and 2010.
The arguments that I haven't heard yet are Spark, ASPEC, and Timecube. I don't know if I want to hear those anytime soon.
Tag-team cross-x is fine as long as both teams agree to it.
Speed is fine as long as you're clear.
I don't have any preferences in terms of arguments. It's really based on how persuasive you are relative to how persuasive your opponents are (which is what debate should be about, right?).
As far as performance goes, or any role-of-the-ballot arguments, you should argue it the same way you would argue any other alternative advocacy like a counterplan: prove that your advocacy is best for debate and/or superior to your opponent's.
Demarcus Powell Paradigm
Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm. email@example.com
Only send speech docs to for Dallas tournaments firstname.lastname@example.org.For national circuit tournament please send speech docs to email@example.com
ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.
About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years .Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.
Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.
Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.
Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.
Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!
Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.
- Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.
Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.
General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.
Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.
Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.
Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.
Colin Rafferty Paradigm
Hello. My name is Colin Rafferty. I have been involved in forensics for 20 years. I always enjoy giving back to the activity I love by judging at the Glenbrooks. I expect to see very fun debates and great adaptation from each of my debates. Speed: I believe that debate is a communication event. You should not spread in front of me. I understand that you have a lot to cover, but you can focus on being effective instead of being fast. If I am not taking notes, it is because I don't understand you. I default to policymaking because this is policy debate. Whichever side has the best option, will receive my vote. If there is some other metric in which I need to vote, it must be clearly explained and warranted. I feel comfortable voting for Topicality against non topical affirmatives. It is up to the negative however, to explain to me why voting for topicality is more important than voting for the case. In essence, I want you to have fun. Be clear, be conversational, and warrant your arguments. I look forward to seeing your rounds.
Jackson Ross Paradigm
Assistant Debate Coach -- The Barstow School (2017-19)
College Debate -- University of Kansas (2017-19)
High School Debate -- Blue Valley North High School (2013-2017)
add me to the email chain -- firstname.lastname@example.org
1. You should always do what you're best at. This paradigm is not a strict guide for how to debate in front of me rather it is a collection of my thoughts on the debate.
3. Sqo>Aff>2NR Advocacy
4. A strong warranted analytical argument and common sense can go a long way
5. Disclosure is always good
6. Cheating in any form is unacceptable and will result in an automatic loss and 0 speaks. Wrongly accusing someone of cheating will also result in the same.
7. If you are going to "insert" a re-highlighting please read the re-highlighting.
8. I should not be asked to become the referee on what has happened outside of the debate or what has happened in previous debates.
Aff(s) -- I think that affirmative teams should defend the implementation of a hypothetical plan by the United States federal government.
Affs with a plan -- I like nuanced and well thought out topicality debates. Limits are important, but the negative should attach these to pieces of negative ground or what affirmatives should be excluded. I default to competing interpretations. T-Substantial is a no from me. It is difficult to judge these debates when debaters treat their blocks as cards.
Affs without a plan -- Topicality is an important tool for the negative during these debates. I believe that the affirmative should have a counter-interpretation, not just relying on a criticism of the negative's interpretation or of the topic. I do not think that "policy education good" is an impact. Debate is a research activity. Winning your interp is best requires you to win a reason why the research your interp produces is the best. I will reward teams for in-depth "topical version of the aff" research. I do not believe that topicality is an attempt to exclude or police people in debate.
Disadvantages -- Strong impact calculus and turns case arguments are critical to winning. I think that high quality and recent evidence is also important to this debate. Comparing evidence is absolutely critical. I am very annoyed when I have to read and compare evidence for you at the end of the debate. The link controls the direction of the disadvantage. I will vote on a risk of absolute defense. I enjoy and appreciate well thought out politics disads. Small note: merely saying "immigration unpopular" or "immigration is polarizing" is not a link to a politics disadvantage, you need a reason why the passage of the aff causes the piece of the agenda to either pass or not pass - or causes people to vote one way or another in an election.
Counterplans -- Under very rare circumstances should you go for delay, consultation, or a generic word pic in front of me. I generally err neg on other competition questions. I think counter plans are made stronger by the presence of solvency advocate but given the lack of consensus on what qualifies as a solvency advocate, I think it is unreasonable to demand a solvency advocate for every counter plan.
Theory -- Every theory argument with the exception of conditionality is a reason to reject the argument, not the team (this is non-negotiable). I rarely find myself unwilling to vote for this argument unless it is either dropped or poorly handled. Lateral moves on theory are risky. Please do not just read prewritten blocks, do some debating.
Kritiks -- A kritik should prove why the aff's particular example of hypothetical state action is bad. I believe that the aff should get to weigh the impacts of fiated plan implementation against the criticism. There must be a robust defense of what the alternative does, does not do, turns, or solves. Convince me that the world of the alternative is better than the world of the aff. Please do not assume that you can gloss over important parts of your argument - I am not super deep in the literature. I am not very good for arguments (aff or neg) that involve saying an argument is your "survival strategy". I am not and do not want to be the referee on how you should live your life. I will under ZERO circumstances entertain a "death good" debate.
Strategy -- What has happened to reading uniqueness cards? Coherent DA shells? Counterplan solvency advocates in the 1NC*? Tags that explain your argument? I do not understand the impulse to massively spread out the other team, wait till they drop something, blow it up, and start the debating later. It's gross, messy, hard to decide, and will lower your points. I would much rather watch a really in-depth and clean debate than some silly 7-9 off debate. If this is your style of debate, that is cool, but prove to me you did the research and aren't just backfile checking with your most grossly under-highlighted generic positions. I cannot stress this enough.
Misc -- Other thoughts I have, which you should take into consideration
1. I do not want your flash drive -- I really don't want to be on your pocket box, don't even ask -- just start an email chain.
2. Be nice to your opponent -- I have always disliked teams who have been rude and belittling.
3. Look at me -- My facial expressions are a very good indicator of how I feel things are going.
4. The rebuttals should all include some amount of "judge instruction". What is the question of the debate and how should my ballot answer that question? What should I do when deciding this debate? What is important versus what is unimportant? Be persuasive! The debaters who are the best at this win the most amount of debates. S/O all the judges I have lifted this phrasing from/
5. Saying/Advocating racist, homophobic, antisemitic, transphobic, sexist, and ableist things are not a way to my ballot -- Debate is a community and everyone deserves to be a part of it.
6. Well placed humor is always appreciated -- keep it fun, keep it flirty.
7. Please don't ask me to type in my email into your computer. I don't want to touch your nasty computer. I am very sad when people do not read my paradigm and then ask me for my email and present me with their spit covered laptop.
8. Questions? Just ask
Charles Russell Paradigm
I, like my coach before me, have an old-school policy paradigm. What this means is that I look at the round and evaluate it based on what I feel is the best policy for the Unites States under the given resolution. In round you should argue everything under the assumption of that framework.
Speed – I am not a fan of speed. I understand that you are going to need to speak faster than a normal talking rate of speed and that is fine given the time constraints in round but there is no need speak at the extreme speeds that are becoming more and more common. I am a great proponent of depth over breadth in debate. The more reasonable your speed the better you will likely find yourself doing in front of me.
Topicality – This is something that I fell can be put to great use and I have no problem seeing in round. That said, there are a couple of conditions. First the voter in front of me is always jurisdiction, if you can reasonably prove that the Aff being presented is outside of the topic area I am likely to vote for T. Second, I am not a huge technical T judge. I much prefer that in round abuse or potential abuse is spelled out for me rather than someone trying to tell me that we should win T because the other team didn’t answer every small technical detail of a T argument.
Advantages and Disadvantages – This is the bread and butter of my judging paradigm. This is where I prefer to see most rounds debated and is the place that most rounds are won and lost in front of me. I want to see real world impacts with realistic link chains. If your opponent is telling me that everything is going to lead to nuclear war or global extinction you just need to prove that this is not a realistic scenario and you will have won the impact for that advantage or DA. Politics is also perfectly allowable. The only politics DAs that I do not like are those saying that you spend political capital therefore these bad things happen. Those DAs tend to run roughshod over affirmative fiat so I don’t like seeing them and I don’t give them much if any in round weight.
CPs – Absolutely love to see a good CP. My only real requirements here are that the CP should be non-topical and competitive. CPs using other actors or consulting other countries are great and I am perfectly willing to entertain them so long as they meet the above requirements.
K – Kritiks are something that you need to be very selective with in front of me. You need to make sure that the alternative is a real world policy alternative and not something that would never apply in reality. I absolutely agree that there may be questions of morality that are addressed by a kritik but without a policy alternative it isn’t going to go very far in front of me.
Last thoughts – First, be specific when you are telling me where your arguments are going. Don’t just tell me “on the Labor DA flow” and start spewing cards. Give me the specific points that you are attacking and don’t expect me to do your work for you. I am more forgiving at the novice level because those debaters are still learning but I still expect you to tell me where you want your arguments to go. Second, if you feel an argument is going to be important in round I had better hear more than 10 seconds about it in the constructives. Arguments that are presented as blips in the constructives and then expanded upon for 3-5 minutes in the rebuttal come across as something that you didn’t really care about that much until you realized that there may be a viable strategy option. If you want to go for something at the end of the round make sure that you have spent sufficient time on the argument in the constructives.
Nasim Salehitezangi Paradigm
Niles West High School 2014-2018
Trinity University 2018-Now
Last Updated: October 2018
Email: Salehitezanginasim@gmail.com (please put me on the email chain)
I'm open to all arguments as long as they're not morally reprehensible. I did policy throughout all of high school, but that's only because I wasn't familiar with critique literature. I would have definitely read a k aff if I knew how to. So you can read whatever you want in front of me. I'm going to try my best to evaluate every single debate fairly. There are ways you can help me with this!
- Don't use acronyms! I'm not familiar with the topic and might have no idea what you're talking about.
- Don't spread through analytics. This doesn't mean you shouldn't spread. If you're going for an argument that requires a lot of explanation, I want to make sure I can write everything down on my flow and use it to make a fair decision.
- Don't assume I always know what you're talking about. I'm familiar with most arguments, but I don't want to vote you down because I misunderstood something.
Important ways I evaluate debates
- I don't vote on cards alone. Explanation of an argument will get you way farther than an extra card. Debate is an argumentative activity. You need to explain why you're winning. I won't reward a team for reading a ton of cards and expecting me to just read them after the debate.
- I'm 50/50 on tech vs. truth. If you explain why one matters more than the other, then I'll evaluate the debate that way.
- I'll only read cards after the debate that I think are relevant to my decision. If there are cards you want me to read after the debate, you should extend/reference them in your speech.
Explain everything to me. If a team asks you something generic, and you're going for a complex argument, use that time to make sure I understand what's going on. Keep speaking until they ask you to stop. Feel free to ramble on and explain other parts of the debate that you think are important. Also a great time to explain acronyms or things about the topic that I might not know. However, you should use cross ex as an opportunity to make arguments and use them later on in the debate. You'll probably get higher speaks if you use cross ex well and incorporate it into the debate.
These debates are great! I'm not familiar with the topic this year, so I probably won't understand your case lists. That being said, there are other ways to paint a picture of the best version of the topic and still win my ballot.
One thing to note -- the aff can win my ballot on we meet alone, so make sure your violation actually applies.
Also, I won't vote on ASPEC. 2A's, you can feel free to just ignore this argument.
Great! I will reward 2A's who can logically beat a disad. I'm a little different on this than most people. An aff team can win my ballot by simply pointing out logical fallacies in a contrived and weak disad. That being said, this shouldn't encourage you to read zero cards against a disad. For the neg -- if you're reading a contrived disad, I'll be more likely to vote for you on dropped arguments.
Also great! Advantage counterpleas are definitely underutilized. Sufficiency framing!!! Frame the debate!!! Tell me why the net benefit outweighs the risk of a solvency deficit. You can read really abusive counterplans, but you better be good at answering theory. If the aff doesn't read theory, you're lucky. If the aff goes for theory, you're in trouble. You can go for theory in front of me, but that shouldn't dissuade you from going for good solvency deficits. I won't kick the counterplan unless you tell me to do it. Status quo = a viable option always means judge kick.
Read them! I haven't experienced many of these debates, but if you win, you win!
Sure! I'll vote on it. Not on the neg. Never go for just theory on the neg.
You can read any k you want in front of me. I want to judge debates fairly. Remember that I don't know a lot of k literature, so you'll need to explain more than usual. You'll probably need to slow down here. For example, if you say there's "x disad" on the perm, give me time to write it down before moving on. I won't remember what the disad to the perm is if I don't write down what it means. Links should be specific, but if you're winning on a generic link then that's fine.
K vs policy aff
You can definitely read these in front of me! I'm familiar with these debates, since I've had a lot of them. These debates are the ones where explanation is crucial. I'm not familiar with a lot of k literature, so you'll probably need to do more explaining than usual. Please don't spread through analytics in these debates. I need to make sure what every disad on framework means.
K vs k affs
Do whatever you want. I encourage you to cause chaos. I might have no clue what's going on, but somehow I will form a ballot. This might be a coin toss, but it'll be fun. I really hope to judge one of these debates someday.
Do whatever you want. I know these debates and will vote on any impact!
- I like jokes
- References you can use -- Game of Thrones, Rick and Morty, Avatar the Last Airbender, something popular
- If you know people I know in debate and make a funny joke
- Be bold and do risky things
- Some debates don't require a full speech. You can end a speech in 1 minute if they dropped something like topicality.
Don't do these things
- Be super mean to your partner/opponents
- Overpower your partner during cx
- Say morally reprehensible things
- Expect cards to win you debates
- Attack someone's identity, beliefs, etc.
- Clip cards
Martin Salgado Paradigm
Naomi Sanchez Paradigm
T: In policy debates, the T vio should be explained thoroughly in order for me to vote on it (also must be impacted out in 2NR, if it is being gone for.)
FW: I used to be a K debater and have a strong dislike for FW (they tend to be anti-educational) but that doesn't mean I won't vote neg on it. FW has to be aff specific, not generalized for all K affs.
DA: Not much I can say about DA's, besides they are necessary in policy debates, if a K is not ran.
CP: Net Bens are the only way to win a CP.
Theory: If a CP is present in the round, then I'd love to hear a theory debate.
K: I know majority of K's, I ran latinx, antiblackness, and fem Ks all throughout my debate career, but I am also well versed in other K's such as Nietzche, Bataille, Baudrillard, etc. (however I expect y'all to know what exactly these critical arguments are saying.) I also expect y'all to give a thorough description of the alt!!!!
Aff K's: I am 100% supportive (unless it is racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, ableist, etc.) However, you must know your aff like the back of your hand and EXPLAIN, EXPLAIN, EXPLAIN!
*Don't talk over/Disrespect POC (especially WOC) or I'll dock down speaker points
*Tag Team is cool, no need to ask me.
*I vote on independent voters, if applicable.
*I love comedy or humor in round, it reminds me that you are not a bunch of robot policy debaters but actual people.
*Roadmaps/Order always, it should be second nature.
*Listen to my feedback post round, PLEASE! Good debaters come from Good feedback and being Good Listeners.
*Email Chain is the way to go (and Yes, I would like to be on it.)
Aaron Schoeneman Paradigm
I am a national circuit policy debate judge.
Misty Tippets Paradigm
Debated 4 years at Weber State University (2013-2017)
Four time NDT Qualifier, 2017 NDT Octa-Finalist, 2015 CEDA Quater-Finalist
Currently a Graduate Assistant at James Madison University
I believe debate is for the debaters, I am happy to listen to whatever your argument is and will do my best to adapt to you so you don’t have to change the way you debate. I would much rather you do what you are comfortable with than read an argument just because you think it is something I would prefer to hear. I debated for 8 years and have read and coached all different kinds of arguments, so you should feel comfortable doing whatever you want in front of me. Everything else I’m going to say is just my preference about debate arguments and doesn’t mean that my mind can’t be changed. The last thing I'll say here is the most important thing for me in debates is that you defend your arguments. You can read almost anything in front of me as long as you can defend it. I decide the debates based off of what is on my flow, and nothing else.
Critical Affirmatives – I believe affirmatives should have a relation to the resolution, but I think there are many different interpretations as to what that can mean. To get my ballot with a non-traditional affirmative you must justify why your discussion/performance is a better one for us to have than talking about the resolution or why the resolution is bad. I am sympathetic to arguments that the negative needs to be able to engage the affirmative on some level, and I don't think that "they could read the cap K" is good ground. Counter interpretations are important on framework and will help me frame your impact turns. To win your impact turns to any argument I think the affirmative should have some mechanism to be able to solve them. Overall, I think it is important for any affirmative to actually solve for something, having a clear explanation starting from the 1AC of how you do that is important, and that explanation should stay consistent throughout the debate.
Framework – I think negative framework arguments against critical affirmatives are strategic and love to listen to thought out arguments about why the resolution is an important form of education. Fairness and ground are also impacts I will vote on and I perceive them as being important claims to win the theory of your argument. I am easily compelled that the negative loses ground when a non-topical affirmative is read, and having a list of what that ground is and why it is important is helpful when evaluating that debate. Even if you don't have cards about the affirmative it is important that you are framing your arguments and impacts in the context of the affirmative. If your FW 2NC has no mention of the affirmative that will be a problem for you. I view topical versions of the affirmative and switch side arguments as an important aspect to win this debate.
Kritiks – As I reached the end of my debate career this is the form of debate I mostly participated in which means I will have a basic understanding of your arguments. My research was more in structural critiques, especially feminism. I have dappled in many other areas of philosophy, but I wouldn’t assume that I know a lot about your Baudrillard K, so if that is your thing explanation is important. If you have an alternative, it is important for you to explain how the alternative functions and resolves your link arguments. I would prefer links specific to the affirmative over generic links. I am not a huge fan of links of omission. You will do better in front of me if you actually explain these arguments rather than reading your generic blocks full speed at me. In method v method debates I think you need to have a clear explanation of how you would like competition to function, the sentence "no permutations in a method debate" doesn't make sense and I think you need to have more warrants to why the permutation cannot function or wouldn't solve.
For affirmatives answering critiques, I believe that impact turns are highly useful in these debates and are generally underutilized by debaters. I don't think permutations need to have net benefits, but view them as just a test of competition. However just saying extend "perm do both" isn't an acceptable extension in the 1AR and 2AR, you should explain how it can shield the links. As for reading framework on the aff against a critique, it will be very hard for you to convince me that a negative team doesn’t get the critique at all, but you can easily win that you should be able to weigh the impacts of the 1AC.
Counterplans – Please slow down on the text of the CP, especially if it is extremely long. I am fine with anything as long as you can defend it and it has a clear net benefit. If I can't explain in my RFD how the counterplan solves majority of the affirmative or its net benefit then i'm probably not going to vote for it, so start the explanation in the block.
Disadvantages – I enjoy a good disad and case debate with lots of comparison and explanation. I would much rather that you explain your arguments instead of reading a bunch of cards and expecting me to fill in the holes by reading all of that evidence, because I probably won’t.
Topicality - I really don't have a strong opinion about what it is and isn't topical and think it is up to you to explain to me why a particular aff makes the topic worse or better. I tend to have a pretty low standard of what it means to be reasonably topical.
Theory - I generally think conditionality is good. Other than that I really don't care what you do just be able to defend your arguments.
Finally, as I becoming older and more grumpy I am getting increasingly annoyed about stealing prep and random down time in between speeches. That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to use the restroom, just be respectful of my time. I will reward time efficiency between speeches with better speakers points. Especially if you can send the email before prep time is over. These are my preferences
--If a speaker marks the speech document and the other team wants the marked document that should happen after CX during prep time. If the other team cannot wait until after CX then they can take prep time to get the cards
--If a speak reads a cards that were not in the speech document and needs to send them out the speaker will take prep time before CX to send out the necessary evidence.
--CX ends when the timer is over. Finish your sentence quickly or take prep time to continue CX
I would like to be on the email chain – email@example.com
Malone Urfalian Paradigm
Notre Dame High School - 2018
add me to the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
I have not looked into the 2019-2020 topic so stay light on acronyms and explain esp on T.
the k -
defend the resolutional question, if you chose to not - debate is a game, procedural fairness can be an impact, but it needs to be set up and actually debated.
should have a "specific link" - brief overviews - impact calc
everything else -
line by line
2nr/2ar resolution of the debate
It is better to be slower and clearer than trying to go too fast
Cross ex - is a major key, use it to set up arguments and call out terrible cards in a meaningful way. Anything relevant in CX should be brought up in the debate especially 2a cxing the 2n, that is peak time to poke holes for the 1ar to exploit.
have a groovy time !
Lauren Velazquez Paradigm
Name : Lauren Velazquez
Affiliated School: Niles North
I debated competitively in high school in the 1990s for Maine East. I participated on the national circuit where counterplans and theory were common.
I debated for one year in college at DePaul University.
After college, I coached and supported several teams in Chicago. I ran the debate program at Juarez High School for 4 years (also teaching a debate class in addition to my other classes). My teams were competitive in the Chicago debate league and frequently qualified for elimination rounds and speaker awards.
After leaving classroom teaching, I continued to work with teams and judge for the Chicago Debate League on an Ad Hoc basis for 2 years.
Recently I have stepped back into national circuit debate through helping teams first at Solorio HS then at OPRF in the Chicagoland area.
I now run the policy team at Niles North in skokie where we compete in national tournaments and I work with and am familiar with current arguments including critical affs, framework arguments etc.
DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
When deciding to vote on disadvantages and affirmative advantages, I look for a combination of good story telling and evidence analysis. Strong teams are teams that frame impact calculations for me in their rebuttals (e.g. how do I decide between preventing a war or promoting human rights?). I should hear from teams how their internal links work and how their evidence and analysis refute indictments from their opponents. Affirmatives should have offense against disads (and Negs have offense against case). It is rare, in my mind, for a solvency argument or "non unique" argument to do enough damage to make the case/disad go away completely, at best, relying only on defensive arguments will diminish impacts and risks, but t is up to the teams to conduct a risk analysis telling me how to weigh risk of one scenario versus another.
I will vote on topicality if it is given time (more than 15 seconds in the 2NR) in the debate and the negative team is able to articulate the value of topicality as a debate “rule” and demonstrate that the affirmative has violated a clear and reasonable framework set by the negative. If the affirmative offers a counter interpretation, I will need someone to explain to me why their standards and definitions are best. Providing cases that meet your framework is always a good idea. I find the limits debate to be the crux generally of why I would vote for or against T so if you are neg you 100% should be articulating the limits implications of your interpretation.
Over the years, I have heard and voted on Kritiks, but I do offer a few honest caveats:
I read newspapers daily so I feel confident in my knowledge around global events. I do not regularly read philosopy or theory papers, there is a chance that I am unfamiliar with your argument or the underlying paradigms. I do believe that Kritik evidence is inherently dense and should be read a tad slower and have accompanying argument overviews in negative block. Impact analysis is vital. What is the role of the ballot? How do I evaluate things like discourse against policy implications (DAs etc)
Also, I’m going to need you to go a tad slower if you are busting out a new kritik, as it does take time to process philosophical writings.
If you are doing something that kritiks the overall debate round framework (like being an Aff who doesnt have a plan text), make sure you explain to me the purpose of your framework and why it is competively fair and educationally valuable.
I am generally a fan of CPs as a neg strategy. I will vote for counterplans but I am open to theory arguments from the affirmative (PICs bad etc). Counterplans are most persuasive to me when the negative is able to clearly explain the net benifts and how (if at all) the counterplan captures affirmative solvency. For permutations to be convincing offense against CPs, Affs should explain how permutation works and what voting for perm means (does the DA go away, do I automatically vote against neg etc?)
Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex and dominating. You are part of a 2 person team for a reason.
Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you have a ton of analytics in a row or are explaining a new/dense theory, you may want to slow down a little since processing time for flowing analytics or kritkits is a little slower than me just flowing the text of your evidence.
I listen to cross ex. I think teams come up with a lot of good arguments during this time. If you come up with an argument in cross ex-add it to the flow in your speech.
Hyun Sik Yang Paradigm
Debated for Walter Payton College Prep, 2014-2018
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Note: I have not debated nor researched the current high school topic - keep this in mind when you are explaining and contextualizing your arguments.
General Thoughts/Things You Should Probably Know:
2. Tech>Truth - In most cases. If you say something that is blatantly untrue or patently offensive, I probably won't vote on it. (However, if you can't defend that death is bad, you probably deserve to lose)
3. I was a policy 2a for the majority of my time in debate - this won't affect my decisions because I have no particular biases against critical arguments, but you should keep in mind that I may not have the background knowledge to understand specific arguments/tricks that are not thoroughly explained.
4. Cross ex is binding unless you tell me otherwise.
5. I honestly don't care what you read, just please do it well.
1. I think all affs need a solvency advocate that specifically mandates the action of the plan text. I'm not a stock issues hack so I'll still vote for affs that circumstantially solve their advantages, but expect to get crushed by neg teams who competently argue the solvency debate.
2. I have no particular biases toward or against big stick and soft left affirmatives.
3. I'm less likely to vote for affs that have convoluted internal link chains - I think this makes intuitive sense, but the more prerequisites something has to meet, the less likely it is to occur.
1. I think all competent affirmatives in this category need a "debate key" warrant - if you do not have one, I am very likely to be persuaded by framework teams that tell you to "go read a book" or "participate in a protest."
2. Performance is offense - if you read a poem or a narrative that's completely legit - just please do it well.
3. Evidence quality matters - I honestly don't understand why more neg teams don't contest this part of the debate - if you read these authors in the 1ac, you should be prepared to defend them.
4. Don't just drop jargon and expect me to understand it - please explain your claims and define important buzzwords - it would be unfortunate if I made the wrong decision because I misinterpreted your arguments.
5. Reading a K aff is probably cheating, but I don't think fairness in itself is a terminal impact unless you give me a reason to evaluate it as one.
6. Debate is obviously a game - however, I do not think that this is mutually exclusive with its potential as an activity which shapes our epistemology and subject formation.
1. All counterplans need solvency advocates - I might make exceptions against certain K affs, but this will be done on a case-by-case basis.
2. I lean aff on consult theory and textual vs functional competition - consult cps are probably abusive and bad for debate - functional competition is probably a better standard for debate because textual competition is arbitrary and rooted in semantics.
3. I'm fine with abusive process counterplans - I will probably be more sympathetic to the aff on theory in most of these rounds, but in the case of an undecided debate, i.e. when neither side has won their interpretation, I will comfortably default neg.
1. Good disads need aff-specific links - cards that describe the policy action of the plan are preferred, but I will also vote on generic links that have been contextualized to the affirmative.
2. I will evaluate a link turn without an extension of uniqueness as terminal impact defense for the affirmative - unless you tell me otherwise.
3. Politics fiat - I don't really flip either way on this issue, but neg teams should honestly just pin the timeframe and process of the plan's passage in 1ac cross ex to avoid having this debate.
4. I will not evaluate evidence quality unless I am told to do so - if neither side does explicit evidence comparison, I will default to warrants.
1. T violations are more convincing if the neg team can prove in-round abuse - I will still vote for potential abuse, but be prepared for an uphill battle.
2. I am very willing to pull the trigger on T unless the aff is clearly a core topic generic, or if the violation is artificially overlimiting - random definitions from obscure parts of the literature probably won't convince me.
3. Fairness in a vacuum is not an impact.
1. Ks should link more to the aff than the status quo - I will most likely not vote for a K that is not contextualized to the aff.
2. Epistemology alts are legit - however, you definitely need to win framework in order to garner alt solvency.
3. I don't have any particular biases in terms of the framework debate - if framework is a wash coming out of the 2ar, I will grant the aff the implementation of their case, and allow the neg to garner links based on epistemology/discourse.
4. I think Ks are the most strategic when their links are also case turns - if the links are not framed in this way, neg teams should probably engage with the aff on the case debate.
1. I have a high threshold for voting for conditionality - the neg should probably be allowed to have at least two conditional advocacies to garner substantive offense against the aff - however, if the neg reads 3+ conditional offs, I will have a much higher probability of voting aff on strat skew and perf con.
2. I will vote for "spec" violations and other arguments of that nature - I have an extremely high threshold for voting for these arguments, but I will attempt to fairly evaluate them.
3. Disclosure theory is a legit argument - I think open disclosure is key to having educational debates with substantive clash and effective discourse. (on a side note, if you don't disclose, you're probably a scumbag who deserves to lose)
4. RVIs are dumb - but they're so dumb that you probably deserve to lose if you can't properly answer them.
5. Counterplan-specific theory is discussed in the "CPs" section.
Natalie Ye Paradigm
university of chicago '22
new trier '18
put me on the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
-I don't debate in college, and I have not done much research on the topic, so don't expect me to automatically understand all of the jargon, but I am familiar with some of the arguments through general study of IR topics in hs/college
-be respectful, especially to your partner
-argument = claim + warrant + implications
-if you don't explain your evidence, I won't evaluate it
-specific links are very important
-impact calculus is good, but so are coherent internal link chains
-not a big fan of process/consult/delay cps
-pics are great when they're specific to the aff
-condo is usually good
-the neg team should defend an alt--I'm not a big fan of neg teams having shifty, incoherent alts, and if I don't understand what the alt specifically does, I will not vote for it
-aff-specific ks or adapting the k to specifically address the aff are always better than the generic "neolib/cap bad" ks
-I don't really understand pomo/high theory ks, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for them if you thoroughly explain any terms/buzzwords
-I'm not the biggest fan of large overviews, and I would much prefer you to answer arguments on the flow rather than saying, "that was in the overview"
-I default to competing interps
-the aff team should defend resolutional action
-planless affs will most likely face an uphill battle for me regarding t/fw --but I will vote for you if you provide a compelling reason for me otherwise
-impact calculus here is also just as important as it is on a da
-attacking internal links > impact defense card dump
Karen Zimmer Paradigm
Include me on the chain: email@example.com
- I competed in Policy for 4 years at Perry HS in Ohio. I graduated in 2013 and have been coaching Policy there since. I see debate as an investment in your education. Demonstrating an in-depth understanding of your arguments, as well as kindness toward your opponents in round, will result in better speaks. Running a K on novice as varsity debaters is unnecessary and will only hurt your speaks. I consider myself a "tabula-rasa," but i will default to policy-maker if you don't provide me with a decisive way to evaluate the round.
- Backfile DAs, Ks, or CPs hurt topic education. I value quality arguments over quantity of arguments. Fewer, well-developed arguments will get your farther. Therefore, I don't prefer speed, but it's fine as long as tags and analytics are clear. Warrant analysis is essential to a good debate, so I need to be able to flow it. Debaters should keep flows compartmentalized and organized through a line by line.
- I ran kritical arguments on both sides as a debater, and as such, I am usually excited to see K affs. But! I NEED a plan text. Also-- if you have read no background literature, you don't know your aff well enough.
- I'm unlikely to go neg on T absent a clear violation and an abuse scenario. If your abuse scenario is underdeveloped, then good clash elsewhere is key to an offensive T debate from the negative. T debates should be framed on both sides, and standards need to be impacted and weighed comparatively.
- I enjoy a good theory debate. They need to be line by line debates, just like any other, and should consist of impacted and responsive standards. Interpretation debates on theory are important.
- 2NR should only go for one position. Multiple, contradicting positions in the 2NR make the judge's decision difficult. I'm unfamiliar with evaluating performance debates, more versed in traditional policy debate, but that doesn't mean that I'm not open to performance.
- If you run a K, I need to see that you've read the literature and really understand what you're talking about. Don't wait until the rebuttals to explain your K. Tagline extensions of 1NC evidence will never win you the K. If the neg is not doing in-depth work on the link, the perm will likely solve. Framework, where necessary, should consists of the same aspects as a good theory or T debate.
- Tag-team CX is generally unnecessary. If your partner needs help answering a question, a short interjection is fine. Otherwise, tag-teaming should be avoided.
In general, I will vote on whatever you tell me to vote on. Just be nice, aid in your opponent's understanding of your arguments as well as the world of Policy Debate, and learn something from the round.
selena zhang Paradigm
selena zhang (she/her/hers)
conflicts, affiliations, organizations: harker (ca), okemos (mi), archbishop mitty (ca), fairview (co).
if you would like me to know about anything to make the round more accessible to you (gender pronouns, where to sit, trigger warnings, etc), i encourage you to talk to/email me beforehand.
hi! i debated policy in high school on the colorado circuit and at uc berkeley. i am now a junior at cal studying economics and cognitive science but am no longer debating.
this is my third year of coaching and my second year with harker. i judge upwards of 50 rounds per season between policy and LD.
email for anything: firstnamelastname17 @ gmail [substitute as necessary]
if you are pressed for time, read the bolded parts.
- run anything and everything--i will listen to whatever you choose to present, but tell me why you win.
- clarity over speed. i will very explicitly stop flowing if you are unclear.
- tech ≥ truth, regardless if you are running 1 off, 10+ off, or anything in between.
- open cx is fine and emailing/flashing does not count as prep, but keep both to a minimum. time yourselves and hold each other accountable.
- being assertive is fine; being rude is not. i trust you all to know the difference and act accordingly.
at the end of the debate, i holistically evaluate the round, with the strongest emphasis on the 2nr/2ar. i then work my way backwards and determine how well earlier speeches set up the final rebuttals. dropped arguments are not automatically true, but must be warranted. i will not intensely read cards unless if you tell me to or if i feel like it would help me understand the analysis done in your speeches.
this process is slightly different for LD and PF. the speech times for both activities do not allow for extensive argument development, so i tend to evaluate the earlier speeches with a little more weight than i would in policy. however, your 1ac underview/spikes should not be longer than your actual 1ac case.
thoughts on specific arguments
case: i love case debates. i am a huge fan of ones that have more than just impact defense in the block. case turns, author indicts, and recuts of the opponent's evidence are great to see in a round. extinction good and de-dev are valid arguments provided you explain it well. however, morally abhorrent arguments such as "racism/sexism/etc. good" are not valid.
counterplans: are generally good if they are well researched and have a thorough solvency advocate. i am not against any specific counterplans, but if you do choose to go for ones that are considered to be somewhat illegitimate and/or abusive, be ready to defend them.
disads: great. i especially like case specific ones that have a strong link chain. impact calculus is important.
kritiks: sure. i am relatively well-versed in some of the more common kritiks, but i am not very familiar with some of the hyper-specific k's on this year's topic. it would be in your best interest to explain and contextualize your k to me in relation to the affirmative. this could involve (but is not limited to) excavating a very specific link to the affirmative, showing how the thesis of your k highlights the truth of the 1ac, pulling out lines from the aff that link into your kritik, among others.
i have a high threshold for kritiks, so make sure you understand the literature behind the theory. alt solvency is important, but you do not necessarily need to win the alt in order to win the k. make sure that you can clearly communicate how your alternative would function if it were actualized. flesh out the link debate and the perm debate. provide a clear framework of how i should evaluate the round.
K affs/nontraditional affs: a lot of what was written above is applicable to here: i am fine with them. i would prefer that your aff is somewhat relevant to the topic, and unless you are able to clearly show me why you deserve to win with an untopical aff, i am more inclined to vote negative on these. understand your k aff from the inside out, and make sure you have good framework answers.
topicality (for policy affs): i genuinely love a good T debate, but i do have a high threshold for it. that just means i want to see it debated well. tell me why you win on T.
T-USFG and framework vs K affs: great arguments. i do not have any strong opinions on this argument, but i hope to see fleshed out impacts, contextualized answers as to why your model is good/why their model is bad both inside and outside the debate sphere.
theory: this description is for any type of policy-oriented theory argument, ie PICs bad/good, condo, ASPEC, etc. refer to the LD section below for my thoughts on "tricks" theory arguments.
since very few people actively go for theory, i naturally have not judged many theory 2ar's. theory can be fine; however, i usually do not vote on it because the arguments and impacts are not fleshed out very well in most rounds. i find that i vote on theory if one side was at a clear and severe disadvantage coming into the round, and that the debater was able to explicitly contextualize this disadvantage.
(mis)disclosure and evidence fabrication can be voting issues, but i would hope that everyone appropriately discloses and correctly cuts evidence beforehand.
if you would like to reinsert highlighting, you must read what you rehighlighted, and if you insert a chart, you must at least describe it as if i do not have the document open for it to be considered.
clipping: do not clip cards. i am comfortable dropping you on clipping, but i am generally reasonable if you stumble on a word or two.
my scale is relative to the tournament that i am judging at or the division of the event. other than that, my thoughts on speaker points do not differ much from everyone else’s, and i try to keep up with community norms. in general, i add points for clear speaking, well-developed arguments, and strategic argument choices, and i subtract them for the inverse of these qualities.
with the exception of a CP/DA and other sensible combinations, a split 2nr will hurt your speaker points. saying "clear" either means your voice is muddled or that you are routinely messing up words or syllables that are critical to understanding your speech. i will say "clear" 2 times before i stop flowing.
i judge LD quite extensively and have become very familiar with the style and format. most of what i wrote above is highly applicable to LD, especially at the circuit level. with my policy background, i have found that i am the best suited for LARP/K debates. however, please do what you do best: if you are not very familiar with policy-style arguments, you do not have to run them. while adapting to your judge is important, i believe that a characteristic of good debaters is that they are able to win with their own style regardless of the person they are debating in front of. i like impacts, but i am also down to judge a good traditional/lay framework debate as well.
i am seeing an increasing number of tricks and troll arguments, so here is my stance on them: my threshold for answering these are generally low, so expect an uphill battle if you choose to go for frivolous theory, tricks, or RVIs in the rebuttal.
i normally do not judge that many phil/tricks debates, so if you insist on that strategy, please spend some time contextualizing and explaining your arguments.
in PF, i follow a very similar method in evaluating debates as i do for policy and LD. tell me why you win; write my ballot for me. i am open to any kind of argument as long as it is well-warranted. most of what i have defined above in regards to presentation are also applicable to public forum. keep your off-time road maps and formalities (asking to take the first question, for instance) to a minimum. i am more lenient on speaker points in pf than other devoted pf judges and care more about your arguments instead of your actions.
paraphrasing cards equates to evidence fabrication -- have the whole card ready throughout the debate.
engage with the other side's arguments and use your best judgement
i flow CX. flex prep is fine, but i will only evaluate what is said during your designated speaking times.
- i understand that there will inevitably be disagreement no matter the decision, but i hope you can learn from the loss to win any of my future ballots. i can clearly tell the difference between asking questions with the genuine intent of improving vs. saying snarky remarks/asking frivolous questions in an attempt to undermine my judging skill and character. if these decorum issues persist, i will end the discussion and ask you to hash out your further questions through email.
if you ever need any clarification on RFDs on tabroom or what i said after the round, please feel free to reach out to me.
i am generally fine with any of your personal preferences when it comes to debate, as long as your actions are not affecting anyone else.