Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

Senior at GW, debated for Peninsula for 4 years
Affiliation: Peninsula

Add me to the email chain:

true.julian.anderson@gmail.com

General:
An argument requires a claim, warrant, and evidence to be considered. Partial arguments are not arguments.
Be nice.

Offense defense paradigm.

Tl;dr: I'm a younger, more naive version of this guy -

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6854

Also, Shree Awsare's perspective on debate is something I firmly believe in and subscribe to, and is something I think all debaters should be aware of:

"My ideal debate involves two teams who read well-researched positions, engage in line-by-line refutation of their opponents’ arguments, and demonstrate strategic choice-making and vertical development of arguments. Not all debate is good debate. It is my firm belief that any model of debate (whatever the content) that disincentivizes any of the aforementioned qualities is an inferior product that is simultaneously less rigorous and less enjoyable."

Specific Arguments

Case:

I very much enjoy and privilege good case debating - something that I think is getting rarer to the detriment of the activity. When I see it, you will find it reflected in speaker points, and probably the ballot too. Note: the best case debating doesn't usually require a lot of evidence. Writers on the internet publish a lot of very questionable material that, given a little world knowledge and fast research skills, you should be able to easily dismantle. 1ACs are often constructed very poorly, so take advantage of this.

2As: I get it, I was there too - you have a lot to get through and very little time. Being clear and concise, though, will benefit you a lot more than reading the 17th card on the politics disad.

Counterplans:
My favorite kind of debate. Tricky or smart CPs earn extra points. Backfile CPs like consult NATO that don't require topic knowledge won't earn extra points.

"Sufficiency framing" against affs with linear impacts gets really annoying. Spend time explaining why the counterplan solves most or all of the aff, and why the risk of the DA outweighs the rest of the aff the CP might not solve.

Don't forget to explain why the counterplan solves the specific impacts of the aff (especially if it has a lot of planks), and explain why its a net benefit.
Condo is good. Like most theory, I have a high threshold for going for it in the 2AR (barring dropped theory, CPs that steal the aff, etc)

Default to judge kick.

Disads:

Disads with specific link evidence are great. Disads with mostly just spin are fine. Disads with evidence and spin are fantastic.
Turns case and solves the case are really important on DAs, especially if they are dropped.
Impact comparison wins debates. Please don't say: "magnitude - extinction! timeframe - its happening now! probability: its happening now!"

That's not to diss extinction impacts, I love them, I just have higher standards than the example above for impact calc.

Impacts and uniqueness don't matter so much to me when evaluating the probability of a DA as the link. If the link doesn't exist, the DA doesn't exist. Good debating on this part of the DA is crucial.


Kritiks:
I'm fine with any kritik as long as it indicts the thesis of the aff. If it doesn't, then it will be hard for you to get my ballot. Good links are really important - rehighlight evidence from the 1AC. The negative cannot just prove the world is bad, but that the aff is bad. Similarly, state bad is not a link.

Role of the ballot = roll of the eyes.

Too often, debaters assert that the kritik link exists without ever referencing a single piece of 1AC evidence or explicitly quoting lines from the affirmative. This is lazy debating. Asserting the link and then reexplaining it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the affirmative links to the kritik! (e.g., X evidence says we have a libidinal desire to do Y, therefore the aff also has a libidinal desire to do Y = lazy) You have to provide evidence. If you're extending a kritik, you should explicitly quote the aff, rehighlight aff evidence, or do explanatory work of equivalent evidentiary caliber, or I'll assume evidence for the link doesn't exist, and a simple aff response of "no link, they don't have any evidence, didn't say the aff is a bad idea" with an extended permutation explanation will be enough for me to vote affirmative.

Some may say this is a high burden, but you wouldn't vote for a disad if you didn't have evidence specific to the aff (or at least explained/spun in a way to demonstrate that the evidence does in fact describe the aff!), so it seems to me to be a good standard to filter out kritiks that aren't actually relevant to the debate. If the aff really does link to the kritik, you should be able to prove it.

The affirmative gets to weigh the aff - but needs to defend the assumptions of the 1AC. Its really easy to use framework to prove that the neg should get an alt, it is going to be really hard for you to prove the aff shouldn't get to weigh the consequences of hypothetical implementation.

Topicality:
I am fine with T. You should go for it like you would a CP and a DA, with standards as your offense. The aff needs offense and explanation as to why that turns the neg's standards. A strong argument that impacts out limits will go a long way to getting my ballot. Whatever side you are on you need to paint a picture of what the topic looks like, preferably with caselists, and a quick explanation as to why these cases matter.

Topicality v K affs:

First, you should probably read a plan.

The world is bad is aff ground.
Debate is a game and fairness is the best impact. I've come to think that some amount of debating about the norms of debate is alright, maybe even slightly good. Debaters need to understand and learn why the norms of policy debate are how they are.

What makes policy fundamentally different from other types of debate is 1) its depth of research and 2) its in-round and out-of-round strategic decisionmaking, which derives from the competing role-based obligations of the affirmative and negative. T vs K aff debating, I think, often misses this, and the value of policy debate as a game, and thus a kind of play that has rules, necessitates restrictions that guide the process of our research and hone our strategic thinking. If debaters focused more on how their vision of debate impacted those two fundamental parts of policy debate - on the impact and the internal link level - I think these debates would be a lot more interesting and engaging.

This is both for those who appreciate the movie Ratatouille and for those who are reading innovative and creative arguments:
"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the *new*. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends."

My priority is communication. I have to be able to understand you, so I would prefer it if you not spread. If not, I have a tendency to disengage. Clarity is key!

Effective claims and evidence not only supplies your own side, but works as a counterattack against your opponent's case. Recency and evidence source will also be considered for any potential bias, implicit or explicit. Be mindful of dropped contentions: any arguments left unanswered will flow through. It is your responsibility to ensure that your case aligns with any provided value criterion. If offering a differing weighing mechanism, be sure to explain why yours should take precedence instead.

That being said, not all arguments ought to be weighed equally when using said criterion. What might be the financial burden and which population would be affected the most? Will this solution be able to work in the short-term and the long-term? Of these includes-but-not-limited-to example questions, there has to be a bottom line. Why does yours matter the most?

I look forward to hearing your well-researched and well-delivered cases. Good luck!

~4 years speech and debate experience~

I am a former Parliamentary debater and currently competing in Original Advocacy. I may not remember all the fancy jargon that debaters like to embellish their cases with, but I do know how to discern a winning argument. The following is what I will be basing my verdict on.

Your plan must be something grounded in reality and make sense. I am not into peddling speculative theories, and that will only lower your speaker points.

Your plan must have impacts that are constantly retained throughout the debate. I will not carry over impacts for you. Also, the impacts must be meaningful, and you need to sell those.

You must conduct yourself with respect and professionalism throughout to receive as many speaker points available. I will not tolerate disrespect to your opponents, my comprehension of how debate works, or any sexist/racist/homophobic/xenophobic/etc. comments and insinuations.

In regards to the plan, you must have every component accounted for (i.e., funding, agency, etc.). Make sure to cover all bases if the plan has multiple planks.

Additional:

I will accept Ks and Topicality arguments, if (and only if) they are well executed.

Do not attempt to spread. Spreading makes your speech incomprehensible to your opponents (for refutation reasons) and me (for judging the validity of arguments) and will lower your speaker points.

I like hearing statistics with reputable sources, so don't be afraid to indulge those.

Sixth year parent judge for New Roads, which is my only debate experience. I am, however, familiar with argument as an attorney for more than 30 years with lots of trials, arbitrations, administrative hearings and oral arguments in appellate courts. You could say I argue for a living.

I am most familiar with Parli and LD. I’m old, with slow ears, so don’t spread. Speak clearly and enunciate. Theory, Kritik and other more technical forms of debate are fine, but only if you really explain your position. All too often the punch of these arguments is lost without a full, complete and thorough explanation truly supporting the point being made. Don’t rely on debate jargon or buzzwords. Likewise, explain why your proposed framework for how I should decide the round makes sense.

Over all I am looking for the most compelling argument. This can be several smaller points, or one or two very strong points. Most of all, always explain how your arguments relate to the topic in question.

UC BERKELEY '24 | Junshik Ham (just call me Jun).

Email me @junh124@berkeley.edu if you have any concerns or questions that are not on this paradigm.

Background:

I debated primarily parli and public forum in high school, and I do have some understanding of policy and LD as well. In parli, I debated in both traditional and tech style, depending on whether it was local or circuit. Currently, I am a psychology and political science double major at UC Berkeley, and I am part of the ASUC. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I did not join the Berkeley debate team; however, I do look forward to joining once the pandemic curves.

Philosophy:

Debate, to me, is an outlet to express intelligence, hard work, and creativity for students. By doing so, you are partaking in education, entrepreneurship, sportsmanship, and advocacy work. This means that you must highlight why you should win my vote, above anything else. Your case, obviously, deserves the highest priority and value; however, your performance also entails speaking ability, manners, and other aspects.

I will try my best to stay as tabula rasa as possible. Obviously, it is nearly impossible to be 100% "clean state", but I do judge solely based on what has been spoken in the round.

You will, most likely, know the result of the round before you walk out the door. I believe that disclosing results is a fair way to increase the educational value of the round and it also gives me an opportunity to give you some feedback, along with answering your questions, if there is any.

Judging Preference:

These are simply my preference, so it is not mandatory. It may help you to follow these preferences though (in terms of speaker points and even potentially to win the ballot).

Signpost. Tell me where you are on the flow, to make sure that I have everything under the right position, in case I am confused. Even if you do not signpost, I will write down your arguments, counter-arguments, etc. It just makes my job easier and clearer if the round is messy.

Voter Issues. This applies to the last speeches specifically. Tell me why you won the debate and deserve my vote overall. You can go line by line, however, it is more effective for me, and also easier, if you just tell me verbatim, why you won the round.

Presumption. Depending on the burdens of the resolution (either explicit or implicit), I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on.

Performance. Performance "debate" will result in a loss probably. It is disrespectful to the opponent who legitimately prepared the case, and it is called a debate competition for a reason.

Timing. I will time, but also not strictly. It is up to the debaters to self-time and to monitor the opposition's time.

General Debate Things:

Speed. Generally fine with speed, including spreading to a degree. Since the debate is an educational opportunity, however, if the opponent asks you to slow down, you have to slow down. Not complying may result in loss of speaker points and even loss, depending on the severity. Also, I am not going to say "clear" or tell you that you are not being clear. If I am not typing/writing anything down, there is a good chance that you are not being clear enough though. If there are speech docs, I do not look at them during rounds for fair competition.

Tech > Truth. I will take into account anything you say or argue in the round, as long as they do not clearly violate the ethics/manners of the debate.

Ks. Kritiks are an important card in your pocket to utilize when necessary. I used to run them, so I am familiar with them, and I am also fine with you running them. That being said, I would advise you against simply throwing a K to win the round. Make sure you highlight and explicitly state why the K is educationally beneficial as you run it. It does not need to be lengthy and detailed, and I also don't care where you say it. Just briefly mention it. If you simply tell me that I am "morally obligated" to vote on a K without any content or context, the K is useless. I am not going to buy Speed K (or any speed theory in that manner).

Theory. I will take theories, even though I am not a huge fan of them. Conditionality, paradox, etc are all "theories" in this case.

Card Cutting. Card cutting will immediately result in a loss.

Dropped Arguments. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true." Basically, give me the reason why the dropped arguments actually matter rather than just saying it was dropped. It will do you little to no good if you simply state that it was dropped.

Presumption. Although rare, if it falls to a presumption neg win, I will grant NEG a presumption.

Criteria. If you do not specify the criteria, I will default to net benefits.

Ethics/Manner:

It is rather sad that I have to include this. If you are blatantly disrespecting, insulting, or causing any deliberate verbal/physical attacks to the opponents (or even me), there will be consequences. The consequence may vary from loss of speaker points, loss of round, or even pausing the debate to talk to the tab if necessary.

For mainly parli, if you would like to point out a clear evidence distortion by the opponents, bring it up during your speech and give me a rationale. I will take it seriously, but there is no guarantee that I would necessarily take any action. If it is deemed necessary, I will follow the rules of the debate outlined by the tournament first, and talk to the tab if needed.

I've never done pofo before so I hope this will help you? This is mostly my opinions on Parli and CX, I’ve done Parli for about 2 1/2 years and Policy for a year .

INSTANT Ls

Sexist, racist, and homophobic comments (even if they are implied) will make you get the lowest speaks I can possible give you and and instant L. Also any mention of Baudrillard or Batille will incur this as well

Ks

I like 'em! I need a clear link story and an actual alt to even consider it. FOR PARLI, I need an actual K with a link and an alt and an impact because Ks in parli tend to not be an actual critique. FOR ID Ks yeah i need a really good link to buy it bruh.

T

MY favorite part of debate!!!!!!! I love T!!!!! I need definitions though! And good standards! The whole shebang!

D.A.

I need a good link and some good impact analysis

Condo

No

MISC.

I'm fine with speed, I just need to be on the email chain. MY email is taraejones32@gmail.com so put me on there. FOR PARLI: I need cited evidence and not ass arguments. Don't bother lying and faking evidence because I am always up to date on current event s and can sniff out a liar a mile away. The funnier you make the debate and the more memes you reference the higher speaks you will get.

Email chain: joan.kim@alumni.harvard.edu

General:

• Speed: You do you but quality over quantity with clarity

• Voting issues are not necessary

• Jargon or technical language should be kept to a minimum

• I don’t count flashing as prep unless you are taking advantage

• You don’t have to constantly remind me that your opponent dropped such and such argument(s)--don’t rely on a win because they dropped x amount of arguments

Love:

• Framework

• Fantastic CX

• Clash

• Impact!!!

• Creativity

Yes:

• Evidence, analytical and empirical--state your source

• Logical Analysis

• Roadmaps and overviews

• Weigh your arguments

No:

• Card cutting- you will lose the round

• Rudeness

Email: seanlipps01@gmail.com

I was a 2N in high school. I have little topic knowledge, so please explain stuff. Don't go for everything in the 2NR.

Aff:

If the Aff doesn't read a plan I will most likely vote Neg. Fairness is an impact, but still needs to be weighed against their impacts.

If you're reading a soft left Aff don't rely on your framing to get out of responding to DAs.

Topicality:

Evidence quality is a good link to your impacts and usually what I base my decision upon, so have a good definition.

Fairness is an impact.

Counterplans:

I'm fine for any counterplan, except ones that compete off certainty or immediacy, as long as you win the theory debate (if the theory debate devolves into both sides just repeating their arguments I will usually not vote for the theory).

Disadvantages:

I don't think I evaluate DAs very differently from others.

tech>truth, although if you skimp out on your coverage of some things (like a one line turns case argument) I probably won't evaluate it very much.

Kritiks:

I'm fine for Ks as long as there is a link to the assumptions of the aff.

Most of my attention will be on the link and alt debate because most of the K doesn't matter without first winning those parts. The aff can weigh their plan against the K.

Don't kick the alt and go for the K.

Reject the aff is not an alt.

I am a parent judge, and this is my first tournament. I am not very experienced, but I know the general idea. PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND.

- DO NOT SPREAD. Regular conversational speed is best if you want me to understand your arguments. I would rather hear fewer arguments that make sense than a laundry list you read so fast I can't follow.

- I am VERY lay, so if you do anything with K or T or theory, I won't know what it is, so please avoid it. If that is all you have, explain it very well, or I won't know what you are saying.

- I will be taking notes, but it's up to you to point out dropped arguments and extensions; don't count on me to extend things for you.

- I would probably lean towards evidence over philosophy.

- If you are referring to previous evidence please restate what the evidence said rather than just the author's last name because I may not be writing that.

- At the end of your last speeches, please give me voters! Let me know why I should vote for you.

- Don't be rude during cross X.

- Explain your terminology always, even if you think I should know.

- Please time yourselves

- Use arguments that have good evidence and make sense.

- I like good clash and when debaters pick out holes in the opponents evidence/logic.

Peninsula '20, UC Berkeley '25 | Ailun (pronounced Allen)

email: ailunshi@berkeley.edu

Background

I have 4 years of speech experience and 1 year of PF experience, and I know a bit about the other debate formats. Bear in mind the brunt of my debate experience was freshman year of high school, so it has been a while.

Judging Preferences

1. Keep jargon to a minimum. I believe debate should be for the many rather than a few. Whatever contentions and rebuttals you bring up should be easily understandable regardless of whether I have debate experience or am a lay judge.

2. Keep spreading to a minimum. I'll understand you and keep up if you talk fast, but if you're gasping and spitting everywhere, you're going too far. I also value quality of speech over quantity, so your speed should not come as a detriment to your eloquence. Additionally, I expect you to slow down if your opponents ask you to.

3. Be clear with your framework. I enjoy framework arguments, if you choose to take it that way. Make sure you refer back to the framework, especially toward the closing of the debate. If only one team offers a framework, that will be the basis by which I judge the round. If there are opposing frameworks, I expect that you address your opponent's framework. If neither team offers criteria, I will default to net benefits.

4. Concise arguments. I'm not a fan of long, circuitous arguments that seek to jump through several hoops to make a singular point. If it takes you that long to prove something, then it's not a good argument and likely moot, and I will be more skeptical of your claims. Your goal is to convince me of your argument, not lead me on a wild goose chase with a slippery slope fallacy. Keep in mind that long, circuitous arguments are not the same thing as using all the time and words you need to fully explain a point and its impacts.

5. Explain why it's important. Not all contentions are equal. Explain to me why your contention is important and how it relates to the issue at hand. Same thing for rebuttals. Convince me that your opponent's contention is problematic or wrong. Similarly, if you argue that a point is not relevant, whether it be during rebuttals or cross-ex, make sure you explain why it's not relevant. All claims should have a basis.

6. I value common sense. Debates should be realistic. Don't bring up nonsensical points that don't have a real world basis and evidence in hopes that your opponents will drop the point. For example, if you tell me fish can fly as one of your contentions and your opponent does not address it, I still won't vote the contention in your favor (see 5). That said, any points that can be backed up with evidence and statistics should be.

Other Notes:

Off time roadmaps and signposts. I'll flow along, but if you give me an outline and also tell me where you are, I can make sure I'm keeping up with you and getting everything down in the right places.

Dropping arguments. Try to avoid dropping arguments, as it means you've conceded the point (unless it relates to 6).

Evidence. Miscommunication can happen, but don't distort evidence or distort your opponent's arguments. If you believe this has occurred, make sure you bring it up in your speech, and I will judge accordingly.

Self Time. Go ahead and self time. You can finish your sentence if you're out of time, but anything after that I will drop.

Topicality. I like topicality arguments as well, but make sure you include a counter interp.

Be respectful. This really shouldn't need to be said, but I've seen this all too often on the debate stage and in speech and debate overall. I won't take kindly to constant interruptions and talking over your contestants. There shouldn't be any personal attacks, towards either me or your opponents, whether it be blatant verbal/physical attacks or more minor offenses such as belittling.

High school experience is Public Forum and Parliamentary debate.

TL;DR: I will vote on anything if you do your job well. It’s your round, not mine, so do your thing. And don’t be a jerk.

I fall somewhere in between the land of a Tabula Rasa and Game paradigm — unless persuaded otherwise. Read below for more specifics:

Generals:

• Speed is fine, but must be okay with both competitors. For email chains I am callieteague13@gmail.com, but please be warned, quality over quantity always.
• I won’t make you take out prep for sending the doc/passing the flash.
• Tech > Truth (99% of the time)
• I have absolutely no tolerance for meanness, blatantly offensive remarks, or for those who think it funny to make a mockery of the round. I don’t care how great of a debater you think you are — there is never an excuse to be a jerk. Above all, respect yourself, others, and the activity.

In Round:

• I don’t flow CX, that is your time.
• Flex prep is always fine and is to be expected.
• You will make things far easier for me — and therefore yourself — by CLEARLY sign posting and staying line by line on the flow.
• Framework is important — it is the lens through which I view the round. Don’t overdo it, but don’t skimp on framework so much that you unintentionally concede crucial warrants.
• I like to stay well versed in phil, and I am open to any and all philosophical arguments you want to go for.
• I am not particularly well versed in kritikal literature beyond the basics (cap, fem, biopower, etc.), but I am open to kritikal theory beyond this. If you do choose to read beyond that, please be warned that my knowledge is limited and help me to understand how I evaluate the theory of the argument in the round.
• I treat T with a definite reverence in the round — stock issues are always a pre req to the ballot for me. If you drop the ball on T, I can’t pick you up.

Random Gripes:

• Stealing prep is lame. You ain’t slick.
• Performance/K Affs really aren’t my thing, and if that is you, I am likely not the judge for you.
• Friv theory is dumb, make it substantive.
• Rounds with little to no clash are what we call a “why bother”. I need something to weigh. Please tell me what I’m voting on if you want to pick up.
• Using jargon for the sole purpose of isolating new debaters is lame and your speaks will suffer. Be inclusive.
• Disclosure theory will be an uphill battle for you. I’ll vote on it if you really think it crucial to the ballot, but it rarely is imo.

If you have a reputation for being a jerk in round, it might be wise to not pref me.

For any additional questions, I am more than happy to answer at the email above!

I have very few preferences other than the following:

- Accept POI's where possible.

-Signpost and to be as organized as possible; even if it takes away from rhetorical flourish, be organized.

- I like warrant comparison and impact calculus. please don’t just repeat your constructive speech in the rebuttals. Give me something new. I prefer impacts weighed through timeframe, magnitude, and probability (not in that order), but if you think structural impacts are more important I'll go with that too, just tell me otherwise I'll default to what I prefer.

- Above all have fun with it and enjoy yourselves!

I am a Debate coach at Loyola High School. I primarily coach LD debate.

I see debate as a game of strategy. The debaters are responsible to define the rules of the game during the debate.

This means that debaters can run any argument (i.e. frameworks, theory, kritiks, disadvantages). I will assess how well the debaters frame the arguments, weigh the impacts, and compare the worlds of the Aff and Neg.

However, I am not a blank slate judge. I do come into the round with the assumption of weighing the offense and defense and determining which world had the more comparatively better way of looking at the round.

As for Speakers' points, I assess those issues based upon:

1. How well the speakers spoke to the room including vocal intonation, eye contact, posture.

2. I also look for the creativity of the argument and strategy.

High Speaker Points will be awarded to students who excel in both of these areas.

Debaters are always welcome to ask me more questions about my paradigm before a round begins. The purpose of debate is educational as well as competition. So, debaters should feel comfortable to interact with me before and after the round about how to do well in the round and after.