2024 Update: Hello! The below paradigm, which I have left for reference, was written 5 years ago immediately proceeding the end of my high school career when I did some national circuit judging. I am now a graduate with a full-time job and only judge Urban Debate Leagues. The below paradigm was written by a far more vindictive and knowledgeable version of myself, however the general themes will likely hold true. My speed tolerance will certainly not be what it once was. I encourage very clear sign posting, focused collapsing, and strong argumentative narratives in overviews, now more than ever.

_____________________________________________________________

I debated for 6 years at Harvard-Westlake, graduating in 2019, and am currently a freshman at USC majoring in Business Administration with expected minors in Risk Management and Photography but do not debate. As a result, my influences in debate include Mike Bietz, Scott Phillips and Jasmine Stidham, as well as the teammates I graduated with whom I feel obligated to shout out, being Vishan Chaudhary, Ari Davidson (Warning: Large stylistic differences), Matthew Gross and Spencer Paul. I was also influenced quite a bit by the outstanding lab leaders I had at Debate.LA, including Jenny Achten, Joel Lemuel and Brian McBride (RIP).

I'm well aware that long paradigms are generally useless for before round purposes. I tried to keep it short but debate is complicated and people may want the opportunity to hear more of my thoughts before a tournament. Refer to bolded words for mega abridged, pre-round version.

In-Round:

Put me on the email chain: willberlin@gmail.com

I tend to decide debates very quickly/as quickly as possible. This is not because I don't care enough to give you the time and energy you clearly deserve. This is because I don't believe the judge should be doing too much work so if there's a side I feel I should vote for after the speeches, I'm probably just going to check my flows to make sure I didn't ignore something of glaring importance and then vote. Much like how often after a speech a debater can get a vibe for if they've won or not, I generally can feel this as a judge too. What does this mean for you? Be sure you give clear judge directions in your later speeches and tell me the really important issues and arguments you are using to win the round. The more obscured your NR/2AR strategy is to me, the more likely I am to not comprehend the entirety of its nuance or truth value that you feel warrants the ballot.

I try to intervene as little as possible in my decision making, as good judges should, about will possibly take out my frustration through speaker points if I feel I'm voting on something really lame. Throughout my career, the sheer quantity of 2-1 decisions I saw really put into perspective how this activity is at its core subjective, despite our wishes for it to not be. That being said, everything said in Argument Specific Stuff is ways in which the way you argue may agree or disagree with me personally, which may subconsciously affect my decision making, as I am a human being.

I will call clear on you if I'm not getting it. If I have to do this repeatedly I will grow frustrated. Slow down on your tags and your author names, especially if you're going to be referencing cards by author name in the rebuttals. I like to be able to tell when you're moving from card to card, and this, along with numbering, is the best way to do it. I will not flow off the doc unless I feel I didn't catch you because of something outside of your control.

Prep ends when the doc is compiled or you are done prepping. Sending the email is not on prep but if I feel you are taking too long or stealing prep I will be angry.

I will never give a 30, there is no cap on perfection. A 29.9 is received when a speech is so good I don't know how to suggest to improve it, but it could theoretically be better so it doesn't get a 30.

I have been alleged by some to be a pretty funny guy and would appreciate some humor here or there which could possibly be compensated with a slight speaks bump. I never gave extremely robotic technical speeches, so I like to hear some personality in the round. I hate UCLA and Notre Dame. Politically, I lean libertarian so it would be cool to hear some policy arguments leaning in that direction, a rare occurrence in the majority liberal debate community. Please note I do not mean I want to hear the Libertarianism Kant NC. Quite the opposite actually.

I am unwilling to accept the liability of minors disclosing any form of assault or abuse to me. If this occurs I will stop the round immediately and inform real adults who are mandatory reporters. Please just don't make this a part of the round, as it puts everyone in the room in an awkward emotional and legal situation. If you need to talk to someone, although I can theoretically assist you, please just turn to any of the real adults at a debate tournament who I would just direct you towards anyways.

Argument Specific Stuff:

I was relatively flex, reading mostly policy stuff with some Ks.

All the policy args are fine. I think its a freezing cold take that a DA with higher truth value is refreshing, but I as a judge will give any DA full credence and vote on it as such until the Aff tells me why I shouldn't. I think Phillips had this on his paradigm at one time, or maybe he just said it to me or maybe I'm just going crazy, but if an argument from one team is short, blippy and bad, then the other team should not feel obligated to, and will likely lose the round if they, give it the same amount of time as a good argument. If you have just a few strong arguments on a dumb one, and you look up and can tell I'm liking what your saying, don't be afraid to move on.

I like a creative counterplan quite a bit, but don't go too far. The Aff team should not be afraid if theory is the A-strat against weird and abusive counterplans. If a counterplan sounds heinous to you and you don't know how to generate responses, it probably sounds heinous to me too, so articulate that.

On T, I like to see good evidence comparison on the definitions, otherwise it becomes very difficult to resolve. Having been the victim of many *creatively* worded topics throughout my career, I am capable of being persuaded that semantics should not come first. In order to do this you must prove why your model is good not only for the education in the specific round but also good for the topic and distribution of affs as a whole. This isn't to say you should go for reasons why your aff specifically gets to break the rules, rather you should propose reasons about why a strict interpretation of the wording of the topic is bad for the health of the topic as a whole, likely because it is excluding your aff which is a core of the discussion. An example of this is how the community majority believed that arm sales were not topical on the 2019 Jan-Feb topic, but the topic was obviously better with their inclusion.

On theory, I default to drop the argument on everything except conditionality and disclosure* and it will be very difficult to convince me to drop the debater on anything else. *Disclosure is obviously a big term and every case is different, so in some instances where I sense limited foul play I may be able to be persuaded to drop the argument, but this is really dependent on what happened in round. Theory on really mall stuff with near no proven in round abuse will likely be written off by me after the slightest of responses, especially if it's drop the debater.

On framework, I'll obviously listen to both sides of the framework debate but I must warn that I tend to believe that Affs should defend the topic. That being said, my job is to vote for the winning debater, which I fully intend to do, but you may be fighting an uphill battle in convincing me you have won as the Aff team on framework. I do believe procedural fairness is a voter. Aff teams choosing to not defend the topic should make arguments about why their chosen subject matter/style of debate is good/important, while also making arguments about why traditional debate/the topic is bad. Since non-T affs disrupt my standard methods of analyzing rounds, I need the 1AC to provide me with some sort of direction on what counts as offense and how I should evaluate it. I find cheeky I meets from the aff team to be annoying and a waste of their time. If you're obviously not defending the topic, don't try, you're just wasting your time. I'm also a big fan of PICs against non-T affs. If the aff team gets to choose to debate whatever they want then they should be able to defend the entire content of the aff from pics. Ks are also obviously a valid strategy against non-T affs.

On Ks, I'm not very well versed in post-modernism and will be unlikely to vote on it unless I get a clear story. My main issue with pomo is I often feel the impact never gets articulated as something without jargon that a normal person can understand, which as a result makes it very difficult for me to care enough about the arguments to vote on them. I would also very much appreciate an articulation of the alt in plain English and a good link story, those two things holding true for all k debate. I consider myself a pretty practical guy and am definitely not enamored by critical leftist theory like many, so arguments on Ks which take a step back and call into question the actions of an alternative from a more realistic standpoint are persuasive to me.

I'm really not into phil and think utilitarianism is the best model for debate and the only logical model for policy makers. So if you are to defend a non-consequentialist framework, you need to be able to explain why this theory is good for policy makers, not just rational actors, or else you're going to lose to arguments about how debate is about policy. On util, I am very open to listening to debates about what kind of impacts should be prioritized but will default to epistemic modesty if there is no debate about it.

Tricks are for kids. This at the bottom because tricks are the lowest form of argumentation.

Experience

I am a junior at USC with 2 and a half years of experience in British parliamentary debate.

Speed

I have never myself competed in an event which requires speaking fast and/or spreading and as such I have limited experience with parsing arguments delivered that quickly. I would encourage you to speak with moderate to conversational speed when I am your judge; if you must speak quickly or spread, I encourage you to send me the case you will be reading to my email (jecollin@usc.edu) if you don't want me to drop any of your points. In any circumstance make sure to signpost clearly and often.

Weighing

I judge heavily on the comparative, so even if your case is excellent, if you cannot tell me how or why your side is not only good but preferable to the outcome of the opposite side, then it will be difficult for you to win.

Kritiks + Theory

In general, I strongly prefer a case that directly engages with the question at hand. As such I would prefer that debaters not run kritiks and theory with me as a judge. Running a kritik with me is not a guarantee that you will lose, but unless it offers unusually excellent or insightful analysis, I will give strong preference to debaters who choose to run cases that directly engage with the question at hand.

Speaker Points

In general I will allocate speaker points on the basis of the skill with which a case is constructed as opposed to on the basis of the skill with which it's delivered, but in a situation where both speakers are more or less equal in their ability to construct a case I will give preference in speaker points to which speech I thought was better delivered.

Scale:

25 - Your speech was not only poor but rude and hateful in some capacity (e.g. racist, sexist, homphobic, etc.)

26 - There were some errors in your case significant enough to lead to your loss

27 - A case that lacks any obvious logical errors but still does not contain distinctively strong arguments

28 - A good case that is well constructed and also has arguments that won the round

29+ - A truly excellent and insightful case that not only won the round but also taught me, the judge, something new and interesting

Ian Cook, student at The Meadows School in Las Vegas, NV. I debate Varsity Policy.

Contact: cookerlv@gmail.com

If you do a handstand before the round I will vote for you. It doesn't have to be good.

CASE/GENERAL

I mostly debate policy over K arguments, so if you're reading a K aff make sure to deliberate. I judge novice teams. If one team makes a big mistake that I catch, I won't vote on it unless their opponent points it out. I'll make sure to let you know after the debate. Please add me to email chains. If you don't, make sure to not speak too fast.

K

Again, I prefer policy arguments, but I won't vote policy over the K. As long as the team presenting the K is clear enough for both their opponents and me it should be fine. It can be tricky for novices to respond to the K, so I'll give a bit of wiggle room for minor mistakes.

T

I like topicality. However for me to vote neg on T the neg needs to win all parts of it, considering winning T means winning the entire debate.

DA/CP

Should be fine as long as you make your links clear, and use impact calculus to make it clear why I should vote for you.

CX/SPEAKS

The longer you take to respond to a question, the lower your speaker points get. Also, avoiding questions will lose you speaker points. Keep in mind, though, that I don't evaluate speaks based on Cross-x as much as I evaluate speaks. I won't take prep for flashing or sending email, but if you take too long or your computer magically breaks I'll deduct speaks. Make sure that if you aren't taking prep time your partner isn't prepping for their speech.

I AM A FLOW JUDGE

Please signpost :)

I like to listen to practical, case-based arguments. Not a fan of K or K affs, but given the years topic, I can support a K aff that actually has an impact.

General suggestions:

First off, BE POLITE AND KNOW WHETHER YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS IN CX

Don't use incomplete taglines i.e "causes nuclear war" or "extinction". You guys are in High School now, you can use complete sentences (I hope)

Talk clearly. I'm fine if you want to spread, but A) Annunciate and B) Don't do the gasping for air technique, you sound like you're dying and I will most likely make fun of you on the instabooks, snaptweets, and MySpace.

Cross Examination: it’s a speech, I grade it like a speech. Be funny if you can. Base the cross x on core issues in the debate, try to avoid clarifying questions, make arguments and lay foundations for your next speech.

Theory/topicality: Conditionality is good, it would take a very decisive aff victory with a very tangible impact. Whatever your arbitrary counterinterpretation is that limits the neg to X number of conditional positions

Negative suggestions:
Clash with as much as you can in the 1AC. Don't contradict yourself with a strong-link DA then a consult CP, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
Try not to go for K's, especially if its a Varsity kid giving you it saying how well it works. Stick to your guns, and be comfortable with what you're saying. Sounding confident goes a long way in not only good speaks, but also making good arguments.

Affirmative suggestions:
THE CASE OUTWEIGHS EVERY OTHER ONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS. Don't drop your case in the rebuttals. I will immediately vote against you if you drop your case or topicality.
When the Neg drops something, make it VERY clear that they did.
I'm fine with a severance perm, don't abuse it.

Last Updated

11/10/2021

Background

Former coach at Washington HS and New Roads School. Circuit Parli debater at Prospect (2013-17). Former BP debater at USC.

General Ballot

I will vote for mostly anything as long as you explain it well. Please give content warnings pre-roadmap so that strat changes can be made accordingly. Deliberately misgendering a competitor in the round will result in an auto-loss and a not so pleasant conversation with me and a member of tournament staff. As a judge, I’ll vote for the single team that has the clearest path to the ballot. While warranted extensions can be helpful in terms of voting, I very much dislike when teams rely on "extend ___ uniqueness/argument". Chances are, there aren't as many "conceded" arguments as you think there are - don't be lazy on the line-by-line. My default on dropped arguments is that they are true and I will evaluate them as such. If you have questions on presumption, message me. I want it to be easy to vote, so do that for me. Debate is a game (unfortunately?) and as such, everyone is reading arguments in order to either increase and/or secure their chances of a W. Therefore, I find it hard to be convinced that any particular argument ought be banned or norm ought be forgone (e.g., banning the use of back files, shaming speed, disallowing Ks). That DOES NOT mean that I believe that we should abandon common human decency and practices of kindness.

Speed

I will call clear if I have to, but speed generally isn’t a problem. That being said, if your opponents are not able to compete with your speed, I expect that you will adjust accordingly. Please do not read Speed Theory if you are not going to give your opponents the opportunity to slow down (by calling 'slow' or 'clear') in previous speeches. I find it difficult to identify a bright line between conversational, fast and very fast speaking and unless you tell me where the bright line is, therefore it is incredibly difficult for me to evaluate Speed Theory. Keep tag-lines slow just for the sake of me keeping a clean flow. The more signposting you do, the faster I can flow.

Kritiks

I’m down for them as long as they have a link and they aren't being read purely to deny your opponents equitable access to the debate space. Parli generally has larger K frameworks than policy, so I’m down with that default. Please avoid making generalizations about society. In the same vein, I'm inclined to vote against root cause claims without warrants. I think the aff has the ability to leverage the 1AC/plan as offense versus the alt. I find that the debates that are most engaging/convincing, are ones where kritikal teams engage with case and where case teams engage with the criticism.

K affs are all good in policy, but are sketch in parli unless they have a policy alt. If you feel so inclined to read a kritikal affirmative, I expect that you will disclose within 10 minutes of prep. I never read performance Ks, but am down to listen to them. I’ll flow as well as I can, but be ready to explain how you give the neg ground. Very low threshold on offense against truth testing framework. The lit-bases that I am reasonably well-read on include cap, whiteness, neolib, fem and setcol.

Framework debates are my jam.

I am a firm believer that good case/theory debates are more valuable than bad K debates so don't be cheaty just because you have a backfile.

DAs/CP

Make sure to explain how the CP functions in the 1NC. I am not a stickler on CPs being ME so have fun with that. If you choose to read a perm (in most cases, you should), I'd prefer you read a perm text and an explanation for how the permutation has solvency/functions. "Perm, do both" is not a perm text. I am very unlikely to vote on a Delay CP because I have yet to hear a good justification for why delay resolves the harms in squo better than the plan and doesn't bite the DA(s).

Theory

Default to competing interps and no RVIs, and theory coming first. I don’t need articulated abuse to vote on theory, but if it is there, point it out and your speaks will go up. If you are going for theory, you better actually go for it. I probably won’t vote on it if it is 30 seconds in the 2NR/AR. That being said, I really don't expect you to go for every theory arg you read. High threshold for PICs bad and Condo bad. I will not vote for Ks Bad if it is used as an out from actually engaging with critical positions. I also find that generalizing that all Ks are bad does very little to improve the quality of the debate space. If you choose to read a generalized Ks Bar argument, I will need warranting for why the argument you are attempting to mitigate is specifically exclusionary to your team in the round.

Tricks

I'm going to be completely honest and say that tricks go completely over my head. That's not to say they are bad arguments or ineffective but rather that they are often inadequately explained and I fail to find a way to evaluate how they interact with other args on the flow. Riley Shahar is a much better judge for such args.

Weighing

Generally default to probability over magnitude unless you give me a reason otherwise. Weighing is your job, not mine. I need clear impact scenarios to vote for an argument.

Speaker Points -- I will vote on 30 speaks theory

25 - Please take a moment to rethink what you are about to say (P.S stop being racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc)

...

28~28.4 - Some strategic errors but they weren't devastating

28.5~28.9 - Meh, average

29~29.3 - Definitely know what you're doing

29.4~29.9 - Your round vision and strategy was on point

30 - WOOO I SPY A WINNER

General School-Wide Conflicts

New Roads, Prospect, Washington

Miscellaneous

Off-time road maps PLEASE.

Tag-teaming is all good, but don’t be 'that kid' who tag teams the whole time. I'll be rather disgruntled and take it out on your speaks.

Speaks are more based on strategy than anything else. I think that speaker points are pretty bogus considering that style preferences are quite subjective.

Shadow extensions are awful.

I will more than likely be okay with my RFD being recorded for learning purposes. It's generally a more efficient alternative to repeating portions that you didn't manage to write down on your flow. Please ask before you record, I don't want being "on record" to deter other debaters from asking questions.

**Feel free to email with any questions - keskar@usc.edu

or FB message me

tbd

Hi my name is Emma Limor and I’m a varsity debater at Harvard Westlake in California.

General

Speed is fine. I don't care if you sit or stand, feel free to lay down if that’s how you're most comfortable. I come into the round with very few rigid preconceptions about what arguments should be read. Nearly all of the defaults outlined below can be changed by explicit arguments to the contrary. I will not blatantly intervene against any position (save for those which are morally repugnant). 

T

I generally like T debates, but make sure you are being legitimate. Don’t just run T for the sake of it, make sure there is a real abuse. I will assume the aff is topical unless you tell me otherwise. If you tell me this is the highest layer of the debate then I’ll evaluate it that way. 

Ks

I like Ks. Understand it if you’re going to read it. Be clear on the link debate and how it applies to the aff. I will not vote on a K just because it’s a K. Make sure you have a clear alternative.

Counterplans

I love counterplans and think they’re great. Make sure it has a net benefit and is competitive. Perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy. 

DAs

They’re great. Read them. Run them well and be sure to explain why it outweighs.

Theory

Don’t read this unless you have a reason. I love legitimate theory such as condo and pics. I have a high threshold for frivolous theory. I default to competing interps and no RVIs, but I’ll vote on reasonability or RVIs if theory was abusive, and you make logical arguments on why I should. 

Performance Affs.

I don’t have a lot of experience with them, but will vote on them if not responded to correctly.

Tricks

I can’t wait to see what new things people think of. They’re fun. However, if you run tricks or any sort of cheaty argument I will give you a loss and 20 speaker points. It’s up to you if you want to run them. After all tricks are for kids!

General Rules

Be nice/ Don’t be rude

Don’t cheat

Make logical arguments

Don’t do things that make debate a hostile environment

Novices don’t need to disclose

paternalistic, sexist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic comments will justify your loss

Speaker Points

I will give you a 30 if you do a phenomenal job. I don’t have a problem giving you a 20 if you do something cheaty. Average will be 28.5. 

Extra speaker points: 

+.1 - +.5 if sassy (there is a difference between sassy and rude so plz don’t cross that line)

+0 - +1 if flowed (Showing me your flow will reward you (if decent/good))

+.1-+.3 if funny (Don’t make it awkward)

+.1 - +.5 if you bring me good food :)

Misc…

Don’t say judge too often please… (I know this is common, but it can possibly make the judge uncomfortable.)

I listen to cross-ex, but will not flow it unless something is a big problem (cross-ex arguments are only legitimate if extended in the next speech)

will disclose speaks and decision if asked and allowed to

Feel free to ask me any questions about the round and any improvements!

P.S. candy is my favorite type of food.

**Conflicts for TOC 24: Harvard Westlake, Scarsdale, Westridge TW, Memorial DX, Notre Dame San Jose AG, San Mateo YR, Monta Vista KR, Los Altos AK, Amador Valley EM, Brophy TJ, Stanford OHS AY, Horace Greeley SG, Bellevue WL, Concord Carlisle FZ, St Agnes EH

**TOC Specific: if you're a senior and would not like to hear the RFD, just let me know!

Hi! I'm Sam. Harvard Westlake '21, Vanderbilt '25. Email chain please: samanthamcloughlin13@gmail.com. LD TOC qual 4x (octos soph year, skipped etoc junior year, quarters senior year), 20 bids, won some tournaments (Valley, Yale, Stanford, etc). I mostly read policy args, some basic T/theory, and some Ks/topical K affs (settler colonialism, fem IR, etc). I also coached for the past two years/am coaching this year, so I have some topic familiarity.

Everything in this paradigm (minus the hard and fast rules) is just a preference - my strongest belief about debate is that it should be a forum for ideological flexibility, creative thinking, and argumentative experimentation. I realized this paradigm was way too long so I tried to bold stuff for pre-round skimming.

Hard and Fast Rules--

If you are going too fast for me to tell if you are reading all the words in your cards, I will assume you're not. I will call clear and slow, please listen or we will all be sad.

Won't vote on any arg that makes debate unsafe. This includes any arg that denies the badness of racism/sexism/etc, or says death good (args like spark/wipeout = ok, cuz it doesn't deny the value of life, it's just fancy util maths that says extinction better preserves the value of life). If your opponent wins your argument is repugnant (absent any larger framing or judge instruction), I'll drop the argument, unless you presented your argument with the agreement that it was repugnant (ie, if you admit your position is racist, but attempt to say that doesn't matter), in which case I will consider your repugnance purposeful and drop you.

Ev ethics - stake the round on it (ie W30 to the person who is right and an L with the lowest possible speaks to the other) if evidence is misrepresented (an omitted section contradicts or meaningfully alters the meaning of the card). I think a good litmus test for misrepresentation is: does the article agree with the claims presented in the card? If it's missing a sentence or two at the beginning/end of a paragraph but it doesn't change the meaning of the card, you're better off reading it as theory. To make everyone's life easier, just cut ev well (this means full citations, full paragraphs, in alignment with the author's intent).

Clipping = an L with the lowest speaks I can give.

Speaks are my choice, not yours (put away 30 speaks theory).

For online debate, I expect that you record all your speeches in case you, your opponent, or I drops out.

Argument TLDRs--

Defaults: reasonability on theory, competing interps on t, drop the debater on t/theory, no RVIs, T>theory>everything else, comparative worlds, fairness + education are voters, policy presumption, epistemic confidence

^All those can be easily changed with a sentence.

K debate - Line by line >> long overviews. Winning overarching claims about the world is helpful, but you need to apply those claims to the specifics of your opponents arguments or else I will not do those interactions for you. Framework is important (honestly most of the times in K v policy debates, the person who wins fw wins the round). Links to the plan are preferred, but not necessary - the less specific your links, the more fw matters, and the more persuasive the permutation is. I also tend to think debate should be about arguments, not people, which means I'll likely be unpersuaded by personal attacks or "vote for me" arguments. I'm more persuaded by skills impacts on T Framework than fairness, and more persuaded by non topical affs that impact turn things than try to find a middle ground.

Policy - Yay! Zero risk not a thing but arguments still must be complete to be evaluated. Underdeveloping off in the 1nc = they get less weight in the 2nr. Rebuttal ev explanation > initial ev quality, but if your opponent's ev sucks and you point that out, that falls under the first category. Read your best evidence in the 1NC - I'll be persuaded by arguments that the 2NR doesn't get new evidence unless it's directly responsive to the 1AR. Big fan of creative counterplans <3(consult __ is usually not creative).

Theory - PICs and condo are probably good. Other CPs (international fiat, agent, process etc) are a bit more suspicious. All of this is up for debate. Descriptions of side bias are not standards. The more frivolous the shell = the truer reasonability and DTA are, and the lower the bar for answers. On that note, reasonability and DTA are under-utilized.

Philosophy - Not the area i'm the most comfortable in, but I'll try my best. I'd love to see a well explained phil debate, but I will not enjoy a blippy phil round that borders closer to tricks debate. I'd rather you leverage your syllogism to exclude consequences rather than relying on calc indicts. Debaters should take advantage of nonsensical contention args.

Tricks - I don't think a model of debate predicated on the avoidance of clash (ie relying on concessions) is an educational model. My test for whether an argument falls under this model of debate is: ask yourself if you would be willing to go for an argument if it was responded to competently. The same idea also extends to the formatting of your argument (ie you should delineate + thoroughly explain all your arguments with clear implications). I won't purposefully insert my personal beliefs about the value of tricks debates into the round, but it does mean that I'll probably be more receptive to arguments that indict tricks debate as a model. Some arguments are truer than others, and it's easier to win true arguments in front of me than false ones. I also default comparative worlds, and have given more than one RFD that boils down to "X trick was won but there's no truth testing ROB under which it matters." Up-layering tricky affs with Ks or strategic theory is smart, and when leveraged correctly make claims of new 2NR responses more persuasive.

Lay - I have respect for good lay debaters since I know I could never be one. That said, I will definitely evaluate the debate on a technical level regardless of the style. Good lay debaters can beat circuit debaters by strategically isolating key arguments. Circuit debaters vs lay debaters don't need to modify their style of debate, but should do everything they can to be accessible (explain stuff in CX, send docs, etc) (same applies to debates where there is a large skill gap).

Misc - My threshold for independent voters is high. Emphasizing this after a couple rounds where it's been relevant.

Rant Section--

Tech > truth, but separating the two is silly. The more counter-intuitive an argument, the higher the bar for winning it, and the lower the threshold for responses. Saying "nuclear war bad" probably requires less warranting than "nuclear war good" cuz the second one has the burden of proof to overcome the intuitive logical barrier to its truth value.

I'll deal with irresolvability using the "needs test" - the burden of proof falls on the side that "needs" to win the argument (ie the burden of proof is on the neg in the perm debate because the neg needs to beat the perm, but the aff doesn't need to win the perm).

I won't vote on arguments telling me to "evaluate the entire debate after X speech" that are introduced in X speech - it generates a contradiction. Also, the 2AR is after all the speeches before it - interpret this as you choose.

Likes/Dislikes--

Likes: plans bad 2NR on semantics if you understand the grammar behind it and are not reading someone else's blocks, creative and non-offensive policy impact turns, creative process CPs (no this is not the ICJ CP or consult the WTO), plan affs (yes I realize this contradicts with my first like), multiple shells bad, Ks with links to the plan, presumption/case presses vs non T affs, topical K affs, reasonability/DTA on frivolous theory, collapsing, flashing analytics

Dislikes: the grammar DA, RVIs, plans bad 2NR on semantics when you don't understand the grammar behind it, plans bad 2NR that's just reading off someone else's doc with no topic specific analysis, standard spec, buffet 2NRs, hidden args, non T affs that are an FYI not an advocacy, combo shells that don't solve their offense, "strat skew", "this argument is bad" [then doesn't explain why the argument is bad], "that's an independent voting issue" [doesn't explain why it's a voting issue past just the label] (this also applies to 1AR arguments not labelled as voting issues that magically become voting issues in the 2AR), "what's a floating PIK" "what's an a priori", being rude or interrupting your opponent (especially if you're more experienced or in a position of power) (at best it adds nothing at worse it's unkind)

Hiya! I’m Indu. A little about me... I debated for Harvard-Westlake for 4 years (graduated in 2018), qualified to the TOC 3 times, had 10 career bids, and won a couple of tournaments/cleared at the TOC. I previously coached at Harvard-Westlake for a few months and then coached at The Harker School for four years. I graduated from Harvard in 2022, worked in non-profit, and now I go to Yale Law (class of 2026). I take the she series (she/her/hers) and I don't mind if you use the they series to refer to me.

I want to be on the email chain. Your opponent should also be on it. **Email: indujp.2000@gmail.com

Check out girlsdebate.org – it has free resources, like cards and videos, as well as blog articles about being a woman or other marginalized debater.

Update for HW RR 2024: I've been out of debate for a bit, but should be able to keep up with what's happening. Start off slower and build to full speed. All of my paradigm still applies.

Top Level (this is all you really need to know):

- Debate is about arguments/ideas and not individual people. You all are children and creating an actively hostile environment doesn’t really jive with me.

- I can’t vote on arguments that are immediately evident to me to be false. By that I mean, if you read a theory shell or make a competition arg and you are just objectively wrong about the violation, I cannot see myself being compelled to vote for you.

- I don’t really know how to classify myself on the weird “truth” vs “tech”/”flow”/”tab” spectrum – I just want people to be reasonable. That means I’ll lean heavily on the flow, but if you make arguments that are self-evidently ridiculous or underdeveloped it won’t float my boat.

- I love CX!!! Like, seriously. It’s my favorite part of debate. A good CX is killer, and I’ll give good speaks for it.

- Sexism, racism, etc are obviously nonstarters.

- I’ll try to give everyone in the round a fair shake even if you read arguments I never did in high school, I’ve never met you before, etc. Likewise, I expect everyone in the round to treat me with respect. Post-rounding is cool, and people have important questions to ask. Just take a deep breath and avoid insults, yelling, etc.

- I flow. Just wanted to throw that out there.

- WEIGH PLEASE. Most post-rounding is a result of a lack of weighing, and I don't feel particularly bad if I drop you because you didn't make a single comparative statement for 45 minutes.

- I'd prefer if you all regulate yourselves. By that I mean that you should hold each other accountable for speech times, CX, etc. If there's some clear age/experience/other factor that seems to prevent one party from having an equal opportunity to control the round, I will step in. This will likely be pretty uncommon.

- In the era of online debate, I ask that debaters maintain a "professional" environment. Please hold yourself like you would in a classroom setting and situate yourself in a neutral environment. It's important that all debaters, observers, and judges feel comfortable in the "room". (Sit up at a table if possible, remove things from your background you wouldn't want your teacher to see, wear tournament appropriate clothing (be fully dressed....)) This has not been an issue for me thus far, but I want to establish these boundaries in advance.

- Start at 60-70% speed and build up to max speed. I have trouble hearing people if they start at full speed online. Please also locally record your speeches (i.e. record your speech on your phone/computer). In the event the call drops, this is the only way for me to go back and listen to your speech.

More specific things below. Honestly, you can change my mind on most of this stuff, and I’ll really try my best to give you a fair shot at winning these arguments. I just know as a debater I appreciated when judges put their default views on things in their paradigm to ease pre-round anxiety.

Policy Arguments:

Cards are cool------------X---------------------------------Tons of spin

Evidence comparison-X--------------------------------------------Make Indu flip a coin

PTX-X--------------------------------------------PTX?!!? ):

Conditionality bad-----------------------------------------X----Conditionality good

States CP good (+ uniformity)----------X-----------------------------------States bad

Agent, process CPs, PICs -----------------X---------------------------Boooooooo

Impact Calc------------------------------------------X--IMPACT CALC!!!!

4 second competition arguments -------------------------------------------X-- Real competition arguments

Answering straight turns --X-----------------------------------------— Aggressive eye roll

Kritik Arguments:

Overviews so long my hand cramps --------------------------------X------------- Line by line

What does [INSERT CONFUSING K THING HERE] mean? ------X---------------------------------------Smoke bomb!

Specific links to the aff ------------X---------------------------------Generic links

Hashing out what it means to vote AFF/NEG -X-------------------------------------------- ???????

Starting from the assumption certain arguments are true ----------------------------------------X----- Argument humility

The aff does literally anything -X---------------------------------------- Nothingness for 6 minutes

Explain the perm -X---------------------------------- hehehe perm: do both, perm: double bind, perm: do the alt & make Indu mad

COLLAPSING TO A FEW CORE ARGS IN THE 2NR/AR -XXXXXXX---------------------------------------- ha ha no

Making framing args in the 1NC/1AR --X----------------------------------------------------- me arbitrarily weighing based on my ~vibes~

Theory/Topicality Arguments:

Mix-and-match buy-1-get-1-free kitchen sink theory interps -----------------------------------------X- Debating?

Defend the topic!--------------------X------------------------- Completely non-T

Fairness/Limits good---------------X------------------------------Nope nope nope

RVIs--------------------------------------------------X----No RVIs

Slowing down on analytics & interps -XXXXXX--------------------------------------------------- LKDFGLJEOIKDFGLKJFDGL

Super structured LD froufrou shell -------------------------------------------------X---------- [Thingy] is a voting issue because ground blah blah

Shells that are actually just substantive -------------------------------------------X- make a substance arg?

Arbitrariness bad --X--------------------------------------------------------------------- hyper specific shells

Definition comparison in T debates --X-------------------------------------------------- weighing is overrated

Read a violation card in a T shell -X-------------------------------------------------------- assert a violation and hope for the best

Phil:

Explain atypical framework ---X------------------------------------------ Assume Indu understands 400 WPM metaphysics at 8 AM

Straight up -X-------------------------------------------- Tricks and memery

Collapse to a few core arguments ----------X----------------------------------- Everything

Actually having offense under your FW -X----------------------------------------------- 1 sentence analytic... ???

Misc:

- Please enunciate and be clear. If I clear you, it’s not because you’re going too fast, it’s because you are nearing or already are incomprehensible. Trust me – you can be fast while still making words come out of your mouth.

- Have some personality! I really enjoy people making some jokes, sarcasm, etc.

- I’m very expressive during round. I don’t really try to suppress in any way. Do with that what you will.

- Disclosure and being straight-up at the flip/disclosing cases pre-round/other related practices are good!

- Cheating accusations: you can stake the round on these. Tab could get involved. Have audio/video evidence of clipping. If a debater makes the clipping accusation, I will rely on the Tabroom provided clipping policy (if available) to make my decision and for guidance on how to proceed. Similarly, if a debater makes an evidence ethics challenge, I will rely on Tabroom's guidance when possible.

- Clipping: I've dropped a handful of people for clipping. I read along and feel comfortable dropping debaters regardless of if an accusation has been made by the other debater. If clipping happens once, I usually chalk it up to a mistake. When I do drop you, please be assured you were clipping egregiously (usually 3+ words) and consistently (usually 2+ cards). I've never dropped someone for clipping if they were super unclear, but I'm comfortable doing so if I've cleared multiple times, I'm ignored when I say clear multiple times, and the level of clarity is so poor such that a reasonable person could not discern which words were read and which weren't. Please don't cheat. I'm happy to have a conversation with debaters and their coaches during these difficult circumstances, but I ask for respect from all parties involved. It's incredibly frustrating for everyone when rounds end in this way, and I understand that these decisions may seem personal. Ending rounds because of clipping or other dishonest behavior does not reflect my personal evaluation of you as a debater or your team/coach. It's just in the spirit of academic integrity, and I hope everyone involved learns and grows from the experience. I take decisions to end a round very seriously.

- Evidence ethics: you can also stake the round on this. I take an accusation of this nature to mean they have substantially changed the work of an author such that it includes ideas not present in the original work or excludes critical portions of a piece of work, concludes differently than the author intended, or follows poor citation methods in a way that is academically dishonest. Here is a list of things I consider unethical (which is not exhaustive): cutting out part of a paragraph, adding your own (or that of another author) ideas to a card, skipping paragraphs in a single card, not noting when an author disagrees with the argument presented, and mis-citing (literally just incorrect cites).

- Like, I mentioned... I flow. That means, like you, I could miss arguments or not understand what you’re talking about. We all expect judges to be magic flow fairies, which isn’t true. Try your best to be clear, collapse to few arguments, and weigh. Little judging errors happen when there’s a million moving pieces, and I’ll feel less bad if I make a mistake and the round is like this.

- I read cards and like rewarding good evidence. My reading of evidence unless instructed or in extreme extraneous circumstances (ethics challenges, etc) does not affect my decision. I think debaters would do so much better if they read their opponent's cards because a lot of cards are of... sub-prime quality.

- As I went to Harvard-Westlake, I probably view debate in a similar way to my coaches and teammates. Some of them include: Travis Fife, Scott Phillips, Mike Bietz, Connor & Evan Engel, Cameron Cohen, Nick Steele.

- I will wait to submit speaks until after the post-round is done. I think aggressive/rude/condescending post-rounds are bad sportsmanship and will be reflected in speaks. I'd like to think I have reasonably thick skin, so this is something that I don't think I'll have to use too often. Just wanted to give everyone a fair warning. This equally applies to your coach(es) & friend(s) who are rude to me after a round. If you can't control yourself, I will not be sympathetic.

- I sometimes (read: often) vote for a team even though I think their arguments aren't particularly good, they made contradictory arguments, or some other ridiculous thing occurs. It's incumbent upon the other debater to point this stuff out. Most of the time, they don't. If you don't, it'll just make everyone sad, including me. This scenario is where most post-rounding occurs. I generally won't just drop people because I don't vibe with their arguments.

- Please don't feel compelled to read arguments that you think I read in high school. I can tell when you read arguments to try to pander to me, and it's usually a worse quality debate than if you just read the position you actually wanted to. (No one believes this, but I read 50/50 K & policy args in high school and now judge 50/50 K & policy rounds... I actually don't have a preference. Seriously.) I don't need to hear decol fem and states every round -- don't worry about me. Do your own thing. (That being said, I judge a decent number of phil, theory, and clash rounds. I feel comfortable evaluating whatever you throw at me provided you do whatever you're doing well and straight up.)

- I vote relatively 50/50 in non-T aff vs FW rounds. You NEED to have offense and a defense of your vision of the topic/debate! Most of my decisions boil down to not being able to articulate what are big macro-level issues because people are overly caught in line-by-line. LBL is very important obviously, but that doesn't supplant the importance of explaining what model you're even defending.

- #stopsplittingthe2nr (Seriously, *who* taught you all to do this! I do not give above a 29 to people who split the 2NR even if you're in the finals of every tournament that year. There is 1/1000 instances where this is debate smart, and I bet you your round isn't that instance.)

- I'm uninterested in underviews. I don't think they add strategic utility, and they're boring. Read more arguments that defend the aff instead of reading infinitely regressive "evaluate the debate after X speech" and "we get 1AR theory" shenanigans. Theoretically, the best constructed affs are making a bunch of substantive arguments that pre-empt a variety of 1NC positions, which is why the best debaters win by reading--well--arguments. I've started to deduct speaks for this because it's getting pretty ridiculous and I just roll my eyes the whole time. Read at risk of your speaker points.

- I don't disclose speaks -- you don't need to ask after the round. Here's random things I enjoy and reward with higher speaker points (in no particular order): being passionate about your position, numbering of args, strategic collapse in every speech, not going for every argument, weighing(!), having a personality, using examples & stats effectively, anticipating your opponent's args, good CX, judge instruction, being respectful during the RFD & post-round. While I vote on args that I think are silly sometimes, people get low speaks for those rounds. If you, for example, go for some reasonable phil position and do it well/straight-up, that's fine -- high speaks. However, If you go for some ridiculous theory shell and bumble your way into a win, I will not be kind with speaks.

- I have chronic migraines that are sometimes triggered by excessive noise, which is sort of unfortunate given that debate... involves much yelling. I will occasionally ask debaters to speak softer if you yell-spread. I've only done this once or twice, but just wanted to give people a fair warning. (No, the migraine does not affect my ability to judge your round. It's just painful. Be a homie.)

Happy debating!

I am very interested in seeing clash in the debate. I prefer that you present your case and refute the other side.

I do not mind you running counter-plans, theories, kritiks, or anything else that you like. The only thing that I ask is that you let me know what you are doing.

I also want you to sign post what you are doing so that I can follow your case.

If you are refuting your opponent's argument, then I would like for you to point out what your opponent said and then tell me your point of view.

I want you to be very specific with all of your points and refutals. If you are vague, I will not know what you are saying and, therefore, not consider that argument.

In a nutshell, I want to see a good clean, logical presentation and no underhanded tactics.

Background Info

I participated in speech (3 years) and LD debate (1 year) for three years for Granada Hills Charter High School (TCFL). I am currently a sophomore policy debater at USC.

Debate

Overall, be very clear. Act as if you’re explaining something to a sixth grader. Guide me through your arguments.

I enjoy policy affs since I personally run those. Feel free to run K affs, but please do make an effort to convince me and help me understand why I should vote for it, as I am not familiar with K's. This goes for K’s in general as well; don't just reject the aff, but also explain what the alt can accomplish.

Make sure to extend your case. I understand it is difficult to deal with both off and on case arguments, but be strategic and use your case as an offense. The negative should not ignore case either; make sure to address on case arguments as well.

T’s and Framework debates are fine as well, but please be very clear in your argument and impacts.

I'm not a fan of Theory arguments; I don't think they're as productive.

Tech > Truth

Speaker Points

Be clear in what you say. Tell me clearly how I should be voting; list the reasons. Be polite. I understand the stress of being in round and debating, but there is no need to be overly aggressive. Feel free to spice up rounds with jokes (memes, puns, League of Legends references), but please be appropriate. Please do not make any arguments that may be racist, xenophobic, etc. Ad hominem arguments are not good either.

Because of my speech background, speaking clearly and delivering speeches are very important for me to understand your arguments and to show your knowledge of the topic and your ability to effectively debate.

Misc. Debate Information

Please include me in the email chain using: thaiicetea394@gmail.com

I do not considering emailing or flashing to be part of prep time, but please do not break this trust. If you are having technical difficulties, let me know. Be transparent.

Road maps are extremely helpful in guiding my flows and decision. Overviews are fine as well, and please clarify if it is on the line by line. Framing is important as well, especially in LD.

Tag teaming in cross x is perfectly fine, but make sure you’re not talking over your partner. Understand that it is their cross x and act accordingly; invite your partner to speak if you need help.

After rounds, I will disclose my decision, but not speaker points. I will also do my best to give constructive criticism. Please feel free to ask any questions.

Just have fun! Debate is a space for us to learn both about the topic and about ourselves. Just relax and do your best.

Tldr; Debate is first and foremost an educational experience that needs to be accessible and accommodating to all.

General Preferences: Email chain me at ktotz173@gmail.com before you give your speech please and thank you. I’m fine with flex prep as long as everyone else in the room is cool with it. Speed is fine but debate is still an activity about communicating so please for the love of all that is holy, enunciate and differentiate your tone. Also slow down on analytics ESPECIALLY if they aren’t on the doc. If you just give me 7 minutes of monotone spread I will not be happy. I am doing my best but I can only type so fast. Most importantly, debate is a learning experience first and foremost, I don’t appreciate anyone taking away learning opportunities just for a win. Let me know if you have specific questions on this paradigm, debate, or just life in general before the round starts! Good luck and debate well.

T: - new and improved! Legitimate theory is always cool, friv theory is cool with me as long as it doesn’t take away from anyone’s learning. This means I’m not down for frivolous theory against a kid who has never once encountered theory, that’s not cool. Topicality/framework against K’s, particularly debate space K’s, is really iffy to vote on for me, I will 100% always prefer that you actually engage the meat of the K. Topicality and framework against pretty much anything else is cool with me, but again my threshold for voting on it is pretty high if it’s against anything other than a topical version of the aff. In general, I tend towards standards of accessible education, competing interpretations, and portable skills.

K’s: - love a good k still!! Specific links are always very important; I LOVE a great link story! Perms of K’s need to be very well explained and I need to walk away knowing what the perm world would look like pretty clearly. This means that if you’re deciding between 3 perms with no explanation and 1 really good, well-explained perm, you should always go for the one perm response in front of me. I love a good K aff, but be ready to defend it on the framework and the body level of the K. Debate space K’s will always come before T, all other types of K’s I’m willing to hear debate about which comes first but I tend towards K unless there’s some really great accessible education claims out of the T.

CPs: - nice!!! But please give really good solvency advocates, especially on PICs. Down for PICs, but also down for PIC theory. Get creative with perms but, like with K perms, you need to give me a brief explanation of what the perm world would look like if you want me to vote on it.

DAs: Down, specific link chains are really important to me, as are specific link beginnings. I’m over the ‘any international change will lead to nuke war’ arguments, but I’m very down for specific analysis on why a particular action triggers the DA. The more chains in the link, the less likely I am to buy that the DA turns case.

Framing: In general, utilitarianism and philosophy are kind of fake arguments and I’ll tend to vote on K responses to those arguments, but I do still enjoy a good phil v. phil debate and can follow most phil as long as it’s clearly articulated outside of case.

Eshaan Verma

High School Policy Debate - The Meadows School - 4 years

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE COLLAPSE ON SOMETHING IN THE 2NR, DONT KEEP ARGUING YOUR 5 OFF AND CASE, THIS MAKES ME A VERY UNHAPPY CAMPER.

- I would like to be on the email chain (eshaanverma2@gmail.com) but I will still be flowing by hand most likely and I don't mind spreading as long as I can hear you and the other team can hear you. If I don't hear or understand an argument, it won't go down on my flow which means it won't be considered in my decision. I don't expect teams to answer arguments that I couldn't even flow. So speed and spreading are ok as long as you are clear and concise. Also how much you flow and whether or not you do it doesn't matter to me as long as you are producing good arguments and responding to the arguments of the other team. I will not dock you speaker points if you're not flowing.

Timing

Keep track of your own and other team's speech/prep times. You are not babies, I will not treat you like such so all the timing should be done by you guys.

K's

DO NOT RUN A K IF YOU COULDN'T EXPLAIN IT TO A 10 YEAR OLD. I personally don't prefer K's especially in novice debate. I think they are sometimes too complicated for the teams to explain well enough for me to vote on them. However, if they are formulated and explained well enough, I will vote on them but a good understanding of the K should be expressed by both debaters.

Topicality

I think affs should most definitely be topical so it encourages a fair debate where both teams can prepare. I do think topicality is very important and is a voter issue of great magnitude. I will look at topicality arguments very closely and put them at the top of my considerations when evaluating rounds. However, this doesn't mean if the neg brings up a topicality argument, they automatically win. The neg still has to explain topicality very well to convince me the aff isn't topical and can't just add it on top of a list of 5 other off cases just to bury the aff. The neg also needs to do a good job of proving to me that in the round, the aff not being topical is abusive and why, I will not just assume T is abusive. All aff's are topical to me until the neg proves to me beyond a doubt that they are not topical.

Disads

I will vote on disads if there is a reasonable probability of them happening. I am not part of the 1% club who will vote on a disad if theres a 1% chance of it occuring, I believe in being realistic and not that if little Jimmy doesn't get his education, it can cause nuclear war. Also, negs need to prove a plausible link to the actual case. I don't appreciate it when debaters try to link random generic disads with weak links to the case and this will be reflected in your speaker points. However, this is not me saying that you shouldn't do generic disads, I am okay with them as long as they do have a reasonable link.

Counterplans

I like counterplans as long as they are competitive and mutually exclusive. All too often the neg will bring up a counterplan that can be permuated without severance and that argument just dissolves and wastes everyone's time. So, as far as counterplans go, really really explain to me why your counterplan is better than the actual plan and why I should prefer it.

Case Debate

I think case debate is very important and integral. I don't like it when negs stray away from the case debate because they know they are losing on it. The case debate is the main point of the entire debate and should be argued till at least the 1NR. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. This is huge in my evaluations. If the other team drops arguments, extend them so I can draw a big line across my flow.

CX

I think CX is very important and should be treated as its own speech. This is where good arguments are set up and important points are clarified. I don't mind feisty CX's as long as they don't stray away from the point and turn into irrelevant arguments. This is my personal favorite part of debate because it shows how good debaters really are at thinking on their feet. I don't mind tag team but the cx's shouldn't be dominated by one debater because this doesn't help the other debater get better. Speaker points are pretty heavily weighted in this area.