DOWLING CATHOLIC PARADIGM
2022 — WEST DES MOINES, IA/US
Novice Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Name : Jenny Abrahamian
Affiliated School: Niles North
I debated in high school in the 1990s for Maine East. I participated on the national circuit where counterplans and theory were common but kritiks less so. I was competitive nationally and cleared at several elite tournaments but TBH it has been a while since I've been in debate so don’t assume that I am up to date with debate-specific terms and abbreviations (i.e. if you say “PDB” I will have no idea what you mean—please just take the extra 2 seconds to say “Perm do both”).
I competed in the 90s, helped around for a few years afterwards but I have not judged a debate round in a long time. TL/DR--I am familiar with national circuit debate but assume that I will need some clear explaining on debate specific norms, K theory, role of the ballot and voting issues as those types of arguments change a lot over time.
I try to keep an open mind and not be ideological towards most arguments. I believe debate structurally is a game, but there are benefits to debate outside of it being just a game, give it your best shot and I will try my best to adapt to you. Have a good time, be honest and nice to each other and you will get the most respect from me.
DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
When deciding to vote on disadvantages and affirmative advantages, I look for a combination of good storytelling 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.
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.
I generally like kritiks as a philosophical exercise, but they should be used sparingly and not in every round. I think you need to understand them very well in order to argue them properly, and the kritik should not overtly conflict with your other arguments. If you tell a good story, I will be persuaded. Just be clear on your link, framework and role of the ballot analysis.
If you are doing something that kritiks the overall debate round framework (like being an Aff who doesn't have a plan text), make sure you explain to me the purpose of your framework and why it is competitively 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 benefits 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?). If you are going to read a bunch of perms in the 2AC either slow down a bit or send out the perm text in the speech doc.
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.
add me to the chain
Glenbrook South '24
Tech > Truth
For novices, understanding your arguments is better than having good ones.
Warrants needed for everything. If the other team dropped T, explain why that means you win the debate.
Please flow. Especially because you're a novice.
+0.3 speaks if you: add me on the email chain, signpost, watch Game of Thrones (I will quiz you)
+0.1 speaks if you: are clear, understand your arguments, make Aayan Ali jokes
email chain/email for comments: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debate background: Iowa City High: '11-'15
University of Iowa: '15
Important disclaimer: I have done nearly 0 research on this topic, and will likely not understand your acronyms without explanation. Please do not assume that I have a shared knowledge of the topic, and take time to explain things.
I debated Policy all through high school and did some college policy as well. I mainly work with novices, now. Topic specific acronyms, let me know what they mean I won't know. Don't start your speeches full speed, start at 80% and work up to full speed, quickly.
I think most debates can/should be decided without reading evidence. This means it is the debaters' burden to tell me what the evidence says, and the implication of the evidence. This also means that I reward story telling/writing my ballot. I have no sympathy for debaters who ask about "well, what about this evidence that says x" after I give a decision. I will not be embarrassed to vote against an argument that I feel i do not understand. It is your job to tell me about that evidence and why it matters, not my job to read it and implicate it on the debate.
General Philosophy: I come from a team where our primary focus was "traditional policy debate" meaning we liked to read heg, environment affs, et.c. Our main neg strat was the DA and a CP, and that is the type of debate I prefer. I did do a lot of cap debating, and a fair amount of security debating, too. My knowledge of critical theory is very limited and I probably require a huge amount of work on the more "out there" ks to vote for you. That being said, I do believe a dropped argument is a true argument. I will vote on dropped arguments if they are dropped and explained. As a caveat, debaters tend to have bad flows and claim everything was dropped, when the reality is that they probably did not. Please do not use the term "functionally conceded" in front of me, that term makes no sense. Either they have dropped something or they have not.
Disadvantages- Probably my favorite part of debate is the top level interactions with case and good DA O/Ws and Case O/Ws and turns debates. These are probably where the majority of my decision calculus comes from. Obviously, you need to win risk/chance of your disadvantage being true, but good impact calc and turns debates are very convincing.
Counter Plans- there tend to be a lot of cheating counter plans, and as a 2a I am probably sympathetic to reasonable theory arguments and perm do the counterplan. That being said, most counter plan theory should be a reason to reject the argument, it will be extremely difficult to win that it should be a reason to reject the team
Ks- like I said above, i am mostly versed in cap and security. If you want to read too much beyond basic Ks, I am most likely not your type of judge. Floating PIKs are probably bad, don't let the negative get away with them.
"non traditional debate/ performance"- also not very versed in it. I am more than likely not the type of judge for this, but i will not reject any arguments out right. I am probably pretty sympathetic to FW arguments. However, if you are a "non traditional team" and you get stuck with me as a judge, don't lose faith, I can be persuaded. I enjoy critical affirmatives that actually engage the topic, not just reject debate outright, and plan texts are preferable.
T- I don't know much about this topic, so all the topic specifics should be slower and well explained. I think that most debaters try to go too fast in their final rebuttals on T, which leads to a lot of judgement calls. To remedy this, go slower in your final rebuttal, and you will be rewarded.
Theory- Most things are reasons to reject the argument not the team. I will probably not vote on dropped perm theory, even if you claimed it was a reason to reject the team.
Speech Docs/ Email chains
I would prefer if all debates were done with email chain. Please add me to the email chain email@example.com
I can tell when you are wasting time and/or stealing prep. DON'T. it's annoying, wastes everybody's time, and will undoubtedly lose you speaker points. technical issues do happen, yes, but they should be resolved quickly and efficiently. I would prefer every speech to start as nearly as immediately after prep or CX as possible. We don't want to be the last round done.
It's very easy to impress me, using technical skill and clarity.
I am okay with speed, but will yell clear once or twice before the speaks begin to get docked. Nobody likes kids who are fast but incoherent, going slower is in your best interest.
Being nice/reducing all hostility is very preferable. If you have made it this far and are still reading, I will likely increase speaker points if you work "jambalaya of awesomeness" into one of your speeches, especially if you are original and make me laugh rather than just saying it to say it. I have a relatively low threshold for docking speaks due to hostility. Being assertive and being aggressive are much different, know the difference. I probably will not say anything if you are being overly rude/rude at all, but it will significantly hurt your speaker points, but will not affect the decision calculus.
hi, i'm betsy!
please put me on the email chain! firstname.lastname@example.org
senior at glenbrook south, in my fourth year of debate
clash clash clash clash! your top priority should be actually responding to the other team's arguments.
simple arguments that you actually understand & can explain > weird complicated blocks that your varsity wrote for you
do not steal prep
stand when you speak
be nice!!!!!! and speak clearly above all - if i can’t understand you i can’t vote on any arguments you make.
i'm pretty comfortable judging most arguments, as long as they're explained. this is particularly true if you're reading high theory ks, weird technical cps, etc - it needs to be adequately explained if you want me to vote on it, don't assume i already know about it.
Hi! Betzy, she/her
Senior at Dowling Catholic High School, 4th year of policy
Have fun, I am a more national circuit debater/judge.
DONT steal prep ;), DO signpost, Clash/respond to others arguments pls, You do you but at the same time be respecf
Whatever you run is fine but if it's a more complex (aka k's) argument please try to explain it in more simple terms.
Please put me in the email chain & any question you have feel free to email:
yes please include me on email chain- email@example.com
Please turn on your cameras when you are speaking if at all possible.
Remember to weigh claims and warrants within your evidence; I am much more likely to vote on well-explained arguments than taglines, even if those arguments do not necessarily have evidence to back them up. If you can do both- awesome.
Do not be rude or disrespectful to your opponents or your partner.
Tell me in the last rebuttals how to weigh your arguments and how to compare your impacts with the other team’s.
If you read cards that are not in the novice packet and were given to you by your varsity debaters, that is cheating and I will yell at you.
Pronouns: He/Him/His | Email-Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
TL;DR (for all events)
- Read what you enjoy reading
- Tech > Truth
- Tag-Team CX/Flex-Prep is alright
- If you have a trigger warning, offer an alternative option
- Good with speed
For online debate: If we all happen to be early and in the room please type in the chat whether or not you would like to wait until the scheduled start time or start early (otherwise I will ask y'all). However, most times I enter the room a minute or two before the start time, so please try to have the doc sharing situation figured out by the time I get there.
≈≈≈≈ Background ≈≈≈≈
I debated policy for 3 years at Millard North (2018-2021) with some experience at the nat circuit level, qualifying for nationals twice. I have experience with many different types of arguments so you can assume that I will be able to keep up with what you're putting down. As a policy debater I had to spread just like the rest so I am more than okay with speed. Check the bottom of the paradigm for what Ks I read while debating.
Currently coaching policy at Omaha Central High School (since 2021).
≈≈≈≈≈≈ LD ≈≈≈≈≈≈
I evaluate LD very similarly to CX so if you don't see a section here that you are curious about check [CX].
Framework - Ball out and have fun with framework debates, it's very easy for debaters to go with the default util on these topics but doing what you enjoy the most is what brings the education we all want in debate. I'm good with whatever.
RVIs - I'm generally more lenient on these so you don't have to spend too much time justifying them, but I would prefer for debaters to have logical RVIs, if I can't see why you said it then I'm not evaluating it that highly.
Tricks - I'll evaluate it no problem, but that doesn't mean I'll buy it immediately. I understand the purpose of reading them but perf-cons exist so be vigilant.
ROB - Please justify role of the ballots, I know that most are self-beneficial but it's very easy to provide a counter ROB in these situations. Also provide the nuance as to why I should evaluate it on the same level as your opponents FW.
Theory - Make sure to tell me whether or not to evaluate this above other theory based voters! While I almost always evaluate theory first, I generally hold all theory voters at the same level of severity.
≈≈≈≈≈≈ CX ≈≈≈≈≈≈
Plan Affs - I know the power of reading a generic aff and balling out, but make sure you know how to ball before trying. Specifically, try making sure your impacts are unique and that the solvency story is warranted.
DA - Disadvantages are having an issue right now where a lot of them no-link very easily, bolster these cards before round or try to be sneaky on the flow.
CP - Know the purpose of your net benefit and the specific ways perms can win debates. Why is the counterplan important for the people impacted? How is the CP unique? What does it mean to be mutually exclusive? Ask yourself these questions when choosing whether or not to go with the CP in the 2NR.
--- K ---
Aff - I'm very lenient with what types of Ks are read. Prove why the aff is necessary or significant enough for a ballot. Remember that it may be hard for your opponents to access the logic of the K, be patient in cx and I'll appreciate you forever.
Neg - Try to stick with what you understand. Beyond that, explain the link and alternative well.
In general - Try to be as unvague as possible, it's easy for debaters to read a backfile and move on, but make sure you understand what you're implicating first before going in.
Topicality - I'll buy time-skew arguments easily if you read more than 2
Framework - As long as you know the difference between framework and T-USFG we're living good
Condo - To the dismay of many, conditionality is becoming a more prominent argument nation wide. However, aff must prove and provide sufficient in round warrants as to why the debate is now unfair. Ultimately, I'll still vote up condo but you'll see this face :(
K-Experience: Biopol, Set Col, Cap, Security, Necropol, Marxism, and probably some I don't remember
Hi I'm Lily! I graduated from Lincoln East High school last year in Nebraska and did predominantly LD and policy debate.
pronouns are she/her
Notes for online debate: I usually don't have issues with speed and always spread as a debater, I actually prefer it, however, expect to go at 80% speed when online debating in front of me- if I can't understand you I'll say clear once. I will flow everything I hear, so if I miss something due to your speed that's on you.
If you have any questions you can email me @email@example.com- please send a speech doc! Disclosure is a must, unless you have a REALLY REALLY good reason and communicate that well and make sure the round is totally accessible for your opponent. If there is abuse in the round and you run theory- I'm going to vote on it. Debate needs to be a safe and accessible space for all, if you are creating a negative environment, you can expect your ballot and speaks to reflect that.
Run what you want in front of me, I primarily debate more progressive arguments and am most comfortable around those but debating in Nebraska I'm very comfortable with your standard trad round. Just because I'm familiar with the structure and have run many progressive arguments doesn't mean I will understand your specific literature- make sure you are explaining your arguments well. I mainly read literature around gender, queerness, and disability and am most familiar with those kritiks. Run nontopical K affs- I love them.
Plan affs are boring but I'll vote for them. Don't run tricks in front of me, it will be the fastest L of your life. I will but I REALLY don't want to vote on your RVI and it will be the very last resort.
I don't care how you debate, what your wearing, if your camera is on or not- just debate.
Debate is educational (unless u tell me it's a game). Please be kind. IF you Racist/sexist/homophobic etc. I will drop you immediately.