Northshore Debate Series 5
2023 — Glenview, IL/US
Novice Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Evelyn Alsop, she/her
Maine East '24
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
General philosophy: I tend to lean more policy in my argumentation, but that doesn't mean you can't read Ks in front of me. Please just make sure you explain it extra well because I'm likely not that familiar with the literature.
I really like them...as long as they're well thought out. I tend to prefer DAs with strong links, otherwise there's no way for your impacts to happen. That being said, please make sure you tell a story with a DA and contextualize your evidence to the round.
I tend to lean against perf con, do with that what you will. However, I will need a team to point it out within a round in order for me to vote on it. ALWAYS PERM A COUNTERPLAN!!! Please show me how the perm solves for the counterplan, but as neg tell me why your counterplan avoids an impact and how it solves for the aff. I lean neg on counterplan theory unless it's condo against more than 8 off.
As a more policy leaning person, I need you to have quite a strong alt and I find it hard to vote for a team without an alt. Please contextualize your links to this specific aff, especially if the other team points out that it's generic. Please make sure there is an impact to your K and that you extend it, otherwise there's no reason to vote for it.
I'm very familiar with T and think it's an underused strategy, but that means that you still need to do it well in front of me. Please make sure that you're showing why your standards matter, and contextualize them into this round. Caselists and TVAs are super persuasive. Please also show why fairness or education matters and how that plays into a specific round.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES TO FRAMEWORK NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES
Happy new year.
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
I don't time anything. Not prep time, not speeches, nothing. If no one is timing your speech and I notice in the middle of it, I'll make you stop whenever I think the right amount of time has passed. The same is true for prep time.
I have no opinions on arguments. I know nothing about the topic whatsoever outside of the rounds I judge. I don't do research and don't cut cards. I'll vote for anything as long as it's grounded in basic reality and not blatantly offensive. Speak slightly less quick with me than you usually would. I'm 60/40 better for policy-oriented debating (just because of my background knowledge, not ideological preference). But I'll vote for anything if it's done well. My biggest pet peeve is inefficiency/wasting time. Please direct all complaints to firstname.lastname@example.org. I’m sure he’d love to hear them. Have fun and be nice to your opponents/partner/me.
I'm an Assyrian. A big portion of my life/career as an educator consists of addressing and supporting Assyrian student needs. That influences my thoughts on a lot of real-life topics that regularly end up in debates. That's especially true for debates about foreign policy and equity. So do your research and be mindful of that.
Don't say/do anything in front of me that you wouldn't say/do in front of your teacher.
Feel free to ask me before the round if you have questions about anything.
please put me on the chain: email@example.com
most important things! (not necessarily in order)
1 - have fun and just try your best! novice year is all about learning
2 - be nice to each other and me. basically just don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. - otherwise (depending on how bad it is) i'll stop the round, vote you down and talk to your coach
3 - flow!
4 - try line by line and answer every argument. i know that novice year you'll likely have blocks but still try.
5 - do impact calc! you can always explain things more and "tell the story" of your arguments
1 - please have a plan (especially if you're a novice)
2 - explain your case well
3 - extinction probably outweighs (i can be convinced otherwise)
4 - 2nc cps and condo are probably the only things to reject the team for (if you explain well i can/will vote otherwise)
1 - i love them!
2 - willing to listen to anything (<3 process cps)
1 - impact calc and turns case are part of the best explanations
2 - explain the story of the disad well (uq, link, impact)
1 - kinda familiar with some of the more common stuff (security, fem, cap, set col, etc.) but anything more complicated please explain well
2 - i default util but can be convinced otherwise
1 - i don't think t-interps are great on the nato topic (i would love to be proven wrong)
2 - explain your standards and impacts well please!
1 - make me laugh (or make a joke about debate people i know) and i'll boost your speaks
2 - most of these are centered around novices - if you have questions about any of my preferences email me (if you're a novice don't worry about it - just try your best!)
3- please have your camera on for online debates!! (and realize that if mine is off I'm not ready)
4 - tech over truth (BUT i think that truth influences how much i think you need to answer something)
GBN class of '24
Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
If you don't read anything else, these should be your takeaways:
1. Be a good human
3. Tech > truth, but a dropped argument still needs to be fully explained
4. If you don't understand an argument, it shouldn't be in your speech
5. Debate is a persuasive activity. At the very least, pretend like you care
6. Make logical arguments. I know novice year makes it easier to be block reliant, but I promise that in the long run, you'll want to be able to think on your feet
7. Do impact comparison
Specific thoughts, if you care:
1. Neg - paint a picture of the world - shouting debate words without explaining them realistically does not help your cause
2. Aff - novice teams tend to be scared arguments they don't understand, which is not necessarily warranted. If you don't understand something, that's probably because it doesn't make sense - explain to me why that is the case
1. Paint a picture of your vision of the topic. I feel like teams are getting away with making broad, exaggerated claims on both sides of the T taxes controversy. Don't just say "states CP" or "econ DA" and expect me to make a certain assumption about how that interacts with your interp.
1. Neg - If you read anything more complex than cap/security/generic topic ks, you need to explain how you get from link to impact even more clearly, but that should be true regardless
2 Aff - In my opinion, the "perm double bind" pretty much always solves - but, I'll do my best to separate bias from adjudication
1. Everything except condo and maybe 2nc CPs are reasons to reject the argument, not the team.
2. If you want me to vote on something else, even if it's dropped, you need to spend substantial time explaining why it's a voter. Otherwise, I'll just default to rejecting the argument.
Glenbrook North 2017
University of Michigan 2021
I've judged at more tournaments in the past year than the previous 4, have never judged at the college level, and have been out of debate since leading a lab at Michigan in the Summer of 2020. Some suggestions --- in addition to my earlier thoughts and feelings about debate listed below this --- that could be used to your advantage:
-I am corporate but know nothing about anti-trust law
-I've always found Topicality/Framework arguments more compelling than their affirmative answers
-CX is awesome; asking about lines of evidence that don't impact the debate is lame
-Most claims of "X was conceded" are lies; lying is not only a violation of one of the 10 Commandments, but extremely irritating and impacts speaker points
-Please slow down on T in the 1NC and 2AC - I don't like trying to figure out what's happening in the block
-Arguments have way more cross-applicability than usually suggested and tension between them is often not capitalized on
-I am a sucker for: carded turns case arguments, all the 1AR cards, judge instruction, absurd uses of fiat, Game of Thrones
Stuff I wrote a few years ago that I still agree with
The flow is the only thing that matters - your ability to explain the arguments imbedded in your evidence and articulating why they are superior to your opponents' matters more than the quantity and quality of evidence you have read in the debate.
Judge intervention is awful, I refuse to do it. If the "sky is pink" is unanswered by your opponent, I will presume the sky is pink. If "Topicality - Agent Specification" is unanswered by your opponent, I will presume that teams must specify their agent in order to be topical. But, if you don't explain why this argument wins you the debate, I will not presume it does. Again, the flow is the only thing that matters.
Clarity and persuasion matter immensely to me.
So does impact comparison. I care much less about "magnitude" and "timeframe" than "economic collapse causes a nuclear war faster than democratic backsliding" and "U.S.-Russia war kills more people than U.S.-China war
hi, i'm betsy!
please put me on the email chain! email@example.com
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.
Please put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I'd prefer if you read a plan, I read mostly policy arguments and I'm not well versed in the lit
I'm also not super familiar with the topic so explaining acronyms and nitty-gritty concepts are probably important.
I am probably not the best judge for you if you primarily go for kritiks or read a planless affirmative. I will do my best to keep my predispositions out of the round however I am not well versed in the literature. That being said if you do go for a kritik the more specific to the affirmative the better not really a fan of Baudrillard/Bataille or other generic kritiks. You should explain how the alternative functions and how it is able to resolve the link claims. The alternative resulting in the affirmative is probably a reason to reject the alt or the team.
If you're reading a planless affirmative the most important thing is explaining why you don't need to read a plan and how you are able to access your existential impacts through your model of debate. I went for framework most of the time when I hit a planless aff so I am more familiar with the neg side of things. If you are going for framework you need to explain your impact thoroughly and how your model of debate is able to resolve the impacts outlined by the affirmative.
I have never judged a K v K debate and I'm not the best judge for that. I am not well versed on the literature however if you find yourself in this situation the more thoroughly you explain things the better.
The more specific to the affirmative the better. I won't kick the cp unless you tell me to or tell me to do otherwise. Your solvency deficits should be impacted out and explained thoroughly. In terms of theory I guess I'm pretty Aff leaning but if your cp is rooted in the lit you should be fine.
Most things can be a reason to reject the argument and not the team except for condo obviously.
Again, I don't know much about this topic so making it clear why their aff is a bad image of the topic is important. Impacting things out is good and explaining that in terms of the aff is good as well.
The more specific to the aff the better. There can be zero risk of a DA. There should be a coherent link and internal link story and I think impact calc is super important (answering it is too).
Other general stuff:
Be nice and respectful of everyone I won't tolerate any disrespect and if you have any other questions feel free to ask me or email me.
Pronouns - she/her
Email - email@example.com
Senior at Glenbrook South High School, 4th Year Policy Debater
- I will not flow while reading off speech docs - I need to be able to understand what you are saying. Stand when you speak and be clear.
- Do not steal prep, clip, touch, or anything of the sort. Be respectful to your partner and the opposing team.
- No arguments that are offensive to others should be read.
- Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex.
**Be responsive to the other team's arguments if you want good speaks. For me, novice year is all about learning clash.
**I'm comfortable with all arguments, so read what you like. I tend to understand disads, counterplans, topicality, and all kinds of kritiks better, but just be able to explain and defend what you have in your 1ac/1nc in your own words.
**Will not judge kick for you automatically. Make the argument for me to do so, and then I'll consider.
**Have fun. ☺️
add me to the email chain! firstname.lastname@example.org (yes it's a pun)
- have fun and don’t be afraid to make mistakes — that’s how we learn
- be respectful and conscious of everyone in the round
- cross-examination is open and binding
- every argument should have a claim, warrant, and an impact. (for example, you can tell me the sky is green, but I’m not going to vote for it until you tell me where in your evidence points to that conclusion, why I should prefer your evidence over your opponents, and what it means for the argument as a whole [included scope, magnitude, probability, etc.])
Katharine Morley -- she/they
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Please feel free to email me with questions.
send out the email chain at round time even if I am not there
Novices: flow, follow tournament rules, and ask questions post-round
- in your 2nr/2ar write the ballot (explain why you win)
- do line-by-line (aka respond to the other team's arguments)
- put offense first
If you make me laugh +0.5 speaks
Please put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org.
I'm currently an assistant debate coach for Niles North High School. I was the Head Debate Coach at Niles West High School for twelve years and an assistant debate coach at West for one year. I also work at the University of Michigan summer debate camps. I competed in policy debate at the high school level for six years at New Trier. #gotrevs (always already a preclusion...don't worry).
Master of Education in English-Language Learning & Special Education National Louis University (Expected Winter 2024)
Master of Arts in School Leadership Concordia University-Chicago
Master of Arts in Education Wake Forest University
Juris Doctor Illinois Institute of Technology-Chicago Kent College of Law
Bachelor of Arts University of California, Santa Barbara
I will vote on any type of debate argument so long as the team extends it throughout the entire round and explains why it is a voter. Thus, I will pull the trigger on theory, agent specification, and other arguments many judges are unwilling to vote on. Even though I am considered a “politics/counter plan” debater, I will vote on kritiks, but I am told I evaluate kritik debates in a “politics/counter plan” manner (I guess this is not exactly true anymore...and I tend to judge clash debates). I try not to intervene in rounds, and all I ask is that debaters respect each other throughout the competition.
The tournament and those judging you are not at your leisure. Please do your best to start the round promptly at the posted time on the pairing and when I'm ready to go (sometimes I do run a few minutes late to a round, not going to lie). Please do your best to: use prep ethically, attach speech documents quickly, ask to use bathroom at appropriate times (e.g. ideally not right before your or your partner's speech), and contribute to moving the debate along and help keep time. I will give grace to younger debaters on this issue, but varsity debaters should know how to do this effectively. This is an element of how I award speaker points. I'm a huge fan of efficient policy debate rounds. Thanks!
In my opinion, you cannot waive CX and bank it for prep time. Otherwise, the whole concept of cross examination in policy debate is undermined. I will not allow this unless the tournament rules explicitly tell me to do so.
If you use a poem, song, etc. in the 1AC, you should definitely talk about it after the 1AC. Especially against framework. Otherwise, what is the point? Your performative method should make sense as a praxis throughout the debate.
Do not post round me. I will lower your speaker points if you or one of your coaches acts disrespectful towards me or the opponents after the round. I have no problem answering any questions about the debate but it will be done in a respectful manner to all stakeholders in the room. If you have any issues with this, please don't pref me. I have seen, heard and experienced way too much disrespectful behavior by a few individuals in the debate community recently where, unfortunately, I feel compelled to include this in my paradigm.
Glenbrook North '20
Northwestern University '24 (not debating)
- name chain logically (pls include name round and turney)
- clarity > speed (especially when online)
- impact everything out!
- no hateful language, don't clip, don't steal prep, death is not good, etc
- tech>truth (within moderation)
-- if I don't understand any part of what you said, that means you did not sufficiently explain your arguments
-- if you want me to flow every word of your analytics, send them in the chain
- its probably fair to assume I'm not particularly well-versed in your kritik (especially if high theory)
- not read up on this topic so be sure to explain arguments fully
Glenbrook North- he/him
If you are visibly sick, I reserve the right to forfeit you and leave.
1. Flow and respond to what the other team says
2. You almost certainly are going too fast for how clear you are.
3. Kritiks: Probably a bad idea in front of me.
4. Non topical affs: You definitely want to strike me.
5. "Can you send a marked copy" is a reasonable pre-cx request. "Marked copy" means any cards they started reading but didn't finish should be marked. "Marked copy" doesn't mean the team sends a version of the doc that omits cards they skipped entirely.
6. Everything needs to be in one speech doc. Getting everything together in one speech doc is prep.
7. No inserting anything into the debate besides like charts or graphics (things that can't be read aloud). You don't need to re-read the plan and counterplan text, and you can say perm specific planks, but if you are reading a more complicated perm than that, you should read the text. The litmus test is "insert the perm text."
8. Don't swear.
9. I generally flow cross-x but won't guarantee I'll pay attention to questions after cross-x time is up. I also don't think the other team has to indefinitely answer substantive questions once cx time is over.
10. Vague plans are a double-edged sword.
avi shah -- new trier sl -- '24 -- he/him -- 2n
add me to the chain -- email@example.com
please title the email chain something relevant -- "tournament name, round #, aff team vesus neg team"
don't do or say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or problematic, if you do I will give you an auto-loss and the lowest speaks possible at the tournament
tech > truth
please don't call me judge, avi is fine
i like t debates - reading cards is important especially if you are going for predictability
i am intuitively persuaded by competing interpretations because I think T debates are valuable but will evaluate the debate based on reasonability if it is proven that that's a better metric to evaluate the debate
neg teams, make sure to have a counter interpretation about how to evaluate T debates if the aff has said plan in a vacuum
i will listen to but be bored by the same process counterplan debates over and over again
conditionality is probably good, but conditionality bad is totally winnable
try not to go for conditionality in novice debates
turns case is important
the higher up on the link chain turns case is, the better
make your link story specific - generic in the 1nc is fine and even if you don't have specific evidence try to contextualize the da to the aff in the block
da + case 2nr is +0.2 speaks
I am familiar with most generic kritiks and am more than willing to vote on any kritik if explained well enough so that I can explain it back to you in my rfd
try to contextualize the link to the aff
I will give very high speaks. that being said, there are a couple of things to do to increase your speaks
1. show me your flows after the round. if they are good I will boost your speaks more
2. be funny, not overly serious. debate can get boring, a joke here or there can be helpful
3. be ready. when prep is over, the doc should be ready to be sent, and the speech should start shortly after.
northside college prep '24
- If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or bigoted you will be voted down and given the lowest speaks possible idc
- tech> truth
- Frame the round for me in rebuttals- explain why i should vote for you and why you're winning the round
- Arguments need to be warranted out- if they drop something explain why it matters
- impact analysis impact analysis impact analysis
- im good for anything just don't troll
- if you run a k aff as a novice literally why
- you need to explain the links and actually understand what you're talking about
taylor swift reference i boost ur speaks
BE NICE AND HAVE FUN!!
niles west 23, msu 27
***updated for st marx, i haven't judged on this topic so pls take that into account***
do what u do best
ill avoid letting my beliefs influence me
cx matters - the way you present yourself matters
i hate judge intervention
the more specific the link the better - links needs impacts
line by line framework (in the 1ar too.....)
2nr/2ar should make it clear if they are going for fw or alt - shadow extending is fine but explain the implication of each in last rebuttals.
2nr's that kick the alt & go for the links as da's - its fine but acknowledge uniqueness in these debates
aff's lose these debates when there is no push back on alt solvency and lack of perm analysis
for k v k best way to beat the k is link turn + perm vice versa
aff - explain method well, probably wont find myself voting on presumption alone (unless it was made into offense??) but i do find it persuasive and it def has implications to the debate. impact turning fw is prob the most persuasive unless you have a c/i that you think solves a good chunk of their offense (you should still be extending some sort of da along with this strat though imo). i tend to believe c/i gives the impact turn uniqueness, so having it in the 2ar is maybe a good idea... after the 2ar i should know why your model is good/better than the negs.
neg - "debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad. every 2nr should have tva/ssd, if either of these are dropped by the aff will prob be a win for the neg. win your model of debate is good, clash/iterative testing is persuasive. how you should negate the 1ac? why negating the 1ac is good? are all important questions. line by line the affs fw da's, ill cry if u get up and say group all 5 da's.
these debates are won on standards. explain what future debates look like under eachothers interps. reasonability is always a good fall back.
over explain pls. impact calc is cool. explain competition. this area is not my cup of tea, but a cp that solves the aff + da that turns/outweighs the part of the aff that the cp doesnt have as much game on is probably a good strat??? i think??? anyways da+case is chill too, these debates just need hella impact analysis.
Name : Lauren Velazquez
Affiliated School: Niles North
I debated competitively in high school in the 1990s for Maine East. I participated on the national circuit where counterplans and theory were common.
Director of Debate at Niles North
I competed in the 90s, helped around for a few years, took a bit of a break, have been back for about 7 years. My teams compete on the national circuit, I help heavily with my teams’ strategies, and am a lab leader at a University of Michigan. In recent years I have helped coach teams that cleared at the TOC, won state titles and consistently debated in late elim rounds at national tournaments. TL/DR--I am familiar with national circuit debate but I do not closely follow college debate so do not assume that I am attuned to the arguments that are currently cutting edge/new.
What this means for you---I lean tech over truth when it comes to execution, but truth controls the direction of tech, and some debate meta-arguments matter a lot less to me.
I am not 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.
The only caveat is do not read any arguments that you think would be inappropriate for me to teach in my classroom, if you are worried it might be inappropriate, you should stop yourself right there.
DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
When deciding to vote on disadvantages and affirmative advantages, I look for a combination of good story telling and evidence analysis. Strong teams are teams that frame impact calculations for me in their rebuttals (e.g. how do I decide between preventing a war or promoting human rights?). I should hear from teams how their internal links work and how their evidence and analysis refute indictments from their opponents. Affirmatives should have offense against disads (and Negs have offense against case). It is rare, in my mind, for a solvency argument or "non unique" argument to do enough damage to make the case/disad go away completely, at best, relying only on defensive arguments will diminish impacts and risks, but t is up to the teams to conduct a risk analysis telling me how to weigh risk of one scenario versus another.
I will vote on topicality if it is given time (more than 15 seconds in the 2NR) in the debate and the negative team is able to articulate the value of topicality as a debate “rule” and demonstrate that the affirmative has violated a clear and reasonable framework set by the negative. If the affirmative offers a counter interpretation, I will need someone to explain to me why their standards and definitions are best. Providing cases that meet your framework is always a good idea. I find the limits debate to be the crux generally of why I would vote for or against T so if you are neg you 100% should be articulating the limits implications of your interpretation.
Over the years, I have heard and voted on Kritiks, but I do offer a few honest caveats:
*Please dont read "death good"/nihilism/psychoanalysis in front of me. I mean honestly I will consider it but I know I am biased and I HATE nihilism, psychoanalysis debates. I will try to listen with an open mind but I really don't think these arguments are good for the activity or good for pedagogy--they alienate younger debaters who are learning the game and I don't think that genuine discussions of metaphysics lend themselves to speed reading and "voting" on right/wrong. If you run these I will listen and work actively to be open minded but know you are making an uphill battle for yourself running these. If these are your bread and butter args you should pref me low.
I read newspapers daily so I feel confident in my knowledge around global events. I do not regularly read philosophy or theory papers, there is a chance that I am unfamiliar with your argument or the underlying paradigms. I do believe that Kritik evidence is inherently dense and should be read a tad slower and have accompanying argument overviews in negative block. Impact analysis is vital. What is the role of the ballot? How do I evaluate things like discourse against policy implications (DAs etc)
Also, I’m going to need you to go a tad slower if you are busting out a new kritik, as it does take time to process philosophical writings.
If you are doing something that kritiks the overall debate round framework (like being an Aff who doesnt have a plan text), make sure you explain to me the purpose of your framework and why it is 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 benifts and how (if at all) the counterplan captures affirmative solvency. For permutations to be convincing offense against CPs, Affs should explain how permutation works and what voting for perm means (does the DA go away, do I automatically vote against neg etc?)
Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex and dominating. You are part of a 2 person team for a reason.
Speed is ok as long as you are clear. If you have a ton of analytics in a row or are explaining a new/dense theory, you may want to slow down a little since processing time for flowing analytics or kritkits is a little slower than me just flowing the text of your evidence.
I listen to cross ex. I think teams come up with a lot of good arguments during this time. If you come up with an argument in cross ex-add it to the flow in your speech.
Northside College Prep
I coached high school policy debate full-time for 12 years, National Service through Legal Immigration. I've been around debate, first as a debater and then as a coach, since 02. I sat out Legal Immigration and Arms Sales, but I judged and researched some for the Criminal Justice Reform, the Water Resources, and NATO topics. Debate is not my full-time job – I work in higher education as a program/product manager – so I don't cut a ton of cards, I'm not really up on what teams are reading, I don't know what topicality norms were established over the summer, etc. I can still flow just as well as I used to, which is to say "deficiently."
Yes email chain: jvoss1223 AT gmail DOT com. I don't read along during the debate, I just like it so that I can ensure nobody's clipping cards and also so that I can begin my decision-making process immediately after the debate ends. This is important for how you debate -- using the speech doc instead of your flow as a guide is to your detriment.
-- fiscal redistribution topic - I heard a few debates on it before the season started but (as of the early season tournaments) you should consider my topic knowledge extremely limited, especially as it relates to topicality norms and complex explanations of fringe economic theories. I do have a basic understanding of the academic concepts that undergird the topic, however, and I will be somewhat involved in argument production this year.
-- Almost every debate I've seen so far this year has collapsed into a very-hard-to-resolve "growth good"/"degrowth good" debate. These have been late-breaking and I spent the bulk of my decision time wading through ev that didn't get me any closer to an answer I found satisfactory. In each instance, I was unhappy with amount of intervention and lack of depth involved in my decision. In that regard:
*if there's a winning final rebuttal that does not require you to wade into these waters, give that speech instead. I am willing (and maybe even eager) to grab onto something external and use that as a cudgel to decide that the growth debate was difficult to resolve and vote on <other thing>. I think I would be receptive, too, to arguments about how I should react in a debate that you think might be difficult to resolve, but this is just a hunch.
*you would almost certainly be better-served debating evidence that's already been read instead of reading more cards. This is especially true if the 1ac/1nc/both included a bunch of evidence on this issue...your fourth, "yes mindset shift" card is unlikely to win you the debate (or even the specific argument in question) but debating the issue in greater detail than the other team might.
*debated equally, I'm meaningfully better for the standard defenses of growth, especially as it relates to successfully achieving the changes that would be necessary to create a sustainable model of degrowth.
-- a note on plan texts: say what you mean, mean what you say, and have an advocate that supports it. If the AFF's plan is resolutional word salad, will be unapologetically rooting for NEG exploitation in the way of cplan competition, DA links, and/or presumption-style takeouts. I guess the flip side of this is that I have never heard a persuasive explanation of a way to evaluate topicality arguments outside of the words in the plan text, so as long as the AFF goes for some sort of "we meet" argument, I'm basically unwilling to vote NEG. "The plan text says most or all of the resolution (and another word or three) but their solvency evidence describes something very different," is an extremely persuasive negative line of argument, but I think it's a solvency argument.
-- Rehighlighting - you've gotta read itand explain what you believe to be the implication of whatever portion of their evidence you read. I'm somewhat sympathetic to allowing insertion as a check against (aggressively) declining evidence quality in debate, but debate is first and foremost a communicative activity.
-- I don't need nor want a card doc at the end of the debate. I have everything in my inbox already. I know what cards you did/didn't read because I was flowing. I'm honestly a little skeptical of debaters providing judges a lens through which to evaluate different controversies after the 2AR has ended. And to be frank, most of these debates aren't so close that judgement calls on ev are necessary to determine who won.
-- In favor of fewer, better-developed 1NC arguments. I don't have a specific number that I think is best: I've seen 1NC's that include three totally unwinnable offcase arguments and 1NC's that include six or seven viable ones. But generally I think the law of diminishing marginal returns applies. Burden of proof is a precondition of the requirement that the affirmative answer the argument, and less ev/fewer highlighted words in the name of more offcase positions seems to make it less likely that the neg will fulfill the aforementioned burden of proof.
-- Highlighting, or lack thereof, has completely jumped the shark. Read more words.
-- Clarity, or lack thereof, has been bad for awhile, but online debate really exacerbates the problem. I won't use the speech doc to bail you out. Just speak more slowly. You will debate better. I will understand your argument better. Judges who understand your argument with more clarity than your opponent's argument are likely to side with you.
-- I am generally bad for broad-strokes “framing” arguments that ask the judge to presume that the risk of <> is especially low. Indicts of mini-max risk assessment make sense in the abstract, but it is the affirmative’s responsibility to apply these broad theories to whatever objections the negative has advanced. “The aff said each link exponentially reduces the probability of the DA, and the DA has links, so you lose” is a weak ballot and one that I am unexcited to write.
-- I am generally better for a narrow solution that tackles an instance of oppression than an undefined/murky solution that aims to move the needle further than the pragmatic alternative. Some of this new stuff about philosophical competition and associated negative framework arguments that block the AFF from leveraging the 1ac as offense is wild.
-- I am often way less interested in "impact defense" than "link defense." This is equally true of my thoughts toward negative disadvantages and affirmative advantages. For example, if the aff wins with certainty that they stop a US-China war, I'm highly unlikely to vote neg and place my faith in our ability to the big red telephone at the White House to dampen the conflict. Similarly, if the neg wins that your plan absolutely crashes the economy by disrupting the market or causing some agenda item to fail, I will mostly be unconcerned that there are some other historical explanations for great power wars than "resource scarcity." The higher up the link "chain" you can indict your opponent's argument, the better.
-- Sort of a related point, but I thought it might be good to separate this out. I have found myself mentally exhausted at the end of almost every Zoom debate I've judged. There is something about flicking your eyes across three screens while transcribing an entire debate that's occurring in my headphones that is so much more draining than what debate looked like back in the day. I think this impacts how I judge. I certainly don't have any inclination to spend the decision time reading a bunch of evidence if I can avoid it. I don't think that's laziness (but maybe...) -- I'm just tired of staring at a screen. Anything the 2NR / 2AR can do to help craft a simple path to victory that allows me to minimize the number of "decision tree" questions I need to resolve is highly recommended.
-- Don't clip cards. If you're accusing a team of it, you need to be able to present me with a quality recording to review. Burden of proof lies with the accusing team, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is my standard for conviction. If you advance any sort of ethics challenge, the debate ends and is decided on the grounds of that ethics challenge alone.
-- Yes judge kick unless one team explicitly makes an argument that convinces me to conceive differently of presumption. Speaking of, presumption is "least amount of change" no matter what. This could mean that presumption *still* lies with the neg even if the aff wins the status quo is no longer something the judge can endorse (but only if the CP is less change than the plan).
-- Fairly liberal with the appropriate scope of negative fiat as it relates to counterplans. Fairly aff-leaning regarding counterplan competition, at least in theory -- but evidence matters more than general pleas to protect affirmative competitive equity. I could be convinced otherwise, but my default has always been that the neg advocate must be as good as whatever the aff is working with. This could mean that an “advocate-less” counterplan that presses an internal link is fair game if the aff is unable to prove that they…uh…have an internal link.
-- T-USFG: Debate is no longer my full-time job, so I think I have a little less skin in the game on this issue. I also suspect the Trump presidency and the associated exposure of explicit racism within the United States may have made me a better judge for affirmatives that do not instrumentally defend the topic/federal government action. I'm not sure how much better, though, and I'm probably at best a risky bet for affirmatives hoping to beat a solid 2NR on T-USFG. If you do have me in this type of debate:
**Won't vote on any sort of argument that amounts to, "debate is bad, so we will concede their argument that we destroy debate/make people quit/exclude X population of student, that's good."
**Affirmatives would be well served to prioritize the link between defending a particular state action and broader observations about the flaws of the state.
**Procedural fairness is most important. The ballot can rectify fairness violations much more effectively than it can change anything else, and I am interested in endorsing a vision of debate that is procedurally fair. This is both the single strongest internal link to every other thing debate can do for a studeny and a standalone impact. I am worse for the “portable skills” impacts about information processing, decision-making, etc.