Maine East Regatta
2023 — Park Ridge, IL/US
Novice Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Evelyn Alsop, she/her
Maine East '24
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
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.
please add me to the email chain
Morgan Bard (she/her)
2ac/1nc , 4th year at Niles North, firstname.lastname@example.org (add to email chain!!)
any form of homophobia, racism, sexism, ableism, etc. results in an automatic L and an email to your coach. if anything you're gonna read has the possibility of being triggering, pls ask the opposing team if they're comfortable with that arg.
tech>>>truth -- ex. the sky is green; as long as you give me good evidence proving the sky is green, ill vote on it.
Quality over quantity of arguments, what this means is i'd prefer fewer better in depth arguments rather than 10 bad arguments that don't enhance the debate round, especially for novi debates.
time your own speeches
t-- love love love. but if you're reading it in the 2NR it should be the ONLY arg in the 2NR. overall one of my fav args.
da's-- amazing as long as you read them correctly and don't drop any part of it.
cp's-- basically the same as da's but you really need to go ham on why it's better than the affs plan.
impact turns-- LOVE THESE!! go all out on turns
k's-- def not my fav arg but that won't affect my vote. just do it well and we'll be good
framework and roll the ballot-- YES-- how should i look at the round! TELL ME how I should vote and why!
if you have any questions at all ask during round or email!!
good luck y'all <3
Rose - she/her -
Niles West '23
**Update for valley '23: I haven't judged any debates on this years high school topic this, didnt work for a camp over the summer or coach a team, this means my topic knowledge is almost 0, any acronym other than UBI I will be googling, do with that what you will**
Debate should be a safe space for all people involved. If you feel unsafe in a round, please let me know and I will stop the round and go to tab. Please put you emotional well being over debate, even if you feel pressure to kept debating through sickness, panic attacks etc it is okay to take an L on tabroom to protect yourself. This also means that racism, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, and any other form of violence is prohibited. I will not hesitate to hold people accountable in round, high school policy has a huge accountability problem and I want to be part of the solution. As a disabled debater I understand the struggle to exist within this space, if you need something from me to make it more inclusive (wear a mask, sit closer, need to record the RFD, time to stop and take meds, etc) please let me know and I will do my best.
Although I run k based arguments, while judging I put an extreme amount of emphasis on the flow. Doing line by line and keeping a clean flow are all key to how I view a debate. This does not mean big picture explanations cant win you the debate, you just need to explain why dropped arguments don't matter. I want to be least interventionist as possible, but if you don't clean up the debate for me I am going to have to make my own decisions hence my paradigm. I am going to vote on the 2ar/2nr, if your card in the 1nc is fire but you dont explain it at all I will not be voting on it.
Think about your subject position when running identity based arguments, any form of oppression you do not experience should not be casually thrown into the round as time skew or a gatcha moment, its harmful and needs to stop. I think aff teams can point this out as long as it done in a respectful manners (Asking "what is your relationship with indigenity/queerness etc?" is better than assuming someone identity)
I have mainly run cap, security, fem ir and disability studies on the neg, security studies and orientalism on the aff, I have spent a lot of time thinking about set col and queer studies, so those are the lit bases I am familiar with. I find k debaters misunderstanding their lit base, cards and arguments one of the most painful things to watch, so please at least be passable in your understanding. Please dont kill the flow, at least attempt to do an line by line instead of a 3 min long over view.
Policy affs - please do not be afraid to take the k up on its theory of power, those are the most fun debate for me to watch as a judge.
Debate is probably a game, but what that game looks like can be debated. I tend to vote on impacts of the fw flow so impact comparison, internal link analysis and solvency questions will most likely be part of my decision. I do not think fairness is an impact with out an explanation, I think clash is the better impact in almost every case.
Neg teams: Please have something in the 1nc that is not just framework, cap, a push on presumption, a counter plan, etc make the debate way more interesting, nuanced and in-depth. If you do not have some method of resolving aff offense by the 2nr (TVA/SSD) you are shooting yourself in the foot. A pet peeve of mine is team grouping DA when they are completely unique offense, please at least try to not be a block bot.
Judge kick if you tell me too. Please do line by line on theory especially condo, there is almost no clash in those debate. Case debating is one of my favorite things in debate. Cards and evidence matter, your terrible no card CP is not going to be the most persuasive 2nr in front of me.
I will have my camera on as much as I can as I am an expressive judge. Please start at a slower speed so I can get used to your voice through a microphone and make sure your zoom setting are not set to filter out back round noise (it often recognizes spreading as back round noise and you will cut out)
Random things/ speaks:
Ethos, puns, and creativity = better speaks
Remember to have fun :)
Debated Maine East H.S. 2009 -2012, Coach/Judge 2012 -
Debate is an educational game where everything in debate is debatable i.e. should I prefer tech over truth, do I need a plan text. Be nice to each other, try your best and have fun. Prefer debates were debaters are challenged to think in new ways. Do not be deterred from going for any argument because of what you read here. I’m open to listening to and voting for any argument even debates about what debate should be i.e. k of debate. Just because I stated that I will listen to / vote on / prefer something does not mean that it is an automatic win. If I do not understand something I will not vote on it.
Has been said in many different ways by many different individuals: debating / coaching for a school without many resources and understanding the experiences of similar schools competing against schools who are well resourced, I tend to be sympathetic to arguments based on inequities in policy debate. I will default to a policy maker but am open to other ways of deciding the ballot. I will go off the flow and will try not to intervene, however I might default to my opinions below (which are not concrete).
I will vote for the least complex way to sign the ballot. Explaining your arguments / ideas and keeping the debate organized by road mapping, sign posting, and line by line are key and will help your speaker points. Other things that are key and help to explain / frame the debate are: overviews with impact clac, turns case/da arguments, framing of arguments and the debate, impacting out arguments, and in-depth analysis of arguments. Likewise, overall analysis and framing of evidence / arguments / warrants / qualifications / the round, is key. “Even if” statements will help with speaker points and to frame an argument. Do not assume that I know an argument, author, or specific terms. Analytics, defensive arguments (even without your own evidence) are able to reduce any argument/evidence to zero risk or close to it. If I do not understand a part of the argument or it is not explained/major gaps in your logic I will be less likely to vote on it, even if it is dropped. Explain to me why you should win the round and what this means for both you and your opponent’s arguments. Speed is ok but need to clear. Do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Emailing speeches does not count as prep time as long as it is reasonable and send it all in one doc. Have cites available after the round. I will vote down teams/dock speaker points for rudeness, racist, sexism, unethical, offensive and unacceptable arguments / behavior.
Look at / debate / answer the actual warrants (or lack thereof) in the cards not what the card is tagged as. Comparing evidence / qualifications with explanations as to whose is better helps me to evaluate an argument (even just reading evidence and pointing out its inconsistency is great (will help your speaker points)) and is something that I find is missing in a lot of debates. If their evidence is bad point it out. I will read evidence if call for or if I believe there is an issue with it.
Cross x – Tag Team is fine if both teams are ok with it. Overtaking your partner’s cross-x might result in lower speaker points. Be sure to carry cross-x into the rest of the debate. If you indicted a piece of evidence or proved that an argument does not work, say so in your speech.
Theory – Just like any other argument dropping theory is not an auto-win. If a part of the theory is not explained well enough or the other team points out that it is not explained or missing, I will be less inclined to vote for it. Will vote on all types of theory, but need to explain the theory, in-round abuse (why what they did was bad), voters, fairness, education, impacts and why I should either reject the argument or the other team. Do not just re-read your blocks. The more specific the theory is to the argument / abuse / voters / round, the better.
Topicality – Overviews help. Tend to lean affirmative (Neg has the burden) unless there is a clear: violation / definition, bright line between topical and untopical, impacts for allowing the affirmative and others like it to be topical and in-round / potential (prefer in-round) abuse. Will default to competing interpretations. Explanation on all parts of the flow are key i.e. definition, bright line, topical version of the affirmative, case lists, reasons to reject the team (in-round and potential abuse), standards, ground, limits, voters, fairness, education, and impacts. Reasonability, clash / lit checks, race to bottom, etc. are able to reduce the chance of voting on topically. Will vote on aspec / other spec arguments however, need to show abuse in-round.
Speaker points – My range is 27.8- 28.5, this does not mean that I will not go above a 28.5. The road to better speaker points is in this philosophy i.e. know your arguments, be clear, do line by line, point out inconsistency in arguments and evidence, extend / explain / compare warrants and or qualifications (or lack thereof), road map, sign post, impact clac, frame the debate and the other things that are listed in the various sections.
Plan text / Counterplan text – Should be written down. Check how they are written. Will vote on plan flaws and counterplans that change the plan text with a net benefit.
Affirmative – Two things are key: good overviews with impact clac and in-depth case analysis.
Counterplan – Use overviews. Make sure that there is a clear net benefit and/or solvency deficit.
Disads/advantages – Good overviews with turns case /da along with impact analysis/clac where opponent’s impacts/arguments are considered. Disad links should be clear and specific to the case. All types of turns (link, impact and straight) are also a good idea.
K–Explain. Have a general idea on the basic k, not a k hack, but will vote on them (including k of debate arguments / debates about what debate should be). The k needs to be specifically explained not just in terms of what the idea of the k is, but what is the framework, link (the more specific and clearer the better), impact and alterative (not only what the alterative does but how its solves the k and plan’s impact (i.e. root cause) and what does the world of the alterative looks like). A good overview of the k and framework helps a lot. The affirmative should always question the alterative.
K affirmatives and framework - Will vote on k affirmative and k of debate arguments / debates about what debate should be. Needs to be a clear role of the ballot and clear reason why your version of debate is better. Totally fine with looking at images, listening to music, narratives, stories and other things. Debates are more interesting when: the neg does not just read framework / k but engages with the affirmative and the affirmative k the negative positions through the lens of the affirmative. Framework and disads to framework have to be explained, show how your interpretation of debate solve or root causes the other side’s impacts, impacted out fairness and education, have analysis to show which style of debate is the best and show why the affirmative or argument should be or not be in debate.
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
UC Lab '24
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)
yes put me on the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
TIME YOURSELF OR I WILL SOB UNCONTROLLABLY
MIDDLE SCHOOLERS -i'm one of the captains of the jones debate team, feel free to ask about debating at jones.
do whatever (i'll probably regret this and make another long paradigm after i judge my first tournament under this topic)
topicality - hate it, not a real argument, if there are argument limits i will vote on it
das - cool
counterplans - kinda liking them now (the k lab changed me)
ks - honestly probably not a great judge for. i read a lot of baudrillard, bataille, psycho, etc. i'll probably understand what's going on - i agree with a lot of what's on wayne tang's paradigm about them
k affs - cheating (i like cheating (but not that much)). if you're a novice running a k aff: you're not cool (that includes my own novices). c/a wayne tang's paradigm
fw - sympathetic to. clash is good.
speaks - arbitrary atp. i am not afraid to give you a 25.
I debated at Blue Valley Southwest High School for 4 years and am currently debating at KU
I am heavily persuaded by arguments about why the affirmative should read a topical plan. One of the main reasons for this is that I am persuaded by a lot of framing arguments which nullify aff offense (TVOA, argument testing, etc). The best way to deal with these things is to more directly impact turn common impacts like procedural fairness. Affirmative teams would also be well served to offer a competing interpretation of debate, designed to mitigate the negative impacts.
Fairness is the most persuasive impact to framework.
I'm not great for the K. In most instances this is because I believe the alternative solves the links to the aff or can't solve it's own impacts. This can be resolved by narrowing the scope of the K or strengthening the link explanation (too often negative teams do not explain the links in the context of the permutation). The simpler solution to this is a robust framework press.
I really enjoy good T debates. Fairness is the best (and maybe the only) impact. Education is very easily turned by fairness. Evidence quality is important, but only in so far as it improves the predictability/reduces the arbitrariness of the interpretation.
CPs are fun. I generally think that the negative doing non-plan action with the USfg is justified. Everything else is up for debate, but well developed aff arguments are dangerous on other questions.
I generally think conditionality is good. I think the best example of my hesitation with conditionality is multi-plank counter plans which combine later in the debate to become something else entirely.
If in cross x you say the status quo is always an option I will kick the counter plan if no further argumentation is made (you can also obviously just say conditional and clarify that judge kick is an option). If you say conditional and then tell me to kick in the 2NR and there is a 2AR press on the question I will be very uncomfortable and try to resolve the debate some other way. To resolve this, the 2AC should make an argument about judge kick.
Questions comments and concerns can be directed to email@example.com
Don't send me comments
1n/2a for all 5 years
last updated: 12.5.2022
please put me on the chain:
most importantly (in order):
1. be nice to each other, flow, have fun
2. don't be rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. - i'll vote you down and deck your speaks
3. tech > truth (but truth makes it easier to win tech)
4. these are my predispositions -- they can all be changed with good debating (see the line right above this)
5. arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact -- if you do not have all 3, i don't care if it's dropped
6. impact calc and framing really matter -- top of your 2nr/2ar should tell me what i'm voting on and why. my life is easier and happier if you write my ballot for me
7. tag team cx is fine but don't speak over your partner
8. you don't need a card to make an argument (see #5), but card probably beats no card
9. prep time ends when you say it does. if you prep after the timer ends, prep time ends when I say it has.
---things that can happen after prep ends: sending a speech, standing up, giving an order, setting a timer.
---things that cannot happen after prep ends: editing a doc (includes copy-pasting things), saving a doc, talking to your partner
9. i am NOT familiar with the current highschool topic (judged ~10 debates as of 12/3), but am familiar with AI / biotech / cybersecurity things given i debated these ideas for the last 3 years. you should interpret this to mean that i know what synthetic biology or machine learning are, but not what NATO has to do with these things.
10. marked doc is not removing the cards you skipped (this is flowing), its only adding "mark" for cards that you did not finish. if a team asks for a new card doc with the cards the other team skipped, you should take prep for them to put that together.
-if middle school or novice, they should definitely have a plan
-impact turns are fun but probably a high threshold if you're just reading cards (will not tolerate anything ethically or morally terrible like racism good or death good)
-i will evaluate framing first so debate with that in mind -- extinction probably outweighs but only if you win it does
-i read questionably topical affs all 4 years of high school so do your worst but do it well
-precision > predictability > limits > ground
specifically: grammatical precision > legal precision > contextual precision > overlimiting > neg ground > under-limiting > aff ground > topic education
-competing interps > reasonability
-loooooove me some plan text in a vacuum, but affs tend to not debate it thoroughly enough
*framework / t-usfg*
-i love a good fairness debate but am not a die-hard fairness hack. probably think clash / testing and fairness are more convincing than something like movement lawyering, but it's debatable
-i think tvas and switch-side debate are pretty good ways to cut down the aff's offense
-i mostly tend to think affs should have a counter-interp because i need models of debate to compare. if your strategy is to impact-turn framework as a whole, i will assume that means your c/i is 'affs get to do what they want, how they want'
-specific links are important, but not as important as a good story
-a thumper isn't a thumper until you tie it back to the link. for example, saying 'there are other bills on the agenda' is not a thumper until you win that those other bills will cost pc
-0 risk is a thing (maybe not aaaactually a thing, but probability can get so low that i should treat it as zero risk)
*counterplans & theory*
-anything is fair game as long as you can defend it BUT if the counterplan is cheating, the aff should be able to beat it on theory or a perm more easily
-i wont judge kick unless you tell me to (saying "the status quo is always an option" does count as telling me to)
-just saying "sufficiency framing" <<<<<<<<< explain why the counterplan solves / how i should evaluate it
-condo is probably bad (i know, hot take) but that won't matter if both sides just spread blocks at each other. you should NOT read this as 'she wants to only hear condo speeches'
-condo is probably the only theory violation worthy of rejecting the team unless there is an argument otherwise starting in the 2ac (but its a pretty high threshold)
-theory is (almost) always a question of models and (almost) never a question of in-round abuse
-i am quite familiar with a lot of literature (security, neolib, antiblackness, set col, high theory, psychoanalysis, etc) but that doesn't mean i want to hear baudrillard blocks spread directly into your computer at 400 wpm (nobody does)
-i tend to think ks need an alternative that solves the links and impacts, but high-quality framework debating can arguably substitute for this (i really do prefer k's that are more than 'you link, you lose')
-it's pretty hard to convince me that we should never do anything to meliorate a problem a team has isolated
-in a perfect world, links are causal, specific, and unique. this world is far from perfect
-i'm better for the k than you think (filter this through the fact that it came from me...obviously there's some bias there)
if you have any specific questions about my preferences, feel free to ask before and after the round :) im happy to help
good luck, have fun !!
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
Policy Debate at NU '25
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I will vote for any argument given better technical execution.
Whitney Young 23 → UIUC 27
My name is pronounced "you-li-ya" and please call me that instead of judge. Being called judge inflates my ego too much.
I've been debating since 2019 and have done a decent amount of judging. I mainly do CDL with a couple nats tournaments sprinkled in. For the past two years, I've been captain of the debate team at Whitney Young. I am going to UIUC and majoring in philosophy. I've gone to the Umich debate camp twice, so feel free to ask me about that or anything in general.
Yes, I want to be on the email chain. Please add both emails.
I like kritikal debates more than policy ones. If judges can say that they hate judging K-affs and rarely vote for them, I feel comfortable saying that I hate policy and find the debates boring and one note. Most of them are just an argumentative game of checkers that very rarely amounts to good education. "If the plan passes then extinction from Russia war!!" No. That won't happen and everyone knows that. But, somehow every single policy round ends up sounding like that quote. Read whatever you want in round, however, since you were forced to read my paradigm because you are good, little debaters, I decided to give my little rant.
Time yourselves. I forget to press start on my timer more often than I remember.
Debate is never that deep. Have fun. I hate having to be a round where everyone is taking this way too seriously because it is just so awkward. Go for that meme off case, make jokes, and enjoy yourself.
Please subject the email chain "Tournament - Round# - Aff Team v. Neg Team." I am tired of having a million chains labeled "Email Chain" making a mess in my inbox.
Tag team is fine. But if one partner keeps taking over cx, it will reflect poorly on your speaks.
You can spread in front of me, but I have bad hearing. If I missed your arguments, oops. A good way to make sure I get it down is to send analytics on the doc.
Fast spreading doesn't equal good speaker points. I look at other things like organization, strategy, how you interact with the other team way more than how you actually speak. Personally, I view speaks based on clarity and speed as pretty ableist. That being said, I try to keep my evaluation pretty consistent, but I don't have a solid basis for awarding point. I just go off the vibe.
I am technically tech > truth, but I'm not the best tech judge.
Ethos will take you very far in front of me. I think debate is a communicative activity and it is important be able to persuade the person you are in front of.
Since I wanna encourage flowing as much as possible, if you show me your flows after the round (even if they are really bad), you will get +0.1 speaks.
If you are mean, I will be less likely to vote for you because I hate rewarding rudeness. Sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated. You will get voted down and get the lowest speaker points possible.
If you don't wanna read my whole paradigm, here is a synopsis of what I like and don't like.
Love: Case Turns, T, Kritiks, K-Affs, K v K, Theory
Hate: PTX DAs, RVI, CPs but specifically process CPs
Understand your aff. There is nothing more embarrassing than an aff that barely knows what the 1AC says.
Extend the whole story of the aff.
Case turns are funky little arguments that people should read more.
I HATE PTX DAs! Do not read them. I do not care. They are literally all the same, the evidence is all bad, there is no uniqueness, and the links are generic. There is no "good" PTX DAs. If you read one, I will vote for it, but I will throw tomatoes at you. Do you really wanna spread while dodging rotten tomatoes?
Other than that, DAs are arguments. I'll vote on them.
I love topicality.
I don't care if it is a core-files aff, it can still be untopical.
RVI IS STUPID, BRAINLESS, FOOLISH, VAPID, DUMB, LUDICROUS, NUTTY AND CUCKOO! I DON'T CARE IF YOUR WHOLE 2AC, 1AR, AND 2AR ARE ONLY ON RVI AND THE OTHER TEAM DROPS IT, I WILL NOT VOTE ON IT!!!!
Give me an example of a good counterplan. See how you couldn't. That's because counterplans are mid. There is nothing I dislike more than having to evaluate a counterplan debate.
If you read one, they have to solve the ENTIRE aff and have a good net benefit.
Forfeiting the round >>>>>>>>> process counterplans
You can try to convince me that process counterplans aren't cheating, but it won't work.
PIC are abusive, but it is up to the debaters to convince me. I won't just reject a PIC, I have to be told to do so.
However, if you have a funny counterplan........ I could be convinced.
Love, love, love kritiks. They are my favorite arguments in debate.
Explain your kritik as if I've never heard of *insert philosopher of your choosing.*
Please explain how the aff links! Generic links are pretty meh and I much prefer specific links to the aff. Rehighlighted 1AC cards for a language/discourse k links is chef's kiss.
Do you have some kritik in a meme arguments folder that you don't think could ever win a round? Run it in front of me. I can't promise you will win, but you will be high speaks for making me laugh.
I will vote on death good, HOWEVER, if you do the gross death good (you know which one I am talking about) I won't. But a debate about how we view death and how that affects policy-making/debate is very interesting.
I think identity arguments are valid and aren't cheating. Truism arguments are stupid. Always go for inround impacts.
Personal Favs: Security, Baudrillard, Techno-Orientalism, Bataille, Any nontraditional cap tbh
DO IT! DO IT! DO IT!
There is this tradition in debate that novices shouldn't read K-affs. I don't know why. You should read it. I will give you good feedback and enjoy it more than a policy round, even if you sucked.
K v K
DO IT! DO IT! DO IT!
The best debates and no one can change my mind.
Rules in debate are fake. I don't default to anything as a judge. If you don't read role of the judge and/or role of the ballot, I will flip a coin to decide who wins (I'm kidding....... or am I?).
My favorite framework is epistemology because I think it is true. I don't know why people default to policy-maker as the judge. Until I have access to the nuclear codes, I am just a person deciding who did the better debating.
Really impact out your framework. I need to know why your form of debate is the best.
Hard debate is good debate is literally the best framework argument and no one can change my mind.
I think I tend to lean aff on most framework args. It is very unpersuasive in front of me to say that all k-affs should be excluded from debate. I need clear articulation on why k-affs don't allow for clash, iterative testing, etc.
I'm one of the only judges who thinks they are kinda fun, especially if they are really dumb.
Don't spread theory blocks. If I don't write down one of your points, too bad so sad.
I don't have set in stone opinions on theory. If you have reasons for why debate should be done a certain way, persuade me.
Condo is the worst theory violation. It isn't your fault, but I've seen a million condo debate, so I don't care anymore.
I will vote on disclosure theory, but don't read it if they have a really nice, updated wiki.
My email is Jordynmahome@gmail.com.
i’m tucker he/him
email@example.com me PLEEEEEEEEEASE ☺️
i’m a junior, i’m a K debater for Lane Tech
i promise i’m not judging you have fun, debate is stressful
racism sexism homophobia all instant vote down no discussion
be cool please
i mean obviously i’ll vote on these. i better have a clear cp text (i hate that i gotta say this).
ill vote for condo if you tell me why to vote for it. do plenty of judge instruction (this goes for everything).
cam, they/she, firstname.lastname@example.org
if you are a contemporary reading this and i have stolen things from your paradigm, it's because they are good and i will not rehash something already well-written.
- 8 years of cx debate experience and counting
- happily in college debate limbo (transfer student blues)
- lane tech debate captain ('21)
- lane tech debate co-coach (‘22-now)
- went to the toc in hs if that sort of thing has significance to you
- people who have had a significant effect on my debate style and experience: lila lavender, george lee, geo liriano, sam price, uiowa CE, and the entire university west georgia with an emphasis on CL
online debate: please turn your camera on, I hate listening to 4 black boxes - this excludes tech problems, my laptop is also prone to very dramatic tantrums.
don't call me judge, my name will do just fine.
very little offends me. it should be simple for you to prevail if it's so wrong and you're so right.
in my personal career i primarily went for policy aff's and k's or t on the neg. i generally think that good things are good and bad things are bad. i have few stipulations (probably even less than most) on how the "rules" of debate ought to work, if you win the thing that you are running then i will vote on it.
1) an argument is a claim and a reason (at least).
2) evidence supports your argument, evidence is NOT your argument
3) i won't kick arguments for you
4) line by line debating is non-optional
5) tech > truth (this has nuances, you won't read them if i write them...)
5) if you cannot collapse, you are a bad debater
the most significant thing to remember is that i am a human (by most definitions) that does make mistakes (despite my best attempts). i'm generally proficient at flowing, and i will flow the entire round-barring something catastrophic. i've had excellent and extensive conversations with many other college-age judges about this, during which i have concluded the following. my job as a judge is to do my best to fairly adjudicate the round to the best of my ability, which i can assure you that i will do. if you feel the need to hammer me in the post-round, by all means, go for it, but make note that i will respect you as much as you respect me. there are right and wrong decisions in varsity debates, and judges can & do fail to deliver the right ones, which is a regrettable, yet inevitable part of the game; i do my absolute best to avoid this, and i can assure you i have interpreted every argument on the flow to the best of my working ability.
now, much like keryk kuiper outlines, i am a fairly expressive judge. i laugh when things are funny, i do make faces at things, and i have been known to throw flow paper about in a rather dramatic way. you are under no obligation to change strategies based on the way i react to it, and you will win something that i don't "like" as long as you are winning it on the flow. you may, however, choose to alter it. that is your right and your decision. you are also a human with "free will". do as you please - but note that reacting to those things is a crucial part of becoming a better debater - and if your argument is so bad that i look like i’m about to throw up, good luck getting me to hack for you in the rfd.
i believe it goes without saying i would much rather judge a well-executed policy v policy round than a poorly executed k v k round. just because i have a better substantive grasp on a larger body of k lit than an average clash judge does not mean that i think you should pref me higher as a k team. my ideal debate is something you have the best grasp of, and that you are the most excited about. if that happens to be the k, then wonderful, but if it is also a CP you have labored over then i am equally as enthusiastic. all good debate teams do their best to exert themselves on arguments that they think have the most merit - that is what i want to hear.
below are, as the intro would suggest, my many conflicting opinions on debate. do not confuse this with rules for a round. these are just my personal thoughts, and i take pride in my ability to objectively adjudicate whatever presents itself to me.
K's proper: LT PN was explicitly a set col team for many moons, so i am personally most familiar with that set of lit in the context of my own competitive practice. in my time as a coach, i've also worked on plenty of semio-cap/po-mo/ "high theory" based k's. external to debate, i'm fairly well-versed in anti-capitalist and queer theory literature. this is not an excuse to not judge instruct. i have a strong distaste for k teams whose strategy is to confuse the opponent out of ballots with large, and often unnecessary words. i find this practice incredibly disingenuous and i have (unhappily) noticed its presence increase over time. if you rely on obfuscation, the argument is probably quite poor, and you should not be reading it. on a personal note, in working with the lovely lila lavender for quite some time, i have found myself more drawn to k v k debate over time, as i firmly believe it is the most interesting and innovative form that debate can take.
additionally, i do wholeheartedly agree with her analysis of non-colonized and non-black people reading afro-pessimism as a strategy, for more information I have included the same blog link here
K on the aff: you must be willing to commit. it is far too often that i judge k aff teams that are determined to make their aff more middle-of-the-road/palatable. clever k teams should be able to achieve equilibrium with effective policy teams with the amount of tools at their disposal and yet they seem unwilling to use them. i am far more willing to hear that debate is better with no competition models, debate should be thrown off a cliff, or that debating the resolution has no intrinsic value than your average clash judge. that being said, i have a stronger preference for k affs that defend something material (specific political project) than the average k judge. too many k affs shy away from fiating the alt, but i digress. as far as content goes, the material that i have the most personal familiarity is outlined above. i think lila says it best when they say "If you are going to reject the res, which is totally cool with me, you should make sure to have justifications as to why the res is bad, and why rejecting it on the affirmative is key."
if you are going to perform, and it is significant to you that the performance is flowed a certain way, indicate that.
i will probably not flow your overview if it is longer than 30 seconds.
i will definitely not flow your overview if it requires a separate sheet.
K on the neg: should deal with the case in some way (either moot it entirely on the FW flow/ fiat the alt/ what have you). generating philosophical or research practice based competition is most likely to be persuasive to me - i am of the many that believe beyond game theory, debate is a research practice. one team will win their FW interpretation, as most other standards are arbitrary. same content familiarity applies here. generally, the neg shouldn't be lazy with their links, and the aff should be smarter debating fiat arguments. i prioritize specificity and spin above all else. i also think affs should be smarter (and earlier) on the FW flow.
my favorite part of nick rosenbaum's theory of debate is that "you do not need an alternative if you are winning framework OR if your links are material DA's to the aff's implementation where the squo would be preferable OR if your theory of power overdetermines the aff's potential to be desirable OR if you can think of another reason you don't need an alt." same material praxis alternative preference as k aff's (internal or external to debate). fiating mindset shifts/epistemic reorientations (i have yet to hear a sound description of what that is) is probably abusive and generally not a good argument. i will (and have - dont ask) vote on death good - if you win it.
FW: i generally believe that framework is probably true to some extent, and net good for clash v k affs because reciprocity is good and so on and so forth. as my judging record would indicate, i am neg leaning in K v FW debates, mostly for the reasons outlined in the k aff section of this paradigm. i find tournament and season preparation disparity arguments fairly silly. for the negative, use smart defensive tactics like switch-side debating and TVA's, explain the flaws in the counter-interpretation (unlimited topic, links to aff offense), and produce smart arguments about limits, mechanism education, or clash.
making sure there is fairness in a competition between two teams is one of the judge's main responsibilities. judges are fundamentally expected to evaluate the discussion honestly; forcing them to disregard fairness in that appraisal removes the prerequisite for debate. on the aff, you should impact turn the process of policy debates on the topic - this is distinct from the affs on the topic. if you win that the process of debating the topic is bad, then preserving fairness is futile to the game.
T: probably makes its way into 75% of my own 1NR’s, competing interps/quality of evidence comes first. do not hinge your strat on some vague cross ex answer, clear and concise arguments only. additionally, both or either team reading blocks through the rebuttals without refuting the other team's arguments in depth is very boring and not something I want to watch.
Theory: See T. I err aff on condo generally and for the sake of transparency thing, most consult/agent counterplans are probably abusive, but don't let that sway you, i will still vote on the flow work (yes i am a strong believer in the debate truth that neg fiat is bad). i'm predisposed to believe exactly what YOU think debate ought to be.
Da's: make sure you do plenty of impact work, and PLEASE articulate why the impact of your DA overwhelms the harms of the aff. Links exist on a spectrum; the "chance of a link" has to be qualified and then incorporated into the risk assessment component of impact calculus. Expert turns case analysis is invaluable. “Any risk” is inane. Below some level of probability, signal should be overwhelmed by noise, or perhaps the opposite effect might occur. Pretending that one can calculate risk precisely is stupid. Are you really sure that the risk of a disad is fifteen percent? Are you sure it’s not, say, twenty? Or maybe ten? Or, God forbid, twenty-five? If you are able to calculate risk with such precision, please quit debate and join the DIA. Your country needs you, citizen. If not, recognize that risks can be roughly calculated in a relative way, but that the application of mathematical models to debate is a (sometimes) useful heuristic, not an independently viable tool for evaluation. - mollison stolen from matheson which has now trickled down to here.
CP's: win the net ben and how you access it, otherwise i will vote on a nice Aff perm. That being said, If a perm is present in the 1ar, I will NOT automatically judge kick the CP if the squo is preferable. In this scenario, the 2nr would need to instruct me as to why I should do this, however I think judge kick goes aff easily in the presence of a perm.I think lots of counterplans that steal much of the aff (interpret that as you wish) are illegitimate and the aff should hammer them. the aff still needs has to win theory regardless of my personal disdain for certain CP's. i do like a well executed tricky PIC though on a NATO topic, i find them widely entertaining. not sure of their legitimacy, but at least i'll be in a good mood.
have fun, debate should be something you enjoy doing. be nice and cordial to your opponents, that being said don't be afraid to be assertive. don't clip cards. i follow the nsda handbook re: evidence violation, so any of those issues must be resolved through tab. if the tournament is not NSDA sanctioned and i am instructed to make the decision, i will default to my best interpretation of what "good practice" looks like on the current college circuit/"general accepted community norms". all that good stuff
bonus speaks section
+0.1 for open sourcing (let me know, i won't look)
+0.1 for any good joke in a speech (this is at my discretion, good luck)
+0.1 for novices that show me their flows after the round has ended
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
- These are my predispositions, but technical prowess can easily alter them.
- Tech > Truth. I will evaluate an argument to the extend that I understand it and could explain it to the losing team post-round. The flow and technical debating resolve most debates, but I appreciate quality evidence and if necessary will read it. Dropped arguments are true, but only insofar as I will only evaluate the words you said. Often teams will expand on dropped arguments, permitting new answers.
- I'm best for policy arguments, but K teams can still win my ballot through better technical debating.
Topicality vs. K Affs
- I probably lean neg in these debates, but better debating can change that. While I think T is often strategic and comfortable, I would prefer to see a substantive debate, but play to your strengths.
- Counter-interp > Impact Turning. If you read a plan-less aff, I am not a huge fan of the popular impact turning strategy because I evaluate clash debates like T vs. policy affs. I care a lot about the counter-interp. Both sides should clearly clearly define the words in the resolution and explain what their topic as well as their oponent's topic look like by establishing strong internal-links. There should be a clear role for the aff and the neg. It is rather difficult to convince me that debate is more than a game or that debate has some emancapatory potential.
- Fairness > Clash, but go for what you're best at.
Topicality vs. Policy Affs
- I will vote for any predictability, limits, or ground impact but typically care more about the internal links. I should have a clear vision of what the topic looks like for the aff and neg as well as what arguments will be read.
- I'm better for plan text in a vacuum than most judges.
K vs. Policy Affs
- Neg teams will struggle to persuade me to not weigh the plan unless the line-by-line flows neg.
- I like alts that do something beyond just rethinking or being critical, but understand the strategic appeal.
- I prefer links to be to the plan.
- Death and extinction are probably bad. The neg is more likely to convince me that the link outweighs, alt solves case, or link turns case than to adopt an alternative risk calculous.
- I'm good for competition. I think the aff frequently lets the neg get away with murder. Functional + textual competition makes intuitive sense to me, but I am down for functional vs. textual competition debates.
- I love PICs when they're aff specific.
- Condo is probably good; egregious, kickable 20 plank advantage counterplans are probably bad. If the neg wants me to judge kick the counterplan, they should tell me.
- You can insert re-highlightings if you explain what the re-highlighting says and why I should care. Teams should be punished for what their evidence says, but you need to explain it. I will be very grumpy if you just say "insert this rehighlighting" without explanation.
Tldr; Good for the k/k-aff, fine for anything- Lane 23’, U of Iowa 27'
Former Lane debater/coach, current Iowa debater
Call me Grey, G-Money, or big h0ngry, calling me judge just fuels my god complex
Preferably turn your camera on, however, I understand if that's not possible
Don't be rude
Time your own speeches, CX, and prep
If you end any of your speeches with "And that's how the cookie crumbles" I will boost your speaks
My topic knowledge is vague at best, but for the sake of the round pretend like I know nothing
HS has an accountability problem, I will do my best as a judge to fix that
Ks: Love PoMo and weird stuff, but I'm not down for trolling. Most experienced with PoMo/queerness/trans studies, I think specific links are important but don't have any weird convictions that you have to go for the alt (though I think it's generally useful). It is my pet peeve for k framework to run to the middle, take an actual stance.
Policy affs: Have fun!
K affs: I don't expect you to spill out or actually do something though I really prefer if you have a method, if I wanted an FYI I'd just go to class.
Framework: I lean towards fairness being an internal link, if you say it's an intrinsic good I'll need justification as to why. I will like you a lot more if you read parametrics/tactics.
Anything else: I will vote on the flow, no strong preferences either way
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
- 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.
Assistant Coach for Maine East
Add me on the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
TLDR - You can run any non-offensive arg in front of me, if you run it well I'll probably vote you up. I like judging more technical debates (Theory/T/K) over the same old ptx scenario because I find it more interesting. You will probably get higher speaker points from me if your arguments are original, trust me judges do not want to see the exact same debate happen for 5 rounds in a row.
I like K Affs when they are well explained.
Explain why it's better than doing the Plan itself and make sure you have a Net Benefit.
If you don't have a net benefit I probably won't vote on the CP.
Answer the Aff arguments well and don't drop any perms.
Running a DA or 2 is usually a good idea, I recommend you do so.
Disads are fine - I'm not particularly opinionated about them.
I think DA and Case debates are good as long as the DA scenario makes sense and the line by line is properly executed.
Please don't go for a bad ptx scenario that has no internal link.
If you run a K make sure you really explain it to me.
If you wanna go for the K in the 2NR you must have a strong link to the specific aff, or an alt that solves for the K and/or the impacts of the Plan.
Focus on the link debate - winning the link helps you win FW, prove why the perm won't solve, as well as support the impact.
If I don't understand your K I won't vote for it, especially if it's less commonly run. I'm familiar with most of the more generic Ks, but if you pull out a more complex K, you need to understand it and explain it well. I will hold those types of Ks to a higher standard when writing my ballot.
To win on T you have to prove that the Aff is not topical and explain why being topical matters.
Don't only say "Fairness and Education" those are just words, you need to explain what that means and why it's important to debate.
TOPICALITY IS A VOTER!
I'm from Maine East, I like Theory debates and I'll vote on them - but I probably have higher standards for 'good theory debating'.
PICs are probably fine.
Severance Perms are probably bad.
Condo is good to an extent. I probably won't vote on Condo if they run like 1-2 off, but if they run 3 or more conditional advocacies I will lean Aff.
Perf Con is bad if you can prove specific instances of in-round abuse.
Don't expect me to vote on the arg that 1-2 CPs/Ks will Time Skew the 2AC, time skew is inevitable.
Don't expect me to vote on the "Err Neg" arg, yes Aff speaks 1st and last but y'all have the 13 min block.
Potential Abuse is not a voter. (Unless you prove to me otherwise)
In Round Abuse is a voter - If you can prove that they were somehow totally abusive I will vote them down.
THEORY IS A VOTER!
In the end what really matters is how you extend and frame the theory debate. I will most likely vote for the team that better contextualizes their theory arg.
I'll vote on a dropped theory arg as long as it's properly extended.
Under 26: you did something offensive/cheaty
26-26.9: Below Avg
27.6-28.5: Above Avg
28.5-29.5: Very Good
Above 29.5: Excellent - I was impressed
If you do something interesting, funny, or out of the box in the round, and I enjoy it, I'll boost your speaks.
- I will not vote on an argument I don't understand - It's your job in the round to explain your arguments to me.
- Don't be a jerk in round - Respect your partner, your opponents, and the judge(s).
- Do not clip cards or cheat in any way
- I am fine with tag team CX, but don't take over you partners CX, I will dock speaks for that.
- Clarity is more important than speed - If you are spreading a huge analytics-heavy block at full speed I will not catch more than 60% of what you are saying
- Time your own Prep/CX/Speeches.
- If the other team doesn't make an argument for why I should not Judge Kick, I will most likely roll with it.
- I do not like judge intervention, I will try to avoid, or at least minimize judge intervention as much as possible. I'd much rather vote based on what you all say in the round.
- I am willing to vote for any argument as long as it is not offensive - but you have to win the argument.
Email Chain - email@example.com
If you have questions feel free to email or ask me after the round!
Not read up on the topic this year, so be sure to explain your arguments in depth.
Very policy but will do my best to adjudicate the round based on the arguments presented in the speeches.
Not the best at evaluating critical affirmatives, but explain to me why I should vote for you.
DA - Have a link to the aff, if generic contextualize it well enough for me to vote on it. Extend all parts of the DA, uniqueness, impact(s), internal link(s), and link(s). Tell me why it outweighs the impacts on case.
CP - Explain why the counterplan solves the affirmative. Affirmative should extend perms, and negative should answer them if dropped by either side tell me why to either reject or prefer the affirmative.
K - Not the best with these, but give me a clear coherent explanation of why it links to the affirmative, (if you go for the alternative explain why it solves the affirmative impacts), and why your impacts outweigh.
T - Topicality is a voter! Extend standards, limits, and impacts. Tell me why the affirmative is not topical and why it's worse being negative. Please don't read blocks in the 2NR and try to do some line-by-line.
Explain and extend your arguments, I can't do all the work for you.
Respect your partner and your opponents.
Tag team cross-ex is cool, just don't take over!
Clarity is really important, I'll say clear a few times and if it doesn't improve I'll have to dock speaks.
Time your speeches! I'll also time them but it's good practice for future rounds.
Payton 23 Michigan 27
if you think the rams beat the saints in the 2019 nfc championship, strike me
Im good for pretty much anything
Everything below is just preferences and biases–if you justify what you do and win that its good you should be fine
Only exception is completely new 2ar arguments that dont directly respond to new 2nr args–you can pretty much never justify these
Not a big card reader–its the debaters responsibility to point out the quality of a card/if i should read a card–similarly, its the debaters responsibility to direct me towards which cards support which arguments–only then will i read cards to make sure they’re correct
I will almost never read unhighlighted parts of a card unless directed to during speeches
If you drop something–please justify new answers–i would much rather judge a debate about if the 2nc/1ar/2nr gets new answers than a debate where i decide in 5 seconds because the aff dropped aspec and never justified new answers–similarly, teams should make args that their opponents dont get new answers
If the 1nc or 2ac fails to make a complete/clear argument and the 2nc or 1ar decides to blow it up or apply it in a new way, it seems logical that the next speech should get new answers
Things i go either way on–
Inserting rehighlightings, plan text in a vacuum, 2nc cps
If both teams agree to debate the arms sales topic everyone gets a 29.5+
read lots of cards!!!
I dont really want to judge these debates because they are so repetitive and boring, but i fear i will
I’m probably better for the k than you think–that being said i debated policy all of high school except for sophomore year when i went for abolition and security in most of my 2nrs and one round at the ghill rr where i read a kroker aff
I think performances are fun but i never really know if/how i should be flowing them so if you want your performance flowed a certain way lmk
i am not gonna make up my own arbitrary middle-ground framework--i will adhere strictly to the interp that wins the framework debate and any spin about what that means for the round
Should i go for fairness or clash?
i almost exclusively went for fairness in high school, so probably lean that, but do whatever
If your strategy relies on making nebulous assertions and expecting the judge to interpret them for you and then apply that to the framework debate, i am not the judge for you
I think these debates would be fun to judge, unfortunately i would have no idea what i was doing but would obvi try to defer to the flow
in any given year, i think there a single digit number of high school teams that can competently and consistently go for competition arguments against counterplans
it makes sense to me that perms should be a yes/no question and not offense/defense
love textual and functional competition
Love theory and competition debates–a few suggestions tho:
Please have an interp/model
Impact out your standards
Prove and impact out arbitrariness
International fiat in truth seems indefensible but somehow nobody goes for it or argues it correctly
Most persuasive arg against most theory for me is just theory prolif but this generally should be paired with some defense to fairness
I enjoy a good win percentage card but ppl seem to be deploying them incorrectly–probably defense to any neg flex push for why they need to have certain cps(ex: international cps) but probably not offense for why condo or process cps are bad–you have to win that aff side bias in a world of dispo or functional+textual comp would be less than neg side bias is currently which pretty much nobody is doing
People have decided that reading a 15 point condo good block where half of the points are like “Logic” or “real world” with no explanation is a good idea and i really dont know why
How many condo?
i truly do not care
This might be the weirdest part of my paradigm, but i really dont understand “medium risk”, “low risk”, “high risk”--how do i know if there’s a 15% chance of a link–is that high? low? I honestly have no idea--absent judge instruction i will generally evaluate the parts of a disad (or advantage or internal net ben) through yes/no (is x bill passing now? yes/no does the neg win that passing the aff disrupts x bill? yes/no does x bill solve US economic decline? yes/no does US econ decline cause nuke war? yes/no)–obviously judge instruction(ex: sufficiency framing/linear risk) outweighs this
I love a good ptx disad, hate a bad ptx disad
1nc uq card: “moderates like x bill” 1nc link:“40 republicans in the house hate nato”--this and similarly ludicrous disads can be brought to zero risk by one 5 second 2ac analytic
T debates seem like the area where debaters read blocks and dont do line by line, which is sad
i really dont care at all what the community consensus on t(or anything else) is
Saying the word “oops” (this will nuke your speaks)
“We get what we did”--you sound like you don’t know how to count– just defend infinite condo
Spreading through blocks and expecting me to go back and read the speech doc– i will not
Putting a million random cards you dont read in the doc
Complaining about vague cp texts when the aff’s plan text is basically the res and they explain it as some minute/nuanced policy change–two caveats:1)if the neg can’t explain how they’re cp works its fair game but just complaining because the text is vague is silly 2) i dont have a problem with vague plans, but you cant have your cake and eat it
Reading cards from the trump presidency that says federalism solves climate change–do you know what federalism is? do you know who the president is?
Background- Policy debate 5 years
Add me to the email chain- firstname.lastname@example.org
I only judge on what was on the flow. I'll vote on any well developed arg. Time yourself and your prep. I'm not gonna flow new args in the 2nr or 2ar and I won't do any work for you on the flow.
I love K debates. (K v K debates are better than k aff v fw but do whatever you're better prepped for). Philosophy based Ks should have really good lit and you should know what youre talking about dont just read blocks someone gave you. Neg- if you lose on the K link, you lose the K (I need specific links for each case)
I will definitely take points off if you are rude during cx or attack a team (via argument) during your speech. If you say scrumdiddlyumptious during your speech you get .1 extra speaks. Good jokes are also .1 speaks.
uclab '24 - she/her - Uclab ES - 1a/2n, but i was a 2a during my first two years of hs
please add me to the chain- email@example.com
call me mahi, not judge (i'm at most 2-3 years older than you)
tech>truth - the flow is the most important thing in debate. i will evaluate the debate based on concessions in the round.
line-by-line is really important.
will not vote on death good
huge fan of turns case --- very important imo, dropping it will implicate how i evaluate the risk of your impact
i don't feel like i am equipped to adjudicate on issues, drama, etc that have happened outside of the round
novices please be nice to your opponents; this game is supposed to be fun and being unkind is not cool or funny, i will be VISIBLY annoyed.
if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc i will vote you down and tell your coach. be a good human being please.
i want to help you get better, please ask me any questions you have (even if you think it's a dumb question, ask me i wont judge you)
+0.1 speaks if you make me laugh in your speech or if you say "checkmate"
I try my best to adhere to the rules of debate, so not to allow personal biases enter the round. However, below, you’ll find a few answers to common questions debaters have for a judge that may influence the ballot, and the displays of conduct that I appreciate viewing that may influence speaker points:
Case: More warrants. Less speculation. I don’t enjoy AFFs with advantages based on speculative impacts. Let the research connect the dots. I appreciate a good two-worlds analysis later in the debate.
T: I don’t enjoy voting on T, but I will.
K: Please, please, please, for Debate God’s sake, give us a strong K shell. Framework also matters. (Make it make sense. Why does the K matter? Was does the alternative look like? Why should we prefer the alt to the plan? Can the worlds coexist? And in what order, if any?)
Abuse: I’m not particularly sensitive to abuse arguments, unless a party is profoundly impacted by [insert] action.
Speaker points: I assign based on quality of argumentation and clash, clarity, sportsmanlike conduct and individual contribution to the round.
-One can be amazing in argumentation, clash and clarity, but lose speaker points for being unsportsmanlike — which I understand is subjective. We know that debate can bring out our sassiness. Let’s not be disrespectfully spicy. I appreciate focus on argumentation, not attacks on intellect or character.
-One can also give great speeches and participate in Cx, but if your partner is doing most of the asking/answering in Cx or is clearly owning the bulk of your speeches, it won't help YOUR speaker points.
-NOTE! Speed as it relates to clarity: totally fine with speed, but not in the absence or reduction of enunciation. Please be clear.
Hope this helps!
please include BOTH of these emails on the chain :)
speak clearly over speaking fast
I'm usually good on timing everything but make sure to keep yourself and the other team accountable on time (basically, make sure to time speeches/prep time)
if you're wondering anything about my judging style before the round, feel free to ask!
also don't hesitate to email me with any questions
Lane Tech '23
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
(virtual debate) Please turn your camera on while you're speaking
Tell me why you win the debate, do impact calc, know the material you're reading, time yourself, don't be rude. Don't be a bigot.
CDSI kids -- stay within your argument limits, I will vote you down.
I'm ok with tag team cross ex but ask the other team
New 2NC arguments get new 1AR responses
Good line-by-line will get you further than any number of cards in round. Your 2NC should not be 8 minutes of cards. Your 2AC case defense should include analytics.
DAs--obviously fine, just make sure that you are defending and extending your entire link chain throughout the debate. If you only extend what the other team responds to and end up with just uniqueness and an impact in the 2NR, that's hard to vote for.
T-- Make sure that you clash and are directly responding to the other team's arguments. Don't just read the same T overview in every speech, go in-depth on your arguments.
CPs--make sure you don't link to the net benefit, explain how the world of the CP functions as opposed to the world of the plan, tie in solvency deficits on case to explain why the CP is better. Use the CP in your impact calc--if the aff is weighing their impacts vs your DAs but you solve the impacts of the aff, I have no reason to vote for them.
Ks--I've read a lot of Ks and I have a good grasp of security, cap, psychoanalysis, set col, and fem Ks. Even if you're reading one of those arguments, explain the theory of the K and especially your links very clearly. Read framework and do it with intention--don't just read the same 3 lines in every speech. I won't kick the alt unless you tell me to.
Theory--read it, slow down when reading, make sure you're listening to what the other team is saying and directly responding. Direct clash on theory is important. I hate perf con and ASPEC but I will vote on it if you win on it.
Please read overviews, when you're speaking make sure to signpost and say "AND" or "NEXT" between cards.
Show me your flows after the round for +0.2 speaks, make a joke about the LT debate team and if I think it's funny I'll give you +0.1 speaks.
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.
Please put me on the email chain: email@example.com.
I debated for Northside for four years and graduated in 2022. I am not debating in college.
I lean policy, but I will vote on anything if you are winning it.
Clash is especially important, go a level further than the tag, tell me why you are right and they are wrong.
Please do not forget about Case.
T and Theory - If you lose any T or theory arguments that are ran against you, I will usually vote against you. Though the standards of the argument need to be impacted out to be considered. For example "They lost T." is not enough for me to vote on, you need to go a level.
DAs and CPs - Very comfortable with them, go for it.
Policy Aff v. K - As I lean policy, if you are running a K, turns case arguments work best with me. On framework for both sides, make sure it is consistent. Please try not to change your interpretation or standards throughout the round. Unless it is an integral part of the K to ignore Case, don't concede or forget about case in the 2NR. I am decently comfortable with the standard Ks, but anything super specific or academic, you will need to make it make sense to me. I will not vote on something I do not understand by the end of the round. If you are going for it, you should be able to explain it adequately.
K Aff - I will not vote on something I do not understand by the end of the round. If you are going for it, you should be able to explain it adequately. Especially since academic K's are about learning. However, if you're framing is based on being confused, you're going to need to do some explanation there, but if you win it, I will vote accordingly. Arguments against K Affs that I like are other Ks and Cede the Political, though anything can work.
kinsey (she/they) northside prep '24
add me to the chain firstname.lastname@example.org
I shouldn't have to say this but racist, sexist, homophobic, generally bigoted language, etc in rounds is an auto L and I will drop your speaks.
turns - not a fan of death good, wipeout, spark; I'll listen to it but don't expect me to look happy about it. i'll need a pretty damn good explanation of why I should use by ballot to justify nuke war/kill people.
T - love a good T debate but that's not super likely on this topic. if you are gonna go for t -- I need an terminal impact for education or fairness and a reason why your model/method of debate is better for accessing those two things.
k's (on the neg) I'm decent for k's but don't assume I understand your theory. you don't need to win an alt if you are running high theory/security, but i'm skeptical of a cap k with no alt. if you aren't going for an alt (k as a linear disad) I need a clear link debate W and impact calc comparable with either the case or the framework page (or both).
k affs -go for it ig. I'm probably not the best judge for these but I'll do by best. explain why your method of debate and advocacy is good pls.
da's da's w/ specific links > rider da's and terrible politics cards
cp's- 2 or 3 max, counterplans with specific net benefits and solvency mechanisms are great, but i'll vote on whatever here as long as there's sufficiency framing or a good risk of nb. YOUR ADVANTAGE CP MUST HAVE SOLVENCY EVIDENCE FOR ALL PLANKS
case defense/turns are super underrated!!!
tech>truth but please impact out/explain why dropped args matter
- that said winning climate change good/doesn't exist will be an uphill battle for you even if dropped
your 2nr/2ar should have impact calc (why you o/w timeframe, probability, magnitude) and basically write my rfd for me
i'm a 1a/2n --> i'm gonna be skeptical of 5 million new 2ar args that were not in the 1ar.
theory I can go either weigh in terms of where I give more leniency --> terminal in round abuse is prolly the biggest internal link you should be winning to fairness and education. you don't need to win spillover per se but it defo won't hurt you.
show me your flows after round for + 0.2 speaks (if they are readable lol)
do an impression a good impression of wayne tang and i'll give you +0.3
please don't call me judge
scorpio sun, taurus moon, gemini rising - adapt accordingly
- don't be racist, queerphobic, sexist, ableist, etc. - i will vote you down and give you lowest speaks possible
- death is bad - do not say death is good
- tech > truth but explain the implications of a dropped argument
- other than what's above, good debating can overcome my predispositions, so read what you like
be nice & have fun, if you have any questions feel free to ask!