Illinois Debate Coaches Association Novice JV State Championshi
2023 — Skokie, IL/US
Novice Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org me to the email chain
- spreading is fine just BE CLEAR IF YOU ARE MUMBLING I AM NOT FLOWING
- If you’re running a k as a novice will give you extra speaking points but only if you have good framework
- No biased language or isms of any sorts
- I will give extra speaker points if you crack a joke
- debate is supposed to be fun so have a good time and you will do great
Glenbrook South '24
I've been both a 2N and a 2A.
Be as fast and technical as you want.
If it looks like I'm distracted in round, don't worry, I am probably not.
This paradigm is short for a reason. Most paradigms are way too long and don't actually provide the debaters with any extra relevant info for the round. I don't think my preferences will affect any decision I make in novice debate; certainly, every debate I judge will be won on the flow based on conceded arguments.
I'm only going to base my decision off of the arguments made by the debaters in the round.
No new arguments in the 2AR.
Don’t clip cards. You will lose if you misrepresent what you have read. If you want to stop a card short, do not say "cut the card there". Say, "mark the card at [whatever word you marked the card at] " and then press the enter key a few times after that word in the doc to indicate that you have marked your card here. If you do not mark evidence correctly, the cap for your speaks is a 28.
Don't steal prep.
Time everything -- speeches, cross ex, prep -- I am not timing for you.
Flow. If you ask what cards the other team read, that must be during either cross ex or prep. The other team does not have to answer.
Be clear. I will yell "clear" during your speech if you are not. If I have to do that twice, I stop flowing the speech.
TKOs and more
If one team drops condo, T, ASPEC in the doc, etc. you do not need to waste an additional 30-45 minutes of everyone's time. The 1AR can stand up and say "they dropped condo", and sit down. If the 2nr stands up, says "sorry, we'll take the L" and sits back down, and the 2ar repeats the 1ar, I am voting aff and giving everyone in the room 29.5 or higher, including the NEG.
**The exception being that the negative extends topicality in the block, but drops condo. Obviously, do not stop the debate here.
Consequently, if it's a clean kill in the 2nr/2ar and you don't need to spend more time speaking, please do not. I will boost your speaks.
Also, 8 minutes of prep is SO MUCH, and 10 minutes is unthinkable. If the tournament says 10 and each team agrees before the round to use 8, I'll boost speaks by 0.3. If each team agrees before the round to use 6, I'll boost by another 0.3.
Run whatever you want.
Conditionality is good. I'll still vote on it though.
T is about the plan text in a vacuum.
Sure. Fairness is the most important consideration for my ballot.
Average for novice state would probably be 28.7.
They will be higher if you:
- do line-by-line.
- make good strategic choices.
- answer cross ex questions well, and ask good cross ex questions.
- are nice.
- send out organized speech docs.
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.
Junior at Glenbrook South High School, Fourth Year Policy Debater, 2N/1A
Tech over truth: I strongly believe it's more about the way you articulate arguments rather than the actual validity of them. However, if the debate is even on the tech level, I will default to truth as a tiebreaker.
Please don't call me judge - you can just call me Ana (pronounced like Ana from Frozen)
Nothing racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. or automatic loss
General hot takes:
1) Stealing prep: don't do it. I will dock your speaks. This is extremely frustrating. Trust me, the few extra seconds are never worth it. Maybe it flew during online debate, but now, it's very obvious what you're trying to do. This also includes prepping while your opponent is sending out their speech docs. Needless to say, if you're having tech issues, I understand.
2) Cross ex: I find cross ex to be one of the most important aspects of a debate, since it's the only time you are able to interact with the other team and truly expose how much they really know what they're talking about. Take advantage of this. I value teams who cross ex strategically as a way to set up future arguments they plan to make in the debate.
3) Judge instruction: This is when you provide the judge with an exact path (or preferably multiple paths) of how a ballot for your side is warranted, typically provided in the last rebuttal by both sides (2AR/2NR). I love judge instruction because it helps show me the debaters' interpretations of how to frame my ballot and helps give me an more accurate picture of what exactly I should vote on. Generally, this skill is incredibly rare for novices and much more common in varsity division, so if you can do it correctly, I will massively boost your speaks and give you a higher probability of getting the ballot.
4) Timing: Please time both your speeches/prep time as well as your opponents'. I will probably time them too, but just in case I don't, you should be keeping track of your own time and stopping yourself as needed.
5) Courtesy: Please don't be rude to your opponents, even if you think the argument they are making is dumb or doesn't make sense. Instead, articulate that in your speech using warrants from evidence.
6) Using your evidence: I firmly believe that the quality of your evidence is what you make of it. Draw out specific warrants from your evidence. Even if your evidence is of better quality than your opponents', if they explain theirs better, I will be more inclined to buy their argument. Just reading cards and not expanding on them in later speeches isn't enough to get me to vote on that argument.
7) Clarity: Please be clear in your speeches. I should be able to flow by ear rather than have to look at your speech doc to understand what you're saying. I would much rather prefer you slow down, are clear, and read less cards over spreading through a bunch of cards when no one understands what you're saying.
8) Line by line: It's very obvious when you're simply reading your team's blocks, especially in the later rebuttals. While this is fine and inevitable to an extent, I encourage you to do line-by-line for the later rebuttals. This means going through the arguments you have made and are going for and acknowledging/responding to why those arguments are better than your opponents'.
9) Flowing: Please flow. A lot of novices don't understand the importance of flowing, which causes them to drop arguments. Flowing will make you a substantially better debater and help improve your speaker points. Trust me that it is very obvious when debaters aren't flowing. I will increase speaks if you're flowing well.
10) Tag team cross ex is great, but try to avoid talking over your partner.
11) I don't evaluate arguments said after the timer goes off, but cross ex is binding.
12) Have fun!: I know debate can feel stressful, but it's important you also enjoy yourself while you're doing it and think back to why you're in the activity in the first place. Experiment with new arguments, be kind to others, and recognize that you have many rounds ahead of you and opportunities to get better.
T vs. Policy Affs
Pretty terrible on this topic. Needless to say, I generally am a really big fan of topicality and love judging these debates when done correctly. Make sure you have standards in your 1NC. Make sure to have a we meet argument and a counter interpretation in the 2AC, as well as reasons to prefer your interpretation. Also, make sure you articulate your impacts well and why they outweigh any sort of in-round impacts and are a reason to reject the aff and team. If you have the same impacts, explain to me why you access them better than your opponents.
T vs. K Affs
I doubt I will be judging many of these debates at the novice level, but I generally err neg on T against K affs, especially when affs have nothing to do with the topic. However, that doesn't mean that if the 2NR is framework that I will automatically vote for it. Also, if affs have at least some connection to the topic, I am more inclined to give the aff more leeway.
There aren't many generic DAs on this topic, so I'm willing to provide a little bit of extra leeway to DAs that may be slightly non-unique or not have the best internal link chains. Needless to say, I will need you to clearly articulate your internal link chain in order for me to give you your DA. I am more than willing to vote on DA outweighs case if you do enough impact calc in the 2NR.
If you're reading the politics DA, make sure you're reading updated uniqueness cards from within the few days or week following up to the tournament, since I'm unlikely to vote on a completely non-uq DA if the other team reads more updated non-uq evidence.
Generally, I'll lean neg on theoretical questions on CPs. I feel that, unless dropped or completely mishandled, things like PICs bad and International Fiat bad are reasons to reject the argument not the team, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to vote for them if dropped or not adequately responded to by the neg team. However, I wouldn't rely on theory for CPs as your main offense, except if the CP is clearly cheating. I understand International Fiat will be big on the NATO topic, and it's tough to find neg ground, so I probably will err neg on it unless the aff makes a definitive claim as to why rejecting the team is important, and the neg doesn't have a sufficient answer.
I am definitely familiar with the lit base for Kritiks to an extent but do not have much experiencing running Ks other than cap. However, if you're reading a high theory kritik or one that is not a core generic, make sure you spend extra time clearly outlining the thesis of the kritik to me. I think a common mistake novices make is reading kritiks they don't understand at all. I would advise against this, since it seems like you don't really understand what you're talking about, thus lowering your ethos. Try your best to read all of your evidence and familiarize yourself with it before each tournament. I am definitely more than willing to vote for kritiks if articulated properly, and it's clear what exactly you're critiquing.
I'll vote on anything, but I generally think that most theory arguments with the exception of condo aren't reasons to reject the team. Condo is generally good but I can certainly be convinced otherwise. Nevertheless, I won't hesitate to pull the trigger on dropped theory arguments, as long as constructive speeches have reasons why they're a voter.
Generally, I will give you high speaks if you understand your evidence and are familiar with it, which will definitely show in cross ex and your speeches. Also, dropping the least amount of arguments possible and doing line-by-line is great. Being nice to your opponents and flowing will boost your speaks as well!
Bonus points for being funny in your speeches!
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
My background: I'm currently serving as the head coach at Maine East, after many years of serving as an assistant. For much of the past 7 years, I judge an average of 15-20 rounds on the topic. I debated at Maine East HS back in the late 90s & early 00s for four seasons under the tutelage of Wayne Tang. As such, I tend to lean towards a policy making approach that seeks the best policy option. I tend to view topicaliy/theory through a prism of fairness and education. I don't mind listening to debates about what debate should be. I default to viewing the plan as the focus of the debate.
If you are running a K, I like the links to be as specific to the affirmative's advocacy as possible. If your alternative doesn't make sense, that means that the affirmative must be worse than the status quo for you to win your K.
I strongly dislike reading your evidence after the round- I expect the debaters to do that work in the round. If I call for a card, it will typically be to verify that it says what you say it says. I will not give you the benefit of warrants you did not explain, however I may give the other team the benefit of the card not saying what you said it did.
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 :)
niles north 23, uk 27
the core predisposition I have is that technical execution and preventing judge intervention should be at the forefront of whatever approach you take. this means that technical concessions matter (including cheapshots) and there should be lots of judge instruction.
big fan of cool strategies. I enjoy research a lot and will always appreciate and reward a well-researched and thoughtful strategy, whatever that be. (but, I am also not qualified to mediate interpersonal problems between debaters!)
evidence matters a lot. you should read all the cards. debaters have to set the metric for how evidence should be evaluated and do comparison.
topicality. predictability matters a lot more to me than other things. have good cards. this means cards that define the word, not just use it. reasonability will forever seem super arbitrary to me but can sometimes be fine against suspect interpretations. plan text in a vacuum either makes total sense or none at all depending on the debate. limits for the sake of limits is not persuasive.
counterplans. solvency deficits need explainable impacts. default is judge kick. competition debates are good and a lot of times, NEGs get away with having gaudy 2NCs on competition that gets mishandled in the 1AR. most AFF theory violations seem pretty silly to me and standalone theory ever being the A-strategy doesn’t make a ton of sense to me.
kritiks. teams should get to weigh the AFF but excluding Ks doesn’t make sense. backfile Ks with no relation to the topic are icky and the links will always sound unpersuasive. the less you disprove the 1AC, the less compelling you are.
planless AFFs. the more you struggle to explain the advocacy (in a non-vague way), the more favorable I am toward the NEG. I'm more persuaded by arguments about skills and methods that result from the 1AC being good as opposed to debate/institutions being bad.
PLS CALL ME ALEX NOT JUDGE!!!!!!!!
she/they-niles north 25'
email chain- email@example.com
be good humans, have fun
make FUNNY jokes about (even if you don't know em) : any niles north debater, jv from new trier/GBN, or kailey cabrera, will sterbenc, samreen khan, hina shehzad, anh nguyen, william peng, ben witkov
**any homophobia, racism, sexism, ableism, or any other form of bigotry is an auto L and an email to your coach**
have fun! novice debate is suppose to be fun & educational so i encourage you to ask questions :)
- pls try and time urselves
- tag team cx is fine, it's a partner activity for a reason!
- FLOW FLOW FLOW
kailey --- she/they
for everything: firstname.lastname@example.org
for chains: email@example.com (add both to chain)
i debate with hana bisevac who taught me everything i know about debate. :)
---be respectful to your PARTNER, OPPONENTS, ME, COACHES, and importantly: YOURSELF.
---do line by line and signpost when you're moving from argument to argument
---make funny jokes about: any niles north debaters, jv from new trier, maine east, MBA, GBN, lexington, or make fun of samreen khan, will sterbenc, ben witkov, alex burkman, but they have to make me laugh
--------don't do these things--------
---stealing prep [preparing for speeches without running prep time]
---any of the isms: racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, yk all the phobias. that's ground for me giving you the lowest speaks i can, auto L + emailing your coach
--------the actual debate--------
---roadmaps: give them! be flowable pls !! "i am just going to respond to what my opponents said" is not a real order.
---i will vote on things that are straightup not true if they are warranted out/dropped correctly
---i flipped AFF all of first semester elims last year. i think case overviews are dumb and should be embedded into the lbl
---k affs shouldn't be read by novices. if you read one in front of me, you better entertain me, because i will be sad
---please condense in the 2NR.....
---topicality: im like okay for this
---counterplans: default judge kick, i <3 cheaty process cps, lean neg on theory but can be convinced aff VERY easily, condo is prob good but i will also vote for it easily
---kritiks: don't do it if you can't explain it, high theory like baudrillard etc i am going to give you an eye roll, LOVE the k but mostly techy stuff like cap/security
---disads: underrated asf. i think da v case is the purest form of debate, bonus points for uq cps/adv cps that get out of it
---impact turns: love em all but try not to do death good novice year?
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
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 email@example.com. 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.
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
please add: firstname.lastname@example.org
direct all questions and complaints to WayneTang@aol.com
add me to the email chain or I WILL dock your speaks to 27.1
Kritikal affirmatives will NOT be read in my round--you may NOT express your identity, EVER!
If I ever catch you stealing even a PICOSECOND of prep time, I WILL talk to your coaches and remove you from the tournament. Stealing prep counts as the time is takes to bring your computer to the podium, sending the documents, time it takes for the document to travel through the internet and land in my inbox, and time it takes for my to open the document, download it, and send it to the rest of my team. If you need to use the restroom, I will take prep time. You should have gone before.
Capitalism is GOOD. I will NOT be convinced otherwise. If you even ATTEMPT to spew that PINKO COMMIE LIBERAL GARBAGE I will contact tabroom and remove you under suspicion of espionage.
How I Judge/Prefs:
Pref me a 1 for every kind of debate (I am extrimeley smartt:)
I was born in the royal house of the Riad and therefore have been surrounded by the wonderful works of critical authors such as Wayne Tang, Brian Roche, Cole Weese, Jack Hightower, ZIDAO WANG (ZIDAO ZIDAO ZIDAO ZIDAO), and Trufnananv.
Pursuant to Article 21 of the North Atlantic Treety (novices, it would behove you to memorize the text of every treaty of NATO as that will be very relevant for your speaker points), I will quickly give a decision based on evidence not introduced into the round and arguments I have written down on flows of the past round I have debated in (possibly from the Criminal Justice topic).
Reasonability is possibly the greatest argument ever created (aside from cap good). I am an extremely reasonable person (my notes above reflect this) and generally agree that if the Affirmative defends the word "Cybersecurity", "Artificial Intelligence", or "Biotechonology" they are Topical.
After the round I will ask for a document of all pieces of relevant evidence that will influence my decision. I will permit debaters to add evidence not read in the round that helps their position (especially if it is cap good) and I will thoroughly read through it come to my own conclusions based on said evidence (typically will be that cap is good). If I see the words "CNN", "MSNBC", "The Guardian", "New York Times", or another information source that clearly fabricates lies on a daily basis in a speech document with your school's name on it (regardless of if you read said evidence in the round) I will immediately vote you down and report you to tabroom.
I am especially fond of T-Reverse Federalism versus Dispositionality Turns T debates.
I think Topicality debates that boil down to standards about standard deviations are my favorite to judge.
I am extremely intelligent and am able to adjudicate any kind of debate. My favorite debate is AFF CP vs NEG DA, with the CP being the complex 50 states CP and the DA being the Supreme Court Political Capital Tradeoff DA and the Federalism DA.
I determine speaker points based on your outside knowledge of real world happenings. This includes your score on a 50 question MCQ about all articles of the North Atlantic Treaty that you have 49 minutes to complete, a random number generator from 1-30, the number of letters in your last name, your ability to use Euler's Theorem to calculate the area of a oblate spheroid to then find the size of the apothem of a three dimensional pentagon, and your ability to explain an auxillary theorem in a minimum of 300 words. This all must be done during your final rebuttal or your speaker points will be capped at 27.
Payton '25, email: email@example.com
please dont be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc., will result in immediate L
if youre a novice running a k-aff that you don't really understand, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote for you
super underrated, please go for turns they make debate entertaining
Yeah i like them
Policy v. K: I rly enjoy fw debates from the aff, often more than a purely alt-centered debate
Pet peeve is random jargon with no explanation
pls dont run a k aff if ur a novice unless it's <3
International fiat bad is super persuasive to me
process CP bad is not something I'd like to vote on theory-wise given the fact that process CPs are basically the only thing the neg can run
I'll vote for T but I'd like to see more line by line and clash on T
Unless the other team completely drops T, don't make your 2NR t on a generic/core files aff
+0.5 speaks if it's first round and you bring everyone coffee
+0.5 speaks if you have a CPS ventra card with you and show proof
please put me on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
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)
Solorio Academy HS ‘23 --> UIUC '27
She/Her - Prefer if you didn't address me as "judge"
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Tech > Truth
More policy-oriented than anything. That doesn’t mean I’m not willing to vote on anything else. Feel free to run whatever is your style.
Top Level Tingz
- I have glanced over the high school topic very briefly so assume I know nothing about the specifics of your aff/other arguments
- I'm not doing the work for you. Write my ballot, explain dropped arguments and what that means for the round, explain the warrants for your arguments
- I’m a bit more generous with speaks. Most teams get 28-29. This is decided by how you sound (Confidence!!), quality of arguments, and overall behavior in the round
- Trust that I am competent enough to understand what went on in the round overall – Don’t post round me
- I prefer if you time yourself (if you can’t, let me know), stand up during speeches, face the judge(s), FLOW!
- Not very expressive – my resting face looks a little angry (don’t let it make you nervous)
- Absolutely will not tolerate any sort of racism, sexism, ableism, etc
- This includes putting the other team down and attacking them as people rather than their arguments
Brief Background: I debated 4 years at Solorio, competing in both UDL and nat circuit tournaments. I mostly stuck to a strict policy strategy as the 2N but hit a lot of K teams so I have a decent amount of exposure to both traditional policy and K. I went to debate camp at Dartmouth and was taught to debate by the Conor Cameron and Victoria Yonter (<3). Not currently debating for UIUC.
Case Turns – LOVE. Pretty much down with any case turn. Keep consistent and extend it throughout the debate along with your warrants.
DA’s – DA ground has looked a bit iffy :( --> I have a pretty good understanding of the more common DA's but don't expect me to fill in the argument for you. Tell me the story of the DA, explain how the Aff specifically links, and make your impact clear. Impact calc and Impact comparison are super important!
CP’s – The more sketchy the CP the more I’ll dislike (also not a huge fan of multi-plank CP's) but if you’re winning the CP I’ll vote on it. Make it clear how the CP solves the NB, and what the CP does. The CP has to be a reason to reject the Aff. Answer the Perm.
K’s – I don’t love K’s but I am willing to vote on it. I have a decent understanding of K’s but I hold the neg to a high expectation in terms of explanation of the K. If you plan to go for the K explain all of it. I expect explanations for how the K functions, what the role of the ballot is, and what the alternative and the impacts are. If I don’t know what it does you can’t reasonably expect that I’ll be able to justify my ballot for the K.
K literature that I am more familiar with: Cap, Imperialism, Set Col, Security, Fem. Anything else that isn’t a more traditional K you should assume I know nothing about. (good rule is to assume I don't know anything about the K though)
K Affs - Not a big fan --> probably not the judge you want for a K aff. Doesn't mean I refuse to vote on the aff tho it just means I expect a lot of explanation of the aff + interaction/clash with the neg.
K Aff v T --> Love T personally (I ran it very consistently), I expect K teams to be able to answer T thoroughly and properly. I lean more towards the neg. Fairness impacts are good but harder to win especially when the aff is oftentimes a turn to fairness. Other impacts I am a fan of: education (super important to me), limits, predictable clash. In order to win T it should be a large component of the block and the 2NR (but make sure you watch out for arguments on case that need to be answered). K teams can win in front of me but it is important that T is sufficiently answered.
Theory - Don't have any strong opinions on theory (but I do love a good condo round ;) ). Its a bit harder to win less traditional theory in front of me but I'll do my best to put my bias aside and weigh the impacts. DO NOT SPREAD YOUR THEORY BLOCKS. I understand its strategic if your opponents can't flow all of it but neither can I --> if you're going to ignore this and spread it at least send the block.
Topicality (policy) - Also don't have a strong opinion on topicality. I am less persuaded by a generic T block that doesn't specify the aff's violation and I am less persuaded if it's against a core file (huge aff with lots of literature/ground). I think topicality is good for keeping teams in check and preventing neg abuse but keep in mind that you should be able to clearly define what is and isn't topical (having a case list would help). Get creative but make sure your sources/definitions are credible and relevant. In order to win T it should be more than a minute of your block and all of the 2NR ( all or nothing basically).
Niles West HS (2014-2018)
Trinity University (2018-2020)
Michigan State University (2020-2023)
Niles North HS (2023-now)
University of Wyoming (2023-now)
Last Updated: September, 2023
put me on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
email chain or get a 26, I don't really like cards in the body of the email
I have medium amounts of College and HS topic knowledge - fair word of warning not to hurdle acronyms
Speaks: I will reward speaks mostly on the following criteria...
1. How did you impact your team's ability to win?
2. How did you impact my judging? Did something impress me?
3. Mastery of Material - "knowing what's going on" at the highest level
4. Mastery of Tech/Organization - did you cause/fix any unnecessary/avoidable decision time hurdles?
Clarity: I'm starting to care way way more about the clarity of argument communicated earlier for how I assess risk later in the debate. I really feel like rewarding good packaging of arguments, labeling, and organization that guides the judge through what you're saying AND why that matters. I will try and highly prioritize this analysis over reading every card and seeing who did the better research project. However, instructing me to read a portion of a card obviously constitutes a form of argument that I will take into account.
Framework: I almost exclusively went for t-usfg/framework in HS and college, but that doesn't make me care about dropping a policy team. Impact articulation matters for me but far too often I find teams blending concepts such as fairness and clash in incoherent ways. I don't care about the label, but rather the underling explanation and how it is being applied in the debate.
Nate's sliding scales about debate:
Tech/Truth----------------------------X-Facts are Facts & Dropped args are as true as the warrants conceded
Condo-------X----------------------Respect the Aff Peasant (have and will vote on it, clear args in the 1ar key)
Process CP/Normal Means Competition----------------------------X- 100 plank case-specific advantage CP
Super Big CP-----------------X------------Deep Case Debating
Simply saying "Sufficiency Framing"-----------------------------X-Explain why CP solves sufficiently
Ptx Not Intrinsic/ASPEC/No Neg Fiat/Death Good/"Your Version"----------------------------X-No
Fairness=Impact (FW/T-usfg)----------X-------------------Lol What's That
Zero Risk Framing----------X-------------------Any Risk Framing
Perm Double Bind--------------X---------------Haha Silly Policy Hacks
Deb8=Karl Rove----------------------------X-That was one dude
Salad K----------------------------X-Single K Thesis
Economic Growth----------------------------X-( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
P.S. I will increase speaks from what I would have given by .2 for every minute of prep not used - just specifically tell me the balance of prep your team had remaining.
If you call a CP a "see-pee", you get a 27. Three strikes system.
I care about debate's existence and success. I hope that is reflected in my feedback.
I am fine with open cx. All people should be.
I'm better for the K than you think, but likely need more judge instruction about how to apply X argument. Better for evidence-heavy OR depth-focused debate.
I have not judged a KvK debate yet.
here's a photo collage about my debate thoughts that I made in high school:
GBN class of '24
Please add me to the email chain: email@example.com
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 and exaggerated impact scenarios 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. I don't think there are any great T interps on this topic. Prove me wrong.
1. Neg - if you read something other than cap or IR ks, you need to explain even more specifically, but that should be true regardless
2 Aff - In my opinion, the "perm double bind" pretty much always solves - but, I'll listen to what the neg has to say
1. Everything except condo and 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.
Jonah (he/him) - you don't need to call me "judge," but you can if you can if it feels weird to call me by my first name.
Add firstname.lastname@example.org to the email chain and please send out the 1AC asap
For novices -
- Flow, be engaged, and do line by line to maximize your chances of winning. Show me your flows (on paper) immediately after the round for extra speaker points.
- Don't run troll arguments just because your varsity gave them to you and you think you can "shock and awe" your opponents or me - this includes procedurals like ASPEC and objectionable arguments like death good.
- Use your final rebuttal speech to explain why I should vote for you. Tell me which things you're winning, why winning those will win you the debate, and why you losing things you're behind on don't matter.
- Be clear when you are speaking. I need to be able to hear you to flow your speech.
- Always put your offense before your defense!
- Please please PLEASE time your own prep and speaking time.
- Please give roadmap before every speech except the 1AC, telling me which arguments you will be extending/answering, and in which order.
- There's no need to be excessively rude or "edgy." It's ok to be nervous, but you don't need to take it out by being nasty to your opponents. This is especially true if you're much more experienced than them (for example if you debated in middle school or are a sophomore).
Current Affiliation: None
Conflicts (Please list any past associations you’ve had with a school/organization in the last 3 years--i.e coaching, debating and/or attending): I’ve judged for several different schools. I coached and debated for Lincoln Park HS.
Debate Experience: Three years high school debate experience, attended summer institutes at Emory, Northwestern and Dartmouth. I have been a debate coach for one year. I currently judge tournaments off and on and won’t know topic intimately.
DISADVANTAGES: I enjoy politics DA. Every DA needs to tell a solid link story (incl. Internal Link), generic links being less convincing.
TOPICALITY and THEORY: More persuaded by arguments of education than fairness. Team usually needs to prove in-round abuse or loss ground for me to vote on fairness. I find reasonability counter-standards to often be convincing. Teams must commit significant time to T or theory arguments in rebuttals for it to become a voting issue.
COUNTER PLANS: If decent theory arguments are made, I inclined to vote down PICs and Consult CPs. I’m not a fan of Conditional/Dispositional debates and rarely vote down a team because of it. I tend to find CPs without a spelled out plan text abusive.
KRITQUES: Links and internal links need to be clear. I prefer the alternatives to be thoroughly discussed. If K lacks an alternative then I need to know the role of the ballot. Framework and “Role of the Ballot” needs to always be competitive (e.g., should not simply be “vote against the plan”).
KRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES: I am open to K Affirmitives, but the more radical they are, the more Affirmitive must define their interpretation of policy debate. Affirmitive must have prepared response for what the Negative can potentially run against the case.
MISCELLENEOUS: I’m a bit old-school in preferring to see debaters standing up, and looking at the judge during cross-x. Tag team is allowed, but partner of debater being questioned should not dominant the responses. Please be nice and respectful in asking/giving evidence, referring to the other team and conducting C-X, otherwise I can deduct speaker points. If I need to read cards/evidence as a judge then the debaters are doing something wrong.
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.
0 time TOC qualifier, 4 years of debate for Northside College Prep
If I am judging a virtual debate and you send documents with analytics omitted, you will be docked speaker points. Your mic quality is not nearly as good as you think it is, so why would you voluntarily make it harder for the person who's deciding which team wins (me) to understand what you're saying by omitting a useful visual supplement? Act like I'm half-deaf.
Pay attention to where you use jargon and explain or contextualize where you can. This topic has lots of acronyms so it would help to say full phrases and what they actually mean at least once in-round.
If you can't explain an argument you plan to read in front of me at a conversational speed, there are very good odds that you won't win me over when trying to spread it. Debate what you're comfortable with, not what you think I'll like the most.
Primarily debated soft left affs in high school, but have also read traditional policy. I have read every kind of argument on the neg.
Thoughts on arguments:
- Both aff and neg teams severely underfocus on case. This is almost universal. For the neg, aff evidence is never as good as it's made out to be and should be called out in the 1NC. If you're an aff team and truly believe your case is good, then actually spend time talking about why your warrants respond to the neg's on- and off-case arguments (which it should if it's good) beyond just saying that you are extending X card.
- Disads reach zero risk very easily. Although framing debates tend to be ineffective and misfocused, my general perspective is that low probability likely negates high magnitude at the point that a layman would consider your DA contrived. I like politics DAs but they tend to be really bad, and case-specific DAs are often the most interesting but always harder to develop. In general, if you think your DA is good, I'll probably think it's okay; if you think your DA is bad, I'll probably think it's terrible. A good internal link makes everything I said above moot.
- Counterplans have been massacred without forgiveness and it makes me sad. I strongly dislike the current norm of going for the most abusive counterplan that can still be voted for, but a won argument is a won argument. Still, I tend to bias aff theory against CPs even if it's not a reason to reject the team. (advantage cps > pics/agent cps > process cps > cps that compete off of a single word). As far as complicated mechanisms go, go nuts, I'll be able to grasp it.
- Not sure what this topic holds, but I imagine lots of the research will be focused on security and reps-based kritiks. One characteristic of Ks which somehow appears all the time in K Aff debates but never gets drawn own on the neg side is the role of Ks in shaping how the round is argued. If you treat your K like a counterplan, you're fighting a losing battle. I'm not necessarily pro "framework K," but ultimately the alternative is just a digestible manifestation of the epistemology/pedagogy/whatever that you claim the aff is undermining.
- Topicality debates tend to be dependent on a lot of factors external to the resolution - mainly how late into the year it is and how many affs have already been generated on the topic. A small topic tends to lean aff on allowing innovative (to an extent) plans, but large topics justify limiting what affs are acceptable more stringently. In a given round, this is largely irrelevant, but good debaters draw these characteristics in as warrants on the standards debate. These claims provide rhetorical strength and can help the persuasiveness of the line-by-line on interpretations/standards substantially.
- K Affs are interesting and I'll happily vote on them, but I am, personally, reasonably persuaded by aff arguments favoring predictability and the benefits of switch-side debate. A good kritikal aff is not one which critiques the resolution, but critiques the way that we debate the resolution. If your aff does the latter, most framework arguments go out the window. I will deduct speaker points for 2ACs that have a massive overview but doesn't include analytics in the doc.
- K v K debates are the debates I have debated and certainly judged the least. I think it's the burden of the aff to prove that perms are allowed in a method debate since the aff has already gone so far as to reject the resolution to justify reading their advocacy, but it is up for discussion. Cap links to just about everything but that doesn't always means it's good. The Parenti and Emanuele card is not nearly good enough for the amount it gets read by neg teams. Most of what I said in my thoughts on Ks extends here too.
Two separate instances of clipping will result in an auto-loss and zero speaker points for both debaters. To be clear, clipping is intentionally skipping highlighted parts of a card while acting as though it was still read. To not clip, explicitly state when you stop reading a card before fully finishing ("cut the card at [x]"), keep track of where you stopped reading that card, and after your speech ask if anyone in the round wants a marked copy of your document where the highlighting you didn't read in the card is omitted.
***FOR NOVICES: HOW TO WIN***
Flowing is the most important (and underutilized) skill in debate. Write down your opponent's arguments. All of them.
Do line-by-line - Read and answer everything you just wrote down. Answer your opponent's arguments. All of them.
Novices that learn how to do both of these semi-competently will win the vast majority of their rounds.
Third-year debater at Glenbrook South (2a/1n)
Yes! Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm good for any argument as long as you articulate and contextualize.
Clarity, organization, and good impact calc goes a long way-- it's a great way to get a speaker point boost.
Be kind and respectful and we'll definitely get along. Don't forget to have fun!
email@example.com (yes it's a pun)
be respectful to everyone in the round
- tech > truth but you need to explain why a dropped argument allows you to win the argument / round
- every argument should have a claim, warrant, and an impact
- smart analytics beat cards with no explanation/impact
- cx is open and binding
- impact comparison is underutilized. try to extend your impact comparison beyond just saying buzzwords like "magnitude", "time frame", and "probability"
- play nice and have fun!
- know your affirmative beyond your plan text
- case debate is good and underrated!
- frame your aff!
Counterplans and Theory
- i am familiar with pretty questionable counterplans; run whatever you want.
- have a net benefit!!
- condo is probably good. you're welcome to prove me wrong.
- everything other than condo is a reason to reject the argument, not the team
- fully warrant out the story of your DA. in the 2NR do not just read your 2NC/1NR overview again please
- try to read as specific of a link as possible -why or how does the aff's plan directly cause the impact
- impact comparison is vital here. make sure you explain why your impact happens faster/at higher magnitude/more probable and how it encompasses the aff's impact
- questionably topical affs should be prepared to defend their plan but i'm not predisposed to vote against you
- answer your opponents standards
- what even is reasonability
- don't spread your blocks
- i'm only familiar with security, cap, fem, fem ir, and set col and none of it is on a techy level so i am probably not your go-to person for K debates, especially K affs
- specify your links, explain what your K is, also prove why your K is unique -- why is the plan net worse than squo?
Hello! I'm Collin Lamb, I am a varisty debater at Lane Tech High school and I have been debating for 3 years now.
Spreading:Fast is good, clear is better. I am not your opponent, so I will be getting a majority of my flows from what I hear; not by scrolling through your speech doc.
Please time all your own speeches, CX, and prep.
Ks:Full disclosure, I am not a big K guy. So PLEASE explain these very clearly. Act like I know very little, make your K make sense and make it matter in the face of policy affs and arguments.
General Things:Be very clear in your arguments. Explain it to me like I'm five and your teaching me the ABCs, whichever side makes their argument the clearest and most coherent could be the deciding factor of the debate. Don't be a jerk. I get that tensions and things run high during tournaments but don't be an overt jerk to the other team. Bonus: If you can somewhat organically fit the phrase "Yabba-Dabba-Doo" into one of your speeches you will recieve +0.1 speaks. (Limit one per customer)
Santiago Leyva - Solorio Academy HS'24
Add me to the email chain (firstname.lastname@example.org)
-Clarity and quality of arguments over speed.
-Tell me how you're winning.
-Be nice to everyone in the round.
- Former student at New Trier HS (2015-2019) and the University of Pittsburgh (2019-2022).
- Experience: 6 years as a policy debater, no TOC bids, & NDT doubles (NDT '21) in college. I have been coaching for 2 years and judging for 4 years, albeit the past year and a half has been PF heavy.
**PF Stuff at the bottom
Cameras on preferably, slow down, and I don't know why this happens but wait until you know 100% that I am present before you give an order or start your speech. A black screen with my name means I am not there/ready unless I say otherwise.
- For this specific topic, I am not familiar with the trends and arguments being made on the circuit, specifically the subsets, but I am knowledgeable on NATO as an organization from a previous college topic.
- My experience is policy-heavy, but in college, I strayed away from strict policy debating to more critical debating on both sides, mostly reading iterations of racial security and racial capitalism kritiks and critical affs with a plan. I am most comfortable adjudicating DA v. case, CP/DA v. case, and K v. case; it ultimately isn't my choice what I hear, but point is I think I've seen, heard, and debated a wide variety of arguments that will help aid in judging so do what you know best.
- I find debate enjoyable and I truly appreciated judges who gave a full effort in paying attention and offering an understandable RFD so I will attempt to emulate that in every round that I judge. With that, the best thing you can do for yourself is, up to you how you go about this, to orient your debating around "making my job easy". Whether you lean critical or policy, be more reliant on explanation and spin rather than being solely reliant on what your evidence says. Show me the big picture and within that picture, point out any fine details that are important for me to evaluate. Be explicit, get straight to the point, and avoid unnecessary speak/fillers. Judge instruction is key.
- A judge is never going to be unbiased when listening to different types of arguments. However, pre-conceptions are malleable and good debating (lbl, explanation, etc.) can supersede argument bias, but given my varying degrees of knowledge/expertise in different arguments, adaptation will matter in how "good debating" is performed in round.
- Continuity in argumentation and explanation will be scrutinized. Having been on both sides as a 2N and 2A, I believe many final rebuttals get away with a lot of new spin/explanation, so as I have throughout judging debates, I will hold a higher standard for extensions and such.
- Absolutely do not read morally reprehensible arguments such as death good, racism good, homophobia good, etc. There is no room for that in debates, and it is not courteous to your judge or opponents. You will be dropped and receive a zero.
- The link below will take you to a doc that I wrote many years ago, containing specific thoughts I have about specific types of arguments. I honestly do not think it's as relevant as it was when I was a first year out, but if you aren't familiar with what I think of certain arguments, then feel free to check it out to gain some more clarity. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d5pO-KRsf90F5Y-9Hfc1RlzRxsu21KCSxV9aVZFcRH0/edit?usp=sharing
- Don't hesitate to ask me any questions about my college debate experience as well as my time at Pitt. Feel free to email me or ask after the round!
I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.
I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.
I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk". Not a good look.
Give an order before your speech
Hi, my name is Katelyn, and I am former policy debater for Skinner West and Whitney Young. I now currently judge/mentor both teams, and have been in debate for around 5-6 years. I judge both PF and policy.
My email: email@example.com
Here are some general rules/things I like to see:
- Time yourself please, this should be a debater's responsibility
- Spreading is always nice but give roadmaps + signpost (clarity>speed)
- Always include impact calculus in the rebuttal speeches
- I prefer overviews in speeches rather than giving me an underview with remaining time (overviews are always good to hear)
- Organized line by line in the rebuttal speeches is always good
- tag teaming is ok but don't take over CX
- please overexplain rather than underexplain to get through more arguments
- I tend to prefer substance of the debate over generalized arguments or evidence, so make sure you are not just extending cards and evidence but also providing analytics and building clash
- I tend to not take questions/arguments made in the CX into account in my ballot, you must bring whatever it was that occurred up in a speech for me to weigh it and flow it
- tech over truth
- always always always extend your impacts- I tend to weigh presumption so please give me impact extensions through your rebuttals
- evidence/source debate is good clash in my opinion, updated evidence is always good
- I don't vote too heavy on perm- I want to see why you expand on refuting net benefits, solvency advocates, etc
- I vote on T, so please take your time to refute it - I really REALLY like well thought out and run T arguments
- I typically go for extinction rather than moral/human rights arguments
- I vote on NEG presumption, so please expand squo solves arguments and turns- there are a lot of good case turns that can be abused that typically are not extended in debate rounds- I would love to see clash on case
- I weigh all offcase arguments, but I tend to see DAs as net benefits or loopholes rather than physical arguments on their own (please do run DAs though)
- I don't weigh K too heavily, but I do appreciate framing and theory arguments
- I really like T arguments and clash - please go all in or drop T in the rebuttals- I really hate to see poorly run Topicality
- Be clear when kicking out of offcase arguments and please don't commit a forfeit offense :)
- I am familiar with a few K args, majority of the CPs, DAs and more, but I love to hear new arguments every now and then
That's all I've got, I love to see respectful and educational debates filled with clash. Thanks for reading my paradigm, and good luck debating!
I am a current senior at GBS (2022-23)
Please add me to the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
My debate philosophy:
I am open to all forms of debate and have done extensive debate in both K's and generic policy args
Tech > Truth; and I will vote on even the most outlandish impact turns or scenarios as long as you meet the burden of proof.
Have fun with debate and don't be a jackass to the other team
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
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
- 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.
Amber Paramore (she/her)
Background: policy debate going on 6 years
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
tl;dr I like Ks, T, CPs, DAs (in that order), go for whatever (nothing discriminatory), frame your arguments.
Any blatant racism, sexism, etc. and I will vote you down and give the lowest speaks possible.
I have always been a K debater (ignore freshman year). If you want to run one, go for it. Make sure you actually understand the K you're running; using philosophical jargon that you don't understand won't make it more likely for me to vote for it, but make it funny if you do. Explain the K so I can clearly see why the world of the K is better, why it's a prereq to the aff, etc. etc. If you're losing that the alt can't solve, then just sufficiently prove why any link to the aff would make the squo worse. Keep up with your framework and respond to the other team's standards.
K-affs, questioning the resolution, questioning debate itself--whatever it is, those are all super fun and incredibly necessary--go for it. K v K debates are also fun, just stay organized.
(this only applies LATER in the season) +0.2 speaks to aff if they run a K-aff, and +0.2 speaks to neg if they go for a K; -0.2 speaks if aff runs policy and -0.2 speaks to neg if they read no Ks
I generally like T, and have gone for it quite a few times, but the neg has to be able to prove aff is not topical. Spend time on T, extend your interp, violation, standards, and voters. Affs need to sufficiently prove we meet arguments--everything else is moot if affs meet the interp. Voters are pretty important for neg if you want me to, y'know, vote on it.
CPs are good, but it has to be able to compete with the aff. Explain why the CP is mutually exclusive; aff needs to sufficiently argue that it isn't for me to vote on it. CPs need a net benefit, external or internal idc but it needs to have one. I won't judge kick unless you ask me to.
For neg, have clear links and explain them clearly. If you can’t explain how the aff links to the DA then idk how to weigh it or why to vote on it. Impact calc is important; tell me why your impact should be weighed over other impacts. Not the biggest fan of teams going for DAs, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on it.
Always, always, always frame your arguments. Tell me what I should weigh the most and why. I’ll only weigh what the teams tell me to weigh.
- Signpost; say “and” or “next” between cards.
- I like speed, but not if clarity is sacrificed.
- I prefer cameras on when you’re speaking for online debate.
- Tag team is fine, just be respectful.
- You can be aggressive during cross, but there's a line between being aggressive and rude.
- I prefer interesting K debates over policy.
- Be respectful.
- Tech >>> Truth
- Saying "slay" during a speech or cross will get you +0.1 speaks and I'll know you read my paradigm :D
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.
I prefer policy have leaned into the big stick impacts and low probability impact calculus more than I would like to admit. (much to the dismay of judges whos rounds devolve to solvency in order to determine probability in counterplan debates)
This should indicate to you that often I am tech over truth. No matter how little explanation an advantage or DA scenario gets, if its dropped by the other team, 15 seconds of yelling its been dropped thus it is true typically is sufficient to allow me to weigh marginal risk of an impact which for close debate may be all you needed to win.
I feel generally positive about voting for non-sensible Bizcon or Politics DA's but its in the execution. Please have updated evidence and a proper link no matter how strong the link is any specificity to the aff is much better than generic links (topic links are a strange grey area but need some "2NC Spin" or new evidence to better justify the link.)
lane tech '23
add me to the email chain! email@example.com
if you are debating online, please have your camera on! (at least during speeches)
i'm good with all arguments, just make sure you explain them well and tell me why you're winning the debate. don't be rude, don't be racist, don't be homophobic, don't be transphobic, and don't be any other ist or ic.
if u are a novice pls don't run a k aff! i probably will not vote in your favor.
i will dock your speaks if you aren't speaking clearly. don't go fast if it means you aren't saying full words.
if u show me you flowed after the round and it's really sick i'll give you +0.2 speaks :]
Christopher Rodriguez - Solorio Academy HS'23
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
-I'm more comfortable with policy but I'm willing to vote on anything else if it's explained thoroughly.
-Tech > Truth, but if they drop something don't just say "they dropped ____" and move on. Extend the argument
-I'll read evidence but it won't weigh on my decision. The exception is if you tell me to look at a certain piece of evidence, or do a lot of evidence comparison.
-I won't do the work for you, if you don't contextualize an argument to the debate then I'm less likely to vote on it.
-You'll get higher speaks the more confident you are and the smarter arguments you make. I'll doc speaks if you are rude to your opponents or partner. Being assertive is good but there's a difference of being assertive and being rude.
-My ballot is submitted before I give feedback. I'm happy to walk through my ballot in a constructive manner, but aggressive post rounding is cringe.
-Should go without saying but I won't tolerate Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Ableism, etc.
DA: I believe DA's should be in every 1NC. This topic is rough when it comes to DA's, but if you are able to explain the DA very well I'm more likely to vote for it. Do work in explaining the story of the DA. I think the key arguments on the DA is the Link and impact. So do a lot of work on the Link story, and impact comparison.
CPs:On the neg: I'm not a big fan of small random PICs
Not a big fan of random country PICs (If its a big country like Turkey, Germany, etc. its fine). There is a few key arguments the neg should be winning to get my ballot on the CP:
- How the CP avoids the Net Benefit
- Why the CP is better than the Plan
- Why the perms don't work
As aff these are the arguments I think are crucial to beat the CP:
- Explain and articulate the solvency deficits on the CP
- Explain the perms, even if the neg doesn't answer the perms you still need to make the perms make sense
- Why case outweighs
K's:I'm not a big fan of the K but I'll vote for them if you can explain it.
He/they, Varsity debater at Lane Tech
Please speak clearly, I am flowing so I need to hear what you are actually saying instead of just relying on the speech doc. Time your speeches, CX, and prep. Dont be rude, homophobic, racist, etc. Friendly competitiveness is fine but you ruin the experience if you are a jerk. Explain why you should win in this round, the more I understand each sides argument the better decision I can make as a judge.
Good luck! :)
i worked at a camp on the NATO topic but i have limited topic knowledge. explain acronyms, slow down on T.
the following are just ideological preferences, good debating is more important
tech > truth but an argument needs to have a claim/warrant/impact in order for me to vote on it
procedural fairness is an impact
i am more persuaded by k affs that are grounded in topic literature
won't judge kick unless you tell me to
the further away from topic lit ur process cp is the more likely i err aff on theory
smart 2ac perm texts are underutilized
politics is fine but i prefer a 1nr that does good link spin to a 1nr that card dumps shitty evidence
you do you
dont assume anything about my knowledge of your literature
i will likely err neg on a more limited topic
other than condo, theory is usually a reason to reject the argument not the team
if you make a (good) joke about derek devito i will give you +.2 speaks
im generally not that expressive
i will adjust speaker points to the tournament/division
Background- Policy debate 5 years
Add me to the email chain- email@example.com
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.
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
Dana Thurnell (she/her)
Hi, please add me to the chain firstname.lastname@example.org
Run anything you want even if you think it is bad. That said the worse an argument is the easier it can be defeated.
I am probably not a great judge for the k (that doesn't mean I hate Ks just means I am not good at wrapping my mind around them) You can still run the K and if you run it very well I will vote for you but I just tend not to think they are winning. I'm definitely more familiar with stuff such as Cap K and Security but still know most other Ks. More high theory stuff such as Baudrillard will need a lot of explanation.
K affs: Run it if it's what you are comfortable with but I definitely lean neg on framework. I generally see fairness as an impact as long as the neg articulates it as such. Case debating in these debates is very important.
DA/CPs are really fun and I love to hear these debates. I think the aff should try to make more theory arguments against obviously illegit CPs and the neg should be prepared to defend themselves against that.
I love T but make sure to debate it well.
Theory - I'm much more open to voting on theory violations than most people so make sure to answer it.
Case debating - do it! Side note an impact turn strategy is awesome
No sexism/racism/homophobia/xenophobia/any other stuff like this - will result in me voting you down and lowest speaks. No clipping - I am listening.
Overall, have fun.
Lane Tech '23
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
(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.
Hey y'all my name is Eva Vasilopoulos and I'm a second year political science, public relations, and economics majors at Iowa State University. I just recently got back into the debate realm this year so I am not fully in the loop on the topic. I did policy debate in high school for Niles North.
Also please make jokes, debate gets boring really fast
I don't know this topic that well so keep that in mind
Just call me Eva, not judge
line by line is important
I don't care what speed you read but just be clear
Impact calc key for affs to do if y'all want an aff ballot. All of my debate career I have only read soft left affs, but I do understand the literature from all aff types. If you have an aff and it has a structural violence impact with some framing, and another impact of war, disease, Econ collapse, etc. Go for one, not both if the 2ar extends their genocide and war impacts, a big no-no. (this happens a lot too)
I like these affs, breath of fresh air from the basic policy affs from the topic resolution. I would prefer teams to read a plan text and defend some action. (doesn't have to be USFG as an actor) I have judged and voted on identity affs a good amount during the arms sales topic and cjr topic.
have a clear internal link and link story, how does point A lead to point B. Don't use generic evidence for the link, there has to be a clear point that the AFF. I lean slightly aff on this so the neg needs to do some work to prove the DA. If you run a da PLEASE RUN A CP, with it cause yeah there is a risk but I don't have another way to solve that's on my flow. If you are running a relations da, Econ da, or other one make sure you have recent evidence so the impact is concrete.
t has been very over-limiting on a lot of topics I have debate on, majority of T arguments only make certain big affs topical. breath>depth. I'm pretty neutral on judging this, it comes down to the extensions in the 2nr and the response in the 2ar on how I should write my ballot. ASPEC I'm not a big fan of, if you go for it the 2nr should be just aspec and explain the voter in the round and why fairness and ed are key. CJR specific I have voted on t on this topic and I have voted against it.
Love a good perm/theory debate. Both sides need to do work to prove whether if the cp is competitive/noncompetitive and that it does/doesn't solve the aff w/o linking to the net benefit. impact calc of the nb is key for my ballot.
A good amount of 1st-year rounds I judged were more critical. I'm in the loop on K literature, so you really don't have to explain terms just the world of the alt looks like and why I should pick the neg's fw over the affirmative. these rounds are either really good or really bad. Known to be very messy Only run it if you really understand it.No no generic link cards, have to be specific to the aff. By the 2nr the neg should have a clear story of what the world of the alt is, and why the k matters in this round.
Call me Jairo(pronounced "High-row"), being called judge makes me feel old
Northwestern '27(currently not debating)
Background+Top level stuff
I debated both in nat circ and udl(Chicago Debate League) tournaments during high school. Went to camp during my freshie and soph(virtual tho) years, so if any questions then I am more than willing to answer.
Tech>Truth---Doesnt mean you dont have to contextualize/explain what them dropping something means for the round, you still have to explain and make clear what the argument is for me to evaluate it in your favor
Better for policy---didn't do K debate , but don't let that stop you from running what you want
No specific way to assign speaks, just be nice, speak pretty, explain things well, and youll do alright
I feel like I can be a pretty visual person with my face, so if I approve or disapprove of something then you will be able to tell(nodding head for good, scrunching my face for not so good, you get the gist)
Anything that promotes violence, discrimination, or hate is an immediate L, lowest speaks possible, and a report to tab
In case you are wondering about in depth thoughts on arguments:
I really like disads and I think they are a staple of what neg args should be in debate. For every disad, paint me a story of how the disad actually happens if the plan were to pass, from the UQ up to the moment of the impact(big red button is pressed, oceans rise and we get 2012 IRL, the environment collapses, etc.)
- For the neg---should always be in a 1nc. For later speeches, if running DA by itself, tell me why it turns the case and do impact calc. If running as a net benefit, tell me exactly how the cp avoids the DA. Avoid generic links as much as possible; if generic link is called out then I am much much less to weigh the DA as highly as the aff
- For the aff---the best strat to go for is straight turn imo. If done well , then you have forced the neg into an awkard position and you are fully in control of that flow. Honestly if the neg fumbles the straight turn answers too then I am all for a pure straight turn 2ar. If not possible, then the main canon of arguments work, just prove why case outweighs
I LOVE case turns. These debates can get messy tho, so for both sides make sure to 1. keep the story clean and concise 2. try to organize LBL as much as possible
- Neg---If you wanna go for a CT, then you have to make sure to tell me all throughout the debate how the aff links and how the impact outweighs. Personally, I dont mind it if you sandbag in the block, so go crazy with impacts if you have them, just make sure to answer all the aff args they present cus even once concession can take out the whole ct for me
- Aff---For most of the CTs run, theres a high likelihood you link. It might just be me, but if its clear the aff links, then I just want to see you bite the bullet and tell me why that linking is good(i.e, if you increase growth then do growth good, if heg then heg good, so on, and give me specifics as to why its good). Obviously, this doesn't mean you can just disregard their impacts, so make sure to also answer or group the impacts they had. If they sandbag in the block, then crossapplying is your friend
CPs are really interesting because theyre either really good or really mid. In general, Agent/Process cps are legit, I find consult cps boring, and if your cp has more than like 5 planks then don't even run it(even you know its abusive). Also, sufficiency framing is iffy---if your cp doesnt solve the impact of the aff, then why even run it
- Neg---THE CP HAS TO BE A REASON TO REJECT THE AFF, PLEASEEEEEEE. That means even if the cp is plan plus, I still wont vote for it. You need to prove to me in the 2nr 2 things: First, you are able to access the plan and solve for the impacts through your cp, and second, doing the plan alone is bad/doing the cp would solve for discrepancies with the plan alone. That being said, you ALWAYS need a net benefit, whether it be internal or external, and explain how the CP avoids that
- Aff---Personally, I like seeing shifty perms being run and exploited like crazy if conceded. By shifty, I dont mean different wordings of the cp text so dont do that, but shifty as in like "do plan and have agency do x instead". In general, POSTAL works great with cps so just stick to that and youll be good
T has sucked these past few topics cus everything is so untopical but borderline topical. That being said, don't just run T as a strat skew cus that just wastes flow and could be used for more substantive off. However, still good to always have T on both sides in case of anything
- Neg---I feel like T is really underappreciated against smaller affs. If you are able to call out a team effectively on how theyre untopical, then keep it going all throughout the round and call out if their counterinterps are generic, if they severely underlimit, and so on. T can get very messy though, so unless you have a really good feeling about T, dont run it because I know we dont wanna argue over definitions for 2 hours
- Aff---If you know you're borderline topical, you better have a damn good counterinterp. Apart from that, main canon of arguments work in front of me
Ks are really interesting but far from my specialty(I had to debate under a hard right policy coach for 4 years, dont blame me). With that tho, I am really only interested/know more of the main canon of neg ks, so stuff like cap, security, afropess, queer. fem, etc. If your k is high theory, then dont pref me(I dont wanna hear about baudrillard for 2 hours)
- Neg---In front of me, you link you lose is valid ONLY IF you win framework(run it as like a da in a way). I really dont buy many alts of the ks as realistic, so if you know your alt isnt that amazing and the aff is calling you out on it, just drop it and resort to talking about how they make matters worse and why I need to evaluate the K more than I do the aff. However, if you run some generic links against the aff, then I am much much less likely to weigh it that highly if they call out the generality
- Aff---Ima be straight and to the point in what I like to see v ks- first strat, call out why the alt fails and why its probably unrealistic/doesnt solve. Second, if they kick the alt, go for case outweighs and specifically why case outweighs, so if you need util then run it in the 2ac, or impact d then also run it in the 2ac, and hell you can even do case turns k to take out the impacts. For all of that to work though, you NEED to win and stay on top of framework, so keep framework on top of the k flow in every speech. Perms are pretty weak v ks, so still read them but dont depend on them for the 2ar
In all honesty, I am not in tune with k affs like that, so I am not the best judge to run these in front of. However, if it is your main strategy, then you should run what you are most comfortable with
- Neg---Unless you would also run Cap against them, you should just run FW. I buy FW the most against k affs, just stay on top of their answers to your arguments and you should be alright
- Aff---For a k aff to stick in front of me, I need a clear explanation why running the k aff solves for your impacts and why this round is specifically necessary. I need a role of the ballot from the get go(2ac fs, 1ac preempt maybe even) and for this to be explained in depth in the later parts of the round. In a similar fashion, I need an explanation of why running on the neg cant solve, and you need to explain to me how the alt looks like in action
Most theory is really a wash for me. The only one I will vote for is condo, but that also depends on the round and how many conditional off are run
I like jokes---if you make me laugh then i'll give you +.1-.2 speaks---specifically, joke about Conor Cameron or Victoria Yonter(and if it flies), i'll give +.3
If any questions about anything, debate related or not(argument preferences i missed, college, Mexican restaurant recs, etc.) dont be afraid to ask!(just prob not during the middle of the round lol)
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: firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.
Glenbrook South '23
Please add me to the chain: email@example.com.
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 add me to the chain
Don’t be a jerk + don’t be racist/sexist/homophobic
Try to time your own speeches/cx/prep
Mention Juice WRLD in your speech for extra speaks
I can tell when you're stealing prep - Don't do it
Roast Greyson Parfenoff for extra speak
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!