2023 — Chicago, IL/US
Novice Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
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
kailey --- she/they
for everything: email@example.com
for chains: firstname.lastname@example.org (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?
please add: email@example.com
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.
For the email chain
Email chain? Bathroom? The K? Tag team? [death/warming/disease/whatever] Good? Flowing? Yes
ASPEC? Underviews? Please no
Tell me if:
You live on the south or west side, or commuted via CTA: +0.3 speaks
email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
please time your own speeches & prep <3
be kind to one another! this is supposed to be fun!
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).
wy '21 (policy)
uiuc '25 (parli)
I am not familiar with the emerging technologies topic this year so please contextualize whenever you can.
I’m not really good with K debates. However, if you do run a K, make sure it is well explained. Be very clear when explaining the link, impact, and alt to the k. I don’t like super wild K’s, so be careful with those.
For the rebuttals, tell me what I should be voting for and why you should win. During novice year, I think it is especially important to do impact calc and evidence comparison.
Please signpost and tell me which argument you are answering and do line-by-line. This would make it easier for me to flow your speech.
Also, have fun and try your best.
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.
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please be clear, time yourselves, and make sure you flow!
Feel free to email me with any questions.
Of course I want to be on the email chain -- email@example.com
HS Debate: 19-23 (4 years) -- Walter Payton
College Debate: 23-Present -- University of Michigan
Debate Coach -- Walter Payton
I'm familiar enough with the topic to know the acronyms, and strategies, but I won't know if an argument is really silly to go for, so if you lose on this year's T-A5 that's on you.
Always send me a card doc after the round unless it’s only theory. This does not necessarily mean that I will look at it in all debates; I will first and foremost look at the flow to determine who won the debate round. I just like reading cards after the round regardless if I have to.
Tech > truth. Read whatever you want. I will attempt to judge the debate with as little intervention as possible. I do not assume that arguments are presumptively too stupid or offensive to answer. The stupider and more offensive the argument is, the easier it should be to answer.
I have been both 2A and 2N, policy and kritik. However, my background and thoughts are more rooted in policy than kritik and am far more comfortable judging such.
I’m a pretty expressive judge, and the more of a certain emotion I am feeling the more expressive I am. It would do you well to look up at me from time to time.
Things I like:
Really smart technical tricks or concessions.
When debaters time their own speeches.
Being funny and creative in your speeches (that is distinct from meme arguments).
Things I don’t like:
Saying the words “oops” or something along those lines at the top of your speech.
Calling me anything other than my name. “Judge” is the main one.
Unnecessarily saying my name in a speech just to prove you read the above line.
Asking me if I need a card doc.
Being a jerk to your partner and/or the other team.
When the 1AC has not been sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start.
The classic spread of misinformation (i.e. saying there's a NATO country in the SCS).
Trying to be funny and failing miserably (potentially not distinct from meme argument).
I have read planless and kritikal affs, but I am still decently sympathetic to negative framework arguments. I believe that fairness is both an impact and an internal link, but it depends on how the teams contextualize it in-round.
Winning the framework debate on either side requires both teams doing sufficient impact calculus. Two teams that are saying “we are good for education” and “we are good for fairness” respectively makes evaluating the framework debate much more annoying and difficult than it should be. Affirmative disads and arguments to framework should be contextualized to fit a broader story as to why I should vote for you rather than incoherent babbling about how an argument was dropped and how that means I automatically vote for you. I have noticed negative teams tend to say “group the disads, they say basically the same thing” when they don’t say the same thing.
I have very limited experience with KvK debates. I generally think that the aff gets some perms, but I think that negative teams allow the aff to change the functionality of their aff in order to make their permutation too often.
A lot of affirmative teams are getting away with way too much and negative teams are allowing them to get away with it. Strong analytics are sometimes enough to take out shoddy internal link chains.
I am better for soft-left affs more than most judges probably are.
My neg strategy for the majority of my senior year consisted almost entirely of counterplans that were incredibly dependent on winning the competition debate, so I like to think that I was good at it. I definitely enjoy these debates but I fear that the majority of teams have literally zero clue what functional and textual competition actually mean and just use them as buzz words their coaches told them to put in their blocks.
I think that people are either underutilizing immediacy and/or certainty key against process CPs, or they are giving terrible reasons for immediacy and certainty.
Counterplan theory is a lost art of debate. Affirmative teams are allowing negative teams to get away with murder. Affirmative teams are allowing negative teams to get away with murder. I lean defense on theory in general, but I am very persuadable on condo and theory in general. Should you invest the time and effort into effective and high quality theory debating, I am very receptive to such. In a perfectly debated round I will vote negative the majority of times. The words “condo is a voting issue - time skew strat skew” do not constitute a complete argument. If you are just reading your backfile theory blocks against each other I will disgruntledly vote for whoever backfiles are better and give both teams bad speaker points. Conversely, teams that utilize topic specification to describe the division of ground and how the theoretical objection changes it will make me happy and be awarded high speaker points.
Saying "we get x" or "x condo is good/bad" is really arbitrary and I think is super hard to win, especially when the debate is "1 condo vs 2 condo" or something similar.
The reasoning for why new affs justify infinite condo is strange but I lean either way.
I generally find that word PICs are weak and unpersuasive. If you think that your word PIC is an exception you are welcome to try.
I went for the K for a decent number of my rounds, but I still am much more comfortable evaluating policy debates. I am ok on both sides for old-school kritiks like cap and security.
I have very limited experience reading identity Ks. I read an Orientalism K for a little which was more closely akin to an IR K than an Identity K.
I have next to zero experience with postmodernist/poststructuralist literature. I am not someone that easily understands that type of literature, thought or arguments. I will try and evaluate these debates as well as I can, but these types of arguments are far outside my realm of knowledge. You repeatedly saying the word “ressentiment” will definitely not help me. If you really want to win my ballot err on the side of over-explanation.
In a completely even framework debate I will probably weigh the aff. The number of affirmative teams that completely fumble the framework debate in the 1AR is higher than it should be.
I am a better judge for T than a lot of judges. There’s a strange paradox with judges that say that they are “tech over truth” but then have strong preconceptions of T debate that all but signal it is unwinnable for the neg. I have no such preconceptions. I have no preference for one standard compared to another.
I go either way on plan text in a vacuum.
I think that reasonability is winnable, but only if you overcome the negative’s predictability/limits push. Recently I have thought of winning the T debate as more of a game of inches instead of a game of extremes. Rather than winning that "our interp is good, their interp is bad", it is much easier to win that both models are good and that either there is a small comparative advantage to one interpretation or that because both are good it's a reason why competing interpretations in this instance is bad. I haven't seen any debates like this, but I probably go either way.
I don’t think there’s a whole lot that can be said, or honestly should be said. There’s this strange dilemma surrounding politics and “generic” DAs which I don’t really get. A disadvantage is just a negative implication to the plan, there realistically shouldn’t be this much hemming and hawing to what that means. Read the disads you think will win.
Theoretically the mean speaks should be 28.5, and I try will give speaks around there. The chance that (unless something went terribly astray) you get a 27 or a 30 is basically 0. However, I have noticed that I tend to give speaks on the lower sides of rounds. I have and will give substantially different speaker points between partners if it is fitting, and I think low point wins are more common than is documented.
I think that giving speaker points for things like "make me laugh" or "mention x debater" is really dumb. If you are a funny debater that probably already affected the speaks I am giving you positively sticking to this metric of adding more artificially inflates speaks.
These are more random takes I have. Most of them probably don't have an impact on the debate round; tech and good debating definitely changes my thoughts on most of these.
This definitely will not change. If you read an emerging tech impacts that say that "x technology is coming before y year" and that year has passed with no sight of extinction from that tech, I'm going to die.
There are individual instances of debate that could be contextualized as good or bad, but I think it's hard to say that the activity as a whole is inherently either. I think that using debaters as an example in order to determine that debate wholistically is either good or bad is really dumb. As I am sure you know, generalizations about a group of people based on the actions of a few is a very dangerous precedent, I do not see why debate is an exception to this.
Aliens are probably real based on the sheer size of the universe but I wouldn't know I'm a political science major.
I don't care if you read death good, wipeout, etc.
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)
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
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!
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
Tldr; Good for the k/k-aff, fine for anything- Lane 23’, U of Iowa 27'
Former Lane debater/coach, current Iowa debater
Call me Grey, G-Money, or big h0ngry, calling me judge just fuels my god complex
Preferably turn your camera on, however, I understand if that's not possible
Don't be rude
Time your own speeches, CX, and prep
If you end any of your speeches with "And that's how the cookie crumbles" I will boost your speaks
My topic knowledge is vague at best, but for the sake of the round pretend like I know nothing
HS has an accountability problem, I will do my best as a judge to fix that
Ks: Love PoMo and weird stuff, but I'm not down for trolling. Most experienced with PoMo/queerness/trans studies, I think specific links are important but don't have any weird convictions that you have to go for the alt (though I think it's generally useful). It is my pet peeve for k framework to run to the middle, take an actual stance.
Policy affs: Have fun!
K affs: I don't expect you to spill out or actually do something though I really prefer if you have a method, if I wanted an FYI I'd just go to class.
Framework: I lean towards fairness being an internal link, if you say it's an intrinsic good I'll need justification as to why. I will like you a lot more if you read parametrics/tactics.
Anything else: I will vote on the flow, no strong preferences either way
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.)
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.
I try my best to adhere to the rules of debate, so not to allow personal biases enter the round. However, below, you’ll find a few answers to common questions debaters have for a judge that may influence the ballot, and the displays of conduct that I appreciate viewing that may influence speaker points:
Case: More warrants. Less speculation. I don’t enjoy AFFs with advantages based on speculative impacts. Let the research connect the dots. I appreciate a good two-worlds analysis later in the debate.
T: I don’t enjoy voting on T, but I will.
K: Please, please, please, for Debate God’s sake, give us a strong K shell. Framework also matters. (Make it make sense. Why does the K matter? Was does the alternative look like? Why should we prefer the alt to the plan? Can the worlds coexist? And in what order, if any?)
Abuse: I’m not particularly sensitive to abuse arguments, unless a party is profoundly impacted by [insert] action.
Speaker points: I assign based on quality of argumentation and clash, clarity, sportsmanlike conduct and individual contribution to the round.
-One can be amazing in argumentation, clash and clarity, but lose speaker points for being unsportsmanlike — which I understand is subjective. We know that debate can bring out our sassiness. Let’s not be disrespectfully spicy. I appreciate focus on argumentation, not attacks on intellect or character.
-One can also give great speeches and participate in Cx, but if your partner is doing most of the asking/answering in Cx or is clearly owning the bulk of your speeches, it won't help YOUR speaker points.
-NOTE! Speed as it relates to clarity: totally fine with speed, but not in the absence or reduction of enunciation. Please be clear.
Hope this helps!
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.
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)
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