Lakeland Westchester Classic
2023 — NY/US
Policy Novice/JV Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Colleyville Heritage '21 (TX)
I did policy (and some LD) for 4 years in High School and am currently debating at Baylor University
Try to make the subject of the email chain: "Tournament - Round # - (School 1) AFF v (School 2) NEG" or something similar
I'm not going to do work for you. That being said, you should write my ballot in the 2NR/2AR and tell me what I’m voting on -- this means these speeches need to be heavy on judge instruction.
Evidence quality matters a lot more than evidence quantity -- a more technical and organized debate is easier to vote on than a card-heavy debate.
I start the round with a 100% presumption of a risk of the DA, which the AFF needs to knock down to 0%. This means I need impact calc... Do the risks matter? Do they outweigh the aff's impacts? I don’t know, you tell me.
Make sure you're extending the link and uniqueness debate into the block. This should come before any of the impact debate -- zero risk is a thing, and it's easy to vote on if you mess up badly.
Tech>Truth is probably the most applicable here. This implies more than just saying "a dropped argument is true".
You need to explain why it solves better than the plan. Don't just say "Counterplan Solves" and expect me to vote on it. Same thing with perms too; "perm do both" or "perm do the counterplan" is not an argument, tell me more.
Well thought out PICs/PIKs are fun and strategic when debated correctly
Kritiks (Top Level):
I was a K debater throughout High School and now at Baylor, so I'm probably a good judge for you if you want to go for the K
I've debated a lot of Asian Identity, Pessimism, Logistics, and Racial Capitalism in the past and some Settler Colonialism/Grove and Psychoanalysis currently if that is important to you.
Try not to go for things you're not familiar with -- you're missing out on critical substantive debate when you're reading something just for the sake of it
Long overviews tell me that you don't know how to do a line-by-line. Just shorten your 4-minute 2NC overview of the K and actually answer arguments on the flow
K v Plan:
Sometimes K debates get muddy if there aren't specific links to the aff, so you should probably find some sort of link that is specific enough to the AFF (or at least attempt to contextualize it). That being said, I’ll vote on a generic link if it's insufficiently answered or dropped.
Tell me what the world of the alt looks like; I'm not going to vote for an alt that I can't understand. Same thing with the perm.
I think the AFF gets to weigh the plan, but the NEG should also get residual links of reps to the plan -- I can be convinced otherwise, though.
I literally don't care what kind of aff you read -- I have experience reading straight up Policy Affs to K Affs. However, most of the Affs I have read/cut have been K Affs -- this is the kind of debate I'm more used to.
I think your Aff needs a topic link at the very least, unless you have a cohesive answer as to why you don't have one -- topic relevance is probably best in terms of K v FW debates, but you do you. Ks of debate are also fine.
Topicality debates are my favorite when done well. I love good T debates but I hate bad T debates. Don't make this a bad one.
I really like nuanced T debates against policy affs. I think a lot of these affs get away with WAY too much than they should (like fiating away literally everything) which is why I really appreciate fun little arguments like extra T and effects T being impacted out in the 2NR.
Case lists, examples of ground loss, and a good interp = A good T debate.
Topicality is a question of models of debate, not THIS debate. This means that I would prefer you go for an education or portable skills impact in FW debates as opposed to procedural fairness.
For LD** please (please!) no tricks.
Even as a 2N, I think that condo is probably the only theoretical reason to reject the team, even then, please come prepared with robust explanations of your theory arguments. For all other theory arguments, you should err on the side of over-explanation and more judge instruction.
FW v K AFFs:
Case lists are good, buzz words are not.
I think a lot of teams have trouble with TVAs and SSD, both on the Aff and the Neg. Your TVAs should have clear plan texts and SSD arguments should be able to solve the content of the Aff as well as the 2AC's answers to framework.
I tend to err Neg on the fairness question absent specific Aff answers as to why FW can resolve Aff offense via the TVA/SSD debate.
I think presumption is SUPER underutilized in these debates. K Affs are usually very vague in terms of explaining the advocacy/solvency and I think that presumption is probably a winning strategy against K Affs 9/10 times. A 5 minute 2NR on presumption would probably be my favorite (and most preferred) type of 2NR in these types of debates.
Set up an email chain before the round.
I think Dave Huston's thoughts on progressive PF are probably a good answer to a lot "Ks" that PFers try to read. I'm not against progressive PF but you have to make a strong case for why you're reading what you are. Don't tell Dave that I agree with him (he doesn't need to know that I think he's right).
I appreciate sass and assertiveness (please don't make this boring), but be respectful. That being said, use your critical thinking skills to decide what you want to read in front of me.
Other than disclosure, I won't make a decision based on anything that occurred outside of the round -- I probably don't know you and I don't feel comfortable evaluating the character of a person that I don't know.
If you're interested in applying to/debating at Baylor, please reach out! You can send me an email or find me in person if you have any questions.
14 years of experience in the policy debate space H.S. College & Coaching
I did traditional policy debate and performance so I'm cool with the entire spectrum of arguments
I'm familiar with most K literature but don't assume I'm in love with your scholar. Explanations and clarity will help me help you. I ended up spending most my time in race/gender scholarship
Idk if its helpful but I also work in the public policy space now (Campaigns, Political Management etc.)
Impacts are GOD'S GIFT
I'm down to answer any question about my Reason For Decision at anytime.
- The World of the alt matters if the alt doesn't solve you must prove why presuming neg is better than the AFF
- Ballot Framing arguments are ones that should be extended throughout the entire debate
- Impact Calculus and Link analysis is mandatory
- I feel like I seen/heard most things under the sun. You give me a kritik or analysis I find profound and your speaker points will reflect
- Rhetoric Kritiks - I love these so watch ya mouths when debating. The one thing we're accountable for in debate is what we say.
Non-Topical AFFs I just have two questions before I judge the contents of the 1AC
- Why is the topic inherently bad?
- Impact of topic debate vs AFF?
T is a voting issue and I enjoy an in-depth nuanced T debate.
I can't believe I'm saying this but a DA has four components labeling every turn as a DA is wild
I do not have a preference in arguments, I'm fine with DAs, Ks, Topicality etc; But if you are going to run an argument, I expect you to know it well. Don't just read an argument and expect me to do the work for you. Part of being a great debater is critically thinking and proving why your point matters.
I weigh framework heavily in a round; tell me who should get the ballot and why.
Clarity>speed... If it is not on my flow, it will not be evaluated in the debate round.
I love a clean-cut debate, be respectful to one another. Have fun and simply believe in yourself!
Hi! Please put me on the email chain: email@example.com
I use she/her pronouns and I am a Junior at Lexington High School. I am also a third year policy debater.
I’m open to all arguments, and if you are a novice it might be better to run something that you understand well so that it is easier to explain and support. The most important thing is to learn, try your best, and have fun!!
Line by Line - make sure you are responding to all of your opponents’ arguments and extending your own, and keep track to see if your opponents’ didn’t answer one or more of your arguments, so that you can use that to explain why that makes your argument stronger
Explain the warrants of your arguments
Impact calc, explain why your argument is more significant by comparing your magnitude, timeframe, and probability to your opponents’
Prioritize your arguments in your rebuttal speech
Tell me the lens that I should vote through, and why I should vote for you
Interrupt your partner or your opponents
Let me know if you have tech issues!
With online debating, clarity > speed
Remember, try your best, learn some new things, and have fun!!
Put me on the email chain please: firstname.lastname@example.org
Open CX is fine
I judge novice rounds a lot and I am up to date on the novice topic.
Some quick thoughts:
Tech > Truth (as long as what you are saying isn't racist/misogynistic/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/etc)
I find myself evaluating debates using an offense-defense paradigm many times - I tend to categorize arguments as being one or the other and consider the implications on the debate from there.
Unless your CP is extremely abusive, I have a reasonably high bar for voting solely on theory - just because it's not a voter doesn’t mean it's a competitive CP (with exceptions of private actor fiat, consultations, and other similar constructs where I generally think that proving abuse is not too difficult). I enjoy creative CPs that generate competition in interesting ways and K-related CPs as well.
I’m biased towards anything under 4 condo being quite reasonable and I’m unlikely to vote on it unless it’s absolutely mishandled in that situation.
T 2NRs vs Policy Affs - These have been some of my favorite rounds while debating - I like clear execution of a strategy with one terminal impact and well fleshed out internal links down the flow. Quality > Quantity when it comes to T for me so collapsing down the flow as the debate goes on is key with me in the back.
As long as you properly explain the theory of the K, I can follow along. I am familiar with a number of K-literature bases - most familiar with identity K literature bases, but I am also comfortable with capitalism, cybernetics, academia Ks, and opacity-related ideas. The ideal 2NR in front of me against policy affs will likely be a FW heavy strategy with well-explained links but if going for the alt solves the links/aff’s impacts is your thing then don’t let me stop you. Against K affs, make sure that if you are reading a non-identity K against an identity K aff that you have solid answers to positionality and give high importance to the alt/competing strategies portion of the debate.
T vs K Aff rounds - I enjoy unorthodox K aff strategies against T (but I still won’t vote on them if they aren’t good strategies) - please do it in front of me (whether it is that your aff functions in a separate world or you have found a new framing question/theory of how debate functions in relation to the outside world). I tend to think that while fairness has an impact, I am more likely to vote on education impacts with well done internal link debating. Please engage with case as well - if you don’t go for case in the 2NR that is fine but know that as long as the K-aff’s theory of power is a major internal link to their impacts, basically unmitigated aff impacts outweighs a chance of fairness.
Things that will add speaker points: Good line-by-line, smart use of CX, top-level framing in rebuttals, 1ARs that recover after a really good block, and good strategic choices throughout the round. I also tend to reward neg blocks that make good use of analytics as opposed to reading a million nonsense cards.
Please add me to the email chain: email@example.com
If I forgot to put something on here just ask me before the round
Open Cross is cool (i will pay attention, also I like when debaters bring up stuff from cx in their speeches)
Tech > Truth + I default to Util good
Fine with speed but slow down on tags and don't sacrifice clarity, I will say "clear" if I can't understand you (max of 3 times).
Time your own speeches, prep and cx (i might forget to do it)
Do roadmaps and signpost (it helps a lot), stuff like judge instructions and warrants make my life a lot easier (makes it easier to vote for you)
Args: I have run a large variety of stuff so I'm cool with anything, basically run what you want to run and if you do it well I'll vote for it.
Policy: who doesn't like policy, I was raised on that stuff. I also really like creative das and cps,
K: ks are nice, I should note that I usually have a higher burden of proof for solvency, alts and such but if you explain it well then you'll be fine
Theory: If you debate it well I'll vote for it
Finally be nice and have fun, I will definitely doc points if you are rude and might add points if you are funny
Specifically for online debate:
tech pauses are a thing so don't panic
try to slow down and be more clear cause online debate is silly
i have a 20.21% sit rate -- not a good judge!
add [firstname.lastname@example.org] to the email chain.
bad for straight policy rounds. mediocre for k and clash rounds.
My Pronouns are She / Her
Put me on the email chain: Mmesoma.email@example.com
If there is no road map, why would I flow.
Hi, I am Mmesoma. I was a JV Policy Debater on the Regional and National level but I am now a regular judge for regional tournaments. I would consider myself a traditional judge with small exceptions of how you should debate.
Just a Disclaimer, my face moves a lot without my intention. Please do not think I am bored, not paying attention, confused or upset. Just know that I am very much paying attention. If you see me giggle, you said something funny.
Spreading is NOT appreciated but I will still carefully listen to spreading cases and judge based on my flow. I believe that speaking CLEARLY is always the pre-requisite for speaking FAST! You do not need to impress me.
I appreciate respectful and peaceful cross examination. I do not flow cross unless it clarifies an argument I am confused about but flowing cross is unusual for me. Yelling and abusive behavior will lead to speaker points deduction (you would probably see it on my face) but rudeness/attitude would not be a major RFD on my ballot.
Tricks are NOT appreciated at all. Tricks make me uncomfortable as it is an unfair advantage. Instead of tricking your opponent, I feel as though you are tricking me as the judge.
End of Round
I will most likely give a critique once the round is done as well as the vote, if it is okay with both teams. I determine my vote based solely on what is on my flow and full understanding of both arguments. I am not a super super experienced debater, I may miss things, that it is why its so important to articulate and extent your argument as clearly as possible.
If I deem an argument racist, I am not voting for it.
Thank you so much! See y'all in the round.
I have experience in just about all types of debate. While some distinctions between formats I see similarities rooted in intentional relationships, education and rhetoric. I do not see the judge as a blank slate. So I have some things that I think, based on my experiences as a debater, social science teacher, coach, parent and program director effect my role as a judge. We all have filters.
Personally, I debated NDT for the University of Houston in the early 80's. Achieving out rounds at major national tournaments and debating at both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. I have coached all debate events and many speech events. My policy teams won St. Marks and Memorial TOC tournaments and enjoyed success nationally. My students were also successful on Texas UIL and local circuits. I have had debate teams, LD debaters, extemp speakers and congress entries placed 1st or 2nd in Texas and have also coached a state oratory champion.
Currently, I consult and do debate on the side from home. I'm 62 years old. Concerns or questions about a judge that age are addressed below. The two biggest concerns are usually handling "speed" and "progressive" arguments. Speed with style and good technique is one thing speed that seems like a stream of consciousness is another. As for what progress is or progressive is, well that depends on your experiences.
I am open to alternative approaches to resolutions but also enjoy frameworks employed in the past. Debating and coaching in Houston and teaching at the UTNIF for a decade definitely shaped my my ability to listen to different types of frameworks - or what the debate is supposed to mean or accomplish. I have coached at so many levels, for many years on different topics - instead of seeing differences I see many similarities in the way arguments are framed evolve. I debated when it was highly questionable to do anything beyond policy debate - even counterplans, much less conditional frameworks, but being from a small squad (in a different info environment - when access to research and evidence was definiteley privileged) we pursued the edge strategies - such as hypothesis testing to level the field. Coaching in policy we ran all range of arguments. Over time shifting to a more critical approach. Once again in response, in part, to the changing information space. On an education topic we went deep all year on Critical Pedagogy and on a criminal justice - Constitutive Criminology. There are very few rules in debate. What policy debate means and what my vote means are for grabs by both teams. I'm not into labels at way to define myself. If I had to pick a term it would be: Critic of Argument
A couple of notes
Speed, unless evolution is really off track, speed can't be any faster, even from when we debated in college. Speed is rarely what set the best debaters apart. However, these are my first NDT rounds this year. (I'm contemplating grad schools in the mountain west for next year) Make sure acronyms, initialisms etc. are clear first before ripping through what will be new information for me. I suggest making sure each of you arguments (CP/K/DA - plan objection if you're old -) have a quick efficient thesis that makes sure I understand your position and its potential in the round before you take off speaking more quickly.
I evaluate your proofs. Proof is a broad term - much more than published material.
I consider evidence to be expert testimony. A type of proof. The debater who presents experts to support their claims should lay the predicate - explain why that source is relevant and qualified to be an expert - when they present the evidence. Quotations submitted as evidence with just a publication title or name and date often fall short of this standard. Generally I don't want to call for a card after the round whose author was not qualified when presented in constructives. I will call for evidence on contested points. However, that evidence has been well qualified by the team presenting it and the debaters are usually talking about lines and warrants from the card. It is highly unlikely that I will call for card not qualified and/or not talked about in rebuttals. If a piece of evidence is not qualified in a meaningful way during a debaters speech - it is unlikely I would call for it after the round. I've seen traveling graduate students from England just dismantle top flight policy teams - they had proofs that all knew and accepted often with out some of the "debate tech" norms found in academic policy debate (NDT/CEDA). See the comments below on what matters in rebuttals!
Notes on Education
Spurious "quick claims" claims of a specific educational standard thrown out with out all elements of an argument are problematic. I am a life long educator who has witnessed and evolved with debate. Often teams quick claim Education as a voting issue. As an educator, I often see performance methodology (like only reading names and dates to qualify evidence or "card stacking" reading only the parts of a card that favor you - even if full context sheds a different light OR speed reading through post-modern literature as probably much more important than a debate tech argument) as serious education issues that could be discussed - and much more primary to education - than debate tech one offs.
I find "debate tech" like spreading and some uses of technology in round serve to privilege or tilt the playing field. This doesn't mean to slow to a crawl - fast and efficient - but also accessible to both the other team and the judge. So winning because the affirmative can't respond in depth to 8 off case arguments is not persuasive to me. Be bold - go deep on issues that you think are yours. "Debate Terms of Art" often fall in this category. Language choice should be accessible - even if it means adapting to your opponent as well as your judge.
Evidence often is not enough
Most debates aren't won early - the changing information space has created a lot of equity. But there two things debaters do in my experience in rebuttals that make a difference. After they have strategically collapsed or decided which issue to go for they:
1. They talk authors and specific warrants contained in the evidence - usually contrasting opposing authors and warrants. These warrants are prima facia - they are best when clearly identified - even in the opening speeches.
2. They can tell a narrative - or give examples of the mechanics, warrants, internal links in the card. They can also explain sequences of events - what would happen if I voted for your argument/position or team.
From an educators view - this is the goal of debate.
Counterplans and debate tech
Counterplan "micro theory" has really evolved. That is my term for many variations of counterplans that drive focus away from clash on the topic. Superficial, procedural and timing exceptions or additions counterplans. I actually spent time reviewing two articles on the history of PICs and their evolution prior to writing this. The excessive use of academic debate "Terms of Art" is problematic, sometimes exclusionary. I prefer head on collision in debate - and debaters who figure out how to position themselves for that debate. I prefer the debate come down to clash on field contextual issue as opposed to "side swiping" the topic. Just my preference.
I also find that this type of debate tech functions as a tool of exclusion. The debate should be accesable to your opponents without an overreliance of theory or tech debates. If they are used as time sucks that rubs me the wrong way going to your Ethos as a debater.
I do not and will not vote on or enforce a preround disclosure issue. Settle that before the round starts. Take it over my head if you object. If you ask me to adjudicate that - you might not like the answer.
How we treat each other
This is something that might trigger my voting in way you don't expect. Let's work on accomodating each other and creating safe spaces for academic discourse and the development of positive intentional relationships.
Centennial (MD) Class of 2016
Conflicts: Centennial, McDonogh, Atholton, River Hill, Reservoir, Capitol Debate, Georgetown Day
- For all rounds I have judged so far, I decided within 5 minutes after the final speech. The biggest factors are the lack of embedded clash and extensions of arguments without an articulation of the warrant. Take that however you may.
- The final 2 rebuttal speeches, ESPECIALLY, need to be able to write the ballot for me.
- PLEASE make paperless/electronic/online debate run SMOOTHLY. This is on the debaters in the room. Prep time ends when you SEND the speech doc. Unless prep time is being used, both sides should be ready for CX as soon as the constructive speech ends etc.
- Communication between partners outside of the speeches, CX, and prep is PROHIBITED because it is considered stealing prep. I WILL dock speaker points and call you out.
- Please remember to be competitive, and more importantly, have fun!
- Debated all 4 years of high school. Few of my accomplishments were: 2015 TOC Semi-Finalist, 2015 Harvard Invitational Champion, 2015 Harvard RR Finalist, 2014 Greenhill RR Champion
- I never loved judges that had paradigms that said anything along the lines of "if you read <<>> I won't vote for you/like it." Judge adaptation is important, but it should never be to the degree where you take a whole 180 degree turn. Do what you're good at and comfortable with.
- Don’t clip/cross-read/cheat in any way
- Everything I say below can be persuaded the other way
- Tech > Truth
- Presumption goes towards less change
- Debate is a communication activity. If you aren't communicating with me in your speeches, you're not doing your job. In other words, be clear and confident. Gabe Koo said it best "...If I hear you muttering how awful your 2AR is right as it ends, why do you think I would want to vote for you? If you don't think you won, why should I convince myself you won?" Even if your argument is a flat out lie, if you sound badass/persuasive/intelligent in your speeches/CX going for those arguments, it makes me want to give you good speaks at the very least.
- You don't need impact defense to beat a disad/advantage if you explain how the internal link(s) = illogical (but who actually does this more often that not anyways?)
- Framing is important – the line by line is obviously important too but I like it even more when there’s a meta level framing argument that changes the way I should view the arguments in the line by line
- Been both a 2A and 2N so no huge bias on each other side
My view of Framework could not be summed up better than what Gabe Koo said in his judge philosophy – see below, slightly edited
- I read an Aff with no plan my junior year. I think there is high value in these Affs, just ask my coach DB. Where I see people going wrong when answering framework is just repeating the same old "fairness for whom" with no explanation. That is a good first line of offense but there are more arguments than that. I think the smartest way to answer framework excluding your turns is 1. clown the internal links 2. generate external offense 3. consider the uniqueness and the relevance of their scenarios too. If you do this successfully their impacts are low, and now your impact turns have much more weight.
- The best no-plan affs in my opinion are ones that are built to beat "do it on the neg" and "topical version of the aff" arguments. If your aff isn't that, I don't know why you're reading it vs. a team you know that is going for Framework.
- There are two routes. 1. Liberal 2. Hard-core Right. I personally think the hard core right is better because if you go the Liberal route, the Aff is able to either include themselves in your interpretation and your internal link thresholds are a lot weaker, or the Aff can solve for your terminal impacts a lot easier. I think the most persuasive way to go for Framework is to go for limits/clash as an internal link to fairness and advocacy skills/decision making. Make a bunch of turns case/solves case arguments as well.
- I do think the Liberal version of Framework can be persuasive when there is a good link argument to the aff that proves a trade-off. However, given the way people read no-plan affs now-a-days, that is hard to win. When the Liberal version of Framework is executed correctly, it is devastating.
- Please make the case debate relevant and jive with your Framework argument.
- the 2NR has to explicitly say the judge has to kick the CP
- Solvency advocates are necessary
- Slow down on the CP text
- Acronyms should be explained
- Advantage CPs are awesome. It really exposes how bad teams are at defending their internal links
- Well-researched process-based CPs/PICs are my favorite
Theory and where I lean
- Conditions CPs/Word PICs/Process CPs/Object Fiat/Contradictions Bad – Aff
- Topical CPs/Unconditionality/Intrinsic & Severance Perms – Neg
- International Fiat/50 State Fiat/Agent CPs/Conditionality/Floating PIKs – Middle
- Smart analytical turns case arguments are underrated
- Zero risk is more than possible for me
- Politics is awesome
- Smart, well-researched specific disads = better
- I don’t have much to say here other than jargon like “uniqueness controls the direction of the link” or vice versa is meaningless
- Mostly aff leaning on reasonability vs. competing interpretation questions but can be persuaded otherwise
- Generic fairness/education impact calc is boring. That should all be contextualized to the aff/what the aff justifies
- I give the 1AR leeway when T is extended for like1:30or 2 minutes in the block. Because if it is only1:30~2:00of the block, it was probably super blippy and in most cases, awful
- Link/impact contextualization to the aff’s plan mechanism/internal link triumphs contextualization to the aff saying "USfg" in the plan/the impact card the aff reads
- I really don't have a huge problem with high theory stuff as many other judges do. However, I will say you are put at a higher threshold to explain your stuff, not because these arguments are ALL “bad” per say, but my knowledge on this stuff will be low
- Role of the ballot/judge arguments getting thrown around a lot but never being implicated is my biggest pet peeve. Given that, I think it is kinda ridiculous how some K debates go down vs. policy affs. Obviously debate isn't ONLY be about the plan vs. squo/competitive policy option and obviously debate isn't ONLY about whether the aff's reps/epistemology/ontology/other are ok. If the 1AR drops a K bomb, that's a different story but there needs to be some sort of middle ground established.
- In addition to what is said above, I find "reps don't shape reality" type arguments super unpersuasive. These arguments are usually only won by the aff when the neg totally forgets to answer it. There are a lot of really good hardcore right-leaning teams that only lose to the K because they don't engage the substance of the K i.e. "our reps are key to solve X Y Z," which I find a ton more persuasive.
- 2ACs impact turning the K is an underrated strategy. I don't know why people don't go for imperialism/capitalism/biopolitics good as much as people used to. If you’re going to defend the hard right, might as well stick to it.
Left on Left
- Most of “The K” section stuff apply here too
- Should the aff get a perm? After thinking and long and hard about this, I am super 50:50 about it because being Neg against K affs that are a walking permutation is very frustrating. However, on the flip side, is the aff getting the permutation a better way to facilitate clash and opportunity cost education? It is up in the air and being technical on this part of the debate is crucial for both sides.
Ways to get good speaks in front of me (in no particular order)
- Badass strategies: 1AR kicking the aff and impact turning a disad, whole constructive on impact turn(s), no prep speeches (your speech gotta be good because if it’s not, you epically failed)
- Ethos. You’re not a total jerk but have swagger while being sassy.
- Good execution of arguments/shifting/framing
- “This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but its unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely effected. Who dares to take the challenge?” – Brian Manuel
2023 - TOC UPDATE:
pretty much the same to be honest.
Despite being a very, very, very average debater (just a few late elims here and there) during my time [loooooong ago, im like an old man at this point bro], I can empathize with TOC-goers and how it's often their last [big] tournament. I'll try my best to make an accurate decision but do listen to my other parts of my paradigm. I am rusty and have a big emphasis on ~clarity~ of speech.
krispy kreme donuts and pickle speech bonuses are not in application for the TOC.
PARADIGM UPDATE FOR December 2022
I have not judged debate in the past three years beyond a few middle school tournaments in the past month. I will be unfamiliar with this new topic besides a basic understanding, and you should start slow in general. I'm not the best with hearing spreading in general and being over a laptop likely makes that worst.
Your better off treating me like a smart parent judge (talk fast but preferably less spreading) who has some basic knowledge of debate rather than an old debater out of high school, since it's been 5-6 years and I didn’t end up doing college debate at all.
A lot of basic, intuitive debate theory is no longer intuitive to me since it's been like five years. I'm basically 50 in young people years at this point. If you think you don't have to dumb things down because of my past, you are WRONG. You will set yourself up for an L.
COACHES PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE PREFFING ME MAN. EVEN IF YALL KNEW ME FROM BEFORE OR SOMETHING.
My cheat sheet should still be pretty accurate, but treat #1 as even higher than before.
yo whats up? I’m Osmane and I debated at Newark Science for 4 years. I was pretty average for a debater, never really too high level and barely won anything so take that in to account when preffing me... yeah heh.
Bring me Krispy Creme Donuts and i'll boost your speaker points by 0.2
Buy me a packaged pickle (Like Van Holten's) and ill bost them by 0.3
[inflation update, KCDonuts now only grant a 0.1 boost, and pickles by 0.2]
GO SLOWER THAN NORMAL! I haven't judged in a solid minute and know only surface layer knowledge about this topic. I also have trouble hearing in general sometimes, so clarity is really important in front of me. I'll say clear twice before i start deducting speaks instead of saying clear.
Osmane's Cheat Sheet:
1 - Traditional Debate (Morals, not phil, like old school LD debate)
2 - Identity-related kritiks (fair warning: I'm not too good with highly abstract interpretations of identity),
3 - Counterplans, Disadvantages, Topicality
4 - Theory
Wildcard: Untopical Affirmatives - The more feasible/material it is to me, the more receptive it'll be to me. An untopical aff to use rhetoric in debate rounds to spread positivism is probably more receptive than an aff about throwing trash around as a symbolic way of fighting back against capitalism through ecological BURST!
I'm a first year, so DON'T assume that my judging will reflect the way I debated. I'm a wild card and you should pref me as such.
My email for speech docs is firstname.lastname@example.org
My influences in debate have been Chris Randall, Jonathan Alston, Elijah Smith, and Devane Murphy. Also Osmane, that guy is sexy, phew. [2022 revisiting and man, he really is.]
Note: Most of those influences are HIGHLY material people who take abstract things to their logical ends (i said most of them.). This means a material K that I can see logically working is better than some convoluted junk I can't understand. Use more common talk with me than debate jargon, I barely ever understood it.
don't say racist, sexist, or messed up things like Death is good.
I enjoy a slower delivery to spread where I hear emphasis and a more persuasive approach to vocalizing your arguments. I'll award higher speaks if you speak as if you were an impassioned speaker.
I read these most of my junior and senior year. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. I do not want to see K’s messed up so I have a pretty high threshold for K’s. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as anti blackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. I'm very material in alternative explanations, so if you don't explain the alternatives . . let's just say winning your K will be harder. If your going to be running some sort of post-modernism, I HAVE ALMOST NEVER understood the abstract way people run it, so run it 'materially' if possible. I might not be the best for it but I'd rather you go for POMO that your good at then messing up hard on some identity-based K
wasn't ever really my thing, but go for it. I'm not too versed on CP theory.
ha. HA. HA! HA! no.
Just like people think that I love K’s because I debated for Newark, people think I hate theory which is pretty damn right. I hate frivolous theory and the rigid technicality based formatting of theory. If it's legitimate and I'm like "yeah naw that opponent did some abusive junk" i'll consider it though. I rather you make it an in-round disad as opposed to a separate theoretical argument. I default Education > Fairness, Reasonability and drop the argument.
Their fine. I feel like people love to read these crazy scenarios in order to magnify the impact. More power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense.
eh. neutral bout them. I rather a plan than a super abstract aff.
I don't like voting on this because everyone has their own idea of how it works. This is mine:
Neg has presumption until they read some sort of alternative (via k, cp, or whatever.) then it shifts to aff.
you drop it you lose.
Like I said, I really like passionate speakers. That'll boost up your points for sure.
Please put me on the email chain: email@example.com.
I debated for Northside for four years and graduated in 2022. I am not debating in college.
I lean policy, but I will vote on anything if you are winning it.
Clash is especially important, go a level further than the tag, tell me why you are right and they are wrong.
Please do not forget about Case.
T and Theory - If you lose any T or theory arguments that are ran against you, I will usually vote against you. Though the standards of the argument need to be impacted out to be considered. For example "They lost T." is not enough for me to vote on, you need to go a level.
DAs and CPs - Very comfortable with them, go for it.
Policy Aff v. K - As I lean policy, if you are running a K, turns case arguments work best with me. On framework for both sides, make sure it is consistent. Please try not to change your interpretation or standards throughout the round. Unless it is an integral part of the K to ignore Case, don't concede or forget about case in the 2NR. I am decently comfortable with the standard Ks, but anything super specific or academic, you will need to make it make sense to me. I will not vote on something I do not understand by the end of the round. If you are going for it, you should be able to explain it adequately.
K Aff - I will not vote on something I do not understand by the end of the round. If you are going for it, you should be able to explain it adequately. Especially since academic K's are about learning. However, if you're framing is based on being confused, you're going to need to do some explanation there, but if you win it, I will vote accordingly. Arguments against K Affs that I like are other Ks and Cede the Political, though anything can work.
I'm a Public Forum debater at Lakeland High School in Yorktown Heights, NY.
If you still have any questions after reading this, please feel free to ask.
Email if you need an email chain or questions after the round: firstname.lastname@example.org
And if you don't have time to read this - TLDR; I flow, explain arguments, have evidence, keep time, and have fun!
I will be flowing everything except crossfire. Use crossfire as a way to clear confusion or build upon what will be in an actual speech. Emphasize what you really want to have flowed.
Signposting, and telling me what you are addressing, does help.
In terms of speed, I do not care anymore. Keep in mind, it becomes difficult to understand what you're saying for not only me but for your opponents. I will struggle flowing it. Make sure to emphasize and enunciate appropriately.
Types of Arguments
I generally prefer well-warranted impacts.
As long as you explain well I can handle obscure arguments, but nothing major. I am not all-knowing, sometimes things do not make sense.
I prefer you read the year for your cards.
Evidence is not everything but I find it important.
If you misinterpret evidence, read from authors or sources that are clearly unreliable, or make an argument that isn’t backed up by evidence at all, that lowers the traction of the argument, especially if the other team calls you out on it.
Please explain your arguments in a sensible way that I can vote on.
Summary and Final Focus
You don't have to extend your defense from the rebuttal into your Summary but if your opponent has made massive turns, you should put up some defense. In Final Focus, please weigh. You should be the ones telling me throughout and prominently in final, my reason for decision.
No new arguments in Final Focus.
Funny jokes and witty puns are welcomed, but be chill about it. Getting heated is fine but keep things civil, intelligent, and respectful.
If you say "judge" I will look at you with anticipation for something you want on the flow above all.
I can keep your prep time or speech time if necessary but I would prefer you do that yourselves.
Further, if you go overtime I am fine with finishing a sentence or two but I won't flow evidence over time.
I couldn't care less about what you do before the round. You could throw a chair out the window and I won't take off speaks (but I will testify against you in court).
How you debate means more to me than what you wear.
It is your debate, not mine. Do you. Just stay organized and tell me where and why to vote.
Feel free to ask me anything about your individual performance, or for any debate-related advice. At the end of the round, I would not mind if you showed me your own perspective of the round, I would want to help you guys improve as debaters but I also want to improve as your judge. If you think I did something unfair feel free to let me know.
Finally, have fun. You guys are doing something that takes a lot of effort and willpower, so just enjoy yourselves and hopefully, you'll remember these times fondly.