***Send c24zb@dalton.org an email saying "you REALLY need some help with economics" and send me a screenshot (+1 whole speaker point and I'm not kidding)
I first wrote this paradigm when I was a Sophomore and had some very questionable takes on debate. If you read this before January 31st, 2023, it has changed. If anything in this paradigm doesn’t make sense PLEASE ASK.
IF YOU GET ONE THING FROM READING MY PARADIGM: Debate is supposed to be a fun environment to grow and learn. I am not ok with anyone taking away from that with offensive language or mannerisms (no racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc args), and it will not be tolerated. I am genuinely so happy this is how you chose to spend your free time and I am so happy to be your judge; do not choose to make it a negative experience for yourself or anyone else around you. If you ever feel uncomfortable in a round, do not hesitate to reach out. I am here to talk no matter what, whether that be before, during, or after a round. Debate is not that serious and your well-being is much more important to me :)
TL;DR:I’ll judge any debate you want to have. Signpost, collapse, and weigh. Adequately engage with the best version of your opponents' case. Call the POO. Be comparative — tell me the counterfactual. Don't make me vote on blips. Be honest, be nice, and have fun.
PF Stuff:Speed is fine but don't spread. Define why your aff is topical. Terminalize your impacts. I will most definitely not call cards.
Full:
For some background, I am a Junior at Horace Mann School in the Bronx, where I have been doing Parliamentary debate since my Freshman Year. I use she/her pronouns. I am pretty much self-taught, and for that reason, I do not really value any technical terms you probably learned from a coach (though I probably know your jargon). I’m a flow judge but if you’re on the west coast, I’d rather you consider me lay.
Judging Philosophy: If a point is dropped, I buy it (more on how I weigh it later). Beyond that, different types of engaged with arguments require different amounts of warranting/rebutting to make them voteable/not voteable. I think it's naïve when people say they can be completely tabula rasa and non-interventionist, both because debaters often make it impossible when they don’t weigh (don't worry guys I have been a culprit before), and also because we are just rational individuals who have basic understandings of the world. That being said, I try my absolute best to be. As a general rule, I will buy anything, but the weirder the claim, the more warranting you must provide to gain access to the impact. Eg it is harder for me to buy that humans will all migrate to Mars tomorrow than it is to buy that there is a lot of gridlock in our political system, but if you can prove it to me, I will buy either. If you don't warrant and no one rebuts it, I will buy the claim but weigh the impact less (unless you weigh it for me but then I don't understand why you wouldn't have warranted it idk). I am the definition of the New York Times Rule ie I read the New York Times every day and judge rounds using that database of knowledge, so assume that an arg made in the Times every day (or an argument I would hear frequently in a classroom/friendship setting) would be considered a normal arg and the further you drift from that, the more you have to warrant. It doesn't matter if I agree with the arg or not if it's warranted well. I’m tech>truth but hate voting for lies.
My debate role model will always be Ryan Lafferty. He taught me everything I know. Other incredible debate influences include Adrian Turkedjiev, Julia Schroers, Jenny Levine, Eesha Gupta, Henry Bansbach, Zach Berg (I judge most similarly to him so cross-apply his stuff), Emily Grant, Hannah Riegel, June Lin, Molly Bordoff, and so many others (you know who you are and I wish I had time to name you all). Keira Chatwin introduced me to a whole new way of thinking and altered my perspective on debate entirely. Riyana Srihari made me become a better debate person. Thanks to Rodda John for teaching me about my role as a debate human in this community.
Preferences:
Speed: I’m ok with speed, though my keyboard is kinda broken so don’t go too fast. I’ve never seen an East Coast round that is too fast for me to flow.
Signposting: If it is possible to signpost, signpost it.
Warrants: Just do it. If you make an overarching claim, I am very responsive to rebuttals saying something is underwarranted, and if pointed out, I will buy your claim less.
Impacts: Do it and terminalize them. Please always tie them back to the motion — it makes my job as a judge 10 times easier. You should make sure to talk about impacts in all 4 constructives and bring up new ones in members.
Weighing: This is the first place I look when casting my ballot. If you weigh and your opponents don’t, I will probably vote for you. Bad weighing>no weighing. If you are a novice, no worries, just try your best (some helpful things to think about might be probability, timeframe, severity)! You can’t just tell me why your arguments are important; you have to tell me why they are more important than your opponents’. Eg why is your argument more probable than theirs? Weigh in members if possible pretty please. Also, metaweigh if you can. You can set up your weighing as early as PMC; you should do it because it puts my brain in the direction you want the round to go. Eg if in PMC you tell me climate change is the most important impact and will outweigh all future content, I’ll already be thinking about that when I hear LOC.
For opposition speakers: If you bring up a whole new case in MO or do not do any rebuttals in LOC (find the right balance), I will allow PMR to pretty much respond in any way they like to your points. Use your time wisely; don’t be exclusive.
Casing: I love creative cases so so much. If you are creative your speaks will skyrocket. Challenge the premises your opponents' case lies upon. Be charitable, but not too charitable. Preempt in your first speeches if you can.
Roadmaps: I don’t need them but I don’t mind them either; whatever floats your boat
Rebuttals: Be intuitive; Try to take your opponents’ offense with turns. New content in members is fun :)
Definitions: I hate abusive definitions. DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT run abusive definitions. Be fair. If a fair debate can happen with your definitions, then be creative and go wild. If I consider your definitions to be unfair, I have a VERY low threshold for abusive calls. Your opponents don’t have to cite one of the ways a definition can be abusive. I don’t care that you have read the rule book, want a cookie? Don’t be exclusionary.
Ks: On the East coast, don't do it -- they are banned anyways. If you're on the West Coast um I will try my best. I have watched K rounds before but am so so so far from an expert it is crazy. If you do it, go slow and explain it well because I probably don't know your lit. I understand the importance of Ks even if I do not run them myself. But I really don't know why I'd be judging on West Coast anyways so yeah.
Theory: Again don't do it on the East Coast. West Coasters: my extent of theory knowledge is watching a debate sensei video on what a topicality shell is and how to respond to it (thanks Joel!!!). Great video if you're unfamiliar -- here's the link (responding vid linked here). Proceed at your own risk and please do it in an unfancyish way.
Speaks:
- I will prob average at a 26 but vary greatly (obvi higher on the West Coast)
- I am certainly not opposed to giving high speaks: If you deserve a 28 I will give it to you, although you would have to change the way I view the world to get a 29
- I am also not opposed to giving 23s if I find you hard to comprehend or your name is Emily Grant (just kidding...). If you’re offensive you will get a 22.
-Use TWs and use them at the top of your speech if possible. If you forget to read one at the top, just try to do it mid-speech and give your opponents a moment to opt-out
Ways to boost speaks:
- If you can make me genuinely laugh at something you say
- If you can fit a fast-food brand slogan into your case, eg "I'm loving it" "you know its fresh"
- Prove to me that the egg came before the chicken
- Wear a pair of sunglasses while you speak
- Introduce yourself as "the one and only (insert name)" or "the all powerful (insert name)"
- Read my paradigm
- Show your pets
Side notes about me:
- My face is very emotive -- you can most likely guess how I am responding to your arguments by my face
- Talk to me before the round!
- I am always willing to answer questions, give you tips, or help you in any way you would like
- Don’t love to vote on climate change but I can be convinced to if you can provide a unique link and weigh it well
- Run cool frameworks (FW)! I’ll vote on them if they make sense, but make sure to explain them to me and take POIs if your opponents have questions about it
- Love negative util/prioritizing marginalized FWs but you can also weigh it without the FW – I prob care about FW less than I should lol
-I aspire to be a cooler debater than I am - in a world where you can be a Henry and run reparations frameworks or be a Sophie and run util, be a Henry (I like seeing people do the things I can not)
-Counterfactuals can't be abusive, only wrong; if the one that your opponents give is wrong, prove to me why a different one is right
-I’ll give verbal RFDs by default and always disclose (lmk if you want a written RFD)
-Lastly, please reach out at any time if you need anything, want to nerd out about debate, or just want to chat sophier0105@gmail.com