Paradigm

Nate Weimar
Lake Highland Prep

Hi my name's Nate,

I'd prefer if you just call me Nate, but "judge" is fine too.

Iowa City West '23

University of Iowa '27

My email is weimarnate@gmail.com

I did LD on the national circuit. I acquired 9 career bids to the TOC in LD, made Quarters of the TOC my junior year and Doubles my senior year. Any speed is fine.

I now do college policy debate at Iowa, I'm fine for any arguments, I will vote off of the flow.

If you are a novice read whatever arguments you want I will be able to evaluate them. Please make sure to extend arguments, and respond to important things.

I will vote on any argument with a claim, warrant and impact. I will vote for any style, the following is just a preference of what I'm most familiar with, I will not hack against you or hurt your speaks because of what style you debate. (The only args I won't evaluate/I will drop you for reading is saying something like racism good)

I enjoy creative and strategic positions. Speaks are based on strategy/technical skill.

I will evaluate arguments such as death good.

I will not vote on "evaluate the debate after X speech arguments" because they break the round and I don't think I could coherently explain how I evaluate the extension of an argument (e.g. "this arg was extended into the 2NR and dropped by the 1AR) in a speech that I did not evaluate (assuming I evaluate the round after the 1NC).

Tech>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Truth

Policy Paradigm:

Ks

I only read Ks in college on the aff and neg and am pretty familiar with most lit bases. In high school I read disability studies, and some existentialist-esque literature (like nietzsche) and in college I've read SetCol, disability studies, trans studies, and some psychoanalysis. I don't have any preference for a more framework style K or a material alt/links etc. I also don't ideologically lean towards any particular framework interp for either the policy side or K side but will just vote for whoever wins on the flow. I think framework is pretty important and am unlikely to determine that "it's a wash" so you should either be winning your interp or explaining why you're winning under your opponents framework interp. Obviously you still need to win links to the aff and losing the framework debate is not game over but it will frame how I evaluate what offense matters.

T v K Affs

I read a K aff but also go for T almost every time I debate a K aff so I'm familiar with the arguments on both sides. I'm fine with either just a straight up impact turn strategy or a K aff that wants to go more for a CI and try to win some sort of offense to their model. Ideologically, I don't have a strong bias for or against K affs and my rfd will likely come down to technical concessions and big picture framing. I think it's super important that by the 2NR and 2AR you are doing impact framing for why fairness, clash, your impact turn to framework etc. matter and interact with the arguments your opponent has made.

Advantages and DAs

Not much to say here, I can evaluate them and am open to hearing whatever you want to read. I read Ks in college but I coached policy style policy at Iowa City Liberty High School so I'm familiar with policy v policy debating, although I'm probably more familiar with the arguments being made in a K v K or K v Policy debate.

Counterplans

Also not a lot to say here, I won't a priori hack against any particular type of counterplan (like process counterplans, consult etc.) but think that's an issue to be sorted out on the flow. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to and justify why I should so please kick out of stuff your not going for or explain to me why I should kick stuff for you.

Topicality

I'm probably a pretty good judge for topicality given that I'm unlikely to just hack for or against an interp just because I personally believe it's a correct reading of the topic/unreasonable. This is not to say that I won't vote on the paradigm issue reasonability I just don't think you need to meet some arbitrary threshold to justify me voting on T if you're winning competing interps. Please weigh internal links/terminal impacts because that makes it significantly easier to evaluate a T debate.

Theory

I will vote on theory. Please justify why it's either drop the team or drop the argument, if I should use competing interps etc. If I didn't catch an argument I won't vote on it but I'm a pretty good flow, this is just a warning not to like blip some obscure interp unclearly on some random place on the flow. I'm totally okay with you hiding theory interps or something, just please be clear when reading things like interps.

LD Paradigm:

Prefs:

Tricks-1

Phil-1

Theory-1

Ks-2

LARP-3

LARP

I don't LARP very much but LARP is pretty straight forward so I'll be able to evaluate a LARP round. If you're going to have a dense larp debate there's probably better judges for you to pref, but just because I'm your judge doesn't mean you can't larp.

Tricks

Tricks can be good and bad. 100% tech>truth. I will listen to anything with a warrant. If you read a variation of condo logic please understand conditional logic. If you actively bamboozle (this does not mean overwhelm with blips) someone you will get high speaks. There is a difference between making tricky arguments in the sense of you fooling your opponent and just spamming arguments like "no neg analytics" in the underview. I'll vote for both, but the former will receive much higher speaks.

Ks

I read a decent amount of Ks in high school and only read Ks in college. I'm open to whatever type of critique you want to read. In high school I read some disability studies and existentialism-esque (e.g. Nietzsche and Camus) literature, in college I've read disability studies, setcol, trans studies, and psychoanalysis. This is not an excuse to under-explain if you are reading one of these lit bases. Please hint at a floating PIK in the 1NC.

I'm probably a much better judge for Ks then when I was in high school, feel free to pref me relatively highly if you're a K debater.

Theory

I will listen to all theory shells no matter how frivolous. I default to drop the argument on shells read on specific arguments and drop the debater on shells read on entire positions, no RVIs, and competing interps. To clarify, these are only my defaults if literally zero arguments are made, e.g. you read a whole shell but don't read paradigm issues. Please read paradigm issues, because if you don't I'll tank your speaks. If you read paradigm issues, and your opponent agrees to them or explicitly reads them again in one of their shells I will use those. So, if the AC and NC read shells with, dtd, no rvis, and competing interps, then the 2NR can't stand up and go for yes RVIs.

Phil

Phil is probably what I like to watch the most. I think the NC AC strategy is very strategic and will give you good speaks if you execute it well. Hijacks and preclusive arguments are cool. If you think your framework is super complicated for some reason just explain it well but I'll probably be able to evaluate a phil debate. Please weigh in the framework debate because that makes it a lot easier to evaluate. I default epistemic confidence.

Defaults

Truth Testing

Presumption and permissibility negate.

See theory section for theory defaults.

Metatheory>Theory=T>K

I default to strength of link weighing between different theory shells on the same layer, but would highly prefer you make weighing arguments between shells. E.g. "1NC theory>1AR theory", "T>Theory", "Spec shells outweigh everything" etc.

Note on hitting a trad debater/novice:

Do whatever you want, I'm not going to tank your speaks for like, spreading, reading theory or something. I also won't hurt your speaks if you just have a phil or larp debate with them, any approach is fine. The only thing is don't try to embarrass or make fun of them. You deserve to win if you did the better debating but you don't need to insult them or something like that.

Note on Post Rounding: Please do it if you think I intervened. I can take it, feel free to let me hear it if you think I've wronged you. You deserve to get angry at me if I robbed you of a win (which is not my goal just to clarify).

You need to extend things in every speech even if your opponent didn't contest them in later speeches. E.g. your 2ar can't be 3 minutes answering T and not extend any substantive offense.

Speaks

Things that will hurt your speaks:

1. Reading no framework in the AC.

2. Doing no line by line (unless just blitzing overview arguments was strategic in the situation, which is conceptually possible).

3. Ending cross ex like a minute early.

4. Being rude or way overconfident.

5. You're clearly just reading off a doc that someone else wrote.

6. Making the round really messy (especially when there was a clean way to win).

Things that will boost your speaks:

1. Clearly knowing the arguments you're reading. E.g. being able to explain your framework really well in cross.

2. Weighing and just making the round generally easier to evaluate.

3. Doing what you want to do and just executing it well.

4. Being funny.

29.7-30: You will break and make it deep out-rounds. OR you did something really creative or interesting, like made the 2AR impossible because your 2NR was so good.

29.4-29.7: You'll probably break and could win a few out-rounds.

29-29.4: You'll probably break.

28.7-29: You'll probably be on the bubble.

28.4-28.7:You'll probably go 3-3 or maybe break.

27.8-28.4: You did a little worse than average.