University of Texas at Austin '26

Midlothian HS '22

Add me to the email chain: clbridgins@gmail.com

Events Participated In: Policy, PF, Congress, Extemp Speaking, and Extemp Debate

Accomplishments (so you know that I'm not dumb): 2021 Policy Debate State Quarterfinalist, 2022 Public Forum Debate National Qualifier, and 2x Extemp Regional Qualifier

PF:

I did PF in high school so I'm familiar with it, but I have no clue what the topic is so keep that in mind. I'm pretty much fine with anything, I was mainly a policy debater so I'm ok with any kind of argument. I'm fine with speed to a degree but regardless of how fast you're going, please send me the speech doc so I can see your evidence and follow along in case I miss something on my flow. If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round starts!

LD:

I was a policy debater in high school so I have no experience in LD. I understand framework/ value & criterion but I'm not knowledgeable in K literature or weird theoretical arguments. I think running those arguments is borderline abusive in this more traditional debate format, and if you want to run that then go do policy. (Policy is better anyway.) I'm fine with some more progressive arguments like plans, counterplans, and disads but make sure it's easy to understand. I don't care about speed as long as you email me the speech document, but don't spread analytics.

Congress:

I have experience in Congress but I don't prefer it because it can get quite boring after a while. That's why you should make it interesting by using your speech to either respond to your fellow debaters or bring up new arguments. I don't want to have to hear the same speeches being restated so you can get a speech in. I'll rank you much higher if you can do this. Also, bonus points if you can make your speech funny while still being relevant.

Den (She/They)

Email:
• For chain, please use crossxnight@gmail.com
• For personal inquiries, contact at dnisecarmna@gmail.com

Background:
• Community Coach @Kelly College Prep (Chicago, IL)
• 4 years of High School Policy Debate experience
• Judging Nat Circuit & UDL Tournaments since '19

Topic Comment(s)

Round Counter: 76

4/4 -- Let's have some fun. Except if you run the Death K. Then perish. Joking aside, run anything you deem fit. This is cities, you should never give your opponents mercy because best believe I never got any. ????

Overview:

I'm experienced with both lay/circuit styles of policy debate. Nevertheless, I default towards a tech over truth style of judging unless said otherwise in-round. In terms of judging preferences, I have none. As evidenced by my judging record, I'm primarily preffed by k-oriented teams. I have judged k v k rounds. I have judged k v fw rounds. k v heg good. Judging these rounds have led me to think of debate in a broader capacity. Despite set preferences, I'm capable of being in back of the room judging stock issues debate.

Overall, I'll do my best to judge rounds fairly. I wholeheartedly appreciate the opportunity to judge. It allows me to better educate myself and teach my students on topic trends and/or strategy innovation.

Chicago/UDL: To answer a common question I get... I judge a multitude number of debates (~40) a year. The debaters I've coached win top speakers & break at locals. My proudest achievement is one of my debaters winning the City Championships! Therefore, I'm confident I'm qualified to judge your round. If you ever have any questions about your rounds, please CC: your coach and reach me at dcarmona16@cps.edu since I'm a school district employee.

What I enjoy:

Disadvantages-- Specific links to affirmatives recommended but generics are fine as long as it's still applicable. In terms of the politics disadvantage, evidence recency takes priority. However, how politicians act > what politicians verbally express. Uniqueness overwhelms the Link is a strong argument.

Kritiks-- Always have specific links to the affirmative. Links predicated off the topic itself doesn't lead to any meaningful educational debate specific to the case being ran. However, that doesn't mean I won't vote for Links of omission if the opposing team fails to answer them. If your strategy entails going for the links as impact turns to the affirmative, tell me explicitly to judge kick the alternative. If the negative has to win that the plan is a bad idea, don't let the alternative weigh the kritik down.

Counterplans-- CP debate is pretty awesome. Multiplank Counterplans are good. Planks that are supported by 1AC authors are even better. I don't have a disdain towards process counterplans. If your counterplan is not carded/supported by evidence in the 1NC, those rounds shape to be an uphill battle for the negative.

Topicality-- For the negative to win Topicality, they must [1] provide a model that best adheres to the topic, [2] exclaim why the affirmative fails to meet that model, [3] flesh out why the negative's model of debate is preferable, [4] evaluating the flow through competing interpretations is best. For the affirmative to beat Topicality, they must [1] explain why they meet the negative's model and/or [2] provide a counter-model that's better for the topic, which leads to [3] more educational and fair debates moving forward. [4] Frame the debate through reasonability.

T-USFG-- Prefer the debate to be framed similar to topicality (better model of debate). However, teams going for the impact turn(s) are welcome to do so. Affirmative teams running an advocacy statement tend to go for "the negative's model of debate is inherently worse, therefore by default the judge should vote for the affirmative's model". Definitely, the best approach when 1ACs are built to counter FW by embedding claims on the game of debate and how to best approach the topic. However, I have seen my fair share of critical affirmative's that.. could be read on any other topic. Negative teams, emphasize switch side debate. Provide TVA(s) under your model of debate. Explain the affirmative's burden and the negative's role in this game. Convince me that the negative should be the one reading all these different theory of powers against teams defending a policy. If they break structural rules such as going over speech time, call it out. Procedural fairness leads to better education. Don't rely too heavily on portable skills, I typically buy claims that people rarely become policymakers after this activity.. I'm a graphic designer for reference.

***If your arguments are descriptive in its explicit/graphic content, please provide a trigger warning pre-round. Let's avoid going to tab at all costs and/or having a procedural ran on you. I will stop the round if the other team deems the environment as uncomfortable.

Hall of Famers---

Rats: Kelly Lin, Lisa Gao, Ramon Rodriguez

Learned From: Armando Camargo, Juan Chavez, Jocelyn Aguirre, Leobardo Ramos, Scott Dodsworth

Background: I debated LD for 2 years in middle school, 4 years of CX/5 years of congress in high school; coached LD, CX, PF, and congress for 4 years. I consistently competed and qualified for nationals in both congressional debate and policy debate. I've previously judged PF, congress, LD, policy, big questions, and occasionally speech.

I am now a sophomore at UCLA, working in the esports industry. I'm unfortunately a little bit rusty with debate since I haven't been back in the community for a long time, so please be patient with me as I slowly get back into it!

General Paradigm: I'm as tabula rasa as I can be, so I'll vote for just about anything, as long as y'all have provided a reason for me to do so. Whoever wins the debate on the flow will be the winner of the round; technical application is more important to me than truth. I’m fine with speed, but analytics and tags shouldn’t be spread through. If I cannot understand you, then I won’t flow the argument.

I don't mind open cx. Since it's an online tournament, I will not hold any technological issues against y'all, as long as it is not extremely disruptive to the event. Sending speech documents isn't considered prep, so long as it's a reasonable period of time. Please make sure to add me onto the email chain: lchen725@g.ucla.edu

Debate should be fun, so do what's fun for you, as long as it does not come at the expense of others. Offensive or harmful statements made in round will reflect on the ballot. Please be considerate and kind to each other.

Specifics:

Aff: I'm okay with any type of affirmative. I have experience will all types, hence I will not favor one type of affirmative over another.

Neg: I'm okay with most arguments! I ran a lot of kritiks during my career, specifically psychoanalysis (Lacan), so these arguments are always welcome. Even if you run a kritik that I am familiar with, please treat me as if I'm not. This helps me understand kritiks that I don't know, shows me that you know your kritik well, and allows everyone in the round a fair chance to participate in the debate because everyone can understand the kritik.

Please be very clear with topicality/theory. It's the only argument I'll really have an issue with. If T/theory is not clear from the start and ends up devolving into a muddled mess, chances are, I'll throw it out of consideration. If you're a heavy theory team in particular, I might not be the best judge for you, but I'll still vote on it as long as the arguments are clear.

Strake Jesuit Class of 2020

Fordham 2024

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game, first and foremost.

I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument

Summary of my debate style - I just enjoyed the activity while reading all types of arguments with my own spin on them. I think debate is often boring with debaters just reading blocks and not being innovative.

Please note that I have strong opinions on what debate should be, but I will not believe them automatically every round they have to be won just like any other argument. Tech>truth no exceptions.

Triggers - French Revolution and Freemasonry

I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.

Speaks -

How to get good speaks 29-29.5

• be entertaining either with good music, good jokes etc
• making arguments that I like or agree with; this includes Catholicism and Monarchism.
• Style
• Reference something from Scooby-Doo

How to get 30

• Define the 4 Marian Dogmas
• Explain Unam Sanctam
• Explain who you think the greatest monarch is and why
• Explain who you think the greatest Saint is and why
• Recite the our father or hail mary in latin

How to get low speaks

- Having bad strategy choice

-being really rude or mean

- Swearing or cursing, try to keep it professional and respectful, please

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them

Tricks - 1

Larp - 2

Phil - 1

K - 3

Theory - 1

K performance - 5