Hi everyone! My name is Jazmine Chavez and I'm a current HS Debater at HSMSE.

The public forum debate format is designed for accessibility, so I encourage everyone to articulate their thoughts clearly and speak at a pace that ensures understanding for all. If you find yourself gasping for air between words, it's an indicator that you might be speaking too quickly. In PF debates, I typically don't lean towards voting on tricks or theory shells, so I suggest avoiding those aspects in your debate.

Please remain respectful at all times especially during cross.

Hey everyone! I'm Zach, and I'm excited to be judging your round!

I'd like to be added to any email chains, my email is zachary.meryn@gmail.com (creative i know)

LD:
Tech>Truth

LARP-1
K-1, I'm familiar with most Ks but for the more high level ones just make sure you do a good job explaining Theory of Power, links, impacts, etc.

Theory-2, I'm down to vote off a theory shell but I have a very low tolerance for friv theory, if you're planning on running more than 2 shells in a given round I'd be careful.

Tricks-4, please don't run tricks I will very rarely vote on them even if they go unanswered.

Phil-2 I love phil in rounds, same with Ks make sure to give in depth explanations so I can follow but the more creative the better and generally I think they make rounds super fun.

Spreadings ok as long as I get a speech doc.

flex prep is alright with me just ask your opponent

dont post round me

PF:
Speed-should be conversational & easy to understand

I'm really big on seeing analytical arguments used to refute opposing points rather than just throwing statistics at each other-I usually vote for the team that can explain WHY they're winning.

Make sure to weigh

Be polite in crossfire

Also if anyone shows me photos of their cat before the round ill give +.1 speaks I love cats.

add me to the email chain: owusuk@bxscience.edu

for novices:

weigh, extend well, & collapse.

things i like:

• aggressive cx debaters
• well warranted args
• effective lbls
• humor & food

for jvers:

literally do anything; i’ll vote on whatever.

joke paradigm (courtesy of kiep leon & jacob skolnick):

Hi, my name is Kayla ( Kay-Luh) and I compete in Lincoln Douglas debate for the Bronx High School of Science, where I am a NOVICE DIRECTOR and teach all of my freshmen tricks first. Please call me “judge” whenever you refer to me: anything else is disrespectful and I will give you an L12. I agree with every word on *** ******’s paradigm.

TLDR: I will evaluate first on who wins cross-ex. PLEASE SIGNPOST AND WEIGH IN YOUR CX TIME. It’s the only time where both debaters get to speak so I firmly believe voting on anything else is judge intervention and I will NOT EVALUATE IT. Judge instruction is really important!!!! If you don’t give me 3 voting issues you will lose!!

Shortcut

Theory/Tricks- 1

Ks (the less topical the better)- 1

Phil- 3 (I only like tricky phil strats and skep)

LARP- Strike

Long Version

Theory/Tricks- I run these all the time and I think they’re super cute. I default Yes RVIs on neg shells only (affirming is harder!), reasonability and accessibility>fairness>education, truth testing, epistemic modesty, and dispositional DTD (the condition is if you ran more than 1 off). I always eval after the first four minutes of the 2NR, but you can change my mind about that! My FAVORITE EVER SHELL IS CSA THEEORRRY!!! :D :D ;) I love it so much and enjoy beating helpless novices on it at debate camp (my novices would never concede csa theory tho).

Ks- If you read a long Kant overview and then a non-T setcol aff then speaks start at a 29.5. I HATE HATE HATE Cap Ks with a BURNING PASSION and if you run one then I am not evaluating the alt. Idk why these Ks have alts in the first place, theres no such thing as dual power since the only power in debate is the judge (btw I believe in judge intervention).

Phil- I like KANT and only KANT. except for 6 act utilitarianism. Long underviews with 10< permissibility triggers

LARP- i like util but not any larp argument. If you run a disad i will do my stats homework and vote for whoever tried to have a REAL ROUND. To quote my tricks QUEEN ava manaker: “Grow up and read a real argument.”

Speaks Paradigm

• If you bring me chipotle and you’re not Le Wang auto 30.
• Speaks start at a 29.8 if you read csa

Novice Paradigm: Hi guys! Everything above this was probably confusing for you but don’t worry! Please don’t read progressive arguments just because you think I’ll like them, I’m happy to listen to your trad round! That being said, if you don’t read at least 1 theory shell in every speech (and cx ofc!) I will not hesitate to DROP YOU WITH MINIMUM SPEAKS. The main thing you should know before the round starts is that I RUN THE ROUND LIKE A 17TH CENTURY DICTATOR. That means NO FLEX PREP, NO POST ROUNDING, and if you do ANYTHING that isn’t 100% EDUCATIONAL, I will LECTURE YOU. I just think that debate is an educational activity and we should do our best to be as educational as possible!

Iowa City High school 2012-2016

Northwestern University 2016-2020

Northwestern University Coach 2020-???

I want on the email chain: josephweideman01@gmail.com

--I generally know more about policy arguments, but I'm happy to vote for the K/think it is very strategic and usually answered badly.

--In K debates, both sides need to do a much better job of: 1) using examples/contextualizing their offense; 2) debating the other team's argument instead of a caricature of their argument; 3) evidence based debating

--I care a lot about evidence quality. I'll usually read a good chunk of the cards during the debate.

--I think a lot of debates are determined by which team has the better strategic vision/ability to weave the different pieces of a debate together into a win. I do not like having to piece together a debate without instruction from debaters on how to do so.

--I will be very quick to ignore evidence composed of sentence fragments that make no grammatical sense when put together.

--Inserting re-highlighting of the other team's ev is fine, but you must explain what you're inserting/why you think it helps you.

--T-USFG/FW: I think the vitriol with which this argument is approached by many people on both sides of this issue is bordering on the absurd. FW has argumentative merit. So do the answers to FW. Clash is good (If you want to convince me otherwise you'll need to explain what debate is without clash). I care less about fairness gripes. Stop saying things are intrinsic goods and instead use descriptive language to explain why they matter. Aff teams' impact usually outweighs but I consistently vote neg when the aff shotguns offense and fails to answer the neg's defense/tricks and/or because clash turns aff offense.

--I am uninterested in adjudicating personal attacks/arguments about things that happened outside of the debate.

--Conditionality = Good

--T vs Plans: Least favorite type of debate to judge (other than theory debates...maybe). I think evidence quality/predictability matters a lot and its usually silly to put limits above everything else.

--Make choices please.