Email: andrewdebate23@gmail.com

Run anything you want really just make sure to explain it well.

If it's not on the flow, it's not in the round so make sure that if you are saying something that is not on the doc, you slow down and you are clear.

ROADMAP AND SIGNPOST. (Speaker points if you do it)

Topicality and Theory:

Extend T and theory through the whole round. If neg, explain why I should care that the aff isn't topical. Explain your interpretation, standards, and violations. If aff, explain why you meet, your counter interpretation, and why I should prefer it.

I’m not voting on theory if there’s no actual impact in the round and you don’t show the impact.

Kritik:

If a K-aff, explain why you're not topical. Extend solvency throughout the round. Don't run them just for a ballot. I think there’s a slightly higher threshold for K-affs than most other arguments in policy

If you're running a K as the neg, please provide some form of clash to the aff. Explain why the alt is better, and explain why they can't perm. Make sure you do the work on the link to the aff.

DAs & CPs

Impact calc if you want to win on these arguments. Link for the DA is important. Net benefit to the CP is also important.

Ballot Framing:

Lay out the round for me, tell me how I should evaluate the round and what I should vote on.

Speaking:

Be organized. No problem with speaking fast, don't spread too fast. Rebuttals will win you rounds. You shouldn't be introducing new cards in them and at this point, you're analyzing the round.

Make me laugh.

she/her. For the email chain: sophieb123r@gmail.com Racism, misogyny, homophobia auto loss. I’m a freshman at vanderbilt and in hs read K debate since my sophomore year, but novices should probably read policy stuff (also maybe cap and security?)

Impact out the 2nr/2ar and make it very clear why I’m voting for you, but also why I’m not voting for them. If there is one thing I will say…don’t. drop. the. perm. Extend arguments in the 1ar or I won’t evaluate them in the 2ar (but am definitely sympathetic to the 1ar so just make sure I HEAR it) think of my paradigm as any basic judging philosophy yk?
I have a RAGING rbf but I promise that doesn’t have 2 do w u.

be clear

Andreas Charalambous, Mamaroneck High School '25

andreasoscarcharalambous1@gmail.com

GENERAL:

Tech>Truth (I'll vote for anything).

You should ask questions after the round---you can and should post-round me.

Speed is good. You can go as fast as you want but have some clarity.

For anything specific, I agree with everything in this paradigm:

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=11643

Newbie Coach for ADL

I flow.

I give pretty high speaks if you're nice.

Email Chain: Brandonchen.135@gmail.com

Ask in round if you want to know more about me

I would like to be on the email chain:

@gmail.com m325rh <---switch these around, I do this so I don't get spam

General debate things:

Try to make the round as easy for me to vote on as possible, at least 20 seconds at the top of your last speech to tell me what to look at so I know what you think I need to look at more closely and the general story of the round to help me make sense of my flow. I like lots of judge direction and really don’t like making up connections for you, so a great way to make sure I’m looking at it the way you are, telling me a clear rfd would be very helpful

I’ve been debating on this topic for a while so I’ll probably know most of the stuff you’re talking about, but I won’t do any work for you so make sure you make it clear what you’re talking about and how it applies to the round.

When I say open cross one partner does like everything, so until I delete this from my paradigm I'll be asking for closed cross.

I will default to utilitarianism and debate being a game unless told otherwise

Tech>truth

Case:

Please do some case debating please. I’m down to vote neg on some nice link turns and things like that. There isn’t nearly enough case debating around and I think that is a wasted opportunity, affs get away with murder and I would love for them to be called out.

DA:

Very strong on this topic; I like a clean story that makes it easy to understand what I’m voting for. Using the disad to take out case solvency is awesome, just make sure it’s clear what specific parts of case you’re taking out.

CP:

I don’t generally love counterplans on this topic, but if you can make it competitive and theoretically justifiable then I would love to vote on a solid counterplan.

T:

Please extent an interp, violation, and standards clearly in your overviews.

Make sure to do impact calc with your standards. Why does fairness/clash/education matter? Why do you access their standards better?

K:

Make sure to explain the thesis clearly so I understand it, otherwise, if the other team explains it in a way that makes sense I'll believe them.

Make sure you extend all parts of the K unless you want to kick the alt in which case go for it, I'll be down to vote on basically any way you want to read it as long as I understand what I'm voting for

Kaffs

Making the thesis clear and weighing against T is your best way to my ballot. I'm down to vote for it but you must make sure my ballot does something, or if it does nothing why it should still go to you, and say why the TVA doesn't let you read your theory or why reading it under the TVA takes out some form of solvency

I'm also down to vote on rev rev debates, but try not to make it too messy

I'll default to fairness being an impact, but you are welcome to say why it's not or why whatever you do outweigh

Theory

Condo is a reason to reject the team, for anything else you'll need to give reasons to get it up to that threshold.

Needs an interp, a violation, and standards, every single time or I won't evaluate it (this goes for things like severance too)

Make sure to slow down a bit if you know you are fast

Policy: I am tabula rasa in the sense that I believe my judging paradigm is an issue to be debated in the round. I default to a policymaker paradigm if the issue isn't debated. I don't prejudge arguments; I'm open to listening to any kind of argument you care to make. Be kind and respectful of others. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity. Warrants, impacts and clash are important. I don't like time to be wasted.

LD: I tend to be somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to theory, though I can be persuaded. I consider the standards debate (value, criterion -- and please don't refer to a "value criterion") to be very important. Big picture is as important as line-by-line. Warrants and impacts are crucial.

PF: I adhere to the NSDA rule that prohibits plans and counterplans. My primary background is policy debate, so I tend to look for impacts to arguments. The appropriate paradigm I should use to judge the round is an issue to be debated in the round. I'm not a fan of paraphrased evidence.

Update for 2023: College Junior

Formerly Debated as Devin Kyser

Currently go by Drixxon Kyzar. Both Dev & Drixx are fine, I really don't mind.

email chain: davk2300@gmail.com

Paradigm:

If there's an email chain, I'd appreciate being on it, but I'm fine with spreading as long as you're somewhat clear.

Will vote on Kritiks and Theory Shells as long as you explain them well. Not a very big fan of tricks, but I won't vote you down for it.

Please keep things cordial and respectful. I understand that Debates can get very intense, but it's important to attack someone's case rather than their person.

Sign posting is highly valued, as it makes my job easier, and is appreciated when I see that your case and motives are organized.

2024 Revised Paradigm:

I'm a product of Newark Science. You can refer to my former coach's paradigm as a basis for how I'll judge.

Speed
Be clear. Pretend I don't have your doc. For most topics, you can spread as fast as you want.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, clear tags are extremely important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory is to make it make sense. I'm not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

background

Mamaroneck ‘21, Johns Hopkins '25

Add me to the chain - twl.debate@gmail.com

+0.3 speaks if you open source all of your docs and tell me.

Tech > truth, but everything needs a warrant.

I was 1a/2n.

topicality

I will default to competing interpretations.

You need an alternative to plan text in a vacuum.

policy

Tell me to judge kick.

Smart perms destroy process cps.

You can insert perm texts.

You can insert rehighlightings.

The more specific the disad, the better.

Impact turns are fun (excluding wipeout).

ks on the neg

Ks should have specific links to the plan. Pull quotes from their aff for links.

Reps links are bad.

If the other team doesn’t understand you, don’t assume I will.

Policy teams that can't answer the K deserve to lose.

k affs

Framework: Procedural fairness and clash are impacts.

I can very easily be persuaded by presumption against k affs.

If argued by the neg, k affs probably don’t get a perm.

theory

Condo is good but you can persuade me that it is not.

Neg leaning for most theory.

Will vote on conceded aspec and other theory arguments.

non-negotiables

Follow speech times, don’t ask for high speaks, don’t ask for double wins, and don’t try to destroy the game.

I'm a versatile judge but also keeping in mind that this is policy debate, I intend on voting at least with the barest minimum required:

1. Framework - what's yours, reasons to perfer, why is your opponents f/w undesirable, etc.
2. Impacts - what is the urgency? In round impacts included. If going for theory, what's the terminal impact of that.
3. Risks - what conquenses will be made from an opposing ballot?
4. Solvency - evidence of proof
5. Topicality/Theory - if there are no voters, I will not be voting on the argument. Independent voters need to be impacted out.

K affs have the burden of proof which means even if you don't claim fiat, solvency is still required. Evidence can be used as proof but there's going to be a deeper analysis needed to support your commitment and legitimacy of your advocacy if it is a performative style of debate especially. I still expect clash and line by line. You cannot get caught up in the argument that you refuse or forget to engage in actual debate. If by the end of debate I don't understand the solvency mechanism being used to solve the impacts of the aff and no analysis on reasons to perfer affs f/w I'm probably going to vote on persumption.

Lastly but should've been firstly, after years of debating and over a decade of judging, I have seen an upward trend in bad ethos in debate. Lets keep it respectful. If there are trigger warnings, they need to be addressed before the debate starts.

Open cross-x is fine.

I'm not going to evaluate any questions past cross x but if you want to ask simple questions during your prep during contructives, that's fine.

Hi, my name is Kevin and I do policy debate at Lexington High School in Massachusetts

Email Chain: kevinma13425@gmail.com

TLDR: Tech >> Truth. Please spend time on and weigh every argument and tell me why you should win on that. Signpost and organize your arguments to make it easier for me to flow. Don't be a bad person by being racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. I'm okay with open cross as well.

POLICY:

Case:PLEASE EXTEND CASE where there is an overview or anything else. I want to see case extended thoroughly in all speeches or else I will just vote neg on presumption.

Theory and T: Please have standards and why the other team should lose, or else I will probably not vote on it. If you want to go for either of these, make it most of the 2NR, or else it is probably not substantial enough.

DA: Explain why your impacts outweigh.

CP: Make the net benefit clear and explain to me why the risk of the DA outweighs and the solvency of the CP.

Ks: Please know what you are reading before you run one of these. If you don't know anything about it, then it is hard to debate it and I will likely not vote on it. I am more experienced with more policy-oriented Ks like cap so if you debate high theory Ks, you have to explain to me why that is significant. You need to explain what the alt does and how the K outweighs the case. Also, you should be winning framework as well and aff needs to answer this well.

K affs: Don't read this as a novice, you probably don't know what you are saying and I will deduct speaks.

General:

1. Don't be a bad person
2. Have good impact calc
3. Don't run like 10 off, I will deduct speaks for this
4. Be clear on analytics, if you are spreading too fast, I will probably not be able to flow it
5. Flow
6. Don't steal prep
7. Organize your arguments by signposting, etc
8. Don't read new arguments if it is not in the 1NC/1AC or if it is dropped (like reading a new DA in the 2NC)
9. Tell me why your arguments matter
10. Don't drop case

PF and LD:

I don't really have experience in this. Please fully articulate and explain your arguments to me so that I know what is going on. Weigh your arguments and organize them. Explain why your arguments should matter to me. Also for PF, I really don't prefer when evidence is paraphrased.

My Pronouns are She / Her

Put me on the email chain: Mmesoma.nwosu8@gmail.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.

Speed:

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.

Cross Examination:

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

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.

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.
sorry folks
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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 osmaneprince1@gmail.com

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.

Conflicts:

-Newark Science

Basic things:

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.

Kritiks

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

CPs

wasn't ever really my thing, but go for it. I'm not too versed on CP theory.

Tricks

ha. HA. HA! HA! no.

Theory
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.

DA’s

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.

Plans

eh. neutral bout them. I rather a plan than a super abstract aff.

Presumption.

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.

Perms:

you drop it you lose.

Speaker points

Like I said, I really like passionate speakers. That'll boost up your points for sure.

Maggie Zhu (she/her)

Lexington '25

3rd year debater, 2N/1A

Add me to the chain: m.zhu2026@gmail.com

General:

1. Be nice to everyone in the round, including your partner. This also means don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
2. Tech>truth. Go for the arguments you are most comfortable with, I'll vote for anything if it is articulated well. This does not mean that if someone drops something you auto-win. You should still explain the argument and implicate it in accordance with whatever else is going on in the round so that I know what I'm voting for.
3. Weigh your arguments. Do impact calc and be specific with what you are comparing. Don't just say "we outweigh" because that doesn't really give me anything. Judge instruction is good and you should write my ballot for me in your rebuttals.
4. Be clear. Spread, but don't sacrifice clarity for speed.
5. Flow.
6. Give a roadmap and signpost.
7. Be efficient. It doesn't take 5 minutes to send out cards. If you want to take analytics out, run prep for that. Also just don't steal prep in general--it's unfair and saps time.
8. Collapse into arguments. I will cry if everything that's in your 1NC makes it into your 2NR. 2NR should be strategically chosen based on how the round went. This also goes for aff. Most of the time, you don't need everything in your 1AC to win the debate. Choose your best arguments that work for the round. You don't need to read an overview of every single card you read at the top of the 2AR.
9. If you have any questions about my paradigm feel free to ask before round.

Specific arguments:

FW: Do impact calc. Debate is probably a game, so fairness is probably an impact. TVAs seem pretty good this year. If you're aff you should actually answer it.

CP: Should solve the aff or a portion of the aff. Should have a net benefit, either internal or external. Solving the aff better is not a net benefit unless you have offense against a mechanism of the aff the CP doesn't include. Aff should call out neg teams for cheaty CPs.

DA: They're great on this topic. Explain why the DA turns case or outweighs. Try to read an external impact to the aff.

K: Only read them if you actually know what it says. I can tell if you have zero clue what's going on and are just reading down blocks. Then again, I think K's are really educational and fun in debate so I'll be really happy if you execute one well.

T: Love T, but if it's in the 2NR, it better be the only thing in the 2NR.

Theory: Condo is good, but I'll vote on it if it's dropped. Condo's probably the only theoretical argument with a reason to reject the team.