The Tradition Cypress Bay

2018 — Weston, FL/US

Ayumi Barry Paradigm

Talk at a pace understandable to the average human being. Be clear concise. I take notes. I am going to be voting for the team/person with the strongest, clearest and the best defended. NO SPREADING.

Cassie Belle Paradigm

I am a lay judge. I do not like speed. I am a recent university graduate with a bachelors in Psychology and Women's Studies.

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn Paradigm

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Boca-Delray (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)

I’ve been a debate coach for the past 11 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage and now at Cooper City HS. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. To that end, I’ve judged in many local California invitationals (Cal, SCU, Stanford, SCU2, MLK, NPDI, 6x4, etc), including adjudicating many elimination rounds (including late elimination rounds). I was myself a college debater and did LD in high school (Parli was not introduced until after I was out of high school). I've judged finals for the TOC for the California Cup (Parli Debate's TOC) five times over the last few years. I've coached all forms of debate (though LD, PF and Parli most extensively) and have adjudicated late elim rounds in all forms of debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 2 years.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments).

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up. Many have tried, you will fail.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 24, you probably really made me angry or stood on a desk and waved your arms or something. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned.

I don’t subscribe to the belief that spreading makes debate more exclusive therefore should be preferred, but that doesn’t mean you’ll lose because you talk fast. There is an incredible distinction between speaking quickly to cover points and circuit style spreading, and trust me, I can handle either and have NO problem with the former. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.


I find double clutch breathing in Parli annoying, but I won't punish your speaks for it. You'll just make me cry a lot inside :(

Not that I like it in LD/Policy but it doesn't bother me nearly as much.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.

Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Small note for LD: Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

Please note: I absolutely loathe the Batman K. It makes me actively angry. If you go for it, after reading this line, I will give your opponents double 30s and put my pen down and ignore you the rest of the round. Please and thank you.

In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.

I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Lance Garrison Paradigm

I judged LD for the 4 years when my daughter was on the circuit and am now back in the mix with my son starting up his freshman year. Mostly, I judged in local and regional tournaments, but did a few JV rounds at Harvard, NSDA regionals, and NCFL nationals. I also debated LD when I was in high school (yes, we had LD last century), so I am more old school than new school.


- I am pretty big on framework and impacts. Give me a clear idea of how your arguments link to weighting mechanisms, impacts, etc.

- I will not do your job for you. Extend your arguments, draw links to your framework, and make it clear what you think the voting issues are in the round

- I judge strictly on what is presented in the round, but clearly bogus arguments or "evidence" will have little or no weight with me

- Be competitive but cool.


- I am not afraid of the spread, but if I miss something important, then it won't get weighed.

- If you are discussing a deep philosophical idea, then it's probably a pretty good idea to slow down.

- Don't try to spread your opponent out of the round if they are clearly out of their depth, again = be competitive but cool


- I can't say I am the most well-versed theory judge ever. If you make a good argument that is well structured, then I am fine with it. That said, there is no way you can skew your opponent out of the round or sneak in some spike that automatically wins the round for you. So, I wouldn't spend too much time on it.

- I like the K and think it can really open up some interesting avenues for the debate. But, be careful of layering arguments that contradict your a priori arguments for why we shouldn't be having this particular debate in the first place.

- Have a STRONG link. I will be sensitive to the argument that the K is trying to grab infinite ground - because without the link, you are.


- less than 25 means you were NOT COOL. You will know at the end of the round, or maybe during, if it gets to that point

- 25-29 most of the time, I will give low point wins if your logic/evidence/case was just better at the end of the day

- 30 for the exceptional

Alfonso Guerra Paradigm

My daughter has been debating for three years and I’ve done some judging of public forum debates during that time. I’m not an expert on all the debate terminologies or formalities so a super technical debate may not gain an advantage.

The debate should be fun. It is about having a formal discussion about opposing arguments in a respectful and professional manner. Do not make personal attacks or derogatory statements, use offensive language or have rude behavior.

Many of the issues are complex so try to frame your case in simpler terms. The ability to incorporate wit into a difficult topic can be an effective indicator of your confidence in the subject matter. I value well-structured arguments that are presented at a moderate pace in a clear and consistent tone.

Theoretical ideas are good, but I’m an accountant so using facts, statistics and evidence to make a persuasive argument is better. Make the data relevant to your case and explain why it is important to your argument. I like to see challenging questions that can point out flaws or weaknesses in the opposing argument.

The time for cross should flow fairly with questions back and forth. If you can’t come up with a good question against the opponent, that suggests that they have the stronger argument, or you were not paying attention.

Finally, watch you time and be organized and concise. If you can’t make your case in the allotted time, then you are not doing a good job.

Jean Jeantinor Paradigm

My son started competing in Lincoln-Douglas this year, so my experience is short but I am more than aware of the amount of work that is put in to preparing for a tournament - so I am committed to making the best decision on what is presented during each round. I am comfortable with traditional LD style of cases. I will base my decisions off of your strength in framework, clash, and impact. Please speak at a slower more traditional pace, so I can understand all of your arguments - especially when using a philosophical basis. I have been trained using NSDA standards for Lincoln-Douglas Debate.

Charlie Karcher Paradigm

*Updated for TOC 2019*

chazkinz [@] gmail [dot] com

Judging record -

LD rounds this season: 72 (*sigh*) (Glenbrooks, Blue Key + RR, Harvard, Sunvite, Emory, Crestian)

Policy rounds this season: 13 (MBA, Golden Desert, FFL States)

Also see: Jack Ave, Sean Fahey

Current conflicts: Interlake/Newsome DB/Eagan AI/Oak Hall

Procedural: PLEASE make sure that all of the highlighting in your speech docs is yellow. It will make it much easier for me to judge you if you do (I'm colorblind). If you don't know how to use UniHighlight on Verbatim, I'd be happy to show you!

Quick prefs!! 1 - LARP, K; 2 - high theory, performance; 3 - theory, phil; 4 - friv theory, tricks

TL;DR / Karcher’s Thoughts on Debate that Nobody Asked For:

1/ Debate is a game that we play on the weekends with our friends. Whatever you like, I am here for it. I care about debate and I hope that you do too. Even if you're a terrible person in real life, at least be nice to me and your opponent during the round. Demonstrate that you enjoy being in the round that I am judging and make an effort. Cut good, updated cards. Make smart arguments. Have a sense of humor. Please don't be a brick wall. Don't make me hate judging your round. It will make the round a lot better for everyone.

2/ The current norms surrounding card tagging in LD are absolutely abysmal. "Extinction" and "That's bad" are not tags. Those are just random words. A legit tag will outline the claim that the card makes and the warrants that it has in it. For example: "Nick Arozarena is a great guy - he's attractive, received a ton of Silver bids to the TOC in PF, and has a great sense of humor. That's Karcher in '18:"

3/ In the words of Sean Fahey, “Please do not spread out debaters who clearly can not spread. You can still win this way if you're really that much of a tryhard, but I will decimate your speaks because you're an asshole. Be considerate and inclusive.”

4/ I probably need to calibrate how I give speaker points (translation: I’m lowkey a point fairy shhh)

5/ In the words of the great Daiya Massac: "If you want to read a case full of analytic arguments that sounds like you are reciting the alphabet or practicing how to count please, for the love of god, strike me."


These are only defaults if I hear nothing else about these issues.

· ROTB/other epistemological claims come before theory

· Aff gets presumption

· Comparative worlds over truth testing

· Reps/pre-fiat come first

K Debate

This is the type of debate in which I am most comfortable judging. Just explain your arguments well and don’t assume that I know everything that you are talking about.

You may find me to be particularly useful as your judge if your research involves authors including Deleuze and/or Guattari, Hardt and/or Negri, Jodi Dean, Butler, Baudrillard, Foucault, or Agamben. I greatly enjoy literature by both Albert Camus and Franz Kafka. I am currently reading introductory psychoanalysis literature.


LARP is fun. I like DAs and well-thought-out plan affs. Tech over truth, unless I’m told to evaluate impacts differently.

I used the Antonio '95 card a lot during my career, if that means anything to you.

I think that I should also add that I now do college policy, so seeing some of the util affs on the HSLD wiki is saddening to me because of how low-quality the link chains and scenarios are.


I love a good T debate

I'm not a fan of friv theory but will vote on it.

Disclosure theory: don't claim that it's good for small schools if you are from a big school.


The use of trigger warnings is a good norm

If I laugh in between speeches or during cross-ex, I'm honestly probably looking at memes so don't think that I'm laughing at you.

Anything else, ask me before the round!

Omar Lopera Paradigm

updated fall 2018

About myself: I have debated LD for 3 years. So I'm ok with any argument. If you found another Omar Lopera on the judge wiki that sounds like a parent. That's my father(yes we have same named). I'm completely different from my father to judging.


I'm ok with spreading just as long if your opponent is ok with spreading. Personally, I think debates get boring if one debater is spreading, while the other debater doesn't understand what's happening.

Secondly, I prefer if your spreading, please tell where you are on the flow and pinpoint to what argument are extending across the flow so I can clearly understand where the argument is.

Larp debate

I'm ok with any plan text argument the consistent with the topic at hand. give me IMPACTS and Warrants.

Phil debate

I personally love the idea of the Phil debate. However if its super deep philosophy, please explain in 1AR or 1NC what it means before you start laying the groundworks for your arguments. I want to make sure it clearly understanding your argument and not misinterpret it. Also, make sure you give me impacts and weighing especially if its ideal vs. policy debate.


I'm ok with theory. If it is a wordy interp, just simply explains what it means. I believe the theory is the highest level of debate. In my opinion theory debate gets muddled so I wouldn't focus all your time on it. Also please extend the voters it makes judging theory a lot easier. One last thing, do not try frivolous theory, I think its annoying and waste of time.


I love Ks. Personally, I think the reject alt is boring, but I won't hold it against you. If you want my vote on the K debate. Really go in for Alt. Without the alt I tend to default aff since most K impacts are that aff continuing a system that bad, and if I don't see an alt then how I see it is why should I care about any of negative impacts if you yourself don't have a solution. So I see the first link, alt then impacts for Ks


I consider DA as an off so in my view it's above the aff. I see a DA's argument that doing the aff is worst than doing nothing. So aff has the burden to disprove the DA's.


I'm not used evaluating theory spikes, so try to avoid them if you can. This more of your benefit since I don't misinterpret a good argument just because I'm used to evaluating them.

Speaker points

You shouldn't expect anything lower than 27. Unless you straight up punch the other debater.

Other than that explain your arguments and you should be fine.


Keep grudges at the door.

If their prefer pronouns that debater would like to use. Please address the debater by their pronoun.

Please ask any questions about the round.

Monique Lynch Paradigm

New to judging LD. As such, I favor traditional style arguments over the more progressive elements of LD - lay arguments over theory, kritiks, Plans, counterplans, etc. I also detest, with a passion, speed at the sacrifice of clarity - I can't follow what I literally can't understand. If the message didn't come across from that - DONT SPREAD. I'll vote on pretty much anything as long as it is well-explained to me how it links into the resolution and why it is important. Clash is important, especially with framework. Make argument extensions - and don't just parrot the author name, actually re-explain the warrant. Weigh everything. At the end of the day, I vote for the debater that made my job the easiest - the person who's voters are the clearest, make the most sense, and best take into account your opponents strategies. In terms of round structure (like timers, seating preference, sit or stand in cross) anything is okay as long as both sides agree. You can email me your case or give me a physical copy, but I most likely won't use these unless I need to do serious evidence comparison.

Naria Menard Paradigm

I hope to see strong arguments presented by both sides during a debate round. In Lincoln Douglas debate, I look for philosophical context. It is important to not only display your advocacy, but to also be able to refute/outweigh your opponent's arguments. Lastly, please be respectful in all communication with your competitors!

Jesus Mustafa Paradigm

I am the Director for an Engineering firm since 2012 and regularly prepare marketing and project presentations on civil engineering projects and infrastructure. I have judge in speech and debate for more than three years and enjoy the opportunity to judge.

I judge Public Forum and like to see well researched arguments, but I like them to be smart.


I do not presume to any side. I listen to student arguments.


Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I will be fine.

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


I am a stickler to your time, please be careful. Watch your time during questioning/crossfire(s).


Make it make sense and interesting.


I want to hear the sources/cards in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I penalize for quoting non-existing cards for evidence.

Do not take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Do not cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. Do not take evidence out of context by cutting qualifiers like "might" or "maybe".

Michael Norton Paradigm

I am the head coach at Coral Springs High School. I have extensive experience with Public Forum, but I also judge LD from time to time as well. I've been involved with speech and debate since 2009, and I've been coaching/judging since 2012.

Here are a few things to consider when debating in front of me.

Speed: I can flow speed pretty well. That being said, I prefer rounds that can be flowed on paper rather than rounds where the speed is so excessive that I am reading off of a word document or email chain.

Off-time roadmaps: Please do not do them - if you need to organize your speech, do so on the clock.

Evidence ethics: Ethics can be a voting issue for me. If you believe your opponent is misconstruing a card, tell me to ask for it after the round. I will not arbitrarily call for cards that I personally find fishy, you need to tell me what evidence should be reviewed. If your evidence is being challenged, please retrieve it in a timely fashion. Speaks will be docked if you take an excessive amount of time retrieving evidence.

Decorum: Please be nice in debate rounds - while I ultimately make my decision based upon the arguments on my flow, I have no problem tanking somebody's speaker points if they are rude, offensive, judgmental, or otherwise unkind in a debate.

Susan Orlowski Paradigm

8 rounds

Experience: 4 years of public forum, 4 years of NFA-LD (one-person policy debate), and 2 years of coaching NFA-LD. 

I am still in the process of formatting my paradigm for the high school circuit, so please excuse its brevity. 

I feel that debate should reward hard work. I will call for cards at the end of the round, and my ballot and speaker points will be used to reward the team with a greater quality and quantity of evidence. 

I prefer substantive arguments and default to a logical-decision maker paradigm. I am rarely persuaded by theory arguments that are not topicality or shells that do not have real implications for the solvency of the affirmative. 

You should engage in evidence and impact comparison. Impact comparison should be a full exploration of the link, internal link, and impact card to produce a full analysis of the probability, timeframe, and magnitude. 

Speed is not an issue for me as long as it is reciprocal and not exclusive. 

Lee Quinn Paradigm

Debate Coach at Samford University (AL) and Mountain Brook High School (AL). Please contact me about debate questions or interest in college debate at

I’m not the smartest human. You’re maybe smarter than me. Please do not assume I know anything you are talking about. And I would honestly love to learn some new things in a debate. Please teach me with evidence from world renowned experts.


American Policy Debate is the pinnacle of global education. I love watching the nerdiest nerds duke it out in an intense policy debate. Policy debate is inherently privileged and elitist. As a result, I expect elite. I want to listen to the biggest nerds in the world.

Debate is a game we play on the weekend with friends. Please be kind and respectful. And smile!

Debate is the key to success in life. If you can be good at debate, you can be successful in your career.

Please put me on the email thread. Debaters are guilty until proven innocent of clipping cards. I follow along in speech docs. I believe it is judges job to police clipping and it is unfair to make debaters alone check it.

Evidence and research skills are the foundation of debate. Debaters are pretty stupid. No personal offense, but I really don’t care what someone without a Bachelor Degree thinks, more or less a High School Diploma. The team that makes the most arguments backed by the Brookings Institute likely will win my ballot.

Debate is a public speaking activity. Please be loud, clear, make eye contact, have good posture, and do not speak with your hands. I can give great speaker points to debaters that follow these rules. Debate is not yelling at a laptop.

Truth over tech. You win a debate round before it starts. Good execution with informed arguments is the defintion of debate. If the card are really spicy, you’ll get above a 29 easy.

Process/ Conditions CPs are the devil. I don’t know when these became ok, but I’m persuaded that a generic/predictable aff posted on the wiki can win a theory debate against process/ conditions CPs. You just need an interpretation about a world of debate that excludes these CP’s. This is especially true with any Con Con CP. The 18th Century called and want their CP back. Con Con is trash.

New Affs. I think at most 4 conditional worlds with process/conditions CP’s are permissive. Anymore and I think you risk losing on theory.

Did I mention I love the Brookings Institute? (Shout out Grandma Yellen).

K debate is a little stupid. Krtikal literature is incredible and very important to being ethical. But they are bastardized in debate for polemic positions. Saying universal healthcare or a carbon tax is a bad idea because [inset K] is problematic to me and makes perfect the enemy of the good. And “Burn it Down” alts sounds like Steven Bannons and the Tea Party’s dream. I’m sure Exxon Mobile would love to burn down the EPA.

PS- Please do not read global warming good. Global warming is real and will kill us all. And I am particularly persuaded by the argument that introducing these arguments in debate is unethical for spreading propoganda and should be deterred by rejecting the team.

Alex Reyes Paradigm

Hi. My daughter is an extemper and I've been judging LD for a solid year. Please consider me a lay judge, as I do not like spreading and will not understand K's and advanced theory. I will judged based on who perceptually, logically, and argumentative wise won the round. Delivery will be considered and cross examination is very important.

Kelly Schwab Paradigm

I've been coaching and teaching Debate for six years. Out of all of the events, LD is my favorite to judge because of the wide net it casts for an argument...evidence can come in the form of philosophy, theory, empirical, etc...and there are abstract concepts like morality to substantiate - makes for surprising arguments...which I love!

I DO NOT have a preference for an argument - I've heard almost every kind by now and all types have won and lost my vote...I do suggest that you be careful with layered cases - especially when running a K...if you also run default arguments that contradict your K position then you just wasted your time on the K - so, my advice for winning off a K is to go for it with everything don't wimp and give me "judge if you don't buy that then..." argument...same usually applies to theory - both of which I definitely enjoy when done well :)
In the construction there should be framework used that's systematic for your argument - warrant & impact are essential to winning...while I want grounds for why your claims are valid I NEED you to warrant because there are usually too many factors in play to make such broad assumptions without a connective link - although it will be up to your opponent to point out those flaws in order for those to be turned.

I can handle speed or "spreading" pretty easily by now - if there is an issue with understanding or hearing I will say "clear" and will also check cards at the end for anything I missed...but please keep in mind that there are certain aspects in an LD construction that maintains well with speed and other areas that don't (i.e. - if you need me to understand how a philosophy or theory applies then allow me to absorb each part before rushing to the next because those are building block arguments, so missing one part can make the whole thing fall). I will not read full is YOUR job to communicate your case, but I will check info if needed.

Ilene Schwartz Paradigm

I am a parent judge who has been judging debate for 4 years. Please do not spread, I can understand slightly higher than conversational speeds but please be reasonable with your speed. I am open to almost any argument as long as you can explain it well enough so that I can understand it. I judge speaker points based on how respectful you were to your opponent, (If you are making obnoxious faces and rolling your eyes at your opponent then your speaker points will reflect that). I understand that debate can get competitive but just remember that we're all here to learn and have a good experience. :)

Steve Scopa Paradigm

I debated at Pines Charter on both the national and local circuit and went to TOC my senior year.

As per TOC’s absurd conflict rules, apparently my judgement is too clouded to judge the following people:

Robby Gillespie

Ethan Massa

Kumail Zaidi

Valley HS

Ronak Ahuja

Niko Battle

Rohith Sudhakar

Claire Liu

Daniel Shahab

Kevin Wang

Tej Gadela

Ishan Bhatt

Rex Evans

Asher Towner

Jason Chan

Kristen Arnold

Carolyn Zhou

Dylan Burke

General: I am very much a tech > truth person who will vote for any argument you make no matter how seemingly ridiculous or bizarre, all I need is a warrant. I also have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. My goal is to evaluate rounds with as little intervention as possible- that being said I was a debater too and understand when students disagree with my decision so feel free to grill me on the condition you aren’t hostile about it.

- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read in the round.

- I am not exactly the best at flowing, so when you are making analytic arguments you should label them and sign post as clear as possible. Also maybe take half a second after author names.

- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.

- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC- making an argument in the 2n that says something like “this was just a dumb blippy argument” is not sufficient. This goes for 2ar responses to NC arguments as well.

- Believe it or not, I will vote on disclosure theory. I would however, strongly advise against this strategy because I have an extremely low threshold for responses because I absolutely hate the argument. Honestly if you’re reading disclosure in front of me you should reevaluate your life because I can guarantee there’s a more strategic option.

- Don’t need to flash analytics to your opponent but I would like them J

-Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such. This is becoming slightly annoying L

Theory: Go for it- this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced. I don’t “gut check” frivolous shells but obviously if you are winning reasonability then I will evaluate through whatever your brightline is. If neither debater makes arguments I default to the following:

- Drop the arg on theory, drop the debater on T

- Competing interps

- Norms creation model

- No RVI

- Fairness is a voter

Also, for counter inteprs “converse of the interp” is not sufficient, if your opponent says “idk what the converse is so I can’t be held to the norm” I will buy that argument, just actually come up with a counter interp.

Tricks: This is my favorite style of debate and I love a clever trick or a priori but that doesn’t mean I will instantly vote for you if you read them without winning why they are relevant (aka you are winning truth testing). The more clever your arguments are, the higher your speaks will be. Despite my love for them, I usually have a low threshold for responses since the arguments are usually fairly weak. If you obviously just included an a priori because I am judging you and don’t extend a conceded one, your speaks will probably suffer. I also prefer you be more up front with them in CX if your opponent catches them, I have a lot more respect for people who are straight up about their sketchiness. If you are not the best at answering these arguments I wouldn’t worry too much, I will be more than happy to disregard them if you are winning a role of the ballot that excludes them or a shell that indicts them. Also, calling something a trick doesn’t mean anything to me -- tell me what the implication of the argument is.

Ks: I really enjoy a good K debate. Despite my reputation, I read Ks quite often because not all judges were good for my preferred style, so I know quite a bit of K literature and how interactions work. The one caveat is that I won’t vote for arguments I just cannot understand at all (Shout out to Grant Brown<3). Otherwise I am totally down to judge a K debate. I have read Deleuze, Butler, Wilderson, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Edelman, etc in rounds before so I definitely think Ks like these are interesting and strategic. I occasionally enjoy judging these debates the most because of how interesting and unique the arguments are. However, I cannot stand unwarranted “this is just another link” arguments, you need to explain or give a warrant as to why what you say is a link actually is one. I also am not a huge fan of identity K's, and I may vote on some responses you disagree with, just as a fair warning. Additionally, I prefer to see line by line debate, and it seems as though a lot of Ks begin/consist of long overviews without much specific reference to arguments in previous speeches, which can be difficult to flow, so you may want to consider this when going for the K in the 2n/1ar/2ar. Ultimately if this is your favorite/ best style, you should go for it.

Larp: I was never a larper, never judged a high level larp round, and am probably not qualified to judge a really good DA v Util AC debate. I don’t particularly enjoy these debates, and you most likely will not enjoy me judging you but I will do my best to evaluate the round. If you can’t defend util against a dump or well justified framework you shouldn’t pref me, because “the aff is a good idea” will not get my ballot. (Update: For some reason people still stand up and larp and read disads in front of me so PLS don’t pref me or change up the strat, trust me it is best for both of us).

Fwk: I enjoy a good framework debate, and it is probably my favorite thing to judge, but it can become fairly difficult to follow at times. As long as you clearly label arguments and make sure to weigh I feel very comfortable evaluating these rounds. However, these debates can often become muddled and devolve into a chicken and egg debate, which makes it near impossible to resolve so be careful of that. My major has given me a new passion for interesting frameworks so I would love to hear whatever unique positions you got.

Speaks: I am generally high in my speaker point assignments for some reason, apparently I am pretty easy to impress. I average probably a 28.8. I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy- I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. I am also somewhat expressive when I think about how arguments interact so don’t mind my face. Also, if I can tell your 2n. is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.

How do I get a 30?

I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following

1) A trick I haven’t heard before

2) A good analytic PIC

3) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting

4) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before

5) Execute Skep really well/ trigger skep

Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time- win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes.

Carolyn Scornavaca Paradigm

1. What is your debate background?

I am a parent judge and have judged secondary students for three years for several categories of both speech and debate. My experience has been in the categories of: Original Oratory, Informative, Lincoln Douglas, Extemporaneous, and Public Forum.

2. How do you judge?

I deliberate on overall presentation of debaters - i.e., arguments and delivery.

3. Please explain other specifics about your judging style?

I am not comfortable with the rate of speed of the competitor being any more than what would be considered slightly above the normal conversational rate.

Ruth Scott Paradigm

Spreading is welcomed. Copy MUST be provided before starting your speech.

Judge heavily on substance and real world arguments.

Keep your tone friendly and civil.

Daniel Shatzkin Paradigm

6 rounds

Been around debate for 15 years I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. I'll say clearer or slower a few times as needed.

Lincoln Douglas (Updated 2/25/19)

Run what you want as long as it isn't frivolous theory, or an argument that is disrespectful. You should be topical, I default to reasonability but I'm willing to evaluate T and theory however you tell me to. K's should have specific links not just ones of omission. Potential abuse probably won't get my vote on a theory shell.


I haven't judged policy regularly in about 5-6 years so my knowledge on the current k lit and common off case positions is pretty low. Aff's should be topical even if they don't have explicit plan texts if you can tell my why your addressing the topic you're probably ok. I default to being a policy maker but I'll vote on pretty much everything as long as it's a reasonably topical aff or the neg arguments have explicit links and are logical and understandable. If you actually weigh impacts I'll probably vote for you.

Lina Sosa Paradigm

I look for clear justifications, a lot of direct clash, and no spreading. Please do not overlook the framework debate (Value, value criterion). No flex prep. Avoid tech cases; I don't like theory, but if you run theory explain and analyze carefully. I will ask that you keep time. Do your best and good luck!

Lina M. Sosa

Sheryl Tracey Paradigm

I am a parent judge with experience judging on the local level. My daughter debates Lincoln-Douglas for Fort Lauderdale High School and this is her third year. I have more experience judging public forum than LD but I think I'm rather partial to the argumentation style and format of LD. 

I believe debate is an educational activity that not only the debaters but the judge should learn from. Thus, I believe speeches should be given at or slightly faster than conversational speed. If you spread, I will not be able to accurately evaluate your arguments. 

Arguments can be complex but must be fleshed out. I prefer traditional LD but I'm okay with LARP debate as long as it is well explained. 

Please ask for clarification on anything that may be unclear.

Regina Walker Paradigm

I am an assistant coach with some experience in debate. I debated in high school, but I have been out of the debate community until the 2018-2019 school year. I primarily prefer a lay debate but I can understand well-explained and topical LARP positions. I will not vote on theory, kritiks, or very dense framework because I will not understand it. I look for clarity in your arguments and clarity in speech. I will award speaker points based on confidence, voice projection, argumentation skills, and poise. Please do not spread in front of me as I will not be able to follow. I can understand slightly faster than conversational but I would prefer conversational. I will vote you down if you are overtly rude or offensive, regardless of how well you debate. If you want to run dense framework and theory, I am not the judge for you. All I ask is that you uphold the integrity of a traditional LD round and be respectful.v