Villiger 40 Saint Josephs University

2019 — Philadelphia, PA/US

Karen Abrams Paradigm

I am a parent judge with experience in PF, LD, and Policy debate judging. I appreciate clearly identified and well supported contentions, roadmapping, speaking at an understandable pace, and respectful cross fire. I do not appreciate spreading. I like to flow while I'm judging a round. I prefer traditional debate to approaches like counter plans or progressive frameworks. I am a public policy professional in the field of natural resource policy. I write regulations and develop national policies as part of my every day job. Ultimately winning the day on a policy decision is not about overly complicating the issues, but about solving a problem with well supported evidence and facts that the public can understand and finds credible and defensible.

Cait Bliss Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Tim Coughlin Paradigm

If you see my pronoun listed as "judge", please note that it started as a joke at my expense. In the end I've left it as a reminder to judge every competitor as an individual with dignity and without bias.


I have been asked many times if I have a preference for types of arguments or styles of debate and the answer is that it doesn't matter. You are are the speaker, not I. Progressive, traditional, plans, counterplans, theories, or kritiks, your job is to convince me that your side's position is the strongest.

Policy Debate (CX) - (Feel free to do the 1950s version of a policy round. You know, before they developed spreading. Since this is unlikely....) If you are passing cards back and forth, give me no reason to wonder if you are appropriating prep time. If you are passing cards, do so expeditiously. (Why yes, I'd like to be on the email chain! My email is Be prepared with USB drives or another medium for sharing documents. Please note, this isn't supposed to be war of the USB drives. Taking more than a minute to transfer a file will add up. Out of respect for your fellow competitors and the tabroom, I will be urging you in-round to move forward expeditiously. Especially at the varsity level. There is no requirement to be able to pass cases or cards, so if there is a technology problem, we will be moving forward. Be prepared!!!

For LD, if you are not talking, you're prepping.

There is one official time-keeper, the judge(s). You are welcome to time yourself using your phone or another device as a timer. Your timer should be silenced and not interrupting you or your opponent's speaking time. Please ask if you want notifications whether on prep or debating and I'll be happy to let you know. When your time is up, I will inform you quietly so you can finish your sentence.

Be polite. Argue your case effectively and clearly. As the debater, you (or your team) will decide that method. Speaking more quickly will not help you case if you are not clear. As a judge, I will attempt to read up on your topic of debate ahead of time, but it is best to assume that I know nothing and provide definitions accordingly. Be sure to ask both myself and your opponent if we are ready.

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Anything that interrupts your speaking time will count against you. Doubly so if you interrupt your opponent. I'd appreciate it, as a courtesy, if you are using a phone for notes, etc (if allowed for your style of debate) to warn me ahead of time.

Internet access is being allowed in some tournaments. The rules governing access can generally be found on the tabroom page for the tournament. I have every expectation that you will use network access honorably and ethically.

----World Schools & Parlimentary Debate ----

I'm not going to treat this as LD/CX Jr, honest. This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading, and the speed should max out at the upper end of a standard conversation.

Argument execution is important. Each speaker should communicate using an effective combination of public speaking norms. Namely conversational speech rate, appropriate pitch and tone, and confident body language. Eye contact is key, so limit what you're reading verbatim from paper. If you read from a paper in a monotone voice for 8 long minutes, you will put me to sleep as well as your opponents. Please don't do this!

Case construction should flow seamlessly and I recommend it be logically laid out. Evidence calls are not allowed generally. Check the tournament's rules. If you think something is wrong, well, that's what POIs are for.

Do NOT abuse POIs. I will heavily dock speaker points in the event of any abuse.

Internet use will be allowed on a per tournament basis. Any timers should be silenced!

Use of knocking and tapping in the appropriate manner is encouraged. Humor will never be amiss in any round I judge.

Ask me questions before the round begins.

-----------------Big Questions-----------------

This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading. Your need to appeal to the philosophy of your position in a orderly efficient manner in important. Collegial discussion needs to be your manner to approach this and be successful. Please note, this is one of the few events where a judge can declare a forfeit without consulting tabroom. You MUST remain topical. This is NOT an event to play games with kritiks and counterplans, etc. I have every expectation that you will take this event seriously. In doing so, you show respect for your team, your opponents, your judge, and yourself.


Do your best and be respectful of others in the room. Tell me if you want time signals. Otherwise, I'll only give you a hand clenched for no time left. I expect that you will know the rules and requirements of whichever league you are competing. Unless you are double entered, you are expected to stay the whole time. If you are double entered, please tell me before we begin and do not interrupt a fellow presenter while leaving or entering. I will generally go in the order of the ballot, otherwise.

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Anything that interrupts your speech will count against you. Doubly so if you interrupt one of you fellow speakers .

Bridget Doherty Paradigm

I have been judging for 4 years mostly focused on LD. I've come to really enjoy it and look forward to hearing from you.

What I am looking for:

Content is king for me: Having a good, sound argument where you clearly understand the facts/cards/reasoning of your aff and/or neg and can clearly explain them to those who do not is what I am looking for.

I am also looking for an organized thought process and adherence to the LD framework. Your actions should almost always be taking it back to your value and core contentions.

I understand Spreading is an approved technique, but if you are going so fast I can't understand your case, you can't win the argument, no matter how good it is. Speed is acceptable, as long as I can understand what you are saying. I am a professional communicator for a major healthcare company, and if I counseled my executive leader to speak super fast I would not have a job (and neither would the executive).

If you are going so fast I can't understand, I will give one warning. Again, the content of your argument and an organized framework will go much farther with me than getting lots of information/facts and figures on the table.

And know this: I am NOT a fan of Kritik. Do at your own risk.

It is important that everyone learn from this experience, so my comments will be broken into what you did well and opportunities for improvement.

Lastly, I appreciate all the hard work you put into this and am constantly impressed by students who have the courage to do this and their amazing skills. Thank you!

Callie Ham Paradigm

***Include me in your email chain.***

It would be beset for everyone if you kept your own time.

Public Forum

To be a true PF judge, I shouldn't have one of these...right? But see below...

Lincoln Douglas

LD debate should remain distinct from policy debate. While the passage of new policy may be deemed essential for AFF ground with some resolutions (i.e. Sept/Oct 2018), value debate should remain central to the round. I don't mind speed or progressive/policy-style arguments in an LD round as long as you provide analysis of those arguments and link them back to the value debate.

Policy Short Story

As a judge, I am open to all arguments and styles of policy debate. Your job as a debater is to convince me that what you have to say matters and should be preferred to your opponent. The way you go about that is entirely your choice (within reason…professionalism and decorum are key). If you have questions pre-round, please ask. Having said that, here are some specific likes/dislikes as a judge which you can choose to follow or completely ignore (because I will objectively evaluate whatever lands on my flow whether I really like it or not):

Policy Long Story

Case: I do love case debate. I find it hard to vote NEG when case goes relatively untouched and hard to vote AFF when rebuttals focus on off-case arguments. Rounds where case is essentially dropped by both sides are my worst nightmare.

K: Not my favorite, but I will evaluate K. I’m not really well-versed in kritikal literature, so if you choose to run kritikal arguments (AFF or NEG), please provide thorough explanation and analysis. Don’t expect me to know the ideals that Whoever promoted because, unless you tell me, I probably don’t.

T: I tend to be pretty lenient on the affirmative as far as T goes. In order to win on T, the negative must completely prove that the affirmative has totally harmed the fairness and education of the round.

CP/DA: Sure? Run them? Why not?

Theory/Framework: Sure. Whatevs. Just tell me how/where to flow it and why it matters in this round.

The Flow: Tell me how to flow the round. Roadmap. Sign post. Please slow down for clarity on tags and citations. If you insist on spreading tags and cites, please provide me with a copy of your speech. If your arguments don’t make it on my flow, they cannot be evaluated on my ballot. I also do very little (feel free to read that as “no”) evidence analysis following the round. It is your job as a debater to clearly articulate the argument/evidence/analysis during your allotted time.

Have fun! Be nice! (or at least reasonable)

Justin Harbour Paradigm

I have been judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for 2 years. As an academic, I have researched judging philosophies. Based on what I’ve learned and my interpretation of the unique aspects of Lincoln Douglas debate, the following describes my judging paradigm.

Lincoln Douglas debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to a world “as it should be.” Thus, the debater that upholds their value best will likely win the round. Here are some specific points that I believe are important:

  1. Analysis – The debater will clearly present a logical argument and also effectively refute the opponent’s case.
  2. Proof – There should be a sufficient quantity and quality of evidence to support the case. More evidence is not always better. The contentions should also link back to the value.
  3. Organization - There should be a logical and orderly presentation throughout the round.
  4. Refutation/ Clash – The better debater will demonstrate the ability to critically analyze the opponent’s arguments and develop clear and logical responses with effective use of evidence and examples.
  5. Delivery – The speech must be understandable, interesting, and persuasive. An LD debater should demonstrate effective oral communication skills including effective reading; clear and understandable delivery; persuasive vocal argumentation; presence; and eye contact. “Spreading” during rounds is discouraged for this reason – in opposition to overwhelming your opponent with speed that renders you unintelligible, a superior ability to identify and present the best arguments concisely is a much better representation of analytical acumen and the intent of LD debate.

Good luck to all competitors. I look forward to observing, critiquing, and judging your rounds.



Biju Ittyachen Paradigm

I am a parent and a lay judge​. That being said, I'm only familiar with traditional LD.

If you're a strict circuit debater, please strike me or plan on going lay. ​As far as traditional debate goes:

Things I like:

● Weighing your impacts clearly

● Full extensions - Tell me why what you're extending matters.

● Structured speeches/Signposting

Things I dislike:

● Being abusive in CX/aggressive in general

● Definitions debate - You can go for it, but don't expect to wow me

● Spreading

● Being late to the round


● The obvious: don't be racist, homophobic, etc.

● I will disclose, but will keep it brief.. There'll be more comments in the e-ballot.

● I try to average a 28 in speaker points. I’d say clear rebuttals are the best way to up your speaks.

If you have questions, please ask me before the round starts.

Bruce Jin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anika Kalra Paradigm


Pronouns: she/her/hers

Background: I debated LD at Bronx Science. That said, I have not been involved in debate for a while, so explain everything and anything.


Treat me like a more traditional judge. Im fine with spreading, but most likely not your top speed. start slow, and build up. being slow and coherent is more important to me than speed **slow down on tags and card names.

You need to extend explicitly and clearly, which means explaining how the arg functions in the larger context.

I appreciate strong crystallization and weighing as early in the round as possible--- Also, give me distinct voters in your later speeches so I can make the best decision.

Most importantly, be respectful to your opponent and have fun in your round!

I am not a big fan of tricks/spikes/theory in general (unless there is truly something abusive in round). A general rule, if you don't explain literature or context well enough, I won't be able to evaluate them as well. So don't assume I know something.

feel free to email or ask in person about any questions/concerns throughout the weekend.

David Long Paradigm

Although I list myself as "Traditional," I am open to different arguments as long as they are explained well and related to the resolution. I believe that we are debating the resolution, not fixing society's ills. Yes debate will enable us to fix society's ills but a competition round is not where that will occur. Debate theory can be interesting to judge, but again, needs to still be connected to the resolution. Also, be sure that the theory you're arguing is correct and logical. In terms of speed, to me it's not speed it's clarity. If you are going 97 miles per hour and have to constantly repeat yourself because you trip over words, maybe going 60 is better.

Victoria Ludwig Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shannon Nix Paradigm

I have been judging LD and PFD debate for fifteen years.  In a typical year, I judge 2-4 national tournaments, including CFL and/or NSDA nationals in many years, and a number of tournaments at the state and district level. After 20+ years as an executive in the high tech industry, I am into my second career, in academia, having just earned my doctorate international history. My spouse is a high school speech and debate coach in North Carolina and we have two children that have competed  on the national circuit and internationally.

Although I have been around the block, so to say, I still consider myself a lay judge.  I try to stay abreast of "progressive" debate and am pretty comfortable with speed, but these are not my preferences.  To me debate is about communication and persuasion and I rarely find these styles persuasive.  I am more likely to be swayed by quality than quantity, by convincing well-reasoned, well-warranted claims vs. cleverness -- alas, I am not a clever man.

Most of all, I want debaters engage one another, find the clash, and tell me how to weigh the round.  Remember, I am not a clever man, and you don't want me deciding how to to weigh the round.  

Above all, I want the competitors to have a positive experience, to grow intellectually and as communicators, and to have fun in the process.  I strive to provide clear and constructive feedback and I am always open to questions if my feedback or decision is not clear. 


CX Philosophy

As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and arguments. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round.
In regards to speed, I would say I am comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to speak slower on tag lines. Remember, If I am part of the email chain then that makes speed much less of a factor in my decision.

I am relatively new to critical debate. I am not opposed to it, but I am not well versed, so be sure to really explain any kritics and how they impact the debate.

Counter plans & disadvantages great.

LD Philosophy

I am open to any and all arguments as long as you know how to run them. I hate spreading. Talking fast is one thing but if I can't understand you then I won't flow it. If I don't flow it then I won't vote on it. Debate at the core is a communication event and I need you to communicate your arguments to me. I will vote on virtually anything so I want you to tell me what you want me to vote on. VOTERS ARE KEY.

Public Forum Debate Philosophy

In PF, I look more for communication of ideas over quantity of argumentation. I don't coach public forum, so I am not well versed in the content. Make sure you explain and don't just assume I know the inner workings of the topic.

Morgan Rowe Paradigm

I am the assistant speech and debate coach at Pennsbury HS in Pennsylvania. I competed primarily in Congressional Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking. I was a 3x NSDA qualifier in Congressional Debate.

First and foremost, know that I am not much of a debate judge. I've judged my share of PF and LD, and I have a general understanding of how to judge both events (so I'm not a lay judge insofar as that I do have an idea of what I'm doing). Prefer traditional arguments, but I can deal with progressive cases if you have an interesting perspective (but I would lean on the side of traditional). If I'm the only judge on your panel with these preferences, run your crazy case - I'll try and keep up.

Because I enjoy a good debate, here are my preferences:

- Come prepared with all of your cards organized. I don't want to sit there and waste time while you fish around to find a specific card.

- Speed: Spreading will make it so that I can't include as much info on the flow - my typing is not super fast. In terms of speed, I suggest that you speak quickly but don't spread.

- Please signpost and lay out a roadmap, ESPECIALLY in your rebuttal speeches. I'm cool with off-time roadmaps (in fact, I encourage it).

- I will time you, but I expect you to time yourself and your opponents - I will stop flowing if you go over time.

- I appreciate a good clash over a good point. It makes filling out my ballot much easier when I can link arguments together.

- PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE weigh the round. I cannot stress how important it is for you to lay this out in your rebuttal speeches.

My email is if you have any more questions.

Viraj Shah Paradigm

Freshman at UNC who debated LD four years in North Carolina. While I mainly did traditional debate, I have debated against more progressive forms of debate: spreading, K’s, theory, etc... (I never have debated them myself however so I won’t understand anything not fully explained). While I would prefer a nice traditional round, debate how you want and as long as you signpost and speak clearly, I’ll listen to it.

Remember, speak clearly, warrant your arguments, warrant your value structure, signpost as you go along, and GIVE VOTERS at the end of your last speech (2AR or 2NR).

Be respectful to everyone in the room, rudeness will dock you speaker points.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

Richard Shin Paradigm


- I debated for four years at Unionville High school and competed at some national circuit tournaments, but was largely a traditional debater. I'm not really against circuit style debate, but I probably won't be able to evaluate it as well as you would like.

- I am tech over truth and only judge arguments that are made in the round. I will consider any dropped arguments as true for the round.

- I don't flow cross-ex, but I do pay attention. If you get your opponent to concede something important during cross and then bring it up in a later speech, I will evaluate it.

- I'm not the best with speed, but if you have to spread flash me the doc and I'll try my best to keep up. Once again, I'm not the best with speed, so I will most likely not be able to evaluate the debate as well as you would like if you do decide to spread.

- If you have any specific questions feel free to ask.

Tim Stroud Paradigm

Coach of 25+ years at the middle and high school level. Did LD/Policy in HS and college. Coached debaters throughout the years who have excelled at the TOC, nationals, invitationals, etc. I think of myself as a tabula rasa judge. However, when I have to do more work than the debaters in the round to follow the overly convoluted logic that is far askew from the resolution I am far less inclined to vote in a debater's favor. By the way, I think labeling any branch of LD as analytical or progressive minimizes the full marketplace of debaters. Everyone is here for the same reason...Simply put the better debater is one who presents, defends, and ends their advocacy with a clear logical/analytical position based upon solid research and an understanding of the proposed resolution.

Framework/Standards Debate--Set a standard for the round that makes sense in terms of the activity. If you are debating policy, make a policy argument and support it accordingly. If you are debating LD, let's hear about the resolution--not several tangential theory arguments that make the purpose of the resolution suspect. I vote on whether to affirm or negate the resolution...not a critique on the consequential outcome of forced policy parameters.

Case Structure: Contentions should be carefully crafted, contain warrants and impacts and link back to the standards in order to provide a well researched/reasoned case position. A case position that is founded upon theory arguments that is without research or evidence to support the basic claims are simply assertions and will be treated as such. If they are run and the opponent fails to point that out they are passing up an opportunity.

Neg: if the only thing run is a structural security K or CPs (the use of the word 'resolved' is NOT a valid justification in my book for asserting that the round is now a policy round!) then be prepared to prove several links to the resolution. Aff debaters who can chip away at uniqueness or the internal links are greatly rewarded.

Speed--I can flow it if you can get it out...however, if it is unintelligible or full of debate jargon that doesn't either further the argument or advance your position then I will be far less compelled write it down, understand it, or vote for it at the end of the round.

Flowing--I do...

Time--Feel free to time yourselves, but excessive road maps, card checks, and things that should have been accomplished in CX or during prep time are a waste of time and I will be very unlikely to be tolerant of that type of behavior. Unless there are a slew of arguments that need to be reorganized for some reason at the top of the speech, just tell me where to go first on the flow and then sign-post as you speak.

Justin Thomashefsky Paradigm

Hey ya'll, i'm Justin Thomashefsky and I'm a coach at Truman High School. I've been judging on and off the circuit (for both LD and Policy) since 2012.


I'm much more comfortable judging a policy round but I have a decent amount of experience judging critical rounds.

T - I can vibe with reasonability but I default to competing interps. You need to win in round abuse to get my ballot.

K - I'm familiar and comfortable with most K's but you may lose me with high theory literature.

Please frame my ballot in your last speech. It should be clear what I'm voting for at the end of the round.


For lay rounds: uh... do you need a paradigm for lay LD?

For circuit rounds: See policy stuff

I prefer to see lay rounds in LD. So if you're at a tournament with me that has a weird mix of lay and circuit you might want to default to lay. BUT I'll weigh whatever arguments you put in front of me in any style.

Kyle Traynham Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rachel Watson Paradigm

Pronouns: Ask, if you're curious. Otherwise call me judge or Rachel or Watson. Ask for others' pronouns in-round or default to they/them. I personally default to they/them until I'm told otherwise.

I've been coaching and competing in LD and policy since 2008. I started in middle school. In college, I debated at Central Oklahoma from 2015-16, and if you're thinking about that program or Wake Forest, ask me about why I left. I've been involved in the activity for eleven years now. I just completed my master's at Penn and I coach at Holy Ghost Prep.

If you have an email chain add me:

Feel free to email me about other stuff too, if you feel unsafe in round, if you want to know more about my paradigm, ask about arguments, get a better understanding of the RFD, etc.

Respect your partner and your opponents. Respect every judge, too, even if you've decided you don't need that ballot to win the panel.

Brief guide to getting my ballot (big new stuff as of 2/26, if you have 1 minute before round read the bolded on this list):

Also warning for policy kids, I've judged a lone policy round this year so don't expect me to know topic literature. Be as technical as you want but know I don't know this year's acronyms/initialisms.

1. Be kind. Show empathy. Everyone in round is human, we are not debate robots, and it’s alright to bring your personality with you into the room.

2. Read arguments and debate in a style that you enjoy. I like judging good rounds, and your round is almost always better if you like your argument and know it well. I have voted for poetry, and I have voted for politics DA.

3. Have a claim, warrant, and impact for every argument. I know 1ARs are hard, but you can be fast and efficient without being blippy. Blippy is bad.

4. Clash. Engagement with the other side's arguments and ideas is the one thing that makes this not a speech event. Clash is good.

5. Weigh all the impacts. Compare the impacts on the different sheets of paper and tell me why even if the other team’s argument is 100% true, I should still vote for you. Do this even if you and your opponent have completely different styles (i.e. trad v progressive LD, kritikal or policy based args, etc.). Don’t make me weigh things for you, chances are you won’t like the result.

6. Focus on offense and framing (meaning how I should weigh or evaluate the round, or the debate's BIG question). In my head, there’s almost always a chance that the plan/alt/CP will solve. Terminal defense might be useful, and you probably can win that in front of me, but I’m much more comfortable voting for offense than defense or muddy techy stuff somewhere deep in the line-by-line.

All the below was written with policy in mind, but it applies to progressive LD as well.


Run what you know and what you're prepped for. I will vote for almost anything.

Topicality and Theory:

I’m plenty happy to vote on topicality and theory arguments if debaters are willing to go all in and can defend that one model of debate or of the topic provides more education/learning opportunities. However, if the negative provides an overly exclusionary interpretation on Framework, they are going to have to work a lot harder to convince me that an exclusionary based model of debate is good.

AC UNDERVIEWS/THEORY (LD): Saying you get to have an RVI is not the same thing as having one... If you want one you have to tell me what the threshold is for making something an RVI and why that means I should vote on it, don't just say you get to have one. Sorry policy kids but you don't get an RVI, esp not on T.


I generally prefer negative strategies that don’t contain a performative contradiction, like reading counterplans that link to a K of the aff. Other than that, please try to make it clear in round the ways in which your Kritik or counterplan function differently from the affirmative. Counterplans need competition and a net benefit, and k debaters should be prepared for impact framing arguments, especially in a round with a policy team. From the aff, be prepared to explain how a perm functions to achieve the net benefit/not link to the Kritik.

My K experience has mostly been with identity arguments; I know critical race theory- including afropess and set col best. I read and keep up with indigenous scholarship because I am Potawatomi (Citizen band). Yes, I am also white. Yes, one can be both. Yes, I have a tribal membership card. Yes, I hate authenticity testing. This means I'm probably more willing to listen to speaking for others/commodification/etc. claims about why non-indigenous folks reading set col is bad than other judges might be. That Evans 15 card is probably also true of indigenous lit, sure, but Evans was very specifically speaking about afropessimism and white afropessimists.

Baudrillard, Foucault, Delueze aren't my strong suit so develop good, clear, consistent explanations about your K/alt so my ballot can be clean.

I’m happy to answer debater's questions on specific issues/arguments prior to the round. I will also respond to emails after the fact if you have questions about my decisions.

Emily White Paradigm

Background: I’m a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Gender Studies, and I did both LD and policy (with a brief stint in PF) for Dallastown High School in Pennsylvania. I competed on both traditional and progressive circuits, so I’m pretty much cool with whatever you want to run. However, as a competitor, I mostly ran non-t affs, soft-left affs, and kritiks.

pronouns: she/her/hers

email chain:

* I care a lot about respect and safety in-round. Debate has a tendency to be a really toxic/hostile environment sometimes, so please don't contribute to that. Similarly, if at any point during the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, feel free to stop the round and let me know. I will not tolerate debaters being egregiously disrespectful or inconsiderate of their opponents. This applies to actions done knowingly that make the round inaccessible (e.g. not flashing your case when spreading, not giving content warnings for sensitive topics, etc.) as well as how you speak to/about your opponent (e.g. excessively interrupting them or being overly condescending). TLDR: just be nice y'all, it's not that hard.

**If you spread, EMAIL ME AND YOUR OPPONENT YOUR CASE. Ideally this applies to prewritten analytics as well (or really anything that is typed out and sendable). I cannot stress this enough! If you don’t, I’ll probably dock speaks and be a much less happy judge. I like to think I’m pretty good at flowing at high speeds, but there’s always the chance that I miss something if I don’t have a copy of it, especially since my hearing isn't the best.

Kritiks: I love them! This was about 80% of what I did in debate, so I love seeing a good K round. However, a bad K debate is probably my least favorite thing to watch, so don’t think that I’ll vote for any kritik no matter what - you need to explain your position clearly, especially your alt.

Non-T affs: I read these for most of my junior and senior year, so I’m very comfortable rejecting/reinterpreting the topic as long as you tell me why I should and what your aff does instead. As far as T vs. a non-t aff — It’s not my favorite thing to see (I personally think reading a K or counter-method is more interesting and creative), but if it’s what you’re good at, go for it. aff still has to explain where they get offense and why topicality is bad, neg has to justify why the aff’s non-topical position is uniquely harmful/abusive, not just why defending the topic is good generally.

Phil/framework: I’m familiar with the basics (deont, virtue ethics, and consequentialism) more so than any other FW authors (especially really obscure ones). I’ll gladly judge other phil - I just may not have any experience with them, so you’ll have to explain it clearly and weigh well. If you could give a quick overview of the theory in non-jargony language during your 1ar/2nr that would also be super helpful. Know your position well and clarify exactly what offense does and doesn’t count under your framework, and you should be fine.

Theory: I generally find it to be unnecessary and used to make the round inaccessible. If there is legitimately no other way for you to respond to your opponents, then read theory. Otherwise, be creative and use logic to tell me why their argument doesn’t make sense - don’t rely on tricky wordings or surprise interps to get my ballot.

Tricks: I'm ok with one or two spikes in an aff, but as far as a completely tricks case - please just don’t. I will not be amused, I will dock speaks, and you probably won’t get my ballot.

Qing Ye Paradigm

Hi. I am happy to be your judge for the round. I am a lay judge and I am only familiar with traditional LD. Tell me why your value criterion is more important than your opponents and give me clear extensions along with weighing your arguments. I don’t disclose after the round.

Things I dislike.

- Spreading

- Being rude and aggressive in cx

- Policy arguments in LD

- Petty arguments like spending an absurd amount of time on the value debate, definitions, etc.

Things I like.

- Being respectful to your opponent and your judges

- Talking in a persuasive manner

- Please signpost if you want good speaks

- Also for high speaks please give me clear voting issues on why you should win the round at the end of your last speech.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round starts. At the end of the day, I will vote for the debater that can present me with the most persuasive and compelling arguments. Looking forward to a great round. Good luck debaters!

Ammar Zuriki Paradigm

Not Submitted