Pennsbury Falcon Invitational

2020 — Fairless Hills, PA/US

Oliver Acar Paradigm

Hello I'm Oliver I'm a judge from DC

I pref Foreign policy argument about Russia and China

I don't like spreading, and Cap K arguments

Alberto Acosta Paradigm

I am a recent high school graduate from Technology High School in Newark. I have also debated for a total of 5 years. I’ve debated at many tournaments (Yale, Harvard, Bronx, etc).
I am a Kritikal judge.
if there are any other questions feel free to email me at

You need to make this the most important argument in the round. For me at least. You loss framework, than you have a really high chance of lossing the round (depends on how far you are on the framework flow)

Dropping arguments
Drop them properly. Don’t just stop talking about them. If your opponent does drop this argument then bring it up so you can reap the benefits of their mistake.

I fine with it. I just ask that you slow down on the tags and the main warrants of the arg. If I can’t hear after I say clear three times I will only flow what I hear.

I like it and I know about it, but I am not going to do the work for you. Just because you say theory and extend it doesn’t mean that you explained ite. There needs to be a clear explanation on the theory flow what is the abuse that happens in the round and why it is important. Theory for me out ranks all others (not because it is an easy way out) because I feel that this argument are the actual rules of the debate round on what can and can’t be done by each team.

It is open I don’t flow it, but I do listen to it, and it can change my decision.

I flow it, but I mostly like to listen to it. This is the crux of the round. I need you to tell me why you should win (by explaining your arguments in the most detail that you can in the time period) and what arguments that your opponent dropped. (the reason for this is that a lot of teams really don’t do this any more so better to feel safe then sorry).

I understand all of the debate jargon (since I did us most of them anyway) just that if there are any new ones that you think that I didn’t hear about then explain it to me.

Topical affs are great, but I really enjoy hearing a critical debate with a critical affs, but with these kinds aff’s come with great responsibility. There needs to be a lot of in-depth analysis onto why your aff solves for what it solves, how it is a prereq. To the k and other args. A lot of debaters really just read evidence after evidence, i instead like to hear how the aff actually interacts with other arguments what is the actual connection. The critical aff can be the most dangerous weapon in any debate round if used properly. Performance affs are fine just explain the framework in great detail and why I should reject the resolution (if that is the case) in your own words or how you are topical.



This can be a very powerful critical argument if used properly, but not many teams use this argument. I will vote on t if there is clear violation before the round is even finished (unless there is framework or theory). This is an argument that I like but not love like others

This is an argument that is very confusing for me, if you are going to run it explain what the plan does and how it doesn’t steal aff ground (unless theory is involved). If there is a critical counterplan involved explain how it is different from a k. other then that I don’t like counterplans too much, but I would vote on it.

This is really a straightforward argument; I really didn’t see any variations of this argument in my debating career. If there are then I welcome them, but I really don’t have anything else to say about them.

Finally to the one argument that all teams want to know about. I love this argument, however I find that a lot of teams really don’t explain this argument in great detail. They just leave the k up in the air for the judge to interpret it in there own way. I know enough about the most common k’s that I can understand them, but again if I need to decide what your k is talking about you may not like what I think. Some of the other arguments that I’m not to familiar with I will listen to but there needs to be more of a keen eye in the explanation for those kinds of arguments.

Jonathan Alston Paradigm

I am a head coach at Newark Science and have coached there for years. I teach LD during the summer at the Global Debate Symposium. I formerly taught LD at University of North Texas and I previously taught at Stanford's Summer Debate Institute.

I do believe that basic things are true, though. The Affirmative must present a problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.

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'll be fine.

Do not spread philosophy. 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.

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 for me is to make it make sense. I would like for the debates about the debate to be interesting. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

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. Do not take evidence out of context by cutting qualifiers like "might" or "maybe".

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

For policy Debate (And LD, because I judge them the same way).
Same as for LD. Make sense. Big picture is important. I can't understand spreading dense philosophy. Don't assume I am already familiar with what you are saying. Explain things to me. Starting in 2013 our LDers have been highly influenced by the growing similarity between policy and LD. We tested the similarity of the activities in 2014 - 2015 by having two of our LDers be the first two students in the history of the Tournament of Champions to qualify in policy and LD in the same year. They did this by only attending three policy tournaments (The Old Scranton Tournament and Emory) on the Oceans topic running Reparations and USFG funding of The Association of Black Scuba Divers.

We are also in the process of building our policy program. Our teams tend to debate the resolution with non-util impacts or engages in methods debates. Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it.

I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.

Important: Don't curse in front of me. I don't like high school students cursing in front of me. Please don't do it. I may take off points because of it. If the curse is an essential part of the textual evidence, I am more lenient. But that would be the exception. Ultimately, I do not think that high school students are grown, and the language that is used should be consistent with my classroom standards.

Note: I generally don't enjoy debates that are more than three off in LD. However, do what you do well. Just going by what I've seen in the past.

Jorman Antigua Paradigm

school affiliation: acorn community high school (Brooklyn NY), NYUDL (new york urban debate league), stuyversant high school (New york, NY)
years debating: 4 years of high school, starting college debate

in a debate round i have done everything from cp and politics to performance

my first highschool topic was aid to south Africa, last one was reduce military (if that matters)

I will vote on whatever arguments win, this means I may vote on anything, it could come down to Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan text, to even performance. tell me what your argument is and what the ballot signifies (if it has a meaning)...i.e. policy maker etc...(...)

speaker points: be persuasive and make it interesting thin line between funny and ass hole at times may it be in cross-x or your speech you decide *background music* ...analysis/argumentation (don't lie about reading a hole card if u didn't,don't just read cards and tag~line extend ~_~ ) i will call for evidence if needed and i will hit you wit the world famous "cum on son" lol


impact your arguments (duhh)

Topicality: i like a good t debate, their fun and at times educational, make sure you impact it, and give a correct abuse story...

counter plans: have a good net benefit prove how they solve the case

dis ads: you can run them i vote for anything and am familiar with most scenarios

k: i was a k db8er for the better half of my db8 career so i'm pretty familiar with most k~lit u will read unless its like some deep
nietzsche, zizek, lacan type ish but i get it...and if you explain it give a good story and show alternative solvency i will vote for is also fine if you kick the alt and go for it as a case turn just debate it out...

preformance: i did this too...explain what the round comes down to...i.e. role of the judge/ballot/db8ers...and if their is a form of spill over what this is and means in real world and debate world... block framework lol...and show me why your/this performance is key...may it be a movement or just you expressing your self...i like methodology db8s so if it comes down to the aff and neg being both performance teams be clear on the framework for the round and how your methodology is better and how the other may recreate these forms of oppression you may be speaking about...may it be the deletion of identity or whiteness etc...same things apply if your running a counter~advocacy against a performance team...(*whispers* solvency)...k vs performance rounds same as methodology prove the link and as for the alt prove the solvency... framework vs performance rounds i had a lot of these, boring but fun to see the way they play out depending on interp, vio, impacts and stuff...

framework: any kind is fine...same justification as Topicality...depending on how your spinning framework within a round... *yells* education =)

theory: sure

short & sweet

#swag...have you...debate =)

Shamika Augustin Paradigm

College Freshman, Former Policy Debtaer for Newark Science '19 and debated about 4 years on the state, regional, and national level.

Yes, I would like to be apart of the email chain. (

Yes, you can spread, but it needs to be clear. If I say clear more than THREE times I will start to deduct from your speaker points by 0.1 points. And whatever I can hear is what I will flow. If I don't flow it because I can't hear you please do not come to me after around and ask "Did you not flow this x argument?" I will ask you how many times did I say clear and the proceed to walk away.

Yes, it can be open cx.

I do not like SPIKES or TRICKS there is no benefit for it in debate in my opinions, so I will not vote on it.

DO NOT card clip if I find you clipping depending on the tournament or bracket you will lose speaker points AND/OR lose the round.

DO NOT say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/tbh any of the -isms. Even if the other team doesn't make it a voting issue in the round (which they should ... cough cough) I will deduct speaker points and maybe the round will be affected.

TL;DR- DO YOU. I do not need you to conform to my paradigm to win the round because most times I will be able to tell. I will vote for anything as long as you win. Please have a road map, I flow straight down by the way. OFFENSE wins rounds DEFENSE only tells me why I shouldn't vote for (AFF/NEG) not why I should vote for your side. Please explain all acronyms.

Note: 1) If you are doing a Performance AFF/NEG please do not get all up in my face, I value personal space and you may not like my reaction if you do so. 2) Ignore my facial expressions in the round if I have any because I have no way of controlling it and is not an accurate indication of who is winning losing the round.

AFFs- I am fine with both K and policy Affs and topical and untopical Affs. My only request is that you meet these tenants of an Aff. There needs to be an explicit problem, some sort of solvency ie plan, advocacy, outline to address the problem, and there needs to be advantages to doing the Aff. Also, include a framework/ROB/ROJ there needs to be one. You always need to go back to case outweighs.

CPs- are fine, just prove mutual exclusivity (b/c I am likely to buy a perm with a good net benefit). If a CP is being ran with a DA and the DA is a net benefit to the Aff please let me know and also say that the CP solves 100% of the Aff and doesn't link to the DA(s) A clever PIC is always good but be ready to defend why you get to steal most or certain parts of the aff plan.

DAs- are good too, but generic links are ineffective, and if the aff proves that to be true I am less likely to vote on it.- I am also not as persuaded by existential scenarios ie nuclear war impacts I get that people have them and love it but it doesn't make sense to me. You can try to win this, I need a very GOOD internal link story. Please also say that the DA turns case.

Ks-are my favorite! BUT this DOES NOT include white POMO, I am not a fan, those are my least favorite. You can read them if you like but I will not pretend to understand "gobbledygook", so you will HAVE to explain this. Do not take this to mean that I will vote up a queer anarchy k, anti-blackness k etc. just because it's read it needs to be read good and still needs to interact with the AFF. Have specific links to the AFF, point out specific warrants and give analysis on how the world of the alt vs. the world of the aff functions. A K without an alt will automatically be seen as a DA.

FW- shells are interesting and I kind of like them, so do whatever you want. Just prove why I should adopt your FW shell and compare it to the aff's FW. There NEEDS to be a TVA to the framework.

T/Theroy- This will be an uphill battle for you. I have an extremely high threshold for winning T, but I can be persuaded to vote for it. Fairness is not an impact ESPECIALLY- Procedural fairness. To win a T-shell I need a case list of Affs that are topical under your interpretation. There NEEDS to be voters, debaters for some reason will have standards and voters as one but know there needs to be a specific voter. If there is no voter the other team (......needs to tell me there are no voters so this shouldn't be a voting issue.---HINT HINT) it will save both of us time.

I will vote on CONDO BAD. If the Neg runs more than 6 off case positions, condo bad is a thing and a voting issue.

Rebuttals- NEED to summarize why I should be voting for your side in the last 30 sec- 1 min, this should literally write my ballot. I also like overviews starting from the 2AC and on it can be long or short but please have one.


Chiku Bhatt Paradigm

I prefer death good impacts and theory only cases.

Just kidding, in all seriousness:

tabula rasa, will vote on anything.

I have done mostly CX debate in high school, so I am fairly familiar with Ks. I have also done LD, and I have seen both progressive and traditional styles of LD so I am good with both.

You can spread, but make sure to signpost/slow down a little for tags.

Be respectful to each other, but also have fun! Good luck.

Malena Bianco Paradigm

If there is an email chain please add me to it and please include analytics. My email is

I debated at Mamaroneck High School as a 1A. And also debated at Wayne state university for a semester.

Debate is and should continue to be a welcoming space for all involved in the activity. I will vote on any argument, just make sure to be clear and sum up the arguments in the rebuttals.

Take the obligation to be polite seriously, because not doing so will affect your speaks.


Most importantly have fun!

email me if you have any questions :)

Mina Bjerke Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Daryl Burch Paradigm

Daryl Burch

currently the director of high school debate for the baltimore urban debate league (2007-present), also assist and aid in the development of argumentation for Towson University.

formerly coached at the University of Louisville, duPont Manual High School (3X TOC qualifiers; Octofinalist team 2002) have taught summer institutes at the University of Michigan, Michigan State, Emory, Iowa, Catholic University, and Towson University as a lab leader.

I debated three years in high school on the kentucky and national circuit and debated five years at the University of Louisville.

I gave that little tidbit to say that I have been around debate for a while and have debated and coached at the most competitive levels with ample success. I pride myself in being committed to the activity and feel that everyone should have a voice and choice in their argument selection so I am pretty much open to everything that is in good taste as long as YOU are committed and passionate about the argument. The worst thing you can do in the back of the room is assume that you know what I want to hear and switch up your argument selection and style for me and give a substandard debate. Debate you and do it well and you will be find.

True things to know about me:
Did not flow debates while coaching at the University of Louisville for two years but am flowing again

Was a HUGE Topicality HACK in college and still feel that i am up on the argument. I consider this more than a time suck but a legitimate issue in the activity to discuss the merit of the debate at hand and future debates. I have come to evolve my thoughts on topicality as seeing a difference between a discussion of the topic and a topical discussion (the later representing traditional views of debate- division of ground, limits, predictability etc.) A discussion of the topic can be metaphorical, can be interpretive through performance or narratives and while a topical discussion needs a plan text, a discussion of the topic does not. Both I think can be defended and can be persuasive if debated out well. Again stick to what you do best. Critiquing topicality is legitimate to me if a reverse voting issue is truly an ISSUE and not just stated with unwarranted little As through little Gs. i.e. framework best arguments about reduction of language choices or criticism of language limitations in academic discussion can become ISSUES, voting issues in fact. The negative's charge that the Affirmative is not topical can easily be developed into an argument of exclusion begat from predictable limitations that should be rejected in debate.

It is difficult to label me traditional or non traditional but safer to assume that i can go either way and am partial to traditional performative debate which is the permutation of both genres. Teams that run cases with well developed advantages backed by a few quality pieces of evidence are just as powerful as teams that speak from their social location and incorporate aesthetics such as poetry and music. in other words if you just want to read cards, read them poetically and know your argument not just debate simply line by line to win cheap shots on the flow. "They dropped our simon evidence" is not enough of an argument for me to win a debate in front of me. If i am reading your evidence at the end of the debate that is not necessairly a good thing for you. I should know what a good piece of evidence is because you have articulated how good it was to me (relied on it, repeated it, used it to answer all the other arguments, related to it, revealed the author to me) this is a good strategic ploy for me in the back of the room.

Technique is all about you. I must understand what you are saying and that is it. I have judged at some of the highest levels in debate (late elims at the NDT and CEDA) and feel pretty confident in keeping up if you are clear.

Not a big fan of Malthus and Racism Good so run them at your own risk. Malthus is a legitimate theory but not to say that we should allow systematic targeted genocide of Black people because it limits the global population. I think i would be more persuaded by the argument that that is not a NATURAL death check but an IMMORAL act of genocide and is argumentatively irresponsible within the context of competitive debate. Also i am not inclined to believe you that Nietzsche would say that we should target Black people and exterminate them because death is good. Could be wrong but even if i am, that is not a persuasive argument to run with me in the back of the room. In case you didn't know, I AM A BLACK PERSON.

Bottom line, I can stomach almost any argument as long as you are willing to defend the argument in a passionate but respectful way. I believe that debate is inherently and unavoidable SUBJECTIVE so i will not pretend to judge the round OBJECTIVELY but i will promise to be as honest and consistent as possible in my ajudication. Any questions you have specifically I am more than happy to answer.

Open Cross X, weird use of prep time (before cross x, as a prolonging of cross x) all that stuff that formal judges don't like, i am probably ok with.


Moselle Burke Paradigm

Hello! My email is - Please add me to the chain!

I debated for six years, high school and middle school, on the Boston Debate League's high school circuit for Boston Latin Academy. I attended national circuit tournaments for four of those six years.

I'm currently a junior Philosophy major at Haverford College, and while I don't debate in college, I spent the summer doing topic research and thus am decently familiar with relevant literature

****If you came here from Maryanne's paradigm, ask the other team "did y'all make a perm?" during your speech and she just might give you a 30.****

Short version:

-I lean K, and I will likely be somewhat familiar with your K's lit base.

-I'm especially well-versed in literature surrounding semio/capitalism and I ran versions of the cap K throughout most of high school.

-I was a 1N who took T in 95% of my 1NRs and I will understand and appreciate your tricks

-Evidence comparison will get you much farther than a barrage of blippy cards

-Solid development on the case pages gets great results

-Speed and tons of off-case positions are okay (but i might ask you for flow paper if you run a ton of off)

-I'm most likely to vote on K & case or T 2NRs against policy affs, and almost always prefer K 2NRs vs K affs

-I'll vote on a CP and politics if that's what you really want to do but I'm not too familiar with them and might not be the best at evaluating those args


As of Newark 2020, I have not yet judged a tournament on this topic.



I have judged one local MA tournament in Lincoln-Douglas.

I have six years of experience debating in policy, and 3 years of policy judging experience.

I understand theory arguments better than most arguments that are more specific to LD. This doesn't mean you shouldn't use other arguments, it just means that the explanation you might think goes without saying would probably serve you well.

I'm not super sure what other information an LD paradigm needs - please feel free to email me, or ask pre-round if you have questions!


Full paradigm:

Clipping cards gets a loss and 0 speaks. If you don't know what that means, ask. I have voted on this before and will do it again if necessary.


Speed is fine, but if you blast through 8 analytics in 15 seconds, I won't get them all and it won't be my fault. Don't bury your best arguments!

Strong, direct CX is great! (However:)

Don't be cruel, disrespectful, or belittling. This is especially true if you are more experienced/knowledgeable than the other team. If you're a senior with 4 years of national circuit experience and 3 summers of camps, don't be a jerk to sophomores who just entered varsity just because you want to flex. This doesn't mean go easy, it means that you should take your opponents and their arguments seriously.

Things like author creds and dates can be important - if you notice something, call it out.


I am well-versed in a bunch of K literature (ask about particular authors), but that doesn't mean you don't have to explain things. Pedagogically, it's important to communicate the theoretical nuances you're using to make your arguments.

I am sympathetic to arguments about ivory tower positions/armchair philosophy. I debated in a UDL, on a small team, and in a program that often lacked funding. Don't aim to win arguments by virtue of your opponents not having the resources to engage them. If you do this, you're causing direct harm to the activity and to fellow debaters, and that's an impact scenario I am happy to vote on.

Performance is 100% fine by me. If you incorporate a performance, make sure I hear about it in later speeches.

If you run a K based around structural inequality and/or identity (besides cap because it's cap), I will do my best to evaluate it objectively. However, I will most likely not relate to your lived experiences and I admit that I can make mistakes in judging these debates. If you feel that I have done this, please talk to me after the round.

K Affs:

K affs are great but require explanation. Judge experience doesn't absolve you of the obligation to make your arguments clear and explain how whatever theory you're using interacts with other arguments.


I was a 1N, and there wasn't a single neg block my senior year where I didn't take the T flow. I LOVE good T debates, and this is where all of your clever tricks will be appreciated. Make strategic concessions, go hard on "they don't meet the counter-interp", do fun things with internal links. T debates work like a very abstract, complex disadvantage, meaning that every level of a T debate is crucial and defense usually won't win by itself.

Compare interp evidence! This comparison can win you debates.

Don't make RVI arguments on these flows. They are garbage.


If it's a time suck, and it works, nice job.

I will not vote on theory without in-round impacts or examples.

With that being said, if you pull a really clever trick with theory, and they fall for it, I will happily vote on it. For examples of this, ask me in-round (shoutout to Will Hutchinson).

I will not vote on condo unless there are 3+ conditional advocacies, at least two of which contradict each other, or 2 contradictory advocacies and explicit abusive cross-application of offense.

I default to reject the argument, unless you have very strong reasons I should reject the team.


As neg, you need at least one item from this list in the 2NR:

1. strong TVA

2. strong case hit

3. pre-requisite arguments in the 2NR.

As aff, you need at least one item from this list in the 2AR:

1. impact turns

2. aff outweighs

3. strong defense (reasonability, we meet, etc.) AND a counter-interp

Don't throw in arguments about "small schools" to get the moral high ground if you don't make debate accessible in other ways :) Ericson and Army Officer School aren't revolutionary cards, but nice try.


Links are almost always a sliding scale as opposed to Yes/No. How much of a link is there? How does that effect the impact debate?

"we win on magnitude so vote aff" is not impact calc and is not an argument


I debated K affs and K strats, so I am not very used to counterplan debates, but I will absolutely vote on them

The likelihood of a PIC winning is proportional to the scale of the link in the net benefit

CPs are where I think theory is slightly more relevant - why are particular types of CPs bad? Don't say "x counterplans bad" in general - contextualize those arguments to the counterplan.


Good case debates are fantastic.

Bad case debates are terrible.

Neg: if you don't have OFFENSE (not just defense) on the case flow, you will not get my ballot unless you have an off-case position in the 2NR (read: don't just go for case defense.).

Aff: don't try to go for 3 advantages in the 2AR if you have other flows to get to. It will almost always be worth it to kick an advantage/scenario or two.

Darrian Carroll Paradigm

Darrian Carroll

5 Year Debater at the University of North Texas

Ceda Double-Octafinalist, 7th speaker (2015)

NDT Qualifier (2016)

University of Las Vegas Nevada Masters Candidate

Introduction: My debate experience much like this philosophy is less than exhaustive and ever evolving. In what follows I am attempting to provide Heuristics for how I view debate. I use the term heuristic because this is not meant to be a binding document, but instead a set of guidelines that may help one that is preparing to debate in front of me or deciding if they want to debate in front of me.

The short of it: Am I good for the K: Probably, I have quite a bit of experience dealing with K debate as a debater so I am more likely to know the nuances of the strategy and be able to provide fundamental feedback on how to better deploy it. Am I good for policy arguments: mediocre, I have more than a working knowledge of the intricacies of counterplan theory, F/W, Topicality (are those the same thing?), Presumption theory and the best methods to deploy disadvantages. I attempt to judge debate mostly on the merits of what and how it is presented in the debate, HOWEVER there are some exceptions to this regarding things “a reasonable person” (I use reasonable in the legal sense) would find absurd. I believe that debate can be many things but exists in a less static form. I do believe debate can be liberatory for some and a game for others.

The long of it: K about Identity- LOVE it. I think that these are some of the most intriguing debates. I am also highly critical of the way that these ideas get deployed. The caveat here would be do it, but do it well.

K about anything else: I’m pretty well versed in a good portion of the contemporary critical literature. With that said I believe for all arguments people need to explain what they mean in terms outside of their literatures conception. IE You should explain what simulacra means just as much as people should explain what ontology means.

CP: I’m fine with it. My caveat here is that I’m not a fan of cheating counterplans. IE your delay, consult cps are viable but know I’m on the AFF’s side for the theory debate.

DA: I’m great for it. Nothing like a good case DA -debate (LINKs in my mind are mostly DA’s). I am a fan of DA’s that are more realistically possible. When that is not possible I’m also okay with it, however I will be clear that I’m on the side of the logical realistic argument about policy making more than the debate is a game so we get a DA framing.

T: I love it. Went for it all the time early in my career. I am unique in that I do not think Ground and limits are impacts but instead internal links to a larger educational framework you hope to engage in. T when read as a procedural argument Is an okay strat in front of me but not my favorite thing to listen to.

This the bonus this the bonus

The information in this section may or may not be helpful, but it may also be extremely helpful. A. If you can end a final rebuttal with ‘doing well dog’ or some other popular rap lyric it may improve your speaker points. B. When thinking about debate people that I most often think of to guide my thoughts are Martin Osborn, Ignacio Evans, and Steve Pointer. All of these people are very different so this may not be helpful, but it is true. C. my preferred email is Ask me if I want to be on the email chain.

If you want my judging record look my name up in tabroom.

Sachiv Chakrvarti Paradigm

Lexington High School 2020

Add me to the chain:

I have gone for hard right, soft left and high theory K affs (Baudrillard) - check below for specifics

disads - do impact calc in the rebuttals, don't double turn yourself, link probably determines uniqueness, make sure you contextualize the link to the aff - even if you don't have cards, you should be able to explain the da in the context of what the aff does - zero risk is a thing

counterplans - the cp should solve the entirety of the aff with a net benefit (assuming you're not going for pics or adv cps) - counterplan text matters so i'm persuaded by aff arguments that point out plan flaws in the cp text - solvency advocates are nice

theory - 2 condo is probably fine, 3+ is questionable - i'll probably lean aff on process/consult cp theory but that shouldn't stop you from reading one as long as you have a good defense of it - slow down on theory and t - if you go for theory in the 2ar you should spend all 5 minutes on it

topicality - i default to competing interpretations - prove that your model of debate is better and you will win - flesh out standards and weigh your own standards against your opponents - if youre going for t in the 2nr spend 5 min on it

kritiks - Go for it! You should be able to articulate your theory of power or thesis and how that interacts with the specifics of the 1ac - Make sure you frame the round through the links

k affs/fw - not a fan of k affs in the novice division given that your opponents are beginners who are still struggling to navigate the basics of debate - it won't affect win/loss but i will probably dock your speaks - if you think you've mastered the fundamentals of debate enough to transgress its norms, do yourself and your opponents a favor and challenge yourself in a more advanced division

case - case debate is underrated - I'll vote on presumption - try to debate the aff no matter what it may be

dropped arguments - an argument is a claim, warrant, and impact - if you don't have all three, then you haven't made an argument - a dropped claim is not the same as a dropped argument - your rebuttals should not consist of tagline extensions and you should explain your warrants and how it interacts with the rest of the flow

cross-ex - fine with open cx just don't be excessive - cx is binding but arguments made in cx should be extended in an actual speech or its unlikely to make it on my flow

speaker points - i start at 28.0 and move up and down depending on what happens in the round

misc -

tech determines truth

if you're unclear i'll say clear twice but after that i'm not flowing

time your own speeches and prep because i won't be doing it for you

don't steal prep

feel free to ask me anything before or after the round about this paradigm or about the round in general

have fun, be nice and respectful

Marcia Cole Paradigm

Marcia Cole

Educator/Debate Coach at Hugh M. Browne Education Campus

Affiliated with Washington Urban Debate League

Deliberation and debate is the way you stir the soul of our democracy. Jesse Jackson

I have been coaching for 1.5 years and judging for a quarter of the time. I have been in the field of education for 20+ years in a range of roles from classroom educator to technology instructional coach.

During a debate, I look for a number of elements: storytelling, cogent arguments, problem-solving without creating new issues, diverging views, strategic and timely clash, robust evidence, verbal agility, critical analysis, engagement with the content and a show of the pursuit of democratic ideologies.

Debate Round Look-For's:

Clash - Signpost, or preview, how many responses you have to the argument; give a Label or a TAG to your argument; flip the opponents’ claim, warrants or proof to your advantage.

Impact Calculus - Compare your best points against your opponents and show why yours are better through time, magnitude and probability. The question you want to push is, "At the end of the day which argument matters most?" A well-constructed and defined impact-calculus is the gateway to a win!

Strong rebuttals - Use the information from your flow sheets to develop a robust rebuttal that shows you know how to extend your argument instead of repeatedly reiterating your points.

Fluency when reading the text and content clarity when proposing or arguing ideas.

Luisa Cusick Paradigm

Top Level

Coach at Central Catholic High School

luisacusick [at] gmail (put me on the e-mail chain)

I'll do my best to make a decision based solely on the arguments presented in the debate. Your speaker points will benefit from specific and well-researched strategies

Please be kind to your opponents and partner! I am very concerned with the way (esp. national circuit) policy debate trains us to treat other people

Relevant Predispositions

- Condo is good. Counterplan theory depends on the quality of the solvency advocate and my proclivities change from topic to topic
- I default to kicking the counterplan for the neg if they win offense but don't win the counterplan
- Skills and process framework arguments are more persuasive to me than topic education arguments
- I don’t like how little evidence quality matters in policy debates. I wish it were debated more
- It pretty much never makes sense to assign anything 100% risk. Likewise, minimizing an argument's risk to a small enough signal means it's overwhelmed by noise, and that's enough to assign it 0 risk

Xiaohong Dan Paradigm

Hi I’m a parent judge, please run traditional rounds only. I can’t vote for you if you talk too fast and I can’t understand what you’re saying, so please talk slow. Good luck!

Dara Davis Paradigm

Policy Lane Tech Debate '13

Parli Loyola University '17

Program Coordinator for the Washington Urban Debate League


Policy Aff vs Policy Strat

- Run whatever you want

-I love creative, well researched arguments

-Tech over Truth

-Read Condo on multiple conditional advocacies

Policy Aff vs Kritikal Strat

-links of omission suck and links to the squo

-Can be compelled to vote on perf con w/ condo args

-No Death Good Ks- for all the people in this activity who face instances of death and still make it to debate tournaments to escape or have a place of safety.

-Explain your alt clearly- if you can explain without jargon you probably actually understand it. I will not give you credit for the args just because I know what they mean if you don't explain it because that would be judge intervention.

-You can it but I kinda resent Baudrillard

-Don't be a jerk, if the other team clearly doesn't understand the K, try to be helpful in cross-ex when they ask questions

K Affs v Policy

-I think policy good framework is so predictable and boring, you should definitely run it, but please try to come up with good i/l and impact explanations.

-Truth over Tech

-Don't ask me for the magic bullet for answering K affs, just research their methodology and prove it's bad, just like you would a policy plan text or offer me a better methodology.

K Affs vs K

-Yay! I'm always down to hear some methodology debates


-I'll buy it if it is good

Make sense, be kind, and have fun and I'll probably for one of the teams!

Danielle Dupree Paradigm

Danielle Dupree - -

18 y/o DMV Debater. I started debating sophomore year of high school and I am now a undergrad freshman at Howard University.


CP: NEED a net benny. And if you don't solve case tell me why that doesn't matter. A (well done, not bs) o/w defense works every time. When answering CPs, pls dont default to theory, get crazy, make some clash happen.

DA: Mostly always useful in the 1NC, I hope you utilize it. I love creative, well researched ones. Generics are boring, let's have some fun.

T: Violation & definition is almost never enough, no limits & grounds, no case. I appreciate creative violations, and T that is brought into the real world, not just a minute of jargon thats expected to convince me.

FW & ROB: know whats what. Im fine with taking on as a different actor, as long as its legitimately argued. I was taught to default to policymaker so if no ROB is given thats it. Also i need actual competetiveness on FW, not

"SV is most important"

"No extinction is"

"No SV is." give me a debate w/clash pls

Multiple-worlds: I need the neg in one world by the 2nr. If its not then im voting you down.


Speed: Im not going to be out spread from a real spreader so I will not stress myself to hear an unintelligible speech. That said, I'm fine with real spreading. Slow down on things that you need to stress, i trust my flow so what gets missed doesn't exist.

Performance: I love an unconventional debate when its done well, meaning make it abundantly clear why your form of debate is necessary and don't just blindly use the common answers/args recycled through the years.

Theory: I find that most theory isn't carried out well enough but well done theory thats not just a throw away that you ended up being stuck with makes my little heart sing.

Extending: I flow the first initial & date of a card, shadow extending will be the end of you on my flow.

K: I understand a lot of the main K philosophy, bad speaks if you clearly don't understand what your'e talking about. Also I wont be convinced and you'll lose. Don't do it if you don't get it and treat me like I don't get it either, explain it thoroughly.

Policy: Elevated policy always has a place in my heart, as stated, as long as its well explained, & well defended, game on.

Technology: Im all about the new age of debate #okboomer but if it takes you more than 3 minutes to email or flash or dropbox something, too bad. Don't be the reason tab bites me for being late with the decision.

Pet Peeves:

- I appreciate a good round of original, creative thinking, rather than mumbling cards you didn't read in depth very loudly and calling it spreading. Usually thats reflected in the speaks.

- I like a nice casual round with witty commentary and a friendly environment, if I don't witness at least common sportsmanship, i will have a bad time looking obviously uninterested and you will have a bad time reading the ballot later on.

- Open cross is fine but don't speak over one another, its annoying & rude.

- Messy flows, unless its explicitly cross applied, where its said is where its flowed.

All of that is to say, do whatever you want, just make sure you work hard on it and make it fun for all of us :)

Sean Fleming Paradigm

Make a good plan, or a better counterplan.

Don't keep me guessing.

Don't drop an argument.

Impacts! Your impacts need to be greater than your opponents.

Atticus Glen Paradigm

*add me to the email chain:

*if you open source all (all!) your evidence and tell me before i submit my rfd, i'll give you +.3 speaks.

who am i:

i debated flex arguments for 6 years at montgomery bell academy

i'm a varsity coach at mamaroneck high school

i will do my very best to eradicate from my judging any preconceived ideas. i will make my decision solely on the basis of arguments made.

i'm deliberately omitting my personal stances on common debate controversies. i don't want you to adapt to me, and i don't know where i stand anyway; my debate opinions on nearly every issue are in states of cognitive dissonance. i will suspend them to the maximum of my ability.

it is therefore paramount to justify your arguments from the ground up. in other words, your arguments ought not be reliant on a prior assumption which i will not make for you.

brownie points:

jokes (!)

references to my friends

major point deductions:


disrespect for your opponents

asking for high speaks

ridiculous delay of game

Jonathan Gonzalez Paradigm

Brief notes:

- Debated eight years in high school / college (Tampa Prep 2006-2010 and University of South Florida 2010-2014 - both teams now defunct);

- Consider me tabula rasa, but not really. I have standard policy debate biases against obvious arguments (for example: racism is clearly a bad thing, so don't try and impact turn it);

- I'm currently a Richmond-area attorney helping out the Washington Urban Debate League - I have coached debate irregularly for the past several years;

- As a debater, I was a counterplan/disad/case debater. I understand basic kritiks. For more complex kritiks, explain them to me like I'm five years old;

- As for the topic, I am reasonably well-educated on all of the important issues, but feel free to coach me through your arguments if they're irregular.

Lengthy notes:

I don't feel like typing these right now, but I will add them in more depth later. If you have questions, ask me before the round. Some specific notes on theory/framework biases:

Counterplans = good;

Condo <2 = good;

Condo >2 = bad;

Dispo = good;

Performative contradiction = bad, even if positions are condo (ex: Cap K read at same time as Business Confidence DA);

generic PICS = bad;

topic-specific or aff-specific PICs = good;

consult = good if its topic specific;

states CP = good, if not abusively written;

agent CP = good if agent is topic specific;

constitutional amendment CP = good, but concon (may) = bad (depends on how its read);

other multi-actors CPs = bad, generally;

non-state actors CPs = not inherently bad, but usually bad;

kritiks = good;

topic-specific kritiks = better;

framework = fine, usually;

topic-specific framework = better;

utopianism = bad unless the alternative is more of a metaphor (this applies to counterplans too);

"reject the argument, not the team" is evaluated based on the in-round damage done;

topicality = good, except as related to topic-relevant plan-less/advocacy affs (explained more below next line)

plan-less/advocacy affs = bad if not topic specific in at least some way, and ideally framework/K-of-T issue is topic-specific. To explain this further: I think there are three critical components of the framework impact debate vis-a-vis topicality debates (1) the education provided by the affirmative and how it is beneficial to include the aff in the topic vs, topic education; (2) the fairness deficit (topic limits/predictability/ground) suffered by the neg from moving away from the topic; (3) the weighing of any independent impacts relevant to framework (normally provided by the aff and often phrased as "fairness to the aff's identity," but could also be some other impact ground the aff brings into the debate such as spiritualism, structural violence, or the value of identity). Something that's really important to me is the strength of the internal link from the advocacy to the topic. A strong internal link between the topic and the kritik portion of the affirmative results in a stronger education argument for the affirmative due to the exclusion of the case. Similarly, if the internal link between the topic and the kritik portion of the affirmative is strong, the negative's fairness and predictability arguments become weaker. This is not to say that an aff that completely avoids the topic will always lose in front of me, but from an impact calculus perspective, a completely non-topical affirmative has a much higher hill to climb in proving that the educational benefits of the aff and the independent impact of voting aff outweigh the fairness deficit.

extra T / effects T = fine unless it becomes abusive/unpredictable/unlimited

ASPEC (and other "SPEC") = rarely a voting issue

Wil Hawk Paradigm

I have been coaching and judging for three years at the local level. I have worked in education and related arenas for 25+ years, including teaching and policy-related work.


I vote based on my understanding of the round. Tone, volume, eye contact, and organization on the part of speakers helps keep me engaged and improves my understanding of each partnerships' efforts ... and keeps my flow neater and clearer.

I reward debaters that have clear, intelligent affirmatives with specific internal links and demonstrated impacts. I appreciate negative strategy that demonstrates understanding the case and how to beat the case, even if this does not come to fruition.

Debate is about education. Education is primary. Speaking to be understood and arguing to win primarily with logic are key.

Flashing- Needs to be prompt.

Theory- Be clear and organized. Avoid running T just to run T, i.e., unless the AFF is truly untopical.

K Debate- Be clear and realize that I am going to judge your argument on clarity and my understanding of it.

DA, CP, Case- The evidence is key. Make me see the case and connections you are building.

Jinhee Heo Paradigm

Lexington 2020

Add me to the email chain:


Tech > truth, policy-friendly, if you do line by line and impact calc you'll probably win and get high speaks.


Make smart analytics and read good evidence. I'm pretty expressive; if I'm not flowing or making weird faces, it's probably best to move on. Just have fun!


<27.0 - if you're saying something blatantly racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. rip your speaks. Depending on the round, I could give the lowest speaks possible at a tournament/drop you.

27.0-27.9 - You're stealing prep, rude, etc.

28.0-28.4 - Probably not going to break.

28.5-28.9 - You're pretty good. Probably going to break.

29.0-29.9 - You're going to make it to late elims, possibly going to final/win.

30 - You're Q of Lex HQ

Things to help your speaks:

- be funny (but not cringy)

- line by line

- impact calc

- good cross ex (seriously)

- timing yourself

- being polite

- being time-efficient

- making a vine reference

- making fun of Emily Qiu

Things to deck your speaks:

- being rude (including towards your partner!!)

- not flowing

- stealing prep

- just reading blocks

- calling me judge. pls no.

- shaking my hand. pls no pt 2.


Reading down blocks < proper line by line. Having actual links and internal links to specific impacts need to be well articulated and impacts must be explained. This means that you can't get away with just saying "they cheated!" That said, sassy T debates are fun. Call the other team dirty cheaters and expect your speaks to go up.


Remember to explain the internal link chain thoroughly and do impact calc. If you're aff and have never seen a certain DA before, don't get psyched out: ask smart cx questions and call them out because all DAs are super sketchy.


Generics are fine, but you can always contextualize them to specific affs. Aff-specific CPs and advantage CPs are always fun to watch. Process CPs are probably bad, so I'll be more sympathetic to the aff on theory.


I evaluate them like any other argument—explain the impacts and alt, but the link is where you should do the most work. Find lines in the 1AC and ask specific cx questions—you can find them, even if you don't have a card. This is a little unconventional but I don't think that framework on the K is super important—chances are the neg has a specific epistemological orientation and the way the aff usually impact turns their epistemology or falls under their interp. Either way, the aff will likely use their impacts to do so, so the aff should get to access their impacts—your framework probably allows it.


Seriously underrated. If you just go for 8 minutes of case in the block I'll be super impressed. Really good teams beat teams on their own aff. Aff—even if you don't have answers to a specific argument, you always have your aff to weigh it against. I will vote neg on presumption but only if the neg makes the argument.

K Affs

If you're a novice, I would be cautious about reading a K aff. Chances are you don't really understand it which means that you won't be able to explain it well either. I'm admittedly not familiar with a lot of k lit, but as always, explain your arguments well. Especially since y'all are novices I am more sympathetic to the neg on framework, but will definitely vote up a k aff if you out tech the neg.


Debate is a game and fairness is an impact. That doesn't mean it can't be educational (although education is not my favorite impact) Going for framework is always fun. That being said, don't expect to just run it and win. I will definitely vote for a k aff if fw isn't run well.


Condo - For interps, I think you should just go for no conditional advocacies but am down for whatever. Remember to explain in round abuse but you can still win on a generic violation if you're on top of the line by line.

Other - reject the arg > reject the team. However, you can still use them in other ways—ie if they drop vague alts bad on the k, instead of rejecting the k you could use it to get new arguments on another flow. Get creative!

Misc - Process CPs are probably bad. Formal clothing,,,stop.


If you're down here then you've read my paradigm! Show me this and get some extra speaks.

Brandon Hermosa Paradigm

Hello, my name is Brandon Hermosa and I have been debating for Calvert Hall for 3 years and I have been judging for 2 years.

I am a pupil of the esteemed Coach Susko so it is no surprise I am a core policy debater however I have no bias towards K teams.

I tend to focus a lot more on what is said during a debate than using your evidence to make your arguments for you, so as long as you create a cohesive extended argument throughout the round you will do fine.

Ryan Janzen Paradigm

former policy debater, fine with spreading (but PLEASE signpost) and good with a lot of K theory

will vote on anything if you win it on the flow and convince me its a voter. still, please please don't run T unless it's an actual violation, and reconsider K affs (i have nothing against them on principle but they almost always lead to unfun rounds)

be respectful but don't be afraid to call stuff out when you see it

Natalie Kelly Paradigm

8 rounds

email: – put me on the email chain


i debated for unionville for 4 years as a 2a and read mostly soft-left affs focusing on violence against women/gender minorities. that being said, please do whatever you do best and can explain well.

tech>truth and dropped arguments are true, but please explain why these arguments matter, especially for theory and other blippy arguments

ev spin/contextualization > ev quality, quantity, and recency in a vacuum – but this isn’t an excuse to read bad evidence

have fun and be respectful of everyone in the room. if there’s anything i can do to make debate more accessible to you, please let me know. i won’t vote for anything blatantly racist/sexist/ableist/etc. or anything approaching death good.

specific preferences


i like good politics scenarios – if your da is innovative, i’ll be impressed. i’m fine with generics, but you should have a specific link or contextualize your link to the aff.

slow down on cp texts and explain multiple planks in the block. solvency advocates are necessary and even better if they come from the aff’s authors. i won’t kick the cp for you. aff – explain why i shouldn’t vote on sufficiency framing and the specific solvency deficits to the cp.


i really like good t debates and i think that many affs aren’t topical. i would prefer a case list and tva in the block if you’re going for t.

competing interps > reasonability

t debates are about your vision of the topic, not in-round abuse.


i’m familiar with k’s from debating them. i have no ideological preferences but prefer jargon/theory to be well-explained. i have a high standard for 2ac against one off k and think the best 2acs use fewer cards.

i want to vote for a stable alternative whose solvency is uncontested or well-defended.

affs should get to weigh the aff and role of the ballot debates are often an excuse to not explain your warrants. i think fw against a 1 off k debate can make or break the aff.

k affs – these should be in the direction of the resolution, but i don’t think that the neg should have to debate against your personal experiences or that debate is a survival strategy. i want to know what voting for your advocacy does.

fw/t-usfg – i think debate is a game and procedural fairness is an independent impact. that being said, if you can prove procedural fairness is a bad model, go for it. i think tva’s are the most strategic way to win t.


i think condo is good. i probably won’t vote on theory but can be convinced otherwise. i don’t think many cps are abusive enough to drop the team, but can be persuaded on drop the argument.

Pratik Kharat Paradigm

8 rounds

Add me to the email chain.


I'm currently a policy debater for George Mason University, and previously I was a Public Forum debater for Oakton High School.

Connor Lauer Paradigm

8 rounds

About Me

3 years mock trial, First Colonial High School

4 years policy debate, George Mason University

add me to the chain:

I think debate is a game with tangential benefits that vary from debater to debater. Do what you do best and what you enjoy, and I will do my best to offer a fair and cogent decision.

How I Evaluate Rounds
- I will begin with framework. Usually this will merely be me determining if the aff gets to weigh reasonable theoretical implementation of a plan and if the neg gets a non-fiated advocacy and this is how I default if no framework or ROB args are made. Most of the time, voting aff or neg means me determining that the plan/advocacy would make the world better if hypothetically implemented, but this could change with more complicated/kritikal rounds or in the context of presumption.
- I will then make a list of every impact in the round. I will attempt to figure out which impacts each team solves/causes. This is constituted by advantages the aff solves, case turns, internal link turns, straight turns, and all of that good stuff.
- Next I weigh. This will be done by first determining what I am trying to maximize/prioritize (VTL, body count, antiblack violence, etc.).
- This usually produces a winning team. After I have a preliminary vote, I will go through all of the arguments made by the 'losing' team to see if any of them complicate the initial decision that I have written.

Some technical disclaimers
- If I don't have it flowed, it is not an argument. I type very quickly and get down most every word you say so if I don't have it written down, I will not feel comfortable voting on it.
- If the affirmative reads a few advantages, and the neg never substantively contests them (possibly because it is a K that attempts to exclude fiat), I will tolerate minimal extension of the affirmative including even if the internal link scenario is not explained up through the 1ar.
- The above statement is true about the core advantages of the aff, not random cards the 1ac reads. If you read Zanotti in your framing contention, you do not get to wait until the 2ar to explain the aff as a heuristic.
- Until an argument is made to the contrary, I think of voting for an advocacy as me signifying that that thing would be a good thing if done, not that the negative or affirmative has actually performed said advocacy.
- I will kick the CP/alt if the neg tells me it’s an option AND if condo is never mentioned or is won by the neg AND I think the DA/K outweighs.
- Cross-applications are not new arguments. If the 1ar says reasonability on one T violation, and the 2nr goes for a different one, the 2ar can cross-apply it legitimately. However, this does assume that there was a reason why their c/i is reasonable in the 1ar.

-I will not vote on IVIs tied to the identity of individual debaters/the act of debating itself/the school where you are from/etc. unless there is a substantial link tied to something that happened in that specific round. Every round is a fresh start, and debate should be a place for testing of ideas and competitive engagement with respectful and respected opponents. Feel free to call your opponents out if you think they did something shitty, and my expressions will probably tell you where I stand on their behavior.

You can have my flow
I always wished that it wasn't awkward to ask the judge for their flow, so this is me telling you that it is not awkward for you to ask me for mine. I think that reading someone's flow of your speech is incredibly educational and so I will happily send you a copy of my flow.

Personal preferences
- I like K’s. In summary, if you read a K aff or a K on the neg that you understand and are passionate about, I will be happy, and if it is one that is well-executed with contextual and specific links and a crystallized alternative or advocacy, I will be very happy.
- However, this does not mean that I hate policy style arguments. I often went for framework, I love a good clash debate and I will totally vote for heg is good and the most ethical system even though it’s not. Don’t read a K you do not know in front of me if you want to win the round. I will appreciate the effort, but I will give you average speaks and drop you.
- I will nod or shake my head, make facial expressions, or chuckle quietly to myself in the debate. I think debate as a communicative activity runs two ways and part of that means you should be reading your audience. Do not get discouraged if I laugh at your warming good turns; i will still vote on them but you will know I think you’re silly.
- As a former mock trial-ist, I am very partial to a good cross-x. It is always binding (with some exception for rhetorical slips). Teams that ask good cross x questions that are incorporated in speeches will see more speaker points and wins from me. Similarly, those that choose to not answer cross-x questions or endlessly skirt around clear and pointed questions will see their speaker points suffer. I firmly believe that dialogue and testing of ideas are intrinsically good and important to debate. I do not mind you taking prep to ask the other team clarifying questions.

Long Version with all the Juicy Details

Kritiks – They should have a consistent thesis, contextual links, and an alternative that resolves said links. I have read and am most comfortable with Marxism (neo- and orthodox), Warren, Wilderson, Sexton, Harraway, Heidegger, Fanon, Bdrizzle, Badiou, Bifo, Agamben, Schmitt, Deleuze, Moten, Hegel?!?, SCT, Nietzsche, Security/IR, Ableism, and probably other ones I can’t remember right now. I am least familiar with Lacan, Lyotard, Latour, other language/comm based theory, whatever Zizek’s new book says, and gender or race based scholarship not-aforementioned. But surely that is just uniqueness for your education...

For the aff, pull them into your playing field. You have an affirmative, try not to forget that. While they are spewing out scraps of whatever shit the French took after May 1968, it turns out that they often forget to say why your aff is a bad idea. I am very convinced by aff contextualizing themselves out of the generic K goo and world comparisons vs. the alternative. Also, and this is true for both sides, do not underestimate the framework debate.

NOTE: “ontology turns the aff” is not an argument. I love and am willing to vote on ontology or theories of power but I need historical or empirical contextualization (read: examples) connected to a metaphysical claim about the world. At the same time, I don’t know why affs don’t leverage stronger ontology claims in the context of aff/neg solvency differential.

Kritikal Affs - I find myself more and more frustrated by the Kritikal I see run and increasingly persuaded by arguments like the TVA. Your aff need not be a government policy nor have a plan text but should be some combination of a) an instrumental action by an actor or b) a clear and distinct theory of power and why its education/focus/reorientation is necessary and inaccessible through resolutional debate. If you color/play naruto/video games I will probably have fun and give you decent speaks but you probably won’t get the ballot. Novices should read a plan text in the first half of the year.

Topicality – Sure, I don’t have any weird pet peeves here. Topicality needs an impact. Fairness as a terminal impact requires a very strong magnitude of the link (read it as an I/L to education or advocacy skills). Slow down when rattling off your 7-point standards shell, I can only type so quickly.

Disads – Read them, win on them. I am very pleased with case specific disads that interact with the aff’s internal links and turn the aff on a deeper level than "econ collapse turns warming".

Counterplans – I have no predispositions against any of them. I will vote for the shiftiest illegit counterplan you can think of or a very legit advantage CP. Delay CPs and “The president should sign the bill with a blue pen instead of black pen” CPs are abusive but I will vote in the absence of aff theory.

Theory – I don't think I have any relevant opinions when it comes to theory debates. I try to stay un-opinionated, so I will evaluate ASPEC just as objectively as I would condo. I lean aff at more than 3 conditional worlds. Theory and K are not very separate in my mind - be consistent - I am probably more likely than most to vote on perf con or double turn arguments as long as they are impacted.

Evidence vs Arguments – I believe that evidence exists for the sole purpose of making an argument. Very often, I could care less about whether or not you read a card on an argument. Now, to be fair, this is likely true because I spend the most of my time in kritikal debates in which statistics, uniqueness and quals and such are not an issue. So yes, if it is a study, or a statistical claim about the squo, or something you need an expert to say, then read evidence. Due to this, I may not call for many cards after the round and not until I have mostly made my decision. If I do, I might just be curious or stealing your cites. The one exception is if the debaters flag one or two pieces of evidence as critical to the central question(s) within the debate.

Conceded Arguments – I will vote for any cheap shot you want to go for as long as it is impacted out in a meaningful way before the final rebuttal.

Case – Any good neg strategy includes a good amount of time spent on case. This is true no matter what style of round it is. I will be very pleased if you do not let the aff get away with the shifty and illogical claims that they are making at the top of every case overview. I am more sympathetic towards (somewhat) contradictory testing of the aff substantively on case than in the form of a prioris like theory or T. It turns out that much of what aff teams say they can solve (especially with K debates), they cannot actually solve. I always love seeing a strong 2nc on a K then a 1nr that rips through case. This will heavily boost your speaker points and help you out of the aff pulling a fast one on you.

Scale for College:

- 29.5 - 30: Good luck at the NDT
- 29 - 29.4: You are the best debater I have seen all semester
- 28.7 – 29: You should probably break
- 28.5 – 28.7: You gave solid speeches
- 28 – 28.5: You are a good debater, some strategic errors
- 27.5 – 28: You are decent, but made many errors
- 27 – 27.5: You made many mistakes, and probably lost the debate for your team
- 26.5 – 27: You made many errors and should end 1-5 or 0-6
- 26 – 26.5: You shouldn’t be in whatever level of debate you are
- Under 26: You were literally incomprehensible or offensive
- +.5 if you draw a supply and demand graph and use it to make an argument. -.5 if you or your evidence references the Austrian business cycle.

Zhane Lloyd Paradigm

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Yes, include me on the email chain.

Brooklyn Tech: 2011 - 2012 (those three novice UDL tournaments apparently count), 2017 - present (coach)
NYU: 2014 - 2018
The New School: 2018-2020 (coach)
Hunter College Community School: 2020 - present (coach)

In case you're pressed for time

1. Do you. Have fun. Don't drop an important argument.

2. If there is an impact in the 2NR/2AR, there's a high chance you've won the debate in front of me. I like going for the easy way out and impacts give me the opportunity to do that. Impact comparisons are good too.

3. I flow on paper, so please don't be upset if I miss arguments because you're slurring your words or making 17 arguments/minute.

4. Don't assume I know the acronyms or theories you're talking about, even if I do. This is a persuasion activity, so no shortcuts to persuading me.

5. Obviously, I have biases, but I try not to let those biases influence how I decide a round. Usually, if debaters can't accomplish #2, then I'll be forced to. I prefer to go with the flow though.

6. I have a master's degree in Design & Technology, so I'll be impressed to see anyone using the online debate format to create fancy debate presentations. It's fine if you don't or can't.

If you're not so pressed for time

I debated for four years at NYU and ran mostly soft left affs. I think that means I'm a pretty good judge for these types of affs and it also means I'm probably able to tell if there is a genuine want for a discussion about structural violence impacts or if they're just tacked on because K debaters are scary.

I do think debate is a game, but I also think people should be allowed to modify the "rules" of the game if they're harmful or just straight up unlikeable. I guess now would also be a good time to point I'm a game designer, so I like thinking about the implications of declaring debate to be "just" a game or "more than" a game. Now to the important stuff.

Speed: Through a card, I'll tolerate it. Through a tag or analytics, I'll be pretty annoyed. And so will you, because I'll probably miss something important that could cost you the round. When reading a new card, either verbally indicate it ("and" or "next") or change your tone to reflect it.

Planless affs: Even in a game, some people just don't want to defend the government. And that's perfectly okay. But I would like the aff to be relevant to the current topic. I feel like some affs are just random backfile cards put together with slightly altered tags. Not a big fan of those, but I'll still vote for them if I'm convinced enough in a round.

CP: Wasn't really much of a CP debater and I don't really coach teams that run CPs, except the basic novice ones that come in a starter kit. I think they're a fine argument and am willing to vote on them.

DA: You could never go wrong with a good DA. DAs, when run correctly, have a really good, linear story that can be extended in the neg block and could be used to effectively handle aff answers. Feel free to go crazy.

Ks: I can't think of a neg round where I didn't run a K. I've run cap, security, queerness, my aff, and some variations of Black feminism. But please, do not talk to me as if I know your K. If you're running pomo, I most definitely don't know your K and will need to be talked through it with analogies and examples. If you're running an identity K, I probably do know your K but expect the same from you as I expect from a pomo debater. Cap, security - you get the memo.

T: My favorite neg arg as a senior. I'm always down for a good T debate. I do think that sometimes it's used as a cop-out, but I also think that some affs aren't forwarding any sort of plan or advocacy. Just stating an FYI and a neg can't really argue against that. So T becomes the winning strategy.

Framework: Not exactly the same as T, but I still fucks with it. If you're a non-Black debater, I do not care what variation of Framework (or T) you're running in front of me. Just call it framework.

Theory: Important, but the way debaters speed through their theory shells makes me question just how important it is. Again, slow down when reading theory in front of me so it's actually an option for you at the end of the round.

Things I like that will increase speaks:

1. Wrestling (sometimes)

2. Nicki Minaj

3. Doja Cat

4. Video games (mainly Pokemon, Dragon Age, Dynasty Warriors, Persona)

Most likely, if you've had me as a judge, then you know my timer. This is where I downloaded it from (and yes, it's wrestling-related):

Queen LouAllen Paradigm

I am a versatile judge as long as the argument is well articulated. I have no real preference for arguments but it is a requirement to run the argument as it was intended to be ran. I need a clean cut story as to why you win, meaning there should be some type of summary in your last few speeches somewhere I do prefer global over views instead of overviews on each argument but I will still flow the overviews as to where you put them regardless. I do no work for either team meaning if its not there, it will not be evaluated so if you are going for an argument and haven't put in the work for it, depending on what the other team does, you will be voted down. Other than that I don't judge upon ethos but keep it cordial during the debate, have a great time and good luck to you.

Brendon Morris Paradigm

Hey, if you're reading this I'm probably judging you soon; first things first thanks for looking this up rather than asking me what my paradigm/preference is. Second if you really don't want to read this everything can be summed up in two words, "DO YOU."

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. If you don't do this I will try to flow arguments on the right flow but some arguments are bound to get lost so please try to stay clean. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.



By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. If you can't speak for 5 minutes about condo in the 2AR then don't go for condo; it's as simple as that. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.


I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows wholistically.


I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.


I am a philosophy and political science major so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.


Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene in three instances. First if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Second I will shadow extend arguments into the 2R's (if you don't know what this means just ignore it). Third I will judge kick conditional arguments despite this I will be upset if you don't make it clear what you're going for.


  • What gets you good speaks:
    • Following the flow
    • Making it easier for me to flow
    • Making things interesting
    • Clear spreading
    • Productive CX
  • What hurts your speaks:
    • Being really boring
    • Wasting CX or Preptime
    • Being rude

Quick Bio

I am currently a senior at Assumption College and a Political Science/Philosophy double major. I did 3 years of policy debate in high school, have been judging for 4 years and coaching on and off during that time. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

Swarnalatha Neema Paradigm

Hi everyone!

As a judge, the most important component of any speech or debate to me is presentation. The way you speak and your clarity show me whether you understand what you're talking about and your confidence. Another thing, speak slowly. I'd love to evaluate what you're talking about, and the only way to do that is if I understand what you're saying.

Also, I just wanted to say that all you work so hard for this activity and it really shows. No matter what, keep practicing and doing speech and debate. You all rock!

That's all for now!
Swarna Neema

Janet Novack Paradigm

Hello everyone!

I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged LD since 2016.

TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.



If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Because of this, keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I won’t read along with your speech doc, and I have it primarily for author names, so make sure your arguments are clear. I’ll sway tech or truth. Where I end up on the spectrum is up to you all.


I’ve judged over 60 rounds of LD thus far. I take my flow seriously, but am not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates but am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well articulated and impacted. I will vote on abuse in the round, and can be persuaded to vote on potential abuse. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and explain your K lit.

On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair, but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable.


K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates.

Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow

Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority argument in your 2NR, if not the only. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you weigh your interpretation against the other.

DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please impact calc.

Ks: I need to understand the world of the alt and how it outweighs. Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I can hold my own if it’s well articulated.

One off Ks: Please have me put framework on another flow, especially if the round is messy

Framework: Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round.

Austin Oliver Paradigm

Add me to the chain -

Coaching history:

Gilman School - 2019-Present

George Mason University - 2018-Present

Recently graduated from George Mason University where I debated for 5 years. Before that I debated for half of high school in southeast VA. I qualified for the NDT twice and had so. much. fun.

I'm just going to give my opinions on things that I always scroll down to when reading people's paradigms:

Topicality: It's in the neg's interest to explain clearly why the dynamics of the topic mean I should err neg on limits, and/or why debatability outweighs aff offense. Absent that kind of common-sense impact framing deciding between a limited neg-leaning topic and a relatively unlimited aff-leaning topic is too intervention-y for my comfort. I see reasonability as a schema through which to evaluate competing interpretations, not an exclusive paradigm. I can be convinced to apply reasonability in an alternative fashion, but I am unconvinced by "arguments" that use reasonability as a stand-in for impact comparison (do not repeat that you are reasonable without explanation in the hopes that my gut-approach to the topic includes your aff).

Theory: I'm open to anything but my threshold for voting aff on delay cps bad is quite different from my threshold for voting aff on vague alternatives bad. If you're negative and reading something that is obviously pushing it it would be helpful for you to have arguments as to why reading your horribly unfair argument is distinct from every other time said horribly unfair argument has been read or is warranted by the topic/specific affirmative.

Condo: I don't care but see above.

DAs: I believe there can be zero risk of one. Having a diversity of arguments does not have to and shouldn't trade off with smart framing arguments. Spending time winning a single damning argument with certainty is more more helpful to me than reading a block your 1A wrote that extends every piece of UQ/Link/Impact ev in the debate. "Link determines direction of uniqueness" is generally more intuitive to me than the inverse.

Ks: If you read it one off I understand if your speeches don't reflect normative organization and think it's in your interest to mix things up. I'll flow straight down. If you're affirmative in one of these debates it's your job to use that to your advantage and reconstruct things for me.

Framework: I often vote for non-topical affirmatives in part because framework debates are unnecessarily complicated. Simplifying things will substantially increase your chances of winning a ballot. For the neg this means picking an impact in the 2NR; fairness is one and is often (in my opinion) a better 2NR choice than decision-making/delib (explanation of which tends to be very nebulous and vulnerable to aff link/impact turns). If you go for an education impact, explain why your interp/model solves it or just explain why the aff precludes it. It doesn't take much to convince me that you should get topic education as an impact turn against affs that are explicitly anti-topical, but outside of that context this will require work for me. I say that fairness is often a better option because I generally believe that fairness is required for debate to have internal consistency/meaning, and teams whose strategy on T line up with that will put themselves in a good position in debates that I am judging. As explained above, I am partial to fairness/competitive equity impacts and so it is in the aff's interest to explain why they produce/justify reasonably fair debates/affirmatives OR spend a lot of time impact turning fairness instead of repeating that it's infinitely regressive/doesn't have a brightline/is just an internal link to education/shadow extending another sentence-long 2AC arg.

These statements represent my feelings and quite likely my proclivities in judging; they do not, however, represent any hardline stance that I will take regardless of the context supplied by a debate. I flow a lot and will use it more than anything else to make a decision if I am judging you.

- Austin xoxo

Ariel Olson Paradigm

yes please put me on the chain, use this email:

They/Them pronouns

I did HS LD for 4 years at Fort Lauderdale High graduated in 2016 then did college policy for a couple years after.

I think debate matters a lot, and when people see it like a place to collect trophies to justify being rude as hell or problematic, it’s disappointing to me and your speaker points (I don’t care why you debate, just respect why other people come here too). This also means pay attention to people social location and don’t fill the round with microaggressions.

Most debate I did was focused on K debate. That’s just honestly going to be the round where I am the best judge for you in terms of education. judge adaptation is usually BS, and you’re most likely to win when YOU do whatever you do best. I’ve been judging for long enough that I’m able to competently judge a traditional Policy or LD round.

My paradigm used to have a bunch of debate opinions I held, a lot of them I still do, but if you make a good argument, or an argument I think is bad but well warranted, that’s going to matter a lot more than some random opinion I have. If you want to know any specific argument preferences I have, feel free to ask me any time until the round starts, and I’ll clarify whatever you need.

I evaluate rounds based off the flows, I consistently vote on warrants that are cleanly extened through rounds being more sufficient than repeating the tag from the 1ac to the 2ar without explaining how you should win from that. The more you explain why your arguments are true AND why that means you should win, the more likely you are to get my ballot.

I'm pretty much always going to give an RFD for debaters but if you don't pay attention or seem like my input doesn't matter, your RFD will be very short. I love making sure debaters understand how they lost my ballot instead of walking away and telling their teams that they don't know how they lost on something that wasn't even in my RFD.

I didn't think this was something that had to be made explicit BUT:

** If your answer to arguments about oppression include minimizing violence that is very clearly established (antiblackness, colonialism, anti-queer violence, there's a lot more im missing, but if you have to question it, it probably falls into this group) you will not win anything you think your defense gets you, and your speaks will be directly related to how uncomfortable those arguments make me.

Eleni Orfanos Paradigm

Mamaroneck HS ‘19

American U ‘22

I debated for Mamaroneck HS. I have experience as both 2A and 2N and I ran policy arguments. I judge for Mamaroneck HS and various DC/WUDL teams. I coach novice and JV for Inspired Teaching.

I prefer more policy-oriented debates, but I will vote for anything that is explained well.

Put me on the email chain (

(!!) PLEASE open source all your evidence after the debate. If you tell me before I submit my RFD, you get +0.3 speaks.

Be respectful.

Have fun.


Tech > Truth, within reason.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. Use your best judgement for online debate. I would prefer that you send analytics because audio issues in online debate can cause me to miss important arguments otherwise.

Line by line please.

Flow. (Novices, please flow. I can tell if you don't flow and I will be annoyed.)

Use all or most of your prep time (Especially novices). However, a solid stand up 2NR or 2AR will impress me.

Cross examination is so important. You can gain key offense here so do not waste your time or mine.

I mostly give 28s for the standard debate round. If you get 27s, you probably made a lot of errors. If you get less than a 27, you probably made a lot of errors and were rude. If you get a 29 or higher, you checked every box and will likely be elims competitive.

Being funny will give you good speaks. Jokes about any Mamaroneck debater, alum, or coach will give you +0.1 or +0.2 speaks depending on how good the joke is.

Do not ask for a 30 or high speaks.

Clipping will give you the lowest possible points and a loss. I have caught debaters clipping so please take this seriously.


I love a good case debate. Show me that you did your research and prepared well. Evidence comparison is very important. Do not just say their evidence is bad and yours is better without comparing warrants.

Impact calculus should start in the 2AC/2NC and should be extended throughout the debate.

I prefer that you have a plan text.

Aff gets to weigh the case.

Impact turns are great when done well.

Big politics disadvantage fan.

Disadvantages need to be structured (uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact) and not just one card. I don't care if you are trying to do ten off. I will be visibly annoyed.

Specific links are important, but proving the internal link chain is more important.

I like topicality debates. I will default to competing interpretations, but the negative should do good impact calculus and clearly explain abuse. Please provide a case list.

I love a well-researched advantage counterplan.

I will not judge kick unless the 2NR tells me to.

Condo is probably good, but I can be persuaded otherwise. I lean negative on PICs. No opinion on other theory arguments.

Procedural fairness is an impact and probably the best framework impact.

I am familiar with capitalism, gender, security, abolition, and settler colonialism Ks. I am not a great judge if you read high-theory Ks. Overviews and non-jargon tags are very helpful.

I am not a good judge for K v K, but I will try my best if I find myself in one of these debates.

Tom Pacheco Paradigm

Email:; also on debatedocs if that matters.

***2019 NDT/TOC Update***

1) Background

A) College- I have judged fewer than 15 college debates on the executive powers topic. I have done some research on it.

B) High school- I have judged fewer than 20 high school debates on the immigration topic. I have done significant research on it.

C) I have legal knowledge as a background. Rarely has it made any difference in a debate. It has helped in cutting cards in providing a context I would not otherwise have regarding legal processes.

2) Debaters should be better at resolving debates and providing relative comparisons at a meta-level. Tell me why you have won a particular portion of a debate AND why that matters relative to the remainder of the debate.

3) Specificity matters to me. I have found over the course of judging that debates in the abstract are the most difficult to judge. Whether it is the specificity of a disad link or an explanation of limits on T, specificity to the context of a particular debate is critical in terms of how you contextualize your arguments.

***Old Update***

So I thought about my previous philosophy, and I didn’t think I would like it if I were a debater and read it. So I will try to provide (hopefully) more useful insight into what I think about debate. I have no idea what situations will occur and what defaults I may have given my limited amount of judging, but I think explaining what I thought about debate as a debater will help.

I just graduated from college, having debated for 4 years in high school at Loyola Blakefield and 4 years in college at the University of Mary Washington.

The way to get me to vote for you is to tell me what to vote on and how to evaluate it. Force my hand, think about the debate from a holistic perspective. Compare arguments. Make even if statements.

What did I really value that I got out of debate?

Fun- I thought debate was a ton of fun. Thinking quickly on my feet, trying to predict what people would say, cutting a ton of cards. I loved debate.

Critical thinking- I do not think anything ever made me think as hard and as complexly as debate. Limited prep time, strategic decisions needing to be made. Thinking about the best arguments to be made against a certain team or with a certain judge. Thinking the way debate teaches has helped me in undergrad, law school, and in life. It teaches a certain way of thinking that is invaluable.

Advocacy- debate taught me how to make an argument, and how to win it in front of anyone. Strip debate of the jargon, and you know how to make an argument in any context. It enhanced my paper writing and has helped me in a lot of situations I think.

How did I get this out of debate?

Rigorous testing. Equitably difficult debate where both teams rigorously test each other’s arguments produces an activity that I found fun, helped me to think critically in quick and strategic ways, and taught me how to make arguments efficiently. I fundamentally think that debate is about rigorously testing positions. You can have debates about anything, but I think this is how I would describe it to people outside of debate and is what debate should be in my normative world.

Why does this matter?

It shapes what I think about debate positions, or is my default for evaluation. This is one of many possible frames I could use. But this is where I start, and it shapes my perception of topicality, to CP competition, to Ks, to theory, to speaker points.


I do think I am open to listening to alternative constructions of debate, but what that is and looks like needs to be tangible to me for me. The team that answers the question- what world of debate is most equitably rigorous wins. My presumption about rigorous testing can be challenged, and I do not know what I will think once I start judging. It is my default though. I think the topic has value insofar as it sets a stasis for argumentation from which rigorous testing commences. Topical version of the aff arguments are good, but not necessary for the neg. For the aff (saying debate bad), I think uniqueness arguments about exclusion are persuasive. I think the closer the aff is to the topic, the more persuasive reasonability becomes.


Topicality debates should be grounded in the literature. I tend to think limits are a controlling issue in T debates because they determine whether the neg has the opportunity to rigorously test the aff. Caselists are useful for either side.

I think arguments contextual to the topic are useful. I think T is important on the oceans topic given its enormity and the lack of unified negative ground. For the aff, I am compelled by aff flex arguments like its and generic CPs make the topic awful.


For most CPs, I probably default to reject the argument not the team. I do think there are arguments that can be made that bad CPs are a reason to reject the team, but it is not my default presumption. There are two questions that I think are important to answer- does the CP rigorously test the aff AND how critical is the CP in the literature? I do think that most CP theory debates are invariably shallow which makes evaluating them difficult.

Conditionality does not differ for me from other CP theory in that the question is about rigorous testing. I do think conditionality is rampant. I think contradicting positions are bad, but can also have different implications in debates- does using the same reps you k’ed mean that perm- do the alt is legit, or that the alt fails? Probably. Contextualizing conditionality to the specific practices done in the debate makes the argument very persuasive.

My presumption is against intervening to kick the CP for the 2nr. If I am told to do it, I might if the aff drops the argument. If they don’t, I probably won’t.

College teams – Pics- I am not completely sold that all/nearly all is the death knell for pics on the college topic. My presumption for pics being good makes me think this is a debatable question, even if the resolution tries to write this out of debates.


I think topic-specific critiques can be interesting because they rigorously test the aff. Whichever team controls the role of the ballot typically wins, and neg teams should invest more if the role of the ballot is distinct from my presumption of testing. I also do not think it is strategic for K teams to not answer the aff explicitly – dropping the 1ac usually means I vote aff – meaning my bar is higher on voting for “x comes first”/ “x means the whole aff is wrong” args. Generalizations do not test the aff. Dropping the 1ac does not test the aff.

I think try or die is how I think about ks. Ks that are the strongest in persuading me control the impact uniqueness of the debate. I find aff arguments about trends in the status quo more important than other people because of that (for example, if the environment is sustainable, winning a consumption k becomes much harder). Affs should focus on alt solvency and how to evaluate impacts.


I tend to think the link controls the direction of the DA, but can be persuaded that uniqueness does.

I think zero risk is possible.

I think turns case arguments really help the neg. I think unanswered turns case arguments by the block in the 1ar are difficult for the aff to come back from.


You will receive a bump in speaker points if you read quals.

I flow cross-x.

Demonstrate topic knowledge.

I like specific arguments better than general ones.

I think long overviews are overrated and are a way to avoid clash.

Start impact calculus early.

Indict specific evidence- the quals and the warrants.

Explain to me why I should prefer your evidence over your opponents.

Tell me when an argument is new or dropped.

Be comprehensible.

2as should not blow off arguments on the case.

Smart arguments matter, as long as they are complete. An argument is a claim and warrant.

Clipping is a problem in the activity. Don’t do it. Don’t allege that someone else has done it without evidence via recording – you will not win otherwise. The debate community relies on shared trust. Breaking that trust or accusing someone of doing this is of the utmost seriousness.

Be organized- with yourself in the debate as well as your arguments.

Do not steal prep.

Minimize the amount of time paperless debate causes.

***Previous philosophy***

Short version

I just graduated from college, having debated for 4 years in high school at Loyola Blakefield and 4 years in college at the University of Mary Washington. I have not judged so much that there is a predisposition that is so strong not to be able to be overcome. You do you, most things are up for debate. I prefer specific strategies over general strategies regardless of what those strategies deploy. I prefer CP/Politics or Politics/Case debates. I think the real way to being happy with a decision from me is to tell me what to do and how to assess arguments in the debate. The team that tells me what to do at the end of the debate and has the best reasoning for it will win.

I like hard work. Debaters that work will hard will be rewarded for doing so. I will also work my hardest to give every debater the credit they deserve while I am making a decision.

Coaches who have had a formative impact on me – Adrienne Brovero, Daryl Burch, Tom Durkin.

Judges I liked that I would like to be like – Lawrence Granpre, Scott Harris, Fernando Kirkman, Sarah Sanchez, Patrick Waldinger. I promise I will not be as good as these people, but I use them as a model for how I want to judge.


I was a 2a and a politics debater in college, and a 2n that relied on the cap k and topicality in high school. I have done significant research on the oceans topic, and a little on the college topic.


I default policymaker. I think the topic is set up to be instrumentally affirmed. Again, not so much so that I will not listen to other arguments or perspectives. For the neg, I am strong believer in fairness as well as the skills that debate teaches. I think predictability is necessary for debates to happen. Topical version of the aff arguments are good, but not necessary for the neg. For the aff (saying debate bad), I think uniqueness arguments about exclusion are persuasive. I think the closer the aff is to the topic, the more persuasive reasonability becomes.


Topicality debates should be grounded in the literature. I tend to think limits are a controlling issue in T debates. Caselists are useful for either side.

I think arguments contextual to the topic are useful. I think T is important on the oceans topic given its enormity and the lack of unified negative ground. For the aff, I am compelled by aff flex arguments like its and generic CPs make the topic awful.


For most CPs, I probably default to reject the argument not the team. That does not mean that I think that all CPs are good OR that I would be unwilling to vote on a cheating CP. I do think that most CP theory debates are invariably shallow which makes voting on them difficult. Most teams get away with bad/illegitimate CPs because the aff is terrible at executing, or the neg has some trick. I also think the more contextual a CP is within a set of literature, the harder it is to beat on theory questions. I have no predispositions on CP theory – I am willing to listen to it.

Conditionality is different than other CP theory args for me. It is certainly excessive most of the time. It gets egregious when positions contradict. Contextualizing conditionality to the specific practices done in the debate makes the argument very persuasive.

College teams – Pics- I am not completely sold that all/nearly all is the death knell for pics on the college topic. My presumption for pics being good makes me think this is a debatable question, even the resolution tries to write this out of debates. I think what is “nearly all” is what the literature says it is. I am also compelled that maybe the topic is so bad that these pics are important for the neg.


I think topic-specific critiques can be interesting. The more specific to the topic, and the more specific to the aff, the better. Whichever team controls the role of the ballot typically wins. I also do not think it is strategic for K teams to not answer the aff explicitly – dropping the 1ac usually means I vote aff – meaning my bar is higher on voting for “x comes first”/ “x means the whole aff is wrong” args.


I tend to think the link controls the direction of the DA, but can be persuaded that uniqueness does.

I think zero risk is possible.

I think turns case arguments really help the neg. I think unanswered turns case arguments by the block in the 1ar are difficult for the aff to come back from.


I think long overviews are overrated.

Start impact calculus early.

Be comprehensible.

Smart arguments matter, as long as they are complete.

Clipping is a problem in the activity. Don’t do it. Don’t allege that someone else has done it without evidence via recording – you will not win otherwise. The debate community relies on shared trust. Breaking that trust or accusing someone of doing this is of the utmost seriousness.

Be organized.

Do not steal prep.

Minimize the amount of time paperless debate causes.

Have fun – that’s why I do this.

Vivian Pao Paradigm

I debated in high school for Thomas Jefferson (Virginia) in the 90s. Before the advent of K's. So I'm a little old school. Having said that, I'm open to any arguments (including K's--I'm interested in hearing them) as long as you can explain it clearly, back it up with good evidence, and convince me that it is the reason you win the debate.

My philosophy:

1. Don't be a jerk. I'll usually given 28/29 speaks unless you're a jerk.

2. Be clear and understand your own arguments. If you can't explain it to me, then you probably won't win. Especially if you're trying to win on a K.

3. Have good evidence. I'll read your evidence. If your tags don't match your evidence, then I probably won't believe you.

4. Please have a roadmap and signpost. I flow. Please include me in the email chain.

5. If something interesting comes up in crossex, you need to bring it up in your speech--I can't promise I'm paying attention during crossex (I probably will be, but I'm old school so you still have to say it during your speech).

Gregory Porter Paradigm

8 rounds

I debated in high school. Then, I coached policy debate for La Salle from 2010-2015. I no longer coach, but I still judge sporadically.

Run what you want, but

I will not vote for death good

And I don't yell clear

Feel free to ask me clarifying questions before the round if my haiku was not enough of an explanation.

Emily Qiu Paradigm

Lexington '20

Please add me to the email chain-



Do these things and you'll probably win:

1. Line by line

2. Impact calc

3. Evidence comparison


It's hard to be a novice! Just experiment with different arguments, try your best, and have fun. :) Think about your arguments- a good analytic is as good as a card, but filter your arguments- if you think what you're saying is unnecessary, I probably do too. Look at me frequently during your speeches- if I'm not flowing, try to move on, because if I don't flow it, I'm not going to evaluate it. Be nice to each other!!


I'll probably give you all decent speaks (28s/29s) unless you were extremely rude/act like you don't care about the round that is going on.

Things that will raise your speaks:

1. Having a road map and signposting during your speech

2. Looking at me during crossex

3. Being a partnership that reminds me of Lex HQ (aka partner goals)

Things that will DECK your speaks:

1. Acting like you're better than your partner

2. Reading the same blocks in every speech and not engaging the other team

3. Not flowing

4. Being ableist/sexist/homophobic/racist - unacceptable


I like a good topicality debate. Make sure you impact out T on both sides and go in depth with it. A blippy "it's too hard to be neg" argument or "aff is topical enough" will not suffice. Make sure the aff actually violates the T violation you choose though! Aff- if you don't violate, don't spend too much time on it! I'm willing to vote on wild T violations if you give me a good reason to.


Love them- make sure to do impact calc and explain the internal link chain clearly. Try to do specific link analysis too- another thing that will raise your speaks. Aff should try to attack the internal link chains, don't just read impact defense.


Like them- with generic CPs, try to have a solvency advocate specific to the aff. Advantage CPs are cool too- make sure you explain them well. Cheaty CPs are fun, but be prepared for theory because I'll give a lower threshold for the aff on theory if I think the CP is really cheaty.


They're fine- make sure you explain the thesis of the K well, how the aff makes what you're kritiking worse, and what the world of the alt looks like. Your links should be to the aff and not the squo. Try to find lines in the aff's evidence that link to your K and point them out! Alts- I tend to prefer alts that take action rather than "say no" or "reject the 1AC", but I will still vote on them. Framework- make sure you interact with the other team's framework (if they read one), don't just read the same block in every speech.


Case debate!!!! Do it!! Aff- Explain your aff and how you solve! Don't forget about your aff- it is your CHILD! If you don't know what to do- weigh your aff against everything! I will vote neg on presumption, but only if the neg makes that argument.

K Affs

Defend something. I don't mind listening to kaffs, but you need to explain what you do to actually solve for your impacts. I usually read policy affs and am more policy leaning, but I'm down for a good k debate and will vote on one if it's debated well. Be confident and have nuanced answers to framework and cap!


Debate is a game. Framework has a special place in my heart <3. Fairness is an impact. BUT that being said, you have to impact it out- don't disgrace framework PLEASE. I'm more than willing to vote on framework, but only if it's run well. Make sure you attack the case too.


Condo- 4+ conditional advocacies is probably abusive, but if you can convince me that it's justified, then it's fine. Aff should always try to have condo in the 2AC as a fallback if there's 2+ condo.

Other theory- I'm probably not going to vote on it, unless something seems extremely abusive or is dropped.


1. If you drop something, pretend/trick me into thinking you didn't.

2. Don't get scared of other teams, act like you can win until after the 2AR- don't give up!

3. Bring what you said in crossex into your speeches! Crossex is a strategic time to set up/make arguments.

4. Frame your speeches at the beginning of the 2NR/2AR! Tell my why you win and what I'm voting on. Make the judge do less work.

5. Do what you do best- don't let this/me be a reason to completely change your debating style!

Sarah Rawlins Paradigm


I debated in high school (LD) and judged for several years, I started coaching in 2019. I work in Washington, DC at a think tank and my background is in economics.


Debate isn't just an argumentation activity, it is also a speaking activity. Presentation matters and I expect you to put just as much work into how you argue as what you argue.

Random Notes

Speed: If you can't explain your point in 8 minutes of talking like a normal person it's a bad argument. If you spread I will stop flowing.

Technology: Don't let it become a hindrance. If you can't share evidence at approximately the same speed you would with paper you shouldn't be debating on a laptop. If you don't have a way to share evidence with teams debating on paper you will forfeit, this is an accessibility issue.

Economics: There's a lot of misunderstandings out there, If your case is Econ please do some basic research to avoid embarrassing yourself.

Logan Reed Paradigm

Please set up the email chain before round so you can hit send at start time.

* are new/significant-PF at bottom

*for big bronx 19': I havn't judged/debated much in the last few months, so please take it a little slow at least for the first couple prelims/early morning rounds. You may also want to explain newer meta references/args a little more to me than another judge*

-Do good and win arguments. The more rounds i judge, the less i feel like the type of argument/style of debate you do matters as much in my evaluation of a round as i expected it would when i first started judging.
-Read what you want, if it has a warrant and some kind of framing mechanism to impact into.
-Also, don't intentionally be a bigot if you don't want to lose w/shit speaks.
-Feel free to go fast, but signpost, differentiate tags, be clear, and SLOW DOWN AT INTERPS and PLANS! especially these theory interps with like 3 planks, you just cant spread through that if you want me to catch the nuances of the shell.

i wont vote on- the resolved a-priori (other a-priories are fine), arguments cut from the SCUM manifesto, *trans-exclusionary feminism/gender args* (the flow will no longer be more important than my existence, sorry), oppression of any kind good, evaluate theory after the 2nr.

Speaks are based on how well you debate, with some focus on technical performance but more on strategic choice, with 28.5 being average. Have not ever given a 30 so i lied about being a speaks fairy lol.

if you think my paradigm is odd and want to ask questions about it, feel free to.


I debated LD in High School and got a few bids. I currently do policy debate at NYU in college. Still consider myself slightly better at knowing LD stuff though. I mostly read the K, and thats the style of debate I understand the best generally, but in HS i was very flex and will vote on whatever. I also think disclosure is in general good and the best responses to disclosure theory are kritical rather than about small schools or fairness.

Don't be violent, and pay attention to social position. I dock speaks for microggressions, sometimes subconsciously, so try to not. (for example there is nothing less impressive to watch in a debate round where a dude condescends a woman on something she understands better than he does)

defaults- presume aff, flips if neg reads an advocacy. other ones are probably not important: Im more likely to discard a flow as irresolvable and look for other offense in other places, rather than default on a million paradigm issues to make a ballot story make sense.

Im cool with more weird/innovative arguments and i tend to like them a lot, as well as impact turns like extinction good that some judges don't like.

note- i was an independent debater in high school, and I try to be an advocate for y'all still. I have a deep understanding of what its like to do the busted tournament struggle without a team (lol), but that means i also know when something isnt actually an important access issue in relation to that struggle. this means you should have good warrants and analysis for your access arguments and not assume we have all of the same opinions and ill auto vote on the words 'small school'. (this is mostly for like theory, not performance, and trust me if people didn't do this to me all the time it wouldn't be such a major part of my paradigm lol)


I do NOT evaluate rounds based on persuasion. I evaluate the flow. If i should evaluate the round different, that's possible, but you have to win a warrant for your role of the judge. Any progressive stuff yall want to do is cool, but don't do it really badly. None of yall can spread too quickly so go whatever speed. Also uuuh 'rules of pf' isnt an argument in 99% of cases

I really do not like paraphrased evidence. PF already has huge issues with evidence integrity, and paraphrased evidence can say whatever you want it to say. Analytic arguments are almost always better because they normally actually have a warrant and don't teach bad academic practices. I also call for cards after the round and will go through the effort to check cites- do not fabricate evidence in front of me

ALL basic debate things actually do still apply to yall. For example- no new in the 2 (your arguments other than weighing/comparison in the final focus u want me to vote off of must be in a previous speech, and ideally before the summery. To clarify further, you also do not have to extend all arguments from earlier speeches, rather you should collapse down to your best arguments), dropped arguments are conceded arguments (including the first speech for whoever is speaking second!), you need offense to win a round, ect.

Another issue i often have in pf rounds is that teams expect me to take something bad-sounding for granted as an impact. You should not to this- 1. you de facto have to warrant all of the pieces; a) that your impact exists, and (b) that its bad, and (c) that its worse than your opponents impacts. 2. Things you think are intuitively bad are often not the same as what i think is intuitively bad, ie anarchy

Jose Rivera Paradigm

1. I hate spreading slow down if you want me to flow your arguments if it is not on my flow it is not a part of the round. It doesn't matter how well it explained or extended. At best depending on speech it will be a new argument or analytical argument and will be evaluated from then forth as such. I do want to be part of the email chain, my email is, note that just because I am part of the email chain that does not mean I flow everything I read, I only flow what I hear so make sure I can hear your arguments. Beware I will be following along to make sure no one is cutting cards and I will call out teams for cutting cards so be sure to do things correctly. I will drop cards before the team and continued cutting will result in me stopping the round and contacting tab.

2. I hate theory and have only voted on it once. In particular I do not like disclosure theory and think its a bogus argument and highly advise against runnning it in my rounds. Also, I don't like arguments on Race don't run them as I feel while an important issue to discuss it distracts us from the topic and hurts educations because some teams run it every single year on both sides of the debate. The chance I will not vote on them is very high, you have been warned. Every Other argument is fine and long as they are well articulated and explained(See 3). In order to vote on an argument, there needs to be an impact on it and I need to know how we arrive at the impact. But I want to know more than A + B = C, I need to know the story of how we arrive at your impact and why they matter. I will not simply vote on a dropped argument unless there is no other way to vote an I need to make a decision, I consider this Judge intervention and I hate doing this. You as a debater should be telling me how to vote I will have to deduct speaker points if I have to do any work for you.

3. At the beginning of each round, I am a blank slate, think of me like 6 or 7-year-old. Explain arguments to me as such. I only evaluate things said in a round, my own personal knowledge and opinion will not affect. For example, if someone in a round says the sky is purple reads evidence the sky is purple and it goes uncontested then the sky is purple. I believe this is important because I consider anything else judge intervention which I am highly opposed too and again will result in a speaker point deduction. That being said I default to a standard policy-making framework at the beginning of each round unless I am told otherwise.

4. Be aware I do keep track of Speech times, and Prep, and go solely by my timer. My timer counts down and will only stop when you say stop prep. Once you say "Stop prep" I expect you to be ready to send the file, I do not want to here I need to copy arguments to a file to send as a part of an email chain. I will run prep for that. It should not take long to send a prepared file through the email change and I will wait until all participants receive the file before allowing the next speech to start but do not think you can abuse this I will restart prep if it takes an abnormal amount of time. Also extremely important to note I will not stop my timer for any reason once speech has started for any reason outside of extreme circumstances and technical difficulties do not count. If you choose to stop your timer to resolve your issue before resuming know that my time has not stopped and your speech time is being consumed. Also, aside for using your phone as a timer, I expect all debaters to not be on their phones during the round (this includes in between speeches and during prep) I think it is disrespectful to debate as an activity and to your opponent(s) and will deduct speaker points for it. Keeping that in mind note I will not evaluate any argument read off a phone, especially if you have a laptop in the round.

5. Last but not least be respectful to me and to each other, and I would appreciate a good show of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of each round. Any disrespect of any kind will result in a speaker point deduction on a per-incident basis. Continued disrespect will result in notifying tournament staff and lower than average speaker points. Although I do not expect it will go that far.

Eve Robinson Paradigm

Debated for Whitney Young High School, 2013-2017

Assistant Coach at Lasalle College High School, 2017-Present

Update April 2020 for LD ToC:

I'm usually a policy judge, I don't like phil debates or trix


I debated primarily blackness arguments in high school. I am well-versed in traditional afro-pessimism literature like Wilderson/Sexton/Warren, but also debated everything from Black Psychoanalysis, Weheliye, and Black communism to Culp and Will to Tech K’s. That being said, I am a general fan of K’s that are well-run.

It's quite cliche, but debate what's best for you. If you're a Baudrillard team normally, don't read race arguments that you think will appeal to me if they aren’t your strongest. The same can be said for a policy team. Don’t judge adapt unless you think it’s equally as strong a strategy. I would much rather hear you read your heg/econ aff than a relatively undeveloped warming aff.

At the end of the day, unless you do/say something egregious despite my own preference for arguments, I attempt to evaluate more tech than what I personally believe is truth, so do whatever you do well.

I enjoy good cx meaning you have a well prepared set of questions that conceivably have some tie-in to an argument you wish to make in the later debates or help clarify a point. While cx might have some influence on how I frame arguments subconsciously, I won't explicitly assume a cx argument has some impact on the rest of the debate unless you reference it and flag it.

Smart arguments and pointing out how the other team's evidence might not be as strong as initially thought is a plus-- I think it's a skill that is undervalued and will help you gain ethos advantage. Additionally, people sometimes assume that the tag of the evidence is what the card is, but I enjoy debate over the spin of the card whether it's a K link or politics uniqueness card.


I’m fine with these. They aren’t my favorite style of debate to judge, but I will be engaged if you do your best to ensure that the strategies are specific and relevant. I would much rather hear specific disads that are case relevant than a generic politics shell and a states counterplan shell. However, I do recognize that midterms and states counterplan are both staples on this topic, so just make sure your block analysis is case relevant

FW (offcase):

Not the biggest fan of this strategy, but I do recognize its popularity in debate. If you’re going for framework, I’ll feel more inclined to vote for your strategy if you attempt to engage the case rather than group their case arguments and say fairness outweighs. What do I mean by engage the case? That could mean anything from reading a cap K with aff specific links, reading case defense, or making your fw shell particular to what the aff has done


Big fan if done well but that’s mostly above

K aff’s:

Big fan.


'Sup. Alright, I'm a really chill judge (I think) with a preference for K arguments. Sure, you could win w/o a K with me, but try to make the round interesting. I'm going to vote for the argument that matters the most real world. Not really a fan of high policy arguments, but make it matter and I'll vote.

Don't be disrespectful.

Andrew Samuelson Paradigm

I'll try to be as tab as possible, but that means you need to be giving me a reason why I'm voting on any given argument or framework. If I'm not getting enough of a reason, I'll have to do some level of judge intervention, so all I ask is that you make it easy on me.

I debated in Oregon for 4 years doing policy, I've done parlimentary debate (competed at the ToC as well), and even a brief stint in Congress.

Speed is fine with me, but make sure you're very clear on your taglines because if I can't flow your argument, you might as well have not made it.

In the end, I believe the debate is your learning ground and I'm just there to decided who did a better job of playing the game and then providing feedback.

I read a good number of Ks or at least the lit for them, so I probably have some idea of what you're talking about, but please still explain it for me as if I don't know what your talking about. If I can't understand what your K is, I'm left to interpret it however I understand it, which may not be correct.

If you're going to read any politics disad(s), assume I know nothing about the current state of politics and break it down for me.

If you're going to read some sort of framework, please explain to me why the framework should be preferred (or if your opponents say nothing about it, I'll assume that's the framework we're debating).

In terms of theory arguments, I'm willing to vote any way on these, but I have a relatively low threshold for answers to straight condo bad, but I am much more inclined to hear a good logical-limited conditionality argument. If you're using theory as some sort of time skew or strat skew, I'm fine with that, but if you get called on it, I'm willing to hear an argument against it.

Finally, I've never seen an RVI read, but this is something I would probably be unlike to vote on, but given extreme levels of abuse, I suppose I could be persuaded.

Osmane Sanogo Paradigm

8 rounds

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.

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

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

My influences in debate have been Chris Randall, Jonathan Alston, Elijah Smith, and Devane Murphy. Also Osmane, that guy is sexy, phew.

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.


-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.


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


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


ha. HA. HA! HA! no.

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.


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.


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


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.


you drop it you lose.

Speaker points

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

Warren Sipe Paradigm

Put me on the email chain:

I debated for Pittsburgh Central Catholic in high school, graduating in 2018 and reading generally policy arguments on both sides. I read cap and framework against K affs. I don't have a preference for any specific argument types or styles, so debate how you want in front of me

Policy Preferences

I don't coach or judge very frequently, so I'm not the most up on the arm sales topic.


I debated a lot of T. If you're going to go for the argument, I really prefer to see interpretations that are customized to the aff and aren't generic to every argument on the topic. I think reasonability is pretty persuasive unless they have moved away from the topic more than normal. That being said, tech over truth, but just be aware that my threshold to vote on generic T interps may be higher than other judges.

Also, slow down when you are explaining standards and voters on T. I'm not going to catch everything if you spread full speed through blippy analytics.


I liked debating and judging k-aff rounds. I didn't run them in high school and I'm not the most familiar with critical theory, so if you're going to run something out of the box just make sure to explain it.


I think that framework can be a very interesting argument and ran it a lot.

You're probably not going to win a framework debate in front of me without some substantive case work. I think that fairness is an internal link to education.

K neg

Make sure to explain your link, and I'm going to be much more likely to vote for you if you show some sort of alt solvency.

Other than that, I'm pretty standard on all policy stuff. Just be sure to explain your arguments and do impact calc.

LD Preferences

I did mostly traditional LD for my first two years of debating, and competed at a few circuit LD tournaments during my sophomore and junior years. Given that, I understand the format and most LD specific jargon, but still spent the majority my last two years of debate and all of my time at camp doing policy and thus think more like a policy judge.

This means a couple of things for you. Firstly, in almost every LD debate I have judged, I would have liked the competitors to go for fewer arguments in their later speeches and explain those that they went for more thoroughly. Don't be afraid to kick advantages/ contentions- this will be a much better strategy in front of me. I will probably not be comfortable writing a ballot about an argument that was tagline extended throughout the debate- do warrant work.

Secondly, I tend to think that a lot of traditional LD framework debate is somewhat extraneous. If one side is running Kant and the other is running util, then clearly there needs to be framework debate. But if one side is running util and the other structural violence, I won't fault either side for basically leaving the framework debate untouched (in most situations). Use that time to provide deeper explanations of your arguments.

Finally, effective impact calculus is essential to win my ballot. Telling me what you are winning and why that is more important than what they are winning VERY CLEARLY in your terminal speech is the easiest way to my ballot. This can be done using your framework or through magnitude, timeframe, probability.

If you are debating circuit-style LD, refer to the policy preferences. One additional thing for circuit LD: I don't like extraneous theory. Unless there is actual in-round abuse, you're going to have to be winning pretty heavily on the tech to get my ballot. Unless it is cold dropped and you spend a substantial portion of your terminal speeches explaining the arguments, I will not vote for you on an RVI or T is not an a priori. I find arguments that the format of LD is inherently skewed for either the aff or the neg pretty unpersuasive.

Zoe Spielvogel Paradigm

This is my first year coaching a debate team, as well as my first year judging. I competed in Speech events when I was in high school, many years ago. I went to George Washington University for college, and I currently live in D.C. and teach 5th and 6th grade English/Language Arts. I studied journalism in college, so I appreciate arguments that are well-written and draw on the most current events.

Because I'm new to judging, I tend to vote for whichever side truly makes a more convincing argument. Confidence is key. Make eye contact, acknowledge my presence and your opponents' presence, and speak clearly. Organization is also key. So is knowing your vocabulary and correctly pronouncing names.

I tend to vote for the team that has a stronger understanding of the case. If you're the affirmative, you need to have a clear understanding of your plan - do not spend half of your argument citing evidence that you cannot explain in your own words. If you're the negative, you not only need to refute the affirmative's point, but actually prove why their plan is bad and will not work (or why your counter-plan is significantly better).

Lastly, but most importantly, teamwork is essential. I want to see supportive partnerships. Both partners should be flowing, and I prefer an open cross-ex. Good teamwork = Good teams.

Peter Susko Paradigm

If you are starting an email chain for the debate, I would like to be included on it:


Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm.


Most topicality debates come down to limits. This means it would be in your best interest to explain the world of your interpretation—what AFFs are topical, what negative arguments are available, etc—and compare this with your opponent’s interpretation. Topicality debates become very messy very fast, which means it is extremely important to provide a clear reasoning for why I should vote for you at the top of the 2NR/2AR.


Conditionality is good. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, unless told otherwise. Counterplans that result in plan action are questionably competitive. In a world where the 2NR goes for the counterplan, I will not evaluate the status quo unless told to by the negative. The norm is for theory debates to be shallow, which means you should slow down and provide specific examples of abuse if you want to make this a viable option in the rebuttals. The trend towards multi-plank counterplans has hurt clarity of what CPs do to solve the AFF. I think clarity in the 1NC on the counterplan text and a portion of the negative block on the utility of each plank would resolve this. I am also convinced the AFF should be allowed to answer some planks in the 1AR if the 1NC is unintelligible on the text.


I am willing to vote on a zero percent risk of a link. Vice versa, I am also willing to vote negative on presumption on case if you cannot defend your affirmative leads to more change than the status quo. Issue specific uniqueness is more important than a laundry list of thumpers. Rebuttals should include impact comparison, which decreases the amount of intervention that I need to do at the end of the debate.


I am not familiar with the literature, or terminology, for most criticisms. If reading a criticism is your main offensive argument on the negative, this means you’ll need to explain more clearly how your particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. For impact framing, this means explaining how the impacts of the criticism (whether it entails a VTL claim, epistemology, etc.) outweigh or come before the affirmative. The best debaters are able to draw links from affirmative evidence and use empirical examples to show how the affirmative is flawed. Role of the ballot/judge arguments are self-serving and unpersuasive.


In my eight years as a debater, I ran a policy affirmative and primarily went for framework against performance AFFs. The flow during performance debates usually gets destroyed at some point during the 2AC/block. Debaters should take the time to provide organizational cues [impact debate here, fairness debate here, accessibility debate here, etc.] in order to make your argument more persuasive. My lack of experience and knowledge with/on the literature base is important. I will not often place arguments for you across multiple flows, and have often not treated an argument as a global framing argument [unless explicitly told]. Impact framing and clear analysis help alleviate this barrier. At the end of the debate, I should know how the affirmative's advocacy operates, the impact I am voting for, and how that impact operates against the NEG.


I am not the fastest flow and rely heavily on short hand in order to catch up. I am better on debates I am more familiar with because my short hand is better. Either way, debaters should provide organizational cues (i.e. group the link debate, I’ll explain that here). Cues like that give me flow time to better understand the debate and understand your arguments in relation to the rest of the debate.


Prep time continues until the jump drive is out of the computer / the email has been sent to the email chain. This won't affect speaker points, however, it does prolong the round and eliminate time that I have to evaluate the round.

Josh Thorn Paradigm

8 rounds

I debated for 4 years at La Salle from 2006-2010, and then coached from 2010-2014. I no longer coach, but I still judge occasionally. I currently work as an attorney at a public defender's office.

I had a much more detailed paradigm up here, but it appears to have somehow been lost or deleted since the last time I judged. Since I no longer judge as frequently as I once did you shouldn't assume that I'm familiar with arguments just because they've been common on this year's topic.

Be nice to your opponents, don't steal prep, warrant/impact your arguments, make sure there's actual clash, and please don't make morally reprehensible arguments. Other than that, I'm more or less ok with however you want to proceed in a round. For more detailed feelings about specific arguments, feel free to ask me before the round.

Tyler Toomey Paradigm

I debated for BCC. I ran clowns last year.

Anything is cool, just run stuff and articulate it well.

Ask me what happened my novice year when I made it to semis at lakeland as a mav.

David Trigaux Paradigm

David Trigaux
Director of the Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL), former coach at several other schools in VA and FL.

I debated in high school and college at a reasonably high level. I do A LOT of research about each year's topic, writing a lot of our core files, etc. I am an active coach that works with 500+ students each year, from brand new MS students refining their literacy skills to national circuit teams looking to innovate and do well at the TOC. Policy debate is my full time job.

I judge 4-6 national tournaments each year, and don't get many local rounds as I am usually directing the tournament.

The things you are probably looking for:

  • Speed: I can handle whatever you throw at me (debate used to be faster than it is now), though I prefer you going at 90%, clearer and emotive than your top speed.
  • Style: I was a flex debater and generally coach the same way.
  • Tech/Truth: Probably Tech>Truth, but not to an extreme.
  • Theory: I often find these debates shallow, lacking specifics and trading-off with more educational, common sense arguments. Use when needed, not as Plan A.
  • Performance: I am interested in and have debated/coached against many performative cases, but haven't seen many as a judge. Please remember to be clear why you are performing.
  • Shadow Extending: I don’t flow author’s names in Varsity rounds, so if you are trying to extend your Smith evidence, talk to me about the warrants or I won’t know what you are talking about. Novices get a lot of latitude here.
  • Pre-dispositions: I was born and live in Washington D.C., and worked in electoral politics and on a range of federal policy issues outside of debate. This has shaped a belief that governance of some kind is inevitable. The US government has a poor track-record on many issues, but I find generic "state bad" links unpersuasive, historically untrue, and/or insufficiently nuanced. I think you are better than that, and I challenge you to make nuanced, specific, and well researched claims instead of generics. Teams that take that next step easily impress me, usually win, and get exceedingly high speaker points, while those that don't usually lose badly. This background also makes me more interested in implementation and methodology of change than the average judge, so specifics and beyond the buzzword real contextualizations on plan/alt, etc. Solvency are great.

The more I work with an Urban Debate League, the more I view debate as an educational activity not a competitive sport. I reward hard work, creative thinking, and original research (Read: Not barfing Open Ev Downloads that you haven’t studied at high speed, or obscure theories that can't be connected to the real world outside of a debate round.)

I will give high speaker points to folks who can demonstrate these criteria, even in defeat.

Notes About Technology: I was a grumpy old man when it comes to technology, but find that I enjoy online debates.

1. Evidence Sharing: Please practice evidence sharing. In an online world, this is a debate technique just like flowing.

2. Viewing Laptops/Accessibility: If you don't have a way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (a 3rd, "viewing" laptop), you will automatically lose in front of me and get very low speaker points—this is a big accessibility question for the activity that I am very aware of as the director of an urban debate league where 75% of our rounds occur on paper. Ignore during COVID: Please be nice to teams that have tech issues, we're all trying something new here.

3. Email Chains: I don't often get on or look at email chains. This is a persuasive activity. If I don’t hear it/flow it, you didn't do enough to win the point and I’m not going to read along and do work for you. I’ll call cards after the round if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to appropriate your citations.

My old partner used to say that my judging philosophy was “don’t do stupid shit,” and I think that still holds true. Above all, be personable and remember this is an educational activity. If I missed something you find pertinent, please don’t hesitate to ask.

Ways to get low speaks

  1. The term "D Rule"--No such thing, stop looking for a cheap way out. I will chuckle then hurt your speaks
  2. Douchebags--I am very flexible with speaker points, heavily rewarding good research, wit, and humor, and am willing to nuke your speaker points if you are rude, demeaning, racist/sexist, etc.


Disadvantages: I like the disadvantage, and think that too many debates lack a DA in the 1NC.

o Ways to get better speaker points: Creative, Topic or Aff specific DAs that required some thinking and research. Updates.

o Politics DA: Given my background in professional politics, I am a big fan of a well-run/researched politics DA. I read Politico and The Hill daily, and nerd out for this stuff. I also know that there just isn't a logical scenario some weekends. Do your research, I’ll know if you haven’t.

o Please Don’t: Read an elections DA after the election is over, not know when the mid-terms are, or be wrong about what the bill you are talking about does (All terrible things I’ve seen lately).

· The Counterplan: I like a substantive counterplan debate.

o Ways to get better speaker points: Topic/Aff specific CPs. Well written/explained generics with nuance (like Courts). Clearly explained net benefit stories. Questionably competitive counterplans (consult, PIC, condition, etc.) IF supported by strong, real world solvency advocates. Substantive, non-theoretical responses (even if uncarded) to CPs.

o Please Don’t: Bullshit the net benefit story, default to theory in the 2AC

· Procedurals/Topicality: Can be a strong strategy if used appropriately/creatively

o Ways to get better speaker points: Please prove abuse. Have good sources and intent to define. Slow down. Less jargon, more examples. Creative Violations

o Please Don’t: Run stupid procedurals just to out-tech your opponents.

o If winning on theory is your goal going in against a reasonably topical affirmative, strike me.

· On Case Debate: Needs to be in more 1NCs. The CJR topic is made for case debates, please do your homework pre-tournament!

o Ways to get good speaker points: Easy way to demonstrate that you done hard work and know what you are talking about—have specific attacks on the mechanism or advantage scenarios of the Aff, even if just smart analytics.

o Please don’t: concede the case. Spend a lot of time reading arguments you can’t go for later.

· The Kritik: I started my debate career as a 1 off K Debater, and grew to see it as part of a balanced strategy.

o Ways to get good speaker points: Smart choice of K that fits the Aff. Aff specific links. Identifying evidence, actions, rhetoric, representations, etc. in the 1AC that are links. Coherent Alt solvency. Specific explanations, usually in CX, of how the alt works/what the world of the alt looks like. Impact framing.

o Literature: I have read a lot of K literature, but nobody is well versed in all literature bases. Overviews and non-jargony tags are great to provide the thesis of your argument in your own words.

o Role of the Ballot: I default to serving as a policymaker, but will embrace alternative roles if you are clear A) what that is in your first speech, and B) why it is preferable.

o Please Don’t: Generic Links. Run a K because you always do, even if it isn’t a good fit for the affirmative. Alts you can’t explain/provide examples for.

Guillermo Vidaurre Paradigm

I debated 4 years in High School in Kansas. Ran some Ks but mostly Politics. I live in the DC area (MD side) and judge about once a month but not elite high speed rounds.

I am happy to answer any questions before rounds.

Speed: I haven't been judging super fast rounds in a while. So if you do speed be clear and sign post.

Topicality: I think plans should be topical but I am willing to listen to reasons why not.

DAs: They are good. Link is always the most important part for me. I ran a lot of politics so I encourage it if possible but it doesnt mean I will automatically vote for it.

Ks: I don't know all philosophy ever written. So if you run something make sure you explain it well. I also like Framework to be run with a K. It just helps me know how you want me to judge the round a little better.

Shion Wagner Paradigm

Shion Nakamura Wagoner

Judging for Desert Vista HS

Did Policy for 3 years in High School mostly read ID Ks

Judged last 2 years mostly Novice

fine with what the other people in the room are fine with as long as it isn't harmful

I will probably not keep track of prep

I don't like when teams act "superior" if that makes sense

even though i will flow everything i should be able to see who picks up based on 2nr/2ar and i usually flow those separately because it's easier for me to make sense of things

tell me where you want me to flow what (please!)

Probably will find K rounds more enjoyable

Probably can't give any Varsity teams any advice but will try anyways

personal stuff:

I like my home city a lot (Phoenix)

TLOP > Yeezus/808s > College Dropout/MBDTF > KSG > Late Reg/Ye > JIK/Graduation > WTT/CS

IGOR > Cherry Bomb > Wolf/Flower Boy > Goblin/Bastard

TPAB > GKMC > Untitled > Section 8.0 > Damn > Black Panther

although all of that is subject to frequent change

Patrick Wilborn Paradigm

I have been coaching debate for two years and have judged over a dozen local and national tournament rounds. There are not many requirements for me. I do have things I'm looking for and that is probably what you want anyway.

  • Speed: I'm not the best when it comes to flowing speed reading (spreading). I prefer clear and emotive speaking, rather than your top speed.
  • Style: I'm open to most styles of debate, but don't let your style take away from the actual debate. That is something I don't like to see.
  • Theory: I don't particularly like theory debates, I think they take away from the spirit of the debate. Use only when needed.
  • Shadow Extending: I haven't had to flow a lot of extensions in Varsity debates, but if you are extending evidence make sure you're doing it properly. (I will not flow author's names)
  • Pre-dispositions: I was born in Texas, lived in Washington D.C., and I'm currently living in Maryland. I've worked in electoral politics and a few federal policy issues outside of debate. I hold that the U.S. government has had a bad record with multiple issues, but just saying "state bad" will not impress or persuade me. I like strong back and forth debates on plans, solvency, etc. The more the debate stays focused on the case, the better speaking points I give.
  • Speaking Points: I'm flexible with speaker points. I reward good research, emotive speaking and humor. However, if you are rude, demeaning, racist/sexist, etc. I will not hesitate to lower your score to the single digits.

Jan Wimmer Paradigm

8 rounds

I did policy for 4 years in high school at Loyola High School in Los Angeles and competed nationally. I've judged bid rounds and final rounds in policy and LD. I did parli at Tulane and was an assistant coach at Isidore Newman in New Orleans for a couple of years. I judged a lot between 2011-2015, both in the Louisiana area and at a good few national tournaments.

Tell me how to vote; paint me a picture in your last rebuttal and it will make me very happy. I like being told where and how to vote.

I was a fairly well rounded debater in high school, so I probably have familiarity with most arguments you're reading. My senior year, we went for States CP+Politics most rounds, would read the Cap K almost every round on the neg, and went for conditionality bad about once a tournament on Aff. I also read a Deleuze and Guattari aff before. However, if you're reading a weird K like Badiou that nobody reads, I'm probably not going to know it intuitively. That said, feel free to go for these arguments! I just won't know the lit for more obscure Ks.

If I don't get world of alt or a clear try or die/turns case on the K I'm probably not going to vote for it. Tell me how and where to evaluate pre-fiat impacts and how they interact with the role of the ballot if relevant.

I love good T debates. I love good theory debates. I will not just vote on theory or T just because it is dropped. Impact it like any other argument. I have a lower threshold than most for rejecting arguments due to theory than most. Either in-round abuse or why potential abuse in this specific instance, if you want me to reject team is almost always going to be needed.

Slow down on T and Theory. I hate if I can't flow it.

I think RVIs on theory are generally dumb but will vote on them if impacted well; I think RVIs on T are probably never true but I've voted on them in the past. I have a very low threshold for answering most RVIs.

Don't be that team that spends 6 minutes on case reading defense. Please read offense or some framework-esque reasons why defense should be enough to win. Disads probably shouldn't get 100% risk of link just on the nature of them being dropped, but if you're not calling them out on it, it's way easier for me as a judge to give them more leeway than I perhaps should.

I'm going to be able to understand spreading at any speed, but if your opponent can't understand spreading, slow down so that there's actually a debate so they can actually understand what's going on. Nobody is impressed that you can outspread a novice from a lay circuit; just win on the flow if you're better than them.

If your advocacy has exclusive impacts, a role of the ballot, or solvency based on who you are, I am going to look for any and every way I can to drop you. Links based on personal experience are fine as long as personal experiences or conditions are not solvency mechanisms or ways to access the ballot in and of themselves. I think it's great when people use personal experiences into the debate space as an impetus or motivator for change, but I get incredibly bothered when anyone tries to exclude others from the ballot because of a lack of doing X thing outside of the debate space or hold a given person's positionality against them in being able to access solvency on a given position in said debate space.

Ask if the above is confusing, I tried to make it as clear as possible.

I'm fine with tag team and flex prep if both teams are.

Flashing is off time. Don't prep during flashing or I will either dock speaks or take off prep time, depending on circumstances. Include me in any email chains;

I default to:

Competing Interpretations
T before Theory before K

It is very easy to convince me to vote under some other paradigm though. If you win that I should be a stock issues judge, then I'll be your stock issues judge.

I dislike (but may still vote for):

Really Generic Politics DAs (I love intrinsic perms on politics because I dislike this argument)
Disclosure Theory
Speed Theory debates unless there's a clear need for it
Consult CPs
Tons of AC spikes
Shitty K debates where no one knows what's going on
Severance Perms (I probably won't reject team off of one, though)
People changing their alts or advocacies mid debate without a really good reason (ex: a team dropped reciprocity of conditionality means the aff can read a new plan at any point)
People saying that the opponent dropped an argument when they didn't (I will give you a look and it will affect speaks)
People reading Ks on case and not telling me they're reading a K on case in their overview

Darell Womack Paradigm

It's cool frfr. I'll judge your round. Don't be a racist or w/e and make your arguments well.

-See Devon Schley's Paradigm, we're basically the same person but I like Afropess less-

Andrew Yim Paradigm



I've debated for 8 years, 4 for Broad Run High School, and 4 for James Madison University (JMU); so I like to think I know a thing or two about debate.

I’m open to any and every argument. You do you because I want to see YOU in the round, and I will evaluate those arguments based on how the debate plays out. I also enjoy clash in-round, so do that well and your speaker points might get a present.

Main Key Points

- 1. Have fun. Debate is supposed to be fun. You can be both serious and playful.
- 2. Be respectful to your partner and opponents both in and out of the round. There's a difference between passion and aggression in debates, and I'm sure you know that difference. Nothing makes me more agitated and annoyed than a debate that turns into an angry accusation match.
- 3. I know you want to win, but don’t put your ego in front of others. This is supposed to an inviting activity, you’re all (soon-to-be) adults, be responsible and check yourselves. Y'all enjoy debate for a reason; so don't rob others of theirs.
- 4. I value effort over everything else. I will be happy to offer feedback and advice to help improve your future debates. Producing your full effort throughout the round yields greater feedback and gives you a better reputation as a student and as a debater.


Specific Prefs

T - I have a decently high threshold on T. If you’re extending a standard, warrant the impact and the given round, and prove why your interpretation meets these standards. T needs to be coherent and not treated just as an argument with separate unlinked entities. Teams who run critical affs, don't just mention that "T leads to X violence/abuse/etc." That statement alone isn't an argument. Explain and elaborate why that applies to your case. For me, this argument is just trying to avoid a T debate unless you can specifically prove why it is true. Also, please know the difference between T-Framework and the procedural implications of T.

DA - Uniqueness and links are important, but you still have to explain why both matter. Just because you have either doesn't mean you'll win the debate. Internal link stories and impacts are equally as important. Explain why they prove the DA story in relation to the case and/or your other arguments. I'm also not a huge fan of PTX theory, so if you’re going to run it, just make sure to articulate it well.

CP - Make sure to have a CP text. I can't stress this enough. CPs should also have a net-benefit(s) because without it, there’s no reason for me to vote for it. You also need to prove why it's textually and functionally competitive against the plan. Also, explain why the plan doesn’t access the net benefit(s) and articulate your perm answers well. When answering the CP, warrant your perms and solvency deficits.

K - I'm open to most K's. However, just because the other team doesn't understand the K doesn't mean I'm going to default vote for you. You still have to explain the K's functionality and be consistent with it rather than just say “they dropped the link, extend the alt, and they didn’t perm. We should win this round.” Specific links are nice. Also, make sure to explain the alt solvency and why your impacts outweigh the aff’s. I will be skeptical if the story isn’t told well or if a key element wasn’t explained thoroughly. When answering the K, make sure to at least perm and extend it throughout the debate if you're going for it. Also, perm theory, perf con, condo, and multiple worlds are still viable options to go for if the violation is proven.

Critical Affs - I’m willing to listen to any argument as long as they’re articulated well. Most of my K aff paradigm is a cross-over from the K section: if you want me to evaluate your argument the way you want me to, then make sure to tell a significant story, why it matters, and why your methodology matters. The perm debates should also be specific and analysis-heavy.

Framework - I will vote for framework if they are explained properly and can either prove abuse or no abuse depending on the side. Also, make sure to consistently defend your interpretation and impacts. Whoever’s interpretation should also apply to both teams and not just to favor one's chances of winning.

Theory - Don’t spread theory (at least not at top speed). I have a pretty high threshold when voting on it. If an argument is dropped, don’t just reread it because that's not going to mean much. Warrant the abuse, and impact it because a couple/few well-explained dropped theory args is probably better than rereading the same jargon-filled theory lines in your block.

Extending/Cross-Applying - When extending evidence, don’t just read the cites and the tag line. Provide a warrant(s) to your claims and why that particular evidence is important in your speech. A card or extension is useless without warrants; so if you give me just the tag, author, and date, it will either not be evaluated, or labeled as a weak argument extension. Extending arguments well and comparing evidence (providing clash between arguments) will also help your speaker points.

Spreading & Flowing - Spreading is fine, but clarity is definitely more important. Flowing shouldn't be a problem, but I do expect you to follow your roadmap.

Prep Time - I only have 3 rules:

- 1. Don't steal prep. This means when someone says "stop prep", that means EVERYONE stops what they're doing and stop thinking about debate.
- 2. Prep ends when you're about to pull the flash drive (with the file) out of the laptop, or the email is about to be sent. Doing the whole "stop prep, now I just need to copy and paste the cards and put the doc on the flash drive" or "okay let me cut out the analytics from this doc and then I'll send the email out" is basically stealing prep and only hurts the amount of time you allow for me to give feedback.


In Conclusion...
Look, I know it's a lot to read and consider with seemingly nit-picky points on all types of argumentation, but all of this doesn't necessarily represent any form of arbitrary stance on any particular issue. These are just my opinions and practices when judging, and I will always prioritize flowing as my main tool in making a decision over the above block of text. Like I said before, you do you, as long as you own up to it.

Stephanie Zhang Paradigm



Fall 2020 Updates:

I have not heard online debates in years, so if spreading is involved, please start slow so I can get used to what is going on.

If there are concerns/questions: email me or flag me down before round.

I debated for all four years of high school (2015-2019), spending the first three and half years in policy and the second semester of my senior year dabbling in LD. I was both a 2A and 2N at varying points in my policy career. I’m now a math and sociology double major at UVA and coach middle school PF and Speech through the Charlottesville Debate League.

Although I still judge policy and LD from time to time, I’m not actively coaching either and my primary involvements are more PF/Speech/WSD oriented. This means that I don’t keep up with research (and don’t know really topic specific acronyms or concepts), don’t really know what current community norms are on topicality and haven’t heard spreading since March 2020. That being said, I still filter a lot of rounds, regardless of event through a policy-oriented lens.

I was never a super successful debater and there will be things I don’t understand being said or done (especially as I adapt to WSD). That being said, that, and everything else on this paradigm is a predisposition, not an absolute. I will never claim to be tabula rasa but my own preferences are a weak default at best rather than an all-encompassing framework for how I evaluate rounds.

This paradigm is quite long, but I tried to make it comprehensive since I judge a few different events in a few different settings. You can assume my meta-level thoughts on debate translate between events to some extent.

Table of contents:

1. Top level

2. Policy, Progressive LD

3. Traditional LD, PF

4. WSD

5. WACFL/Lay rounds

6. Misc.

1. Top level thoughts

Things not up for negotiation: Speech/prep time and the fact that I am signing your ballot and it is not a referendum of truth or my alignment with a movement but simply who I think won.

Don’t be rude: I don’t think I’ll have to do this but if a round is getting out of hand, I reserve the right to step in and stop the round.

I don’t read card texts and when I do, it’s either a few pieces of evidence in a super close debate or all the evidence in a debate where no one did any work for me. This means it’s important you control the spin of evidence, flush out warrants and do evidence comparison (or just do comparisons in general). I tend to think quality over quantity for evidence—smart analytics can beat bad cards and you should call out bad evidence.

Write my RFD and resolve important questions—I don't enjoy intervening on the flow and tend to take the path of least resistance. Good final speakers (2AR/2NR, NR/2AR, etc) will make voting issues very clear through framing, judge instruction, filtering comparison through nexus questions in the debate and organizing responses to their opponents. When I evaluate a round, regardless of event, I generally look to the biggest points of clash and impact comparison.

Nuance tends to win rounds in front of me. The more specific you are with your analysis, the more likely I am to vote for you. This might be articulating specific links to the affirmative, having a nuanced solvency takeout or being able to explain distinctions between theoretical scenarios and a specific instance.

Presumption can be convincing, and I tend to think that terminal defense can tip a debate. I can be convinced that there is no risk of an I/L, an impact or the aff has no solvency.

Tech > Truth, but: the sillier an argument is, the lower my threshold for answering it is. Your argument should pass the “makes sense” test. I am a little less inclined than most with dropped arguments because I still think there's a necessary amount of impact analysis and warranting needed for me to buy them, so if you want to win on a dropped argument you should still be spending a substantial chunk of time on it.

Clarity > speed: Speed is the number of arguments on my flow, not your words per minute. You get one clear and after that I’ll only flow what I can.

Be nice. Have fun. Treat your partner and your opponents with respect. It's nice to be important (and win rounds), but it's even more important to be nice (and be treated/treat others with basic human decency)

2. Policy, Progressive LD


Debate is a game. Whether it should mean anything else is up for debate.

I like these debates. I went almost exclusively for USFG affs and framework on the neg but I’ve dabbled in the occasional K aff and really enjoyed it. I tend to think the affirmative should have a direct relationship to the topic (I particularly enjoy when this is creative), a stable advocacy/action (this excludes doing nothing) and a robust framework response.

Both sides need to do impact calc as to why their model of debate is preferable. I find that I tend to vote for the side that most directly engages the other (case specific disads, directly indicting the neg model of debate, etc).

Fairness is better as an internal link than an impact.

I don’t think a TVA needs to solve 100%, and I tend to frame it as a CP. A good TVA that is mishandled can singlehandedly win debates.


T wasn’t my strong suit in high school, but I’m certainly down to listen to it.

I err slightly (55-45) towards reasonability, but the more “what the hell” an aff is, the more persuaded I am by T. I don’t really think good affirmatives on a topic have to fall under one definition.

No RVIs please and thank you


Don’t just regurgitate your theory blocks. If I miss half your standards I’m not going to think that it’s a voter. In-round abuse needs to be flushed out, and if you’re going hard for theory you better be ready to do this.

I tend to think condo is good, but this becomes a sliding scale the more conditional options end up in the 1NC.

I’m not a fan of "new affs bad", disclosure theory, and the like. Friv theory will make me put my pen down. I don’t care if it’s policy or LD.


I like Ks that are applied specifically to the aff, not just a broad theory of understanding the status quo—your links should be specific to the mechanism of the plan, not just “the topic sucks” or “fiat sucks”. The best K debates spin convincing stories by filtering the action of the affirmative through their literature base.

I tend to think mitigating harm is a good thing. Take that how you will

I think a team can win metalevel framing questions and still lose technical concessions

Please just be honest about how long your overview is, although if it's more than 2 minutes I would suggest reevaluating it later.

I’m not great with postmodernism and you’ll probably need to go <75% for me to catch everything

The ROB is only a question of impact calculus. I generally default to “better debating” since most teams don’t really flush out their reasons to prefer. Framework debates matter surprisingly little if each side puts up a fight.

I have very little experience with K v. K debates, but my default is that the affirmative gets a perm. Perm theory, like a lot of other theory, tends to annoy me a lot when it’s done poorly.


I dig. Have fun. Impact calc. Have answers that aren’t just the framing advantage. I love me a good in-depth debate with flushed out turns case arguments in the o/v and clean line by line. I still love politics DAs when they’re good, which is proving much harder these days.

Topic literature is the best indication of what CPs are competitive. You should have solvency evidence.


Case debate

For K Affs (+see FW section): I’m not going to make presumption arguments for the neg, but I might raise my eyebrows at solvency claims. I've always been skeptical of how my role as a judge plays in. Both sides should take advantage of that

3. PF, Traditional LD

Evidence quality matters, and it matters a lot. That includes source, dates, including the full text of the evidence, etc. I realize traditional LD (and the PF debates I’ve seen) don’t particularly reward evidence disclosure, but that shouldn’t be an excuse to engage in dubious practices (making up evidence, clipping, mis-citing evidence) for the sake of winning. If I catch you doing so I will auto-drop you, since this is academic dishonesty.

Organization is important. Please do line by line, presumably down the page in an organized fashion. I think doing 2 minute overviews are bad and I tend to get peeved when the last rebuttals devolve into such. You should still be doing comparisons, weighing value/vc, doing impact calculus and responding to your opponent’s arguments in a neat and orderly fashion.

LD specific: I am much less familiar with political philosophy (i.e: not familiar) than most, so Kant and the like will take a little more explanation.

4. WSD

I never did Worlds, so most of my knowledge of how it works comes from YouTube, the internet and my own personal understanding of public speaking.

I’m still getting used to the idea of being an actively involved judge (keeping time and tapping on the table, “chairing” a round and having to call all the speakers up, etc) as well as the speaker point system (which is actually kind of confusing) so please bear with me in the process of doing so.

I tend to think of POIs as a mini-cross x, which means the way I think about their efficacy is through the lens of how the speaker and the person raising the POI control the situation and speak.

Like with all debate, I usually listen for things like comparison, nuance, “even-if” statements, nexus questions and filtering key issues through those questions and evaluation metrics, particularly in the last speech to help guide my decisionmaking process. Stylistically, I generally tend to gravitate away from grandstanding approaches, particularly if they fail to give substantive responses. Although I realize line by line is not a feature of WSD to the same extent it is in Policy and LD, I still think being able to merge storytelling and responding efficiently to your opponent's arguments is a necessary skill.

5. WACFL/Lay rounds

WACFL's insistence on non-disclosure is really silly but I also realize that flighted rounds are a thing and I don't want to keep the round after yours waiting. That being said, you're more than welcome to track me down during lunch or between rounds to ask. You're also welcome to contact me after the tournament if you have more questions I can answer.

I am much more tolerant of tomfoolery (spreading, progressive cases) than most, but only if both teams are open to doing so.

6. Other things

I start at a 28.5 and move up/down. I’m still getting used to judging so bear with me while I figure out the intricacies of giving speaker points. I also try to bring my speaker points in line with the tournament/division.

I have a pretty terrible poker face and you 100% should use that to your advantage. I’m probably not mad at you (unless you ran friv theory despite my paradigm telling you not to) and it’s more likely I’m just confused, processing something you said or tired.

I don’t feel comfortable making a judgement on something that happened outside of the round.

I also have a bizarre curiosity about where/when people have their “last rounds”, so feel free to tell me if it’s yours.