PDI Camp Tournament

2019 — Northridge, CA/US

Ronak Ahuja Paradigm

8 rounds

I LOVE THE RVI jk its an uphill battle GL

Email - me@ronak.cc Pronouns - they/them

I debated for Chaminade and then Futures Academy in high school, and now debate in college at Binghamton.

Qualifications - I did Policy and LD, cleared at the toc twice in LD (doubles, semis), and got twelve total bids.

I'm down to listen to any style of debate- just do you.

Respect people's pronouns and do not be racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. Don't attempt to try to take my or your opponents flows/computers. Speaking during your partners speech is okay if there's a valid reason, ill flow you.

Yes, I will vote for framework. I went for it a bunch my senior year.

K - be interesting!! a lack of enthusiasm or obvious disregard for the theory you are reading from is always really upsetting. I prefer if you have links to the plan action, but don't let that deter you from doing what you do best. Using the same language the other team uses to make link arguments is crucial in these debates.

*Unless told otherwise, I tend to decide these debates by asking the question of what impacts a ballot for either team would solve and filtering other arguments through that.

DA's and CP's - The more specific, the better. Well researched pics and advantage counter-plans are some of the best debates. Im open to cheaty counterplans, just be good at the theory debate.

T - I like these debates. I think about it similarly to a cp/da debate. Win that the da's to their model of debate, outweighs the benefit. I'll evaluate these debates by first resolving the competing interpretations/reasonability debate.

Unwarranted arguments even if dropped, are still not arguments. Tech>Truth but I'll likely be tired and if the debate is irresolvable, i'm more likely to do work for the team making more logical arguments.

I'm susceptible to good humor and will probably give you high speaks if you make laugh.


I don't default judge kick - but can be convinced either way.

1nc contradictions are usually okay, double turns are not.

The side advocating for less change gets presumption.

Jacob Fontana Paradigm

8 rounds

Homewood Flossmoor High School 2011-2015

Pomona College 2015-2019 (not debating)


Meta Level

The more work you do, the happier you will be with my decision. By this I don’t just mean that I reward smart strategies, research, etc. (I do), but rather that the better you explain and unpack an argument and tell me how to evaluate it, the less likely my own biases and preferences will affect the decision. With this in mind, there are a couple takeaways


-          Framing is important. At a certain point, this seems redundant to say (obviously impact calc is important), but all too often debaters fail to “tie up” the debate in a way that is easy to evaluate. What impacts matter? What arguments should I look to first? How should I think about making decisions? Leaving these calls up to my gut may not work out well for you. Do not assume that I will put together the pieces of your argument in the way that is most favorable to you, or the way that you they should be viewed. Your best bet is to do this for me. As a general rule of thumb, your likelihood of picking up my ballot is directly proportional to the number of “even if” statements you make.


-          truth and tech are both important and the divisions between them are far more arbitrary and vacuous than it is usually given credit for. That being said, it is up to you to give me a metric for evaluating what claims are true. What types of evidence should I look to? Should I view that evidence through a certain lens? How should I treat dropped/under covered arguments? Obviously I have some personal proclivities that may be harder to overcome than others


o   I will always tend to evaluate dropped arguments far less than extended arguments. This does not mean that dropped arguments are automatically “true” or that truth claims made earlier in the debate are suddenly gone (that may well require more work on my part), but it does mean that I am less likely to give these arguments weight.


o   Although they can be important parts of a speech, I am not inclined to give as much weight to solipsistic narratives as evidence. This is not a hard or fast preference, and some smart framing arguments about the way I should evaluate narratives will go a long way, but do not assume I will immediately evaluate a narrative as evidence in its own right sans an evidenced claim that I should evaluate them this way.


o   Make smart analytic arguments, these can often be better than reading yet another terrible uniqueness card on the politics disad. The more I see you thinking for yourself and making creative and smart arguments in a debate, the better speaks you will get.


I appreciate creative and innovative strategies, maybe more than others. If you want to bust out that weird impact turn or super cheating counterplan or sweet ass new K, you should do that. You will always be better at doing what you do best. Please don’t feel deterred from reading a strategy in front of me because the community has generally frowned on it (spark, death good, etc.), I’m down to hear things outside of the norm. That being said, I included a few notes about how I feel/debated like in high school, you can take these preferences however you want, they are subject to change within a round.

As a caveat, Debate should be a space where everyone feels welcome. Please do not read racist/sexist/anti-queer/ableist/ or otherwise offensive arguments in front of me.


Please add me on the email chain: Jacob.a.fontana@gmail.com.



I debated both sides of this extensively in high school. I will not “penalize” you for reading framework; I think it is a smart and strategic argument. Similarly, do not assume that because you read framework you have my ballot, I am very middle of the road on these issues. You should treat this as any other K/CP strategy you have read. Too often teams miss nuance in these debates and read a bunch of state good/bad evidence while neglecting the smaller moving pieces, I tend to think those are important, and the more you address the internal link level of the debate, the better off you will be.



Affirmatives should find ways to leverage offense against the negatives interpretation. Playing some light defense and reading some reasonability blacks is not going to win you my ballot. I generally tend to default to competing interpretations. Furthermore, teams need to treat this debate more like disad, you should do impact calc, read impact, link, or internal link turns, explain why your interp solves a portion of their offense, etc. I greatly enjoy smart T debates and will reward you handsomely in speaker points if you execute it well.



Absolute defense (or defense to the point where I should cease to evaluate the disad outside of the noise of status quo) is a thing and far too few debaters go for. 90 percent of disads are absolute garbage and you shouldn’t be afraid to point that out. More broadly, Offense defense tends to be a heavily neg biased model of debate and contributes to a lot (in my eyes) to the denigration of the activity towards the most reality-divorced hyperbolic impact claims, and I will not default to it. Obviously this is subject to change in a given round, but you should be conscious of the weight I tend to give to defensive arguments. In general, I think link controls the direction of uniqueness, but I can easily be persuaded otherwise


Please, if you have it, read something different than politics. I don’t hate the politics disad, but it is an often overused strategy and I will reward your innovation with speaker points



Any argument is legitimate until it is not, don’t hesitate to read your cheating counterplans in front of me, but be ready to defend them. Theory debates are good and valuable, but I do not want to listen to you read your blocks at 400 words a minute. Slow down, make smart arguments, and go for what you’re ahead on. Less is often more in these situations. I actually very much enjoy good theory debates and find them quite interesting. You should treat these like any other type of debate, you should do impact calc, flesh out internal links, etc.



I have a reasonable familiarity with most mainstream critiques and greatly enjoy these debates. In high school, I would most often read the security or the cap K, but this should not be interpreted as an exclusionary list. You do you and I’ll likely jive with it. I will reward innovation, reading a tailored critique is far more interesting to me than rereading the same Spanos block your team has had for the last 8 years. The one caveat here is that my familiarity with certain “high theory” authors (Bataille, Deleuze, etc.) is rather passing. I am more than certainly open to hearing these arguments and don’t have any prejudices against them (I debated on the same team as Carter Levinson for 3 years), but this does mean that you may need to take extra time to unpack arguments and contextualize them in terms of the debate.



Topic Notes

I have not worked on the China Topic, for you this means you probably want to slow down on, and possibly explain, acronyms the first couple times.


Ethics violations

Ethic violations are deliberate, not accidental. Missing a few words or accidentally skipping a line isn’t a big deal, but repeatedly doing that or doing it in a way that is clearly intentional is. If you believe that someone has committed an ethics violation, please start recording the round, I also reserve the right to do this. If I think you are clipping, I may start a recording of my own, I will also try read along in the speech docs whenever possible. If I do determine you’ve committed a violation, you will lose the debate and receive 0 speaks, I will also speak to your coaches. Clipping is a serious offense and I will treat it with the attention it deserves.



Keagan Mirazee Paradigm

8 rounds

Add me to the email chain: kmirazee@gmail.com

Debated at The Woodlands for 4 years.

4 Bids to the TOC

1st Place Senior Michigan Round Robin



I have exclusively invested my high school career in non-traditional debate. And I am most familiar with structural criticisms (Anti-blackness, Queerness, Settler Colonialism, etc.)

If your ideal 1NC is a 6 off DA/CP strategy vs a plan affirmative, pref me lower.

If your ideal 1NC is a 1 off kritik vs a plan aff/non-plan aff, pref me higher.

This is not because I do not see the merits of plan-based debate, but rather that I am unfamiliar with the technical jargon of rapid paced economic/IR/political/etc. theory.


procedural fairness is not an impact.



--- I tend to think conditionality is bad.

--- I am somewhat unsympathetic to Topicality vs. plan affs

--- Disclosure is good.

--- Evidence quality matters, but articulation and spin matter more

--- Judge Instruction is great - isolate your best arguments in the 2NR/2AR and explain why that means you win.

Andrew Overing Paradigm

8 rounds

anovering@gmail.com – please try to have the chain ready before the round starts.

I debated for 4 years for Loyola HS in LD, where I primarily read util arguments with a lot of theory and phil on the side. Didn’t read Ks but at this point understand them fairly well and vote on them with some frequency. My judging views are influenced by my family as well as John Scoggin, Kathleen Scoggin, Katya Ehresman, and Maya Sanghavi.

Quick Prefs/Info:

Util/LARP – 1

Theory – 1/2

Philosophy – 1/2

Stock K’s – 2/3

If any position is super funky, I’m down for it! I am, in general, extremely tab.

Strong Suggestions

1) Be kind. Don't lie, don't be a jerk, don't outspread novices.

2) Have fun and help others have fun! Make puns and other jokes. Take yourself lightly. Experiment! Debate allows you to run whatever argument you want, so express yourself. More on this later.

3) Err on the side of overexplanation – if I cant explain why you won, you will lose. “Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round." (Michael Overing) I won’t fill in the gaps, and if I cannot give a coherent reason for why you’ve won, you will lose. I’m not a fan of implicit clash – be explicit, not implicit.


Be On Team Confidence.

Being on team confidence is two-fold: It means having confidence in your team: In your teammates, your coaches, and your friends. Don't let them down - try your best. It also means having confidence in your arguments and yourself. This kind of confidence should mean that you own your arguments, that you can stand by them. At the end of the day, you are your only advocate - no one else in the room is going to argue on your behalf, and they rarely will out of the room either.

Why be confident? Frankly: debate is an opportunity for self-expression - hence, be kind, and have fun. Hence, be confident. Confidence means you should have self-respect, so debate with respect. You might feel like you've lost a round from the outset, but that just means you've earned an opportunity to learn and see just how much you can learn. Don't forfeit self-improvement! There's no cost to debating if you're already there.

Equally, be honest with your opponent - explain your arguments and don't hide them. Being sketchy is bad only insofar as you're not standing up for what you read. If you don't stand up for them, why should I in an RFD? I like abusive arguments and interesting args. I don’t like you not being open about them – if you read an apriori, say so. Basically, don’t be a coward. Don't be scared of your opponent's strategy or being abusive, unless you think I also should be scared when I vote.

Ultimately: be confident to stand up for yourself. Confidence is a virtue, and it's the best you'll get out of debate because you have to change your positions in debate - more than the things you learn through research, if you can learn to own your arguments and own yourself, then you've won a lot of debates before they've started. Look, I love debate and I want you to enjoy the activity as much as I did. I had to learn to enjoy it - it took a lot of time, trust me. Be confident, be open to growth. Be good to people, and be good to yourself.

RFDs, judging stats, etc.

Again, super tab. This prolly reflects it.


John Overing Paradigm

8 rounds

I debate in policy for UC Berkeley. I debated two years for Loyola High School, where I earned six bids to the TOC and attended NSDA Nationals my senior year. I've judged over 250 rounds.

Email: johnovering@berkeley.edu

Pre-Round Paradigm-Viewing:

Win the case, win the debate. Do impact calculus.

Here's how you win in front of me:

1. Identify the issue that will win you the round

2. Collapse to that issue and win it

3. Explain why it outweighs or should be evaluated first

Mostly tab, not scared to vote on abnormal or unpopular stuff


I like kritiks. I read kritiks throughout high school and continue to do so in college. They can be very strategic, and I have a strong baseline knowledge of most positions. If you read Ks, I'll be a good judge for you.

Policy / Util

I've read, answered, and judged so many of these positions that I've lost count. I'll vote for hard right strategies against the K, and I'm happy to watch policy rounds.

Phil / LD Framework

I have a decent grasp and appreciation of most positions. There aren't many judges these days who can properly evaluate it, so I try to give some extra effort here. I miss seeing philosophy in LD. Unless running with a stacked framework, try to ensure your syllogism is coherent.


I read theory throughout high school. I think 1AR theory can be very strategic, though try not to use it as a crutch for a bad aff. I tend to think theory offense is more legitimate than others give it credit for.


I am willing to vote on disclosure theory. Should you read it? Sure, UNLESS your opponent is new to debate. I'm very opposed to disclosure theory against students new to the activity.

Procedurals and Non-Topical AFFs

These questions are up for debate. Use whatever form or content you want to make your arguments. Be prepared to defend against opposing models.


For completely conceded positions, you only need to extend the base description of the position and its syllogism, and then jump into impact calculus and implications. You don't need to name cards in extensions. If a card will become relevant, even if it was conceded, still give an explanation of the warrant.

Speaker Points

- Debate well, do something new or interesting, or give me an easy decision in a polite way.

- Open-source disclosure will make me more generous with speaks, let me know if you do this.

- Show me your flow after the round and I'll add 0.1 to 0.3 speaks. If requested, I will give feedback on your flow.

- *Please* do not attack your opponent. There's a fine line between "You are racist" and "Your position is racist," and they have wildly different meanings.

Poor behavior will affect your speaks, though (barring extreme cases) I'll keep such issues out of my decision.


I don't enforce prep time for flashing. Be reasonable.

I flow cross-ex and prep. I rarely flow off speech docs.

Camp Suggestions?

Premier Debate


Amy Santos Paradigm

8 rounds

Edited 12/16/19

Please put me on the email chain - amysantos882@gmail.com

I debated for 3 years at Presentation High School in LD and policy and now coach for Premier Debate. I mostly ran Ks and policy args but you should read whatever you feel most comfortable with in front of me (except phil, I'm probably not the best for that)!

Ks: I really love K debate! However, if your K is really poorly explained/executed, I won't vote on it just because I like the lit. I also enjoy K affs (I read a lot of fem performance stuff in high school) but make sure you are clearly articulating a reason to vote aff. I would appreciate an explanation of what your method looks actually looks like/means in practice, and why it means I should vote for you.

Policy: I also really like policy debate! I appreciate good evidence comparison, impact weighing, and overviews.

Framework/T: I love a good framework debate, but it's also in your best interest to engage the substance of the aff! In my opinion, it's best to be specific about why this particular aff is bad/unfair/anti-educational for this particular topic/round/etc and couple that with some good case turns.

Theory: I don't mind theory but I'm probably not the best judge for it.

Phil: I am really not a good judge for phil and don't particularly enjoy it, sorry :(

The easiest way to win in front of me is to clearly explain your position and why you're winning. Collapsing to a few main arguments and explaining them well is always better than having too many arguments that aren't impacted or explained very well.

I love it when debaters passionate about what they defend and read positions they care about. Please don't be blatantly sexist, racist, ableist, trans/homophobic, or other things like that.

Kathleen Scoggin Paradigm

8 rounds

[Last updated July 2019]

Please put me on the email chain: scoggin321@gmail.com (she/her/hers)

TLDR: I’ll vote on anything as long as it is not morally reprehensible and you tell me why it matters. Flashing isn’t prep unless it gets unreasonable, time yourselves, you can sit or stand I really don’t care, give trigger warnings for topics that are potentially psychologically violent and ask and use your opponents pronouns. Anything else feel free to ask me questions before the round.

If you need to leave the round for any mental health/safety whatever reason just message me or knock on the table and you can go get water or do whatever you need do. Debate safety is important and I will do what I can do to preserve it.

About me:

Debated for 4 years for Edina High School, 1.5 of them on the circuit. I am well versed in policy args and critical lit such as fem/queer killjoy, fem IR, Kristeva, disability studies, queer theory and set col. I also co-own Impact Debate with Niko Battle and have been coaching just about every style but tricks this year.


1. Too many debaters forget that I need a claim warrant and impact to vote on an argument.

2. Extremely long overviews annoy me, just signpost and extend on case after a short overview. I don’t like doing work on embedded clash if I don’t have to.

3. Please go a little bit slower in front of me - long analytic dumps are hard for me to flow and I can only type so fast.


· Great, love it.

· Please win and warrant a link.

· Tell me why that matters.

K affs/Performance:

· Again, love these.

· Performance can be very good and powerful but you need to tell me why. Don’t just read a poem or something at the top and then never talk about it again.


· Good, I understand this well and enjoy high level policy style rounds.

· Warrant the impact story/link chain.

· Competition for CPs needs to be explained.


· Slow on analytic dumps.

· Err towards over explanation.

· Read a little bit of this in HS but assume I know nothing about what you are talking about.


· I shouldn’t have to default to my own paradigm issues but if I do: no RVIs, reasonability and drop the argument.

· I have a high threshold for friv theory, substance is good.

· Warrant the abuse story.

· Slow down on this part of the debate specifically interps.


· I like this debate when it is done well, I read this a good amount my senior year.

· If you are hitting a K aff, give me clear layering because this can get very messy very fast.

· You need to warrant why T functions at a higher layer.


· Haha no.

Dennis Tang Paradigm

8 rounds

West Linn High School ‘19

Qualled to TOC my senior year and went 3-3. I’ll vote on any argument as long as it is warranted

  1. Theory/K

  2. Phil

  3. Larp

I don't really care what you read - I'll vote on most arguments as long as they're well explained and their warrant passes the test of "is this somewhat reasonable." Remember, word travels fast in the debate world and I doubt anyone wants to be the person who won on the reverse-racism disad (but if you want to read it, go for it).

My stance on ~somewhat~ controversial debate things:

- Don't feel the need to slow down for novice, beginners, lay debaters - they chose to sign up for the tournament, they should know what to expect.

- You must be clear while reading the body of cards

- If you send analytics I will flow off the doc and you can go a bit faster (specific to theory debates)

- No giant blocks of text with multiple arguments embedded

- 1NC weighing > 1AR weighing > 2NR weighing > 2AR weighing

- Small technical mistakes matter - dropping an silly i-meet, forgetting to extend the aff in the 1AR, forgetting to justify education is a voter and then going for education outweighs, forgetting to kick a CP even if it's condo are all thinks that I'll vote on

- I will only read evidence if it is contested or it is necessary to settle a disagreement about a fact - if someone says "The warren evidence is the link - you can read it" without explaining what it says or why it's a link, I probably will disregard it

Speaker points:

High 29's - You likely have several bids and will bread at TOC

Low 29's - You are a TOC-level competitor and prolly have a few bids/bid rounds

High 28's - You sound good but still have a little ways to go before you read bid-level

Low 28's - everyone else

26's - you REALLY messed up and I may need to talk to your coach

Nigel Taylor-Ward Paradigm

8 rounds


Have the email chain setup. There is no reason you should be fumbling with an email chain 10 minutes past start time. It makes me seem late(big image guy) and leads to tab (understandably) sending runners to annoy me...and that annoys me. Put differently: Even if Im late, have the email chain set up and ready to send upon my arrival or speaks will decline by no LESS than 2 whole points...try me! {npiredebate at G mail}

TOC additions:

Paradigmatic additions: FWK/T and Ks are arguments that have been in debate for a while now...get over it and win the debate. If you expect a judge to stop the round after a debater reads a Shapiro or Patterson card...I'm not the judge for you and will probably laugh at you.


I go in to rounds as a blank slate, you should tell me how you want arguments treated/used("filter the debate through permutation etc.) This makes framing HUGE

I love a good T vs policy aff debate

I'm capitalist but think the Cap K is one of the most underrated and strategic positions.]

About me: Existentialist and Capitalist majoring in Finance, Intl Business and Arabic.

Don't be lay. Don't be boring. Don't be anti-semitic. Facts>Feelings. Tech>Truth (default).

"The infants in the graveyard smile widely without teeth, Carefully sewn in columns and rows, rotting little seeds...Raking tears from upturned eyes"

Carolyn Zou Paradigm

8 rounds

conflicts: DebateDrills

hi! i'm carolyn (they/them) and i debated for 4 years for pennsbury high school. i competed locally for two years and nationally for the two years after that in LD & qualified to the toc twice. i read both policy and kritikal arguments & specialized in virilio/baudrillard.

i like good and innovative debates, meaning i appreciate smart analytical arguments very heavily over vague and non-contextual blocks. likewise, i would like 1ncs to answer the case on the case page.

i dislike bad and bureaucratic debates. dropped arguments without warrants aren't arguments.

zero risk is possible

i don't vote for disclosure theory unless they lied/said it was going to be a different aff. however, i bump speaks if you do cites & open-source & round reports, just lmk before i submit

similar skepticism of other theory, generally don't read it unless you'd read it in front of a college policy judge

i flow cx