Arnold Arnez

arnoldarnez33@gmail.com (if you want to start an email chain)

I like Ks, alot, like ALOT

In all seriousness, no matter how minimal it is, I do have a serious Paradigm --> But for a quick peek cause you're speed-ranking judges:
if you run straight up heg and/or econ, and politics DA and Japan CP stuff, on either Aff or Neg, I am not your judge and will fall asleep during your 7th nuclear war scenario card.

If you run Middle of the Road Policy Affs, Kritikal/Performance Affs, Ks (Pomo, Race, Fem, Cap, Academia, etc.), PICs, you should rank me high. If you fit the latter section for commie and hippie K debaters, you can keep reading below. If you run FW, I'm looking for specific debates concern FW.*

Now Serious Paradigm

But first, be coherent when spreading. If that means slowing down, do it so I can flow better and actually know if you made an argument. This means read tags/taglines and authors slowly.

Now with that said; I have debated for all 4 years of high school at Brooklyn Tech and so I love Kritikal arguments like I love free food (just saying). But, I prefer you read an argument that you understand rather than have you run an Afropess K that you asked your only black friend to send you so you can make me more willing to vote for you (Thsi means you can run FW if you're better at it than Ks). If you burn the instant you walk into sunlight, you probably shouldn't be winging it with a new K about PoC for the ballot, unless you have invested time into reading the literature. For my literature base, I have mainly run Indigenous based Kritiks (and Cap K and Academia Ks) so I will be more ciritical in terms of my RFD to anyone who runs these arguments, but also understand your arguments far better. However, you should not be throwing up buzzwords like an infant witha bellyache, I want you to clearly explain these arguments, cause no one understands these outside the round, and that's a problem in general with debate as a insular community. Be good at ROB and ROJ, cause framing the debate is as important as your K offense. Also I like line-by-lines, easier to understand and to evaluate your arguments.

If you run perfromances, you should be good or expect me to sleep like a bad parent at their kid's 4th grade piano recital. If it isn't done well, isn't continued into later speeches (like atleast a for 15 sec), or add any offense to your case, don't use it cause you're wasting your time and making yourself sound really corny.

If you run Middle of the road, we demand that the state help [insert opressed group here], I have no problem and really like to see these types of arguments when they can prove empirical examples of the state working.

*I will vote for T/FW, no matter how many kritikal debaters hate it, if you have a specific/unique spin to your FW file. Do research on how gov't policies can actaully mitigate harms of anti-black violence, or how the state can actually be a force against heteronormativity. Your research matters and it will reflect on your speaker points, so don't just pull Steinberg and Freely in 1874 cards out of your ass as your go to cards and expect me to find you very convincing. But if you are really good at FW, and can smack any team around the northeast who eats Wilderson and Judith Butler for breakfast, then  make me a potential judge cause I'll vote you up (but I will get bored).

On theory, just be good at it and be comprehensible in your explanations. And you should make it the focal point of your last speech if you want to win.

On speaker points, you should not be dick to your partner, do not say bigoted slurs against anyone, bring your own timers, and use the bathroom before and after the debate. Also don't use coaching staff to intimidate the other team, you make yourselves look douchey and I will think negatively towards you. Preferebly prep outside if you have 20 coaches huddling next to y'all. Also, if someone says problematic language to [insert opressed group here] and it's made into a voting issue, it's not an automatic reason to vote you down (unless it's impacted well enough), but it's terrible on your speaker points and you should apologize (profusely).

I don't care if you are [insert oppressed group here] talking about your opression as long as you know your argument and can explain it well, cause I will not vote you up if you suck and you will not get sympathy from me just cause I'm a PoC. 

Also crack a few jokes or puns, I laugh pretty easliy and it will keep me awake and raise your speaker points.

That's All for my paradigm

Now go prep, Go, why are you still here, this was a long Paradigm, and you have 20 other judges you procrastinated on, and you still haven't started your HW and you have SATs really soon. What's wrong with you, you have like, a life, I think. Go outside, hang out, don't be a lazy slob and go do something fun. You're a masochist if you're still reading this cause you know you have a million other things you have to do. It's literally the day before the tournament and you still don't have your aff blocked out at all. Damn you're screwed. I have an essay I need to finish but instead I worte this Judge paradigm. Hope you're happy. I miss Harambe, too bad he was just a gorilla.

I was an APDA (college parliamentary) debater from 2014-18. Between 2016 and 2022, I coached PF, LD, Congress, Extemp, and some other speech events.

Three years coaching PF, 4 years debating British Parliamentary. I prefer socialist, people-centric advocacy. If you are spreading, make sure that you are still actually articulating the words in your speech. spreading is fine, but if it becomes inaudible then it makes 0 sense for me to flow the small chunks that I am able to catch. Spreading in this fashion is a tactic typically used to hinder an opponents ability to flow and keep up but it also has an adverse effect on the judge's ability to actually judge what you are saying. Ensure that you are linking your arguments back to your framework. Framework should be a rubric of sorts your team claims that needs to be fulfilled in order for you to win. If you would like to challenge evidence, I will look into it once the round is complete so all teams should have the non-redacted version of the sources they are using for their cards.

I was formerly a 4 year PF debater at Stuyvesant High School, a 4 year PF coach for Hunter High School, a 4 year APDA/BP debater in college, and the Director of NSD PF for 3 years. 3 things to note:

1. I don’t need defense in first summary if 2nd rebuttal didn’t answer it and you extend it in final focus, but I do need defense in 2nd summary if you intend for that response to factor into my decision. All offense must be in both summary and final focus.

2. I give relatively low average speaker points, as I will award an average PF speech a 28.

3. Do not be afraid to grill me after the round if you think I have made a mistake in evaluating the round in any way. It will not sway me but it might teach you something and i really don’t mind at all.

Weigh your impacts please