Updated June 2023

Short Version + Email:

Read what you want - I don't think tabula rasa exists, but I do think the predispositions I share below clearly indicate my open engagement on many aisles. I have a decent breadth of knowledge of things in the world but will reward you for making it clear you have depth of knowledge. My debating background was mostly Ks, my coaching background is mixed but leaning K, and my career/academic work is mixed but leaning policy. I'd recommend you read the section below on the argument you want to go for.

I will vote for theory and T. Smart DA / CP strategies are fun. I judge a lot of policy aff v. K rounds and would appreciate if K folks would ground more in the literature and make more content args than K trick args. With framework, fairness can be an impact but you must win debate is a game. K affs probably need to win debate is not just a game / impact turns to FW outweigh the value or truth of game framing.

Write my RFD for me at the top of your 2NR / 2AR, but make args instead of grandstanding about how you're winning - you did it right if I repeat your words back to you in my RFD. Impact framing is a powerful tool. Cost benefit analysis is inevitable to a degree but it's your job to convince me how the round's cost benefit analysis should look.

Would appreciate if you add me to the email chain in advance - just let me know that you did so.

Email: larry [dot] dang2018 [at] gmail [dot] com

---now the full paradigm---

The Overview

I care quite a bit about being a good judge, but only if you're clearly here to bring your A-game. Do what you will with that information.

*In case this ever matters, this is a policy paradigm*

Read whatever you want - I really do mean it. As humans tend to do, I have my predispositions. They are evident in the rest of my paradigm, which I worked to make very clear on my positions. However, I like to believe that I am a fair judge who can evaluate whatever style of argument you bring to the table, be it very policy, very K, or something new altogether. With that said, see the two paragraphs below.

I seem to end up judging a lot of policy aff v. K debates and end up voting policy slightly more than K (see next sentence for explanation). I think that as a big fan of critical literature and as someone who reads a lot, I have a high bar for explanation and content-based argumentation. I will vote for but am pretty tired of K tricks on framework or supposedly using sweeping claims to skirt points of clash. I like voting for smart K explanations, so if you're a K debater disappointed to hear about my voting for policy args more often, same here. By all means, I hope you can turn that record around, but by no means will I "hack for the K." Shallow K args make me sad and I won't reward it. One problem I feel like I see often is that K args don't become complete and coherent strategies by the end of the round cos the pieces are not tied together - don't let this happen. It seems like a missing the forest for the trees kind of issue.

T is a viable option in front of me, and a good T debate will be rewarded in your speaks.

You will benefit from reading the section of my paradigm on the arguments you plan to execute in front of me. I explain how I think arguments are best won. With that said, my suggestions are functional in nature. You should do what you do best. I will reward you for being smart, strategic, and hard-working.

Good luck!

Framing This Paradigm

I believe that reading paradigms is less a practice of learning how judges view specific arguments and more a practice of learning different ways to execute arguments. My debate knowledge has increased exponentially from reading paradigms, and I write this paradigm with that in mind.

A Note for the Economic Inequality Topic

I feel quite familiar with this topic from a professional perspective because I currently work and previously studied in this space, but I don't know a lot about how the debate community has engaged with the topic. I haven't been rigorously involved in judging and coaching since the water topic in 2021-22.

Background

I currently work in NYC at an anti-poverty nonprofit foundation specifically in the area of early childhood development. I think simultaneously like a critical sociologist, social policy researcher, and public administrator.

Here's my debate and educational history: Head-Royce HS 2018 (Oceans, Surveillance, China, Education), Harvard College 2022 (didn't debate) Sociology and Global Health.

I debated on the national policy circuit in high school and did decently well by traditional standards (blah blah TOC blah blah bids). Most of the arguments I read were critiques, on the AFF and the NEG, though I engaged with more traditional policy arguments a fair amount at camp and now in my time coaching. I believe that traditional policy genuinely has value - it just wasn't my focus as a debater. The Ks I read in rounds were mostly about capitalism, neoliberalism, sovereignty, biopolitics, critical security studies, and psychoanalysis. The K arguments I coach now are mostly in the vein of critical race theory and postmodernism. I have a good working knowledge of other common K authors/lit bases in debate like Baudrillard, Deleuze, queer pessimism, other queer theory, Spanos, critiques of death, disability studies, feminist critiques, and the likes. However, you should never take any of this as an excuse for lackluster explanation - shallow K debates are a big sad. All in all, do what you do best. That'll make for the best and most enjoyable debate.

General

Tech over truth - answer arguments and don’t drop stuff - debate is about in depth contestation of ideas. However, what constitutes tech is up for debate and should ultimately be a matter of contestation, whether that happens holistically, via a rigorous line by line, or otherwise. There are many different ways to be a skilled and technical debater that isn't always just following the line by line closely or forcing opponents to drop an argument. Smart framing claims and innovative arguments can go a long way. With that said, please do try to do line by line when appropriate - it's not the only way to debate, but it definitely is an effective way that is tried and true. A few more quick thoughts.

Execution probably matters more than evidence, but good evidence/cards goes a long way + helps speaks.

Don't cheat - no clipping cards, falsifying evidence, or stealing prep.

Achieving 0% risk is difficult but not impossible.

Voting NEG on presumption exists - some AFFs don't say anything.

Cross-ex is binding - I will listen and flow notable parts.

Do some impact framing at the top of every final rebuttal.

Be kind to one another and by all means don't be bigoted.

K AFFs

I read K AFFs for most of high school, so they're generally what you might call my forte. Some thoughts:

- A lot of K AFFs don't seem to in any way clearly do anything. Please make sure the 2AR (and the rest of AFF speeches) does not forget to explain the AFF. It becomes hard to vote AFF when I don't know what I'm voting for, even if you did everything else right. Utilize CX to bring up examples that will concretize your method.

- When answering framework, make sure that you have a justification for why your K AFF must exist in debate. Even if you have forwarded a generally good idea, framework begs the question not of whether the K AFF should exist in general but why it should be presented in round. Make arguments about how your K AFF interacts with the status quo of debate arguments, or how debate is a platform, or how argumentative spaces are key. I think the easiest way to do this is usually to impact turn the notion of framework, which I'll note is different from impact turning limits.

- When answering Ks of your AFF, the winner will usually be the team who can concretize their argument better. Don't forget that. Keep it simple and keep it real. Don't get bogged down in theory.

Framework

Despite having read K AFFs most of high school and coaching K AFFs most of the time currently, I also read and really like framework. In many ways, I do believe it makes the game work.

- Some general agreement about what debate constitutes is probably necessary for debate to function, even with K debates. Your job reading FW is to convince the judge that that agreement should be the resolution. Don't forget that FW is T-USFG. You are fundamentally arguing for a model of debate, with limits that provides teams the ability to predict and prepare for arguments. You forward a way to organize a game. Don't let a K team force you into defending more than you need to.

- Game framing is very helpful in FW rounds. If you can win that debate is a game, then you hedge back against most of the offense the AFF will go for. You can best prove that debate is a game by giving empirics about the way that all debaters shift arguments to get a competitive advantage. Present the question of why the K AFF needs to occur in debate and strategically concede aspects of how the K literature might be useful while making it clear that that literature can be accessed outside of debate while your impacts to FW, such as policy education and advocacy skills, are best accessed in debate.

- There was a time when I think I had a decent predisposition against going for fairness as the only impact to framework, but I've since amended my belief to being that going for fairness alone is difficult but when done successfully is usually very dangerous and impressive. A few thoughts on how to make it good: 1) Win that debate is a game and that we do not become intrinsically tied to arguments in debate - make a game theory argument about the nature of competition. 2) Force the aff to make arguments about the value of the ballot. If the K team says they think the ballot is good, then they are in one way or another arguing that fairness in debate is somewhat necessary insofar as fairness maintains the value of the ballot. 3) Use #1 to then force the burden onto the aff to describe when fairness is good and bad, once you've pigeonholed them into defending that some fairness must be good. 4) Defend a dogma/switch side argument as offensive defense - I phrase it that way because I think dogma is a great way to internal link turn K affs without giving them education offense to impact turn (since the education offense then makes debate at least in some capacity more than a game / risks indicating that debate changes subjectivity).

- Go for your preferred FW impacts. Some will work better than others against different types of K AFFs, and I have some thoughts about that as a coach but enjoy hearing different takes on framework.

Plan AFFs

Do your thing. I think this is pretty straightforward. I will say, I'm not the biggest fan of when teams have a million impact scenarios and very little explanation of the AFF's solvency mechanism. I think that's a pretty abusive use of the tech over truth framing in debate, and I will in that instance grant the neg a chance to use framing to get their way (and vice versa with the neg reading a million off). With that said, I'll listen to what you have to say.

Critiques

I read Ks for most of my high school debate career. I think that they're a great way to think about the world and deepen our understandings of the world and problematize the mundane. Some thoughts on how to effectively execute.

- See paragraph 3 of the overview section of this paradigm.

- Overviews are good but not to be abused aka don't forget about line by line.

- The alt is usually the weakest part of the K, so I often find it effective to do things like take the link debate and make turns case arguments. These make the threshold for winning alt solvency much lower. Things about how your systemic critique complicates the way the AFF can solve or makes the AFF do more harm than good are very effective.

- The framework debate on the K is important - you should use it to your advantage to shift how the judge analyzes the round. Don't just throw it out there. You can use framework to make the judge think more deeply about whether or not it is ethical to take a policy action even if it solves the AFF's impacts, or you can use framework to have the judge consider implementation complications (e.g. the Trump regime) that the AFF doesn't factor in because of fiat.

Topicality

The biggest mistake NEGs make going for T is forgetting that at the end of the day, the impact debate is always still the most important, even with a procedural. Give me strong T impacts, limits and ground arguments that internal link to fairness and education - you can't win without it, even if you win that they violate and your interp is more predictable or precise.

I like to think about the meaning of the topic and what different models of the resolution look like. I'm okay with throwaway T 1NCs, but don't throw it away when there's opportunity. T can be a very good argument, as long as you remember to keep the impact debate in mind. Different models of the topic have different effects on people's education and fairness of debates. It's not sufficient to prove the AFF doesn't meet your interpretation.

Disadvantages

I like to hear nuanced DA debates, especially when they're contextualized well to the AFF's mechanism. Just don't take for granted the amount to which policy debaters are used to the idea that proving a link to the DA makes the DA true. At least make an attempt to explain the internal link between your link story and the impact scenario. Otherwise, I think this is an easy avenue for the AFF to win a no risk of DA argument.

Counterplans

Like with DAs, I really enjoy when CPs are related to the AFF's literature/mechanism. I will reward with speaker points a well-researched DA/CP strategy. Don't forget that in the 2NR, the CP is just a way for you to lower the threshold of DA/internal offense that you need to win. The CP is a very effective strategy, but it is not the offense that wins the debate.

Use theory against abusive CPs when you're AFF - I will take it into account. For the NEG, read smart CPs or be prepared to defend against theory. It will favor the NEG if a CP is maybe abusive (process, PIC, agent, etc.) but is core controversy in the literature.

Theory

I am willing to vote for theory to reject the team. Theory arguments with claims about how the violation specifically engages with the topic literature are especially convincing. My threshold to reject the team is high but winnable and I enjoy theory when it's done well. Don't forget to go for reject the arg strategically when things are really cheat-y. Impact out reject the team and reject the arg differently when theory is a big part of the debate strategy.

Maybe this is a hot take, but my default assumption is that the status quo is always an option. Unless the 2AR tells me no judge kick / vote aff on presumption explicitly (and all the 2AR has to do is assert this - I’ll change my assumption if you tell me to assuming the 2NR has not made an issue of this), then my paradigm for evaluation involves judge kick, cos I think that just means the neg proved the status quo is better than the aff, and that’s enough for me to vote neg even if there was a CP and that CP doesn’t do anything.

I like conditionality debates.

Speaker Points

I consider 28.5 to be about decently average (not a bad thing). I think inflation has gotten to a point where I skew a little low, but if you are good, then I wouldn't worry about it cos I am far from conservative with 28.9+ points. If it helps for context, I debated from 2014 to 2018, so that's my frame of reference for points. I follow this guide pretty closely. Here's a breakdown:

29.7-30: You are one of the best speakers I've ever seen

29.3-29.6: You should get a speaker award, and I was really quite impressed

28.9-29.2: You gave some really good speeches and maybe deserve a speaker award

28.7-28.8: You spoke decently well, performed above average, and have a fair shot at breaking

28.3-28.6: You performed probably squarely in the lower middle to middle of the pool (standard for circuit bid tournament)

27.8-28.2: Your performance signaled to me that this pool is probably tough for you, but you're getting there - keep trying!

27-27.7: Your performance signaled to me that this tournament was/is probably going to be rough for you, but don't give up!

Below 27: You almost certainly did something offensive to deserve this

Ways to increase speaks: have organized speeches, be friendly in round, have good evidence, know what your evidence says, be effective in cross ex, be funny (but don't force it)

Ways to decrease speaks: have disorganized speeches, be mean, make it clear that you are reading blocks you don't really get, treat the debate as a joke (don't waste our time)

Ways to get a 0 (or a 20 since that's usually the minimum): be blatantly racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or generally bigoted towards your opponents or people in the round in any way

Don't forget to have fun in debate. Good luck!

Welcome to my paradigm—if you’re here I’m probably about to judge you, or you’re about to do prefs/strikes. I’m Amishai (pronounced ah-me-SHY, he/him) call me Amishai or "judge" I don't care.

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN AND FEEL FREE TO EMAIL ME WITH ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE OR AFTER ROUNDS:
Agoodmangoldstein@gmail.com

My paradigm is long. It is probably the longest you have read.

Don't want to read it all? Say so and I will just quickly walk all debaters through it pre-round, no problem at all--otherwise I will assume you have read it and adjudicate accordingly. This is ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR NOVICES AND MIDDLE SCHOOLERS--don't be intimidated, I am here to help you and not just judge you.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

BIOGRAPHY:

I am a political science and theory student at American University and am a volunteer coach in the Washington Urban Debate League. I was most recently head coach of the policy debate team at MacArthur High School in Washington DC (Fall 2023). I was assistant coach for middle schoolers at Boston’s Mission Hill School (closed now) for a year (2019-2020) and a lab leader for the Boston Debate League's summer program in 2023. I have judged intermittently since Fall 2019, at all levels and divisions.

I debated policy for six years in the Boston Debate League (2017-2023), including as team captain for Latin Academy, and now do college parliamentary debate in the American Parliamentary Debate Association as well as coaching HS policy. I’m also a former moot court advocate with national awards, former high school history teaching assistant, historic home docent, and Democratic political organizer.

I’ve judged approximately 20 rounds under the fiscal redistribution resolution in multiple leagues, tournaments, and divisions and am very well versed in it.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

READ THIS IF NOT A POLICY ROUND--IF IT IS POLICY (really, only policy), SKIP TO PARADIGM!

I am primarily a policy judge, so if you have me for anything other than policy (or public forum), the round will probably move slower. I am very proficient in moot court and American parliamentary debate as well, so if I happen to be judging one of those you can treat me as an experienced judge. If it is a speech event or any type of debate other than CX, LD, PF, or Parli, however, please treat me as if I am a lay judge in how you operate, ie slow down and explain. That said, I still have some confidence in my ability to handle complex issues and theory, and if I am confused, I will tell you. Read the paradigm below for good measure either way.

Note: I am fine with complex arguments in public forum and do not ascribe to the principle that a member of the general public should necessarily be able to understand every round--this can be cross-applied to any debate I judge. Debate is an academic activity, it is not a speech event.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LD and PF debaters: I am judging you with the lens of a policy debater and judge. My preferences for policy below can be cross-applied. This is NOT true for parli as I am a collegiate parliamentary debater also and will typically use the “path of least resistance” method to determine the most meaningful argument which has gone insufficiently addressed by a side and assign the winner accordingly.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

POLICY COMPETITORS READ THIS (if you don’t read this you might have a very avoidable loss. You’ve been warned)

I know I can be unique in this, but: I don’t evaluate arguments in a vacuum unless you can really convince me that I should, if you run discrete K, framework, and CP that all kind of contradict each other it’s going to be difficult for me to vote for you unless you do a really killer job of it, because I think debate shouldn’t be a game of throwing a bunch of sh*t at the wall and seeing what sticks. In other words, I will be considering all of your arguments in the same universe, and if they can’t coexist in that universe, you are going to lose. This makes me more of a truth judge than a tech judge, but I also don’t think these labels are great because I might vote more like a tech judge in a given round--I may simply "vote on the flow" if a round is extremely close, or if it is particularly dull and uninspiring clash-wise.

I don’t typically flow author names, extend by referencing warrants--please. I flow online and often in shorthand so my flow will likely be of little use to you, but I am happy to walk you through it if you ask afterwards. I am a quick typer but you need to clearly tell me what is case and what is off or I will do bare minimum figuring out what goes where. Constant on case—off case and back again jumping is confusing and will likely lead to some mistakes on the flow, and it’s bad speech organization so your speaks probably will suffer.

I am comfortable with just about any type of argument.

Ks are perfectly fine. I am pretty well versed in foundational Western political theory and a little bit of Chinese philosophy but not so much the literature base that appears in most Ks, though I am still happy to handle Ks, if your K is very generic I'll have seen it, if not I can still work with it and will understand the concepts at least at the elementary level.

I like framework and am happy to vote on quality framework debate.

I AM the judge you want for topicality as a frequent former T debater—do it well, be accurate, and I WILL be willing to vote on T (usually in combination with other things but I have given ballots solely on T on rare occasions).

I do not love conditionality but I am not averse to it, run that condo if you feel it’s necessary, I might scowl but I’ll be fine.

CAVEAT: IF YOU DO NOT FORMALLY, PROPERLY SET UP YOUR K/T/FRAMEWORK/ANY OTHER OFF I AM LIKELY NOT GOING TO BE CONSIDERING IT AND IT IS GOING TO BE AN AUTO-WIN FOR YOUR OPPONENT.

This is also true if you run extremely high theory on an inexperienced opponent without going through necessary motions to explain and make the round accessible! I come from an urban debate background, basic fairness and accessibility is a real issue to me. But so are the rules. Example: I’ll have more tolerance for a sloppy alt if you’re a new to varsity urban league debater than if you’ve competed at nats.

Judge kick: sure, if you can convince me that there’s a good reason beyond not wanting to argue on whatever you want me to kick

Competition args on CPs: yes please, just give me good clash and give me solid extensions (not lazy ones) even if aff doesn’t respond well

Disclosure (of case) is good in policy debate, and I am not going to be open to arguments that it isn’t good, nor am I very open to arguments that disclosure is only good or should only be done for a certain category/demographic of debater.

PLEASE don’t be too heavy on analytics in constructive. I know when you’re being lazy and making up for lack of cards. It’s tough to flow and it’s low quality debate. Find the balance and your analytics will support your evidence, but your analytics cannot take the place of evidence. If your constructive sounds like a rebuttal, you can assume I will not take kindly.

PET PEEVE: when a policy round consists of zero clear overlap or clash on the flow. This happens way way way more often than you would think. If this happens, I will typically take it out on speaks. CLASH. LOOK AT FLOW. DID I SAY CLASH? OK GOOD

WEIGHING, LINE BY LINE, IMPACT CALC AND VOTERS
Do it. You do it, other team doesn’t do it, you’re not guaranteed a win but your chances go way up. Judges are lazy—do the work on the flow for me. If there’s no semblance of basic impact calc/weighing/voters, I will vote on the flow alone with bare minimum weighing and you may not like the decisions I make because I don’t have any guidance from you on how to weigh different args. WRITE MY WHOLE RFD TOP TO BOTTOM IN YOUR 2AR/2NR, DOWN TO THE SMALLEST PARTS OF THE DECISION (not literally writing it, but tell me what you think should be in it).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Style and Sportsmanship:

I’m fine with spreading, but if you’re spreading so fast you’re literally gasping for air that’s not healthy for you (literally) and it’s going to hurt my flow. On a 1-10 of speed, my own preference is around a 6 BUT if you need to go slower to be clear and effective you should absolutely do so. If I can't understand you, I will tell you to slow down only once, and if you don’t adapt you’re accountable for my flow having huge gaps. In addition, you need to signpost, if you do not at least read the tag, it is highly likely that I will not catch all of your arguments which will hurt your overall chances in the round.

* I NO LONGER GIVE ANY TIME WARNINGS OUTSIDE OF HIGH SCHOOL NOVICE OR MIDDLE SCHOOL ROUNDS. * In any disputes over time, my timer will still overrule yours.

Stand when you speak, sit when you speak, wear a suit, wear pajama pants--I legitimately do not care. The only thing ever so slightly related to physical appearance that will affect my decision is if you appear visibly annoyed at something your partner or opponent does in round, hit the table, loudly sigh, etc. This happens frequently, is extremely poor sportsmanship and I will call it out with zero hesitation person by person in feedback.

Clash is good, personal attacks are not. If any conduct negatively influences the debate so much that I have to address it mid round, it will hurt your speaker points and possibly your overall chances. This seems to happen most frequently during cross examination, by far. It’s fine to try to back your opponent into a corner but don’t be personally hostile while doing it! I will not hesitate to call you out, but it's not fun for me and it is embarrassing for you and your team. I will GLEEFULLY give you a 25/26 if you, a skilled national circuit debater with tons of full on tournament wins, bully your opponents in cross (this happened, if it sounds oddly specific). I will do it even more gleefully if you have more structural advantages in your favor.

THIS SHOULD BE OBVIOUS BUTIT KEEPS HAPPENING: if cross ex is open you and your partner both need to be asking and answering questions. You can choose to split the CX periods and have only one person talk in each one but IF ONE PERSON DOES ALL OR 75%+ OF CX TALKING, I WILL REDUCE SPEAKER POINTS FOR BOTHTEAM MEMBERS.

Just because I may seem personally inclined to certain ideological arguments DOES NOT mean I am going to vote for them by default. I like authentically contrarian/conservative cases a lot, as long as they aren't bigoted and are well reasoned/argued.

If your argument is grounded in calling your opponents racist or bigoted in some inherent manner, there better be a good case to back it up. (I don't mean settler colonialism args--I mean "aff should lose because they are x demographic and thus are racist")

Openly bigoted arguments will automatically lose. This includes explicit racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia, etc, which, if bad enough, will make me end the round then and there. There's plenty of room to debate controversial policy on tough issues without making bigoted arguments.

I will NOT flow or vote on cross examination. I will closely observe it for the purpose of awarding speaks, but if you extract an important concession, contradiction etc and never bring it up in constructive/rebuttal, it’ll be like I didn’t hear it. And I will tell you that, disappointedly, when I give feedback. This approach hopefully forces you to not try to argue during cross and instead use it how you are supposed to—to help understand arguments and extract pieces to build your own.

There are no dumb questions until the round starts. Please try to clarify everything you need to with me prior to the 1AC.

I look at your speech doc as you read in addition to flowing, so I can and will catch you if you clip cards which will result in an auto-loss. Reminder—clipping and cutting are not the same! Being explicit that you are cutting a card is fine, deceptively clipping lines in your card and/or selectively choosing to read certain words with others to make the card say something it doesn’t actually say is certainly not fine. If you catch your opponent clipping or doing any other sort of evidence violation, say so! Don’t wait for your next speech. Just say it as soon as they’re done talking so I can review the cards and proceed according to NSDA rules.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SPEAKS/DECISION/POSTROUND

I'm lenient with speaks. Yes, there’s a debate-wide problem of speaks inflation, but unless a tournament addresses it holistically with a clear rubric to evaluate debaters, I won't be the judge who denies a good debater a speaker award. This does not mean free 28s-30s but I typically don't give below a 27 in a round without major debater errors, so don't worry too much. Speak how you're comfortable. I won't penalize slow and steady speakers. I will penalize fast and unintelligible speakers. I'll NEVER penalize based on taking a second to catch your breath/find your place, or word pronunciation confusion/accents.

I’ll disclose my decision if I’m required to or it’s the general standard of the tournament. If it’s not, I won’t. I won't disclose speaks unless required to. Doing so detracts from the point of feedback--to improve your debating in substantive ways.

Asking questions after my decision and feedback is fine, especially if you’re confused as to why I voted how I did. If I can’t disclose, I unfortunately can’t answer a lot of questions except those about style and general argument choices. If you actually “postround” and argue with me, however, I will tell your coach and tab and give you no speaks. If your coach comes in and postrounds me, I will leave the room immediately, give you no speaks and tournament staff/tab will be informed.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FINAL WORDS

Please have fun. We are not debating the end of the world (even if we are). We’ve all chosen to take time out of our day to be in the debate space. Let’s not take ourselves too seriously in it, and we'll all have a better time.

hey, you found my paradigm. good job.

rnix@bostondebate.org

Policy Debate Coach for 3 years at Edward M Kennedy (MA), now working for the Boston Debate League. I'm familiar with the resolution and most of the common policy Affs this year. I'm familiar with the more common K and Theory arguments, but if you're running a theory-heavy kritikal aff, do a little bit extra to make sure I understand your argument. I believe my role as the judge is to help both teams improve their arguments and learn from the round.

I go blank slate as best as possible, but I will vote down offensive arguments, and I will explain myself fully in my feedback if that is the reason why I voted you down. I will vote on anything, including K, T, Theory, FW.

Please extend your positions throughout the debate, if you drop an entire position in a speech, even if you bring it back later, I will vote on fairness/violation issues (but only if the other team actually explains the nature of the violation and why I should care that there was a violation in the round, I will do my best not to intervene). Violations won't lose you the debate, but they may cause me not to consider some of your arguments.

I will only ask to see evidence if there has been a direct challenge by the opposing team to it's content or validity.

Impact analysis is the debate round. Convince me why your impacts within your framework are best and why you best achieve your framework and you'll win the round. If one side drops framework, I will assume whatever framework the other team gives me. You need to do the work to weigh the most important arguments at the end of the round. It's safe to assume that if an argument was run and extended throughout the debate that I will at least minimally weigh it in my decision calc, so ultimately you need to explain to me why the summation of your impacts outweighs those of the other team.

I'm pretty good with speed, but volume is important, as long as you're loud enough we'll be all set. There is something to be said for emphasizing your most important points by extending them throughout the round and changing your tone when you present them. Otherwise I will assume everything you're saying has equal weight, which may not benefit you in the round.

Organization is important. Tell me which flow you're on and tell me when you move to something new. If you're giving a line-by-line, let me know, otherwise I'm going to flow everything straight down as an over/underview. I won't do the work for you on the flow.

I am Brandon (most of you guys could already tell lmao) and I have 5 years of debating varsity experience and so I have seen a lot of things being ran on either side.

Things to not do: don't cut card without saying "cut card," don't be disrespectful, and don't do things that you just normally can't do (I believe most of y'all know what to not do)

For most people who will be running a policy off, Great! Feel free to run any sorts of policy aff. The best thing about a policy aff is that we have the inherent squo which is causing the problem (harms) and then we have a proposed plan and solvency leading up to that. You can speed read or do whatever you feel comfortable doing. In a policy aff, I really love the rebuttal part and espeically when debaters give me sort of like an impact calc and something for me to vote on specifically. It could be the advantages, solvency, or just that vote on aff because neg conceived on this and this point therefore we win type of arguments. The exact samething applies to neg! However, if you can go offcase because it just makes the entire case more and more interesting. I love when neg goes offcase because it just talks about more problems that are hidden under the surface of the general case.

For people running a K AFF or a Kritik Aff, love it even more! I am personally into this whole idea of not following the resolution (though it can be annoying to do bc of all the T and framework debates you'll have to deal with) bc sometimes it prob just isn't for everyone yk. I don't have anything regarding my opinions on K debaters, but I do have one thing which is what is the voter and why should I vote you. Though the question is pretty broad, but I want a general solvency that I can or y'all can imagine playing out in the real world.

Hey y'all,

Introduction: My name is Ariella Taylor and I am a freshman at Case Western Reserve University. I have experience running Ks (black futuristic stuff and afro pess) and regular policy cases.

Voting: Impact Calc and Internal link explanations are key for my vote. If the debate is coming down to fw please tell me how I am supposed to engage with these arguments, tell me what my role as a judge is in this round.

If you run - DA - CP - Inherency cards, I need you to explain to me why these arguments matter. Many Aff teams state a problem but do not articulate how their plan solves it. I will buy the internal link between the plan and solvency impacts if the neg does not bring it up, but if they even hint at it I will agree and concede to a huge gap in your case. I try to come into each round unbiased, in most cases, I will not care about (for example) whether black people can vote or not, or billions of people dying in a nuclear war if you do not tell me why I should care. Moreover, please please do not assume that I will just buy args because I am black, I will not.

* Note for the Aff: Please try to get to your solvency in the first speech

* Note for the Neg: Do impact calc on your Das and turns

* I will vote any team down for clear bullying.

Hi, y'all

My name is Walter Wexler, I'm a Freshman at Case Western Reserve University. I've been debating for five years and I've been judging for three years and one coaching.

Personally, I ran policy for most of my debate career, but I've run Cap K and I have pretty extensive experience with Set Col, Afropess, etc as those are very popular in my league. I consider myself a tabula rossa judge, and as such framework is probably the most important thing in the round as it gives me a way to evaluate. I'm open to any well-articulated argument, but don't assume I have a lot of experience in this topic as I haven't judged much this year.

*Clear bullying will be an automatic vote down

Lex 24:
Hello, my name is Anna (she/hers). This is my first time judging at Lex and I've been judging policy debate on and off for the past 5 years at the Boston Debate League.

Email: anna.zhao.az399@yale.edu, please add me to the chain.

I was a pretty straightforward policy debater during my time and ran Ks occasionally depending on my partners. I am much more familiar with policy than Ks. As the neg-facing Ks, I usually went for FW/T. I was the 1A/2N if that is of any importance to you. I go into all the rounds “tabula rasa”. Please outline your voters and the role of the judge as early in the round as possible.

For speaker points please slow down on the tag and author. Be yourself and be cordial to your opponents.