I do not time speeches, always time yourself because it's better to have it in front of you, rather than stopping in the middle of your speech to ask how much time you left.

I want to be able to understand and flow your arguments; speed reading is fine as long as you can articulate your arguments clearly. If I cannot understand you, I'm not flowing.

Otherwise, just don't curse in speeches or cross ex, and be polite. Debate is more fun when everyone is polite. Don't expect high speaker points if you do either.

I want to be on the email chain, my email is awavrakh@gmail.com. If you have any questions, feel free to email me.

I debated high school policy debate for 4 years with Goldstein HS, I've judged and taught parli and I've judged PF.

I don't like:

Existential impacts, don't give me a million ways nuclear war will happen, high magnitude impacts are almost always unconvincing and non-unique, if you're gonna run that kinda arg, make sure the impact story makes sense

Generic t arguments, I'll vote on it if it's carried well but if you can run off case and on case, then t really has no place in your 1nc. Time skews are just boring for everyone involved, throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks isn't an effective strategy

Spreading tags and analytics, as that's the stuff I'll need to flow. If I don't get down something important because your spreading through it, don't be surprised if I have to make my own conclusions to write an rfd

That aside, I'm fine with anything so long as it's thoroughly explained. I also like if you're funny, snarky, or bring up the mood somehow... it makes for good debate, brightens everyone's day, and usually gets you higher speaks

Anyway, have a good time, have fun, and good luck

debated in policy in high school

email - safib2026@gmail.com

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I've done policy debate @Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy and PF rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. I go by any/all pronouns. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements you will lose. also don't try to tell me climate change is real

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Ks, Counter Plans, and theory.

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything.

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.
2) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

3) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias (I fully admit I am a K debater, although I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate it.

mbenyacar@gmail.com

Hi.

I am a brand new judge, but I'm an attorney familiar with evidence based arguments. Still, I would appreciate it if explain what you're reading and tell me how to weigh your arguments. When I vote, I will want to know how well you "hit" your priority. Feel free to ask me any questions via email or in-round. Good luck!

email is noahblac22@midlandps.org

-Background: I've been debating for H. H. Dow High School for 3 years.

-I will vote on anything, but it needs to be impacted and explained through the round.

-I can handle relatively fast speaking, but please slow down on your analytics.

-Stick your tags. If you don't, I will not flow the argument.

Theory:

-I will vote on theory, but I have a relatively high threshold for it. Please impact theory and explain why I should care as a judge.

K/FW:

-I understand most Ks, but I need to know that you understand it too. Demonstrate this through the round.

-FW is really important, I need you to tell me what my role is and the impact of my role.

-The less you understand your alt, the higher my threshold is.

CP:

-explain how it solves and how it avoids a net benefit the aff links to.

-All perms must be adequately explained for me to weigh them in my evaluation

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Please add me to the email chain! My email is tbossman1539@bths.edu

Couple of things...

1. Please speak clearly. If I can't understand you, I will let you know. If nothing changes after the fact, just know it's going to reflect on my flow.

2. Speed is okay, clarity is important. If there is something you want on my flow, you need to slow down and/or change the tone of your voice.

3. Please don't steal prep. Sending evidence should not take more than 2-3 minutes and if it does, it's coming out of your prep time. If it's a matter of experiencing internet issues, then it's a different story.

4. Don't assume I know what you're talking about. Explain your arguments and outline what I should prioritize in the round.

5. Quality over quantity. I'd rather vote on a well developed argument than a flimsy one that was barely supported the entire round.

6. Be nice and respectful!

she/her/they, Past 1A/2N for Stuyvesant High School; Currently attends Cornell University

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

Public Forum:

Impact weighing + sign posting is important! Have fun!

Policy:

General

Bronx: I've been out of debate for 2 years so I may not be able to catch every word if you're going at full speed. I'd like to be able to hear every word, so please enunciate and slow down just a tad.

If you're ever uncomfortable in a debate or feel that the space is unsafe, please let me know in some way (private chat, email, saying it in the round, etc.).

K Affs

I primarily ran K affs for most of my debate career. For teams running K affs, I'm best for identity-based arguments but I do have an understanding of some high theory. Don't take that to mean that if you run a K aff I'll hack for you and that if you read a policy aff I'll drop you. In order to get my ballot with a K aff you must actually a) explain what your aff does and b) why it's good for debate. I would also prefer that it be related to the topic in some way, but you do you just do it well.

K

I'm familiar with Cap, Marxism, Set-Col, Agamben, Warren, Fanon, Wilderson, Asian (American) Identity, Fem, Orientalism, Baudrillard, Foucault.

Framework

I've been on both sides of a FW/K-aff debate many times, especially towards the end of my debate career. On a truth level I do believe that there is some pedagogical value in debate and that procedural fairness is probably a good thing. That being said, you can easily convince me otherwise. I will judge the debate based on what happens in the round.

For the neg:

1. Convince me that your model of debate is great and their model is terrible for whatever standards you choose to read and defend the hell out of your standards. Also, answer their c/i.

2. Don't just assert that procedural fairness is an intrinsic good actually explain why.

3. Please make sure the TVAs are actually topical. I really enjoy hearing TVAs that are contextualized and relevant to the aff. Pull lines from their 1ac.

4. Contextualize your arguments to the 1ac. Explain why they violate your standards. Answer their arguments. I really dislike hearing 2ncs that are 8 minutes of spreading through generic FW blocks.

5. You don't have to convince me that debate is a game, but you do have to convince me that there is value in preserving the game as it is.

For the aff:

1. Convince me why their model of debate sucks and why yours is better.

2. I am a huge fan of impact turns, but make sure that you're running them in conjunction with a clear c/i and an explanation of what your model of debate looks like.

3. I would prefer no generic c/i like discussions of the topic, their interp+our aff, only our aff, etc. — unless you can convince me that it's a good thing that only your aff is topical/should be read in debate. Contextualize your c/i to your aff.

4. Either win that debate isn't a game or that it's a shitty game and there's no value in continuing to play it

Topicality

I am not that familiar with this year's topic in the context of debate and the general consensus in the community on what the core to the topic affs are, so keep that in mind. I'm also prob not the greatest when it comes to techy T debates. However, I will try my best.

I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Same thing with FW that you need to contextualize your standards to the aff. Explain why their aff is untopical, how they made the debate unfair for you, why that's bad, and why T is a voter — don't just assert that it's a voter for fairness, education, intellectual responsibility, whatever, explain why them violating your standards means that you get my ballot.

DAs

Don't just read a generic link that applies to literally any policy aff, have a link that is specific to their aff. Uniqueness is very important. Explain your internal link scenario clearly, I want to know how we get from the plan to your terminal impact. Lastly, DO IMPACT CALCULUS IN THE 2NR AND 2AR!! Don't make me do more work than I need to.

CPs

Explain why the perm doesn't solve. I like advantage CPs. Explain how the CP doesn't link back to the DA (if you're going for DA/CP) and how the perm does. I don't really like shady PICs but I'll vote for a PIC if you win it.

Theory

Explain why what they did was bad. Have a clear interpretation. Convince me that you should win because the neg has x conditional advocacies or because the aff read x planks or whatever theory you're running.

Procedurals

Went for this a couple of times. The biggest pitfall for teams is that they don't impact this out.

Case

Go on case.

Qs? email me!

Have fun and try your best!

Overall Paradigm:

Tabula Rasa judge:

• If the presented Plan is in a Stock Issues format, then I will vote as a stock-issues judge once Kritiks and Topicality are won.
• If a Comparative Advantage Plan is run, then I will shift to a policymaker framework and weigh Advantages against DAs (see the note on DAs below), once Kritiks and Topicality are won.
• If a Kritikal Aff is run, then all bets are off. Run framework and tell me why I should be voting for you.

Kritiks are a priori to Topicality, which in turn is a priori to the Plan.

Speed:

I enjoy spreading, but I dislike fast mumbling. If you’re not a proficient spreader, slow down. Reducing speed for tags, cites, and underviews helps your case immensely.

Theory:

Theory won’t win a debate on its own. Claiming in-round abuse or that your argument is better for education requires justification and strong links.

Kritiks:

I love Kritiks, but they must be strongly linked to the Plan. Otherwise, Kritiks are non-unique DAs.

Tell me the story of the Kritik. I want to hear persuasion and thought behind these arguments. A well-done K will make my weekend.

DAs:

It can be tough to weigh DAs against a Stock Issues case. If a Stock Issues case is given by AFF, I would appreciate NEG providing only DAs that diminish/turn the stock issues of the Plan.

Please, no politics DAs unless you can prove that the loss of political capital extends past enactment of the plan. I am a strong believer in Fiat.

Things that make my heart go pitter-pat:

• Confident, assured underviews
• Focusing on the claims above the evidence
• Teams that stay on the offense and show clear strategy
• TOPICALITY (as long as it is a well-structured T debate that is strongly linked to the Plan)

Things that make me cringe in my seat:

• Evidence battles
• Any kind of murky ethics (mis-claiming dropped contentions, falsely stating rules, overusing flash time for prep, etc.)
• Having to vote on a weakly supported, but crucial, argument that wasn't answered.

I don't care for:

Existential impacts, dont give me a million ways nuclear war will happen, high magnitude impacts are almost always unconvincing. If you're gonna run that kinda arg, make sure the impact story makes sense

Generic t arguments. I'll vote on it if it's carried well but if you can run off case and on case, then t really has no place in your 1nc. Time skews are just boring for everyone involved

Spreading tags and analytics, as that's the stuff I'll need to flow. If I dont get down something important because your spreading through it, dont be surprised if i have to make my own conclusions to write an rfd.

That aside, I'm fine with anything so long as it's thoroughly explained. I'm only partial to well run disads

I have no history as a debater. I am a parent-judge. I've been judging debate for 2+ years. I am impressed by sound arguments. I am not impressed by spreading. I am often annoyed when people repeatedly use jargon, shorthand and acronyms, especially when they do not tell me the meaning of a term the first time it is used.

if you want to use shorthand terminology or acronyms, please be sure to tell me what they mean the first time you use them.

If you assert a non-topical aff, you should make very clear why it makes sense for you to do so. I appreciate focused cross-x and I encourage you to be assertive in the debate setting. However, if you are condescending or otherwise mean to the other side, you will lose points.

I know that debaters enjoy mental and verbal gymnastics - that's fine with me, but I want to know that you understand the core arguments you are making. If the other side asks you to explain in your own words, I hope you are able to do so without looking at a card.

Please feel free to use whatever kinds of arguments you like (e.g. framework, topicality, counterplan, disad . . .). However, as I mention above, you may lose me if you use lots of jargon, and you will lose points if I come to understand that you do not thoroughly understand the arguments you are making.

She/they. Past 2A/1N for Stuyvesant High School. Add me to the email chain please: stuyhomemadechicken@gmail.com

Background: On aff, I mostly ran performance Ks (poetry/poetic language) on techno-orientalism, race theory, Baudrillard/the University, and globalization/cap. On neg, I have some experience with full DA/CP rounds, but I mainly ran framework, Afropessimism K, cap K, and research procedurals.

Important

- Run anything you'd like with me. My opinions about what debate is and what it should look like do not affect me when judging a round. That being said, however, I advocate for a safe debate space, so microaggressions will not be tolerated.

- Tell me how to vote! Framing the debate is important to me, esp since I will not fill in the blanks for you or assume how you'd like me to weigh the round.

- I think case debates are heavily underrated, esp since most affs are really stretching it. I also find myself voting neg on presumption a lot in rounds where the aff fails to implicate that the ballot is key to any part of their aff, so being prepared to defend larger solvency issues is important to me.

- Organized flows and line by line make me happy

- I'm good with speed, but online debate will require extra enunciation.

Framework

The only thing you should know is that fairness is less of an impact to me as it is an i/l to education, but I'm willing to vote on it, you'll just have to do a little extra work. Otherwise, I love in-depth framework rounds, especially creative cross-applications across flows in developing a coherent aff/neg thesis.

Ks

I love Ks. If I haven't debated it, I've most likely read it. This still means you should explain your arguments as if I have no background knowledge on them as there are certainly many Ks I've never encountered before. I encourage the neg to cross apply the K onto the case page in creating a solid thesis, use aff-specific links, and try not to run too many offs, including Ks, that contradict or prevent you from giving me an in-depth understanding of the neg's framing— although, if you do run 5 Ks in the 1NC, I encourage the aff to capitalize on these contradictions. I think the best way for the aff to answer a K is a well-extrapolated link-turn. Also, framing can win you the round! Don't let it just be an after thought— it's essential to your K thesis, esp if the alt is pretty whack.

K-affs

Every k-aff I've ran was an identity-based performance/poetry aff. That was my preference, but, regardless of what methodology y'all endorse, I encourage y'all to have 1. have a clear advocacy, even if the advocacy is being incoherent and 2. explain the material implications, even with something as seemingly abstract as speaking to the dead.

**With methods like witchcraft, I have mixed opinions on the way many teams carry it out. Mainstream culture's witchcraft appropriates from several ethnic traditions and religions and becomes ignorant and disrespectful without proper research. If you're interacting with the other team, I ask that you get consent beforehand.

T

Same goes for T as does FW. Not hyper-speeding through your standards, though, and actually impacting them out would be appreciated.

DAs

The link story is important to me. This means thorough explanation and specificity to the aff (either through warrants or your own contextualization), so try not to resort to shady links. A lot of teams tend to forget the internal link chain, but any impact defense and framing you do won't really matter to me unless the i/l is clear. I'm not the best judge for super technical DA rounds, which is why it's important to tell me how to vote. One thing I think neg teams should do more often is run DAs against K-affs— they're not only exciting to judge on my part, but also strategic on yours.

CPs

Just like DAs, I'm not insanely technical with CPs, but I can appreciate CPs with solid net benefits. Creative, even borderline abusive, CPs are a plus.

Theory

I have ran theory a total of two times in my debate career, but I have judged plenty. I'm not a big fan of theory debates, but if you do have to run it, make sure you have a clear and stable interpretation.

Senior at Stuyvesant High School

I mostly read Ks and K affs, but don't read a K just because I'm in the back of the room

Tell me a Role of the Ballot in the 2NR/2AR

I'm good with spreading

I'll give you +0.2 speaker points for each minute you don't use of your prep

Don't refer to me as "judge" during your speech, it makes me feel old ; - ; (you'll get +0.5 speaker points if you pronounce my name correctly)

Add me on the email chain: ahuang11@stuy.edu

Have fun!!

"Tech > Truth

DA: Higher threshold for neg, explain internal link story, more likely to vote on probable/realistic impact scenarios

T & FW: procedural arguments good, both teams need to respond to/weigh each other's standards, need both offensive and defensive arguments

K & K aff: I am familiar with most literature bases. I have a propensity towards semi-pragmatic alts such as micro-political activism. If your solvency mechanism is pedagogical, however, explain the world of the alt and respond to solvency deficit arguments.

CP: You need to prove competitiveness.

On-case: explain how you access your advantages" - Aziza Krubonova

^Ditto

background

Mamaroneck ‘21, Johns Hopkins '25

Add me to the chain - twl.debate@gmail.com

+0.3 speaks if you open source all of your docs and tell me.

Tech > truth, but everything needs a warrant.

I was 1a/2n.

topicality

I will default to competing interpretations.

You need an alternative to plan text in a vacuum.

policy

Tell me to judge kick.

Smart perms destroy process cps.

You can insert perm texts.

You can insert rehighlightings.

The more specific the disad, the better.

Impact turns are fun (excluding wipeout).

ks on the neg

Ks should have specific links to the plan. Pull quotes from their aff for links.

Reps links are bad.

If the other team doesn’t understand you, don’t assume I will.

Policy teams that can't answer the K deserve to lose.

k affs

Framework: Procedural fairness and clash are impacts.

I can very easily be persuaded by presumption against k affs.

If argued by the neg, k affs probably don’t get a perm.

theory

Condo is good but you can persuade me that it is not.

Neg leaning for most theory.

Will vote on conceded aspec and other theory arguments.

non-negotiables

Follow speech times, don’t ask for high speaks, don’t ask for double wins, and don’t try to destroy the game.

Please ask for my email for the chain.

H.H. Dow High School --> University of Pittsburgh

It's somewhat the judge's job to adjust to the debaters, so I'll be open to your arguments - do what you do best. No matter what: specificity to arguments, comparison, quality evidence (that you are familiar with), technical skills (> truth), and speaking ability (clarity > speed) will be rewarded.

Debate is a game with two sides who argue against each other, and I enter a winner onto Tabroom afterwards based on who did the better debating - that's my starting premise - you can convince me to use some other logic/metric. I won't vote on things outside the round I'm judging or allow audience participation - only your performances in speech times (and CX), whatever that may be.

I am a lawyer and Executive Director of the NYCUDL.

I have judged PF for the last 6+ years, over 100 rounds and run many judge trianings.

I will judge based on a combination of the flow, general logic and common sense.

Speed-don't do it. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for it.

If you want me to vote on an issue please include it in both summary and final focus.

Write my RFD for me in final focus.

Only call for evidence if there is a real need (context, integrity).

In general, be nice. I believe in debate access for all so I will cut your speaks if you create an environment where other people don't want to participate in the activity.

Good luck and have fun!

she/her + stuyvesant '21 + dartmouth '25
email: anne.s.rhee.25@dartmouth.edu

**FOR MAMO '21**: My laptop has been really laggy with receiving emails so please upload your speech docs to the fileshare on the NSDA campus website (in addition to adding me on the email chain).

-- i have no topic knowledge. not debating in college or coaching this season.
-- please receive confirmation that i'm ready before you start your speech.
-- if it looks like i'm staring at the side and not into the camera, it's because i flow on a separate screen not that i'm not paying attention to you!!

-- previously debated for stuyvesant high school (nyc) for four years. team codes: stuy HR, stuy NR. debated with andrea huang & aidan ng, both of whom have heavily influenced how i view debate today so look at their paradigms if you need a frame of reference. (i lean more towards andrea's paradigm).
-- 2n/1a k debater for three years, 2a/1n soft-left policy debater for senior year. comfortable with ks of settler colonialism capitalism, asian (american) identity. not comfortable with high-level post-modernism ks, topicality debates, and impact turn debates.

-- psa: (i hate setting restrictions on debaters in front of me but) it'll be difficult for me to evaluate very techy T debates and K vs. K debates given that my experience is lacking in these sorts of debates.
-- i'm generally most comfortable with soft left/hard right plan affs vs. da/cp/k strats.
-- regarding framework/t-usfg, i don't have any formative thoughts on it right now since i've judged very few rounds.
-- regarding k affs, i am personally a huge fan of the heg DA : )
-- excluding condo, most theory arguments is not a reason to reject the team. condo good for a max of 3 conditional advocacies, anything else leans towards abusive but can be persuaded otherwise.

-- @zoom debaters: yes, spreading is important especially when you're trying to cover a lot. i empathize with that given i was a 2a doing virtual debate giving 2acs in response to 8+ off. but PLEASE try to slow down at least by a millisecond on the tags. if i yell clear at you, please don't be taken aback—this is for the sake of your speaks!
-- email me with any qs if you have any!!

Hi. I debated policy for years at Brooklyn Tech, mostly running soft left policy affs & the cap K, and now I'm debating policy at NYU. I have experience judging policy, PF, and parliamentary debate.

I always want to be on the email chain. My email is jzs9739@nyu.edu

Policy- general thoughts

-I don't flow or evaluate cx.

-I want to see every card that is read. Be prepared to send evidence quickly and efficiently, please.

-I love analytic args, and I don't believe a card is necessary to make an argument, but PLEASE change tone, slow down, or verbally indicate important analytics.

-The 2nr/2ar should write my ballot very clearly. The top of the speech should include fw, framing, impact calc. Role of judge/role of ballot args are a prior question to anything else in the round in my opinion so be sure to win that debate throughout, and emphasise in the 2nr/2ar.

-Don't be mean or rude to other debaters. Don't be unecessarily aggressive. This is probably the only reason I will dock speaks. Be kind to everyone in the room. Debate is a lot. Let's make the experience nicer for eachother.

Policy - Aff

-I'm very likely to vote neg on presumption because most affs don't do anything. You have to win some sort of solvency, and I've noticed most aff teams just don't do enough convincing me their plan does anything.

-I don't believe that in-round activism spills out to the real world, so you'll have to do a lot to convince me if that's your solvency mechanism if you're running some sort of K aff.

-There needs to be a strong internal link chain for me to want to vote aff, so make sure that is present and extended throughout speeches.

Policy - Neg

-I like voting neg on presumption. Most aff teams can't prove their aff does anything, so take advantage of this and make the round easier for everyone.

-fairness itself isn't a convincing impact for me most of the time. However, fairness could be an internal link to education (which is my preferred impact for theory/t/fw args)

-don't drop case in the block or the 2nr. this makes it extremely hard for me to vote neg.

PF -

I don't care what you wear/how you look. Not really any specific notes; I'll vote on the team that did the better debating.

I'm fine with most types of arguments and will try to evaluate the round as fairly as I can with no predispositions. I have some of my preferences for certain arguments listed down below, but please don't be scared to run what you're comfortable with. No matter what the argument is, if you debate it better than your opponents, I will vote for you.

- T/Theory: I’m not really a fan (I like more content-heavy debates), but if you run it, slow down so I can flow.

- K: I’m familiar with Cap K and Abolition K. If you’re running something else, spend some time on it and make sure I understand.

- DA: no link = no argument. Your impacts should outweigh theirs.

- CP: has to be competitive. I’m not really a fan of PICs or Agent CPs.

general advice

- spreading is fine, but slow down for the tags.

- don't steal prep.

- do line-by-lines!

- have a clear roadmap and signpost everything (tell me what paper to flow on!).

- 2ar/2nr needs to tell me what to vote on (you should be writing my ballot for me).

- be assertive! the best part of debate is the clash :)

add me to the email chain --- farihashoily100@gmail.com

· Varsity Judge with over 8 years of debating and judging experience.

· Clean slate judge, my opinions and feelings towards a subject will never affect the debate round.

· A judge who believes that the Aff plan should fulfill their expectation and the negative should prove that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues.

· Need a clear, straight forward presentation of issues throughout the entire round.

· Tell me why you should win the round with all evidence to back up the case.

EKSUEN@GMAIL.COM

School affiliation: Leon M. Goldstein HS

1) Hard work pays off and debate is about hard work. Debate well and be nice.

2)

T: Show violation and standards; will for topicality against non topical apps

DA: Show uniqueness(UQ), link(L), and impact

CP: show net benefit and prove how they solve the aff. Type of CP.

K: Show link, impact and alt.

FW: any kind is fine to me.

3) If you have extra prep time left, I will award you higher speaker points.

4) Do not be blatantly racist, homophobic, sexist or are in any other way discriminatory in the debate space.

Good luck to all.

Please be respectful in round, as this is a learning environment for all :)

Please time yourself.

Remember to not only extend your impacts throughout the round, but also tell me why they matter.

And lastly, have fun :)

I used to have a longer paradigm, I deleted it because it'd been a while since I made any substantive changes to it and I think my relationship to debate has changed. People are on here looking for prefs and pre round advice for how to persuasively frame their arguments. I'm not sure what the ideal paradigm for answering those questions is and doubt that this one comes close in many readings.

i just want to see a debate. I want full argumentation relying on complex and nuanced understandings of interesting and innovatice evidence sets. I want to see debaters taking research and connecting the dots to develop a complex understanding of the world. I love that strategy is a part of debate and like to see people make bold choices with clear and clever strategic goals, and for those things to be communicated in an effective manner.

I think that arguments should be complete (having a claim, warrant, and impact) on the flow when they are made. I appreciate well organized debaters who engage in a method that creates a clear structure for the flow. I think that there has been a lack of emphasis on argument explication. I guess what I'm trying to say is it seems like debaters are either being held or are holding themselves to a lower threshold when it comes to fleshing out the implications of any particular argument and it's relationship to all the other sub debates and ultimately the ballot. Maybe one thing that causes that is debaters wanting to go for too much in their final speeches. Being confident in being able to narrow the debate down to what you believe to be the key issues is I think what I mean by making bold choices. I think it's good when these things happen earlier (as early as the 1ac/1nc) rather than later(I'll put "condo" here so people can control f that and surmise my opinion about big 1nc's in LD by reading the preceding sentence).

As long as adequate time is spent to implicating ur argument and telling me what to do on it then you shouldn't be afraid to say anything in front of me. (Except bad and incomplete arguments).

Speed? I can do it!! I think this is something that should be negotiated between debaters but I'm a pretty alright flow! Pen time between pages and vocal intonations and speed changes for emphasis are good things.

Evidence should be like, words highlighted that when read together approximate at least an attempt at a sentence. If I read the highlighting and come away thinking "what is bro yapping about" I'm gonna lower your speaks.

Conversely will award decent speaks for interesting and good quality research.

Spin is important but so is your ev, but remember when making args I'm probably not looking at it till after the round.

I think I might have a higher threshold for explanation than a lot of judges. I'm at the risk of being repetitive here, making bold, specific, and strategic choices/ sticking to your guns to take them to their logical conclusions is great for you in front of me.

My email (which you should put on the chain) is: debatethek@gmail.com

I do policy and NFA ld for the University of North texas. If you're interested in debating in college, and in particular at UNT hit me up, we have scholarships!

Online debate stuff:

I like email chains over other kinds of sharing methods- it lets us get in contact with ppl in case of technical difficulties.

I think Jackie Poapst said this first, but I absolutely hate “is any one not ready” because if someone is having a tech problem then they may not be able to indicate they are not ready. It is the equivalent of “if you aren’t here raise your hand.”

There have been several times when debaters have asked “is everybody ready” and then proceeded to give their speech without a response from me- I missed several seconds of those debaters’ speeches. Please wait for me to respond I’ll usually say that “i’m good” verbally. If I see that the debater about to give a speech can see their camera- i may just give a thumbs up. If I have not done either of those things- I AM NOT READY.

I have no objections to any arguments, as long as they can be reasonably explained. Some things that you guys should consider though:

-I won't consider a Kritik if there is no framework properly established

-I will count against your speaker points if you speak out loud to your partner during someone else's speech, if you steal prep, or if you make arguments during cross examination

-If you do not read card titles/card authors, I will not consider them as valid evidence

-Don't be cocky or disrespectful
-If you're neg, please remember to link to case

-If you cut cards without telling me, I won't count that as evidence either

-Sub to my yt :P

Hi everyone.

I debated before so I'm familiar with the debate terminology. Debate however you're comfortable with but add a roadmap or signpost before your speeches. Feel free to add me to the email chain- mz04250425@gmail.com

Have fun debating!