Salutations, my name is Lara, here's a little about me. My preferred pronouns are she/her, and I've partaken in NYCUDL tournaments for about 6 years now. I have 4 years of experience in debating in the varsity open policy division, and I've been a judge for about three years now.

As a judge, during the debate round, I expect debaters to remain courteous and comply with the tournament's rules regarding attitude and rhetoric. I do not have a preference on spreading during the constructive, however I highly anticipate more concise and emphasized rebuttals.

The way my thinking methodology works regarding deciding who wins is through a 3D model, I will consider each side's impacts (using impact calc that I expect to be stated by teams during the rebuttals), as well as outstanding arguments. I will be keeping track of what cases (on or off) are dropped or carried throughout.

Also, please clash-- that's what makes debate fun as well as educational!

Happy debating!

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.

Put me on the email chain csh7916@nyu.edu

(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 for years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, and Parli 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. My pronouns are she/her. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me its bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

Top Line:

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory. I know people are iffy on theory but I personally feel they make some of the best rounds.

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. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

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.

I have debated up to open policy. I have no objections to any type of arguments as long as it's run properly.

Do's:

- Please present a roadmap before every speech (outline what you will be doing) and signpost (indicate when you are switching to a different topic in your roadmap).

- Say "NEXT" between each card.

- Slow down for the taglines/make sure they are heard clearly. Please be coherent throughout the entire round!

- Have fun and be confident!

Dont's:

- Don't be cocky or rude. I will take away speaker points!

- No card clipping/sending files that isn't exactly what you will be reading (I will not disqualify you, but I will give you a warning and possibly take away points).

- Don't be monotone. Keep me engaged!!!

My Personal Preferences/Advice:

- CapK (If run properly) is the file I personally run and prefer. However, you will not lose or gain points for choosing certain files.

- Use CPs and Disads together.

- T/Theory: I am fine with topicality files if run properly. If T arguments are dropped, I will not vote on it.

- I prefer/am fine with spreading if EVERTHING can be heard clearly. If I only hear the taglines and not all of the content, I will not give extra speaker points and may take some away.

- I personally prefer to do line-by-lines!

- Remember: Impact calc, Magnitude, Probability.

- Make sure to not drop any arguments! Dropping arguments will not guarantee a loss, but is a determinant to who is winning.

Kelly Lem <3

Email: k.lemonlime6@gmail.com

Queens High School for The Sciences

Hi y’all! My name’s Jailyne (she/her). Please add me to the email chain polancojailyne@gmail.com

I debated policy at Leon Goldstein HS in NYC for 3 years. I’m a senior at NYU but I don't debate there.

I haven't judged in a while. I haven't debated in a looooong time. I know the basics of policy and can follow a round, but don't expect me to remember jargon or topic-specific concepts. My brain is soupy.

I used to be more of a truth > tech person, but since I've been away from debate, I'm going to default to tech unless I'm told otherwise (that's your cue to tell me otherwise heh).

Here's a bullet-point list of other stuff you should know:

• I'm cool with open cross (I don't flow cross but you should still use it strategically)
• I have a higher threshold for DAs that have ridiculous impacts with no concrete link story
• Multiple CPs/alts annoy me
• I’ll vote on T if I have to, but I won't enjoy it
• Policy v Policy rounds are straightforward for me to judge, but that's only if both teams make it that way
• K rounds are also good when they’re explained clearly. I'm familiar with Cap and Gender/Queer args. I'm familiar with Baudrillard, Antiblackness/Afropess, and Foucault, but in the context of my coursework. Regardless, make sure to explain everything
• Go slow on tags and analytics
• Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. Duh.

If you have any specific questions, ask me before the round :)

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!!

add me to the email chain: ridatasnim@gmail.com

- spreading is fine, as long as you read the tags slowly.

- i'm okay with open cross !!

- if you're neg: PLEASE LINK TO CASE !! i know this is a given, but unfortunately, many teams fail to do this.

- not the biggest fan of theory. i wont penalize you for it, but i prefer more content-heavy arguments.

- first framework given is the one i'll accept unless its refuted.

- kritks are sexy.

- please refrain from being rude or cocky. im big on respect, so be respectful or it might reflect on your speaker points.

Hey! My name is Yasharbek, I'm a senior at Queens High School for the Sciences and I'm excited to judge for yall :). I've debated for 2-3 years, so I do have some experience. I don't have many rules, except for just being kind to one another and not being discriminatory in any way (fyi I will end the round if yall even try to go there - don't test me).

Either way, here are some things you should have:

1) a roadmap

2) shareable speeches - this isn't a requirement, more of a suggestion, but if you are planning on spreading you better have files to send to your opponents because it's really exhausting to flow on some1 mumbling!!!

3) impact calc in your rebuttals

4) i don't really know what to add here so yeah.

Anyways, other important info:

1) I love seeing Ks, especially in Novice rounds. Just make sure you know (or pretend like you know) what you're talking about! <3

2) I'll try to be all Tabula Rasa to the best of my ability

3) I want everyone to be on time >^<

4) Idk good luck I guess

Sending love and strength to everyone <333333 YALL GOT THIS

chain- harsan998@gmail.com

kentucky '26 debater

nato: absolutely zero niche topic knowledge, or on community consensus/the meta rn.

T/L-

-You do you. For the most part, I think the burden is on me to adapt to you and not vice-versa.

-I'll say "clear" if I need to.

-I think debate is a game and generally should be fun. I'll award good speaks if it's obvious that you're passionate.

-Tech > Truth

-I'll only be voting on the knowledge I get from being in that round.

-I'm not gonna vote on things done outside of a round.

-In order for me to vote on an argument, I must be able to explain it back to you in a coherent manner. That means quick and blippy arguments have an uphill battle when I am resolving the round.

-everything below is just my own opinion to preface my thought process as to resolving a round. It isn't an inherent bias coming into the round, and I am willing to have my mind changed on anything written below.

-Also, I haven't updated the blurb below since the CJR topic. I don't particularly care to either. Again, just do you.

K affs- I'd like to see some engagement with the topic. While I am familiar with most lit bases, don't assume I know the creaks of your specific lit base. Good explanations go a long way, especially with high theory. In terms of framework debates, I think debate is a game that has a terminal impact on education. I am predispositioned to see and/or vote on a model of debate that maximizes clash and fruitful engagement, however this isn't a set in stone statement and could go both ways.

I generally dislike having to flow 20 different das on the T-FW flow that all functionally say the same thing.

Policy- I think there should be some good [actor] key warrants. If you run a soft left aff, I'll resolve the framing flow first (unless the neg goes for sufficiency framing), however I don't generally think spending a lot of time on framing is the most strategic use of your time.

T- I love a good T debate as much as the next person. I'm looking for good evidence quality and comparison. Generally, I'll vote for whichever side presents the better model of debate.

I love when 1NRs (or 2ncs) actually give a carded caselist that preempts or answers arguments on said caselist getting destroyed by states/agent counterplans.

CP- I need to explicitly hear judge kick arguments being made in order for me to do it / not do it.

Agent CP / PTX DA- I understand the need for these, given how wack the current state of the topic is. However, I'd still like to see some actual engagement with the aff. Whether that be turns case analysis or CP solves better.

K- I'm fine with anything, just as long as good explanations are being given. I generally prefer a K that turns the aff in someway and provides an alternative that solves both.

Theory- I love a good theory debate. I generally dislike blippy theory shells if it becomes relevant in the debate.

Hi, I'm Jeremy. I did policy debate in high school and now in college..

Some thoughts, not necessarily in any order:

--the 2nr/2ar should write my ballot. that requires judge instruction surrounding key framing questions and how those framing questions implicate my evaluation of the rest of the debate. the best rebuttal probably wins a framing arg at the top and then goes down the flow to apply it. Recently i've been persuaded by role of the judge arguments because they provide me with a epistemic/ethical position from which to adjudicate arguments on the flow. If you want me to do work for you in my decision, this is how, you just need to implicate it.

--If ur a 2n, probably don’t drop case. if you’re a 2a, punish the 2n for dropping case.

--hypothetical/universal models of debate probably don’t exist in so far as my ballot can not fiat them into existence, there is just the specific debate under adjudication and real existing debate practices within the concrete totality of the activity - whether that is true or not is ultimately up for y’all to prove/disprove - that means that in round abuse tends to be more persuasive than potential abuse because it means ur impact exists rather than being hypothetical

--The same logic folds true for other impact analysis. I tend to think that institutions/systems/entities, etc. have historical existence (for instance, "historical capitalism") which binds their coming-into-Being (past) to their Being (present). That is to say that violence isn't just an ethical choice in a vacuum, but something that accumulates through the reproduction of its existence over time and through space. that means that hypothetical impacts are probably less important than real-existing impacts since the future existence of hypothetical impacts is not certain and/or necessary. That being said, if you win your internal link chain is true, that the hypothetical impact outweighs, and that you solve it, i probably will vote for you absent some tricky framing argument you drop.

Topicality

• I like these debates. i don't judge a ton of them though, especially not on this topic.
• Fairness is probably the best impact if you're reading T, but you should have inroads/internal link turns on clash/edu because i'm willing to be persuaded that the inclusion of debatably (un)topical aff into the activity is good because it provides a unique type of education not accessed by existing affirmatives
• the current college topic has made me believe in subsets (do with that what you will)

Framework vs K affs

• hypothetical/universal models of debate probably don’t exist in so far as my ballot can not fiat them into existence, there is just the specific debate under adjudication and real existing debate practices within the concrete totality of the activity - whether that is true or not is ultimately up for y’all to prove/disprove - that means that in round abuse tends to be more persuasive than potential abuse because it means ur impact exists rather than being hypothetical
• I tend to think that FW is chosen ground vs many k affs unless its a new aff because many teams get by fine without reading fw
• Fairness is probably an impact, but its not necessarily the most important impact and is often just an internal link to other things (clash/education/etc.)
• The biggest issues that i have with 2nrs that go for fw is a) the lack of an external impact (people quit, debate dies - participation has decreased over the years, explain that impact flows ur way and how you solve it) and b) not explaining why debate is a valuable activity that should be preserved (this is where things like education, skills, and fun often become terminal impacts to the internal link of education) c) lack of defense (SSD or TVA) that absorbs the educational net benefits of the aff
• The biggest issue that i have with 2ars responding to fw is insufficient impact calculus - i will probably let you weigh ur aff's theory of power/understanding of the world vs fw, but you have to explain you impacts on the level of the activity and contextualize that as offense vs their reading of fw - does FW, particularly the invocation of procedural norms, insulate debate from a critique of its ideology? Are the content-neutral education/skills produced by their content agnostic model good?
• I don't really care whether you go for a C/I or an impact turn, but a mix of the two can be good i.e. a straight impact turn might leave you without defense, whereas a C/I means your vulnerable to the normative impacts of theory debates. I think that if you isolate a critique of the outcomes of their model, then provide an alternative model, you're probably in a good place.

K v K Debates

• Affs probably get a perm, theoretically (if the 1nr is 5 min of perm theory that would be pretty devastating) but whether the perm solves the links is up for debate.
• A good 2ar either goes for the perm with case, link turns, and alt DAs as Net benefits OR goes for case outweighs with a disad to the alternative
• A good 2nr has an impact which outweighs the aff with either an alt that resolves the aff impacts OR presumption
• you can probably win presumption with me in the back. I used to go for baudrillard a lot

DA/CP

I don't judge these debates very often and thus don't have any specific thoughts that aren't captured by stuff i said above. just win the flow.

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

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.

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!