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!

Here is my email for the email chain:

Williamc0402@gmail.com

Here is my short biography for you to know who I am:
Hi, my name is William. I finished a PhD in German at NYU. My focus was on literature, critical theory, and to some extent black studies.
As for debate experience, I used to debate for CUNY debate in college for 4 years, reading critical arguments in the Northeast. I won a handful of regional tournaments and broke at CEDA. I also coach for Brooklyn Technical High School (sometimes we sign up at Brooklyn Independent). I have been coaching there for 8 years and have had my debaters make it far in national tournaments as well as qualify for the TOC a bunch. Because I work with Brooklyn Tech (a UDL school), I am also connected to the NYCUDL.

Here is the start of my paradigm:
As everyone else says, rule of thumb: DO WHAT YOU’RE GOOD AT
Whether your go-to strat is to throw stuff at the wall and hope it sticks, a straight up disad/cp, or a one-off K; I will be more than happy to judge your round…
given that you:

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have some trouble adjudicating what you’ve said.
2) Properly explain your positions—don’t make an assumption that I know you the abbreviations you use, the specific DA scenario you're going for (perhaps fill me in on the internal link chains), or the K jargon you're using. Help me out!
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles between your own positions compared to those of the other team.

4) Frame things— tell me how I should prioritize impacts otherwise I will default to util (see section at the bottom)
5) 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.
6) Write the ballot for me in your 2nr/2ar, tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Prioritize your best offense and tell me why that offense is critical to evaluating the round—force me to evaluate the debate through a prism that has you winning

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations and util unless an alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round are introduced

2) I will default to rejecting the argument not the team unless you tell me otherwise

3) 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
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate though my own experience debating and coaching revolves around mostly K debate.

Mamaroneck High School 2020

Boston University 2024

anna26844@gmail.com - feel free to email me with any questions you have pre-round or post-round.

I am okay with almost anything in debate: Ks, DAs, CPs, Theory, K affs, T, Policy affs etc, go for it. Just don't be rude or condescending to your opponents, I will dock your speaker points.

My own experience has been predominantly running policy affirmatives and mixed k + policy neg strategies. That being said, my opinions DON'T MATTER. I will vote for the debaters who best support their arguments and prove why they should win.

Spreading is cool, but not if you're unclear. Do line-by-line and be clear about evidence comparison.

Please add me to the email chain: ferrisi2002@gmail.com

Graduated from Mamaroneck High School (Class of 2020). Currently studying Political Science at American University (Class of 2024). I have 3 years of Policy Debate experience in Highschool and have attended both George Mason and Dartmouth debate summer programs.

I will go through some basics but for the most part I’m good with any arguments as long as its explained well. The more obscure an argument is, the more it should be explained. Don’t rely on me having any background information on a topic either way.

Don’t clip cards.

Dropped arguments are true arguments.

Tech > Truth

Most importantly, just be respectful and have fun.

Tech over truth ends when you start making racism good, death good, etc type of arguments.

Everyone should be here to actually gain some education or valuable experience from debate.

I am not completely up to date on the current 2023-2024 resolution. Please make sure you are clear about topic specific acronyms and phrases.

Counter Plans

Counter plans should be fleshed out to run them effectively. I think often you need more then just a text-only CP. That said, anything is possible if the other team just drops the argument. Here you need to prove a clear net benefit and avoid the perm. Make sure they are competitive and actually better (counter plan counters the plan)

DA

Big fan, just make sure the UQà Linkà I/L à Impact, chain sticks by the end of the debate. Politics DA’s should be recent and give me actual reasons to weigh your impacts against case.

Ks

I think Ks can often be the biggest hit or miss in debate depending on the team. There is a huge difference between a team that just picked up a fun looking K out of there schools Dropbox and one that has mastered it. Bite the bullet on the absurd claims they try to catch you in cx. Give a fleshed out alternative and make sure your link is something more then just the resolutions association with the USFG. Win the link and build up the alternative for these arguments to hold weight in the last few speeches.

T

Make it clear why the counter-interpretation matters, Prefer limits > ground. At the end make sure I have an actual reason to prefer the counter-interpretation with actual impacts to the debate space besides a word technically not meeting the definition.

Case

I often find case debates either to be the most developed in a round or completely forgotten. Don’t waste your time just reading premade summaries when you can defend on specifics. I think the best-case debates happen when both sides provide specific evidence that engages with each other. Make clear your impact scenarios. Be careful about time in the 1AR.

In debate, any argument can be good as long as the impacts and connections to the case are made. I believe topicality to be an important argument when it is reasonable and substantiated under the resolution of the debate. In debate, cross-examinations are essential and often times undervalued. Maintaining a theme throughout the debate and arguing the opponent's case in depth will lead to a better debate and argumentation.

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.

Hello Debate Scholars,

I love to see well developed and researched contentions. The more concise and endepth evidence the better. I enjoy when scholars are aware and show compassion for communities and for topics that focus on tough social and political issues. It is important for debaters to have a solid understanding of the various stories, narratives and experiences of the stakeholders involved within each issue. I appreciate culturally relevant stances that embrace and tackle deep rooted issues surrounding race, racism, discrimination, identity and equity. I most enjoy when debate scholars try their very best to present clear, concise and solution based speeches that uphold the dignity and respect for every person involved in their speech. I have been coaching middle school and high school debate for 7 years. My teams have won League, State and National Championships. It is with great honor that I am fortunate to see debate scholars who debate with love, respect and a great spirit of competitiveness for their craft.

Sincerely,

Chiara D. Fuller

Stuyvesant '21 | Georgetown '25

__

shorter version:

did 4 years of policy + did the whole qual to the toc thing but i have no topic knowledge 

i don't debate in college so its been a while

did primarily ks and then primarily policy, shd be familiar w most stuff

spreading is cool

___

short version:

Hi! I’m fine with anything you want to run and I’ll try to evaluate the round with no predispositions. If you are efficient and don't use all your speech/prep time when you don't need to, I will boost your speaks. If you feel like you have nothing else to say at the end of your speech, please don't repeat what you said above unless you're recontextualizing it to an argument or framing the debate.

If you’re a curious novice here are some general thoughts:

- Please time your own speeches. I won't.

- Talking to your partner is prep

- Don't just read your blocks. Understand them.

- Speed is fine

- Tech > truth. A dropped argument is a true argument but how much I weigh it depends on how well it’s warranted and impacted out. I am a very, very, very technical judge.

- Protecting the 2NR is important to me. New 2AR spins are fine but not new arguments

- Add me to the email chain: aidancng@gmail.com

- Debate is stressful. Have fun!

Debate well and do not change what you read just because I am judging. These are just my thoughts on debate, but I try to leave all my opinions at the door and vote off the flow. I do not coach often anymore, so assume that I have no topic knowledge.

I debated at Mamaroneck for three years and coached the team during the criminal justice reform and water resources topics. I did grad school at Georgetown and work for the debate team.

People who have influenced how I judge and view debate: Ken Karas, Jake Lee, Rayeed Rahman, Jack Hightower, Cole Weese, Tess Lepelstat, Zach Zinober, David Trigaux, Brandon Kelley, Gabe Lewis

Put me on the email chain: eaorfanos1[at]gmail[dot]com AND mhsdebatedocs[at]googlegroups[dot]com. The email subject should be "Tournament + Year - Round # - Aff Team v. Neg Team" [Example: Mamaroneck 2023 - Round 1 - Mamaroneck RS v. Mamaroneck LS]

Please open source all your evidence after the debate.

Be respectful. Have fun.

general

Tech > Truth. Dropped arguments are true if they have a claim, warrant, and impact, you extend the argument, and you tell me why I should vote on it. It is not enough to say dropping the argument means you automatically win without extending and explaining. That being said, the threshold for explanation is low if the other team drops the argument.

I adjust speaker points based on the tournament, division, and quality of competition. I reward debaters who are strategic and creative.

Clipping will give you the lowest possible speaks and a loss. Please take this seriously as I have caught a couple debaters doing so and promptly reported the situation to tab and gave L 1 to the debater at fault.

Violence and threats of violence will also result in L 1 or lowest possible points. Don't test me on this.

specific

I love a good case debate. Show me that you did your research and prepared well. Evidence comparison and quality is very important. Do not just say their evidence is bad and your evidence is better without comparing warrants.

I am a good judge for extinction outweighs.

Impact turns are great when done well. However, I do not like wipeout (gross) or warming good (I work in environmental law). I will be annoyed if you run these arguments, but will still try to evaluate the round fairly. Obviously no racism good or similar arguments.

Heg good is a vibe.

5+ off vs K affs is also a vibe.

Big politics disadvantage fan.

I love well-researched advantage counterplans. My favorite strategies involve advantage counterplans and impact turns. I am also good for process counterplans, but it is always better if there is truth based on the topic lit that supports why the specific process is competitive with and applicable to the aff. Counterplans need a net benefit and a good explanation of solvency and competition. I like smart perm texts and expect good explanations of how the perm functions. I will not judge kick unless the 2NR tells me to. Honestly, I am uncomfortable with judge kick and would rather not have to do it, but will if the neg justifies it.

I used to like topicality debates, but I realized that they become unnecessarily difficult to evaluate when neither side does proper comparative work on the interpretation or impact level. Abuse must be substantiated, and the negative must have an offensive reason why the aff's model of debate is bad. You should have an alternative to plan text in a vacuum (this argument is kinda dumb). Legal precision, predictable limits, clash, and topic education are persuasive. I think that I am persuaded by reasonability more than most, but I think this is dependent on the violation and the topic. Please provide a case list.

Condo is probably good, but I can be persuaded otherwise if abuse is proved and there is an absurd amount of condo. I will vote for condo it is dropped, the 2nr is only defense on condo, or the aff is winning the argument on the flow.

For other theory, I am probably also neg leaning. Theory debates are not fun to resolve, so please do not make me evaluate a theory debate. A note for disclosure theory: I firmly believe that disclosure is good, and the bar is lowest on this theory argument for me to vote for it, but you must still extend the argument fully and answer your opponent's responses. Even if you opponent violates, you must make a complete argument and answer their arguments.

Great for T-USFG. Procedural fairness and clash are the most persuasive impacts. I love real and true arguments.

More negative teams should go for presumption against K Affs. Affirmative teams reading K Affs should provide a thorough explanation of aff solvency or at least tell me why the ballot is key if your aff does not necessarily need to have a specific solvency mechanism and instead relies on an endorsement of its method or thesis.

I am most familiar with the basic Ks like capitalism and security. I am not the best judge if you read high-theory Ks, and my least favorite debates have involved teams reading these kind of Ks and relying on blocks. Overviews and non-jargon tags are very helpful. Explanation is key. Specific links to the plan are always better. Despite my own argument preferences, I have voted for the K fairly often.

My ballot in clash rounds is usually based on framework or the perm. Negative teams going for the K in front of me should spend more time on framework than they normally would, unless it is an impact turn debate.

I am not the best judge for K v K, but I will try my best if I find myself in one of these debates. My ballot in these types of debates has mostly focused on aff vs alt solvency.

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!!

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.

Do not read blocks, read analytics that actually respond. It is obvious if you are just reading out pre-typed material and your speaks will go down.

Be polite to one another.

Do not steal prep.

claim - warrant - impact; a clear story is necessary to win the debate since a story has arguments. It might be a lofty burden but explanations are critical in order to win my ballot.

Tabula rasa.

· 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.

Email: haltonstancil@gmail.com

---For everything---

• NO SPREADING PLEASE!

- Remember to speak clearly and concisely!

-Make sure your arguments are explicitly explainable

-Roadmap and signpost, keep consistent organization throughout the round, number your points

- Refer to your tags/author’s content for referencing cards instead of “author date”, makes evidence way easier to identify during rebuttals and extensions

-----------------------

General: I have experience with debating/judging policy and congress. Clash is the #1 biggest thing I want to see in a round.

Stock issues/T: Stock issues debate makes for a great round, style is not always imperative. T is fine, but I often find that the argument chains don't provide the debate with a meaningful/educational impact.

K's/CPs: K's and CP's are great! My experience is financial/economic IR-interrelated theory, but please be creative.

Dawson '21 in Houston

Tufts University '25

Debating as a Hybrid with Harvard as Tufts

Please put me in the email chain and feel free to reach out if you have any questions about debating at Tufts: mattjstinson2003@gmail.com

TLDR:

pref me KvK>Clash> Policy and give me a card doc after the round

Please do not over adapt to my paradigm. You do you and I will adjudicate the debate to the best of my ability. I always hate when judges strongly inflict their biases into decisions so I try to be as non-intervention as possible. But inevitably, I have some preconceptions and biases about debate so look through before rounds.

In high school, I was a double two going for policy args on aff and setcol and daoism on the neg, but in college I am a 1N/2A reading primarily flex args from across the library

I am a huge fan of argument innovation - make cool and original args and Ill reward you with extra high speaks

I like reading ev but pls do the work for me - if you frame your arguments clearly and basically write the ballot for me you will be far ahead.

Im kinda of a points fairy and reward debaters who are funny and make the debate enjoyable and educational.

Im not the type of judge if your debate style is bullying your opponents or being outright aggressive to them.

Finally, please just be nice to each other. I understand debate can be competitive at times, but try your best to be respectful and kind to your opponents. Problematic behavior, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, or transphobia, is completely unacceptable and will result in immediate judge intervention to ensure the safety of debaters.

Specifics:

Policy Aff vs K:

I have no strong leanings either way. These are my favorite type of debates to watch and judge. Kinda weird flow choice by me but in one off debates I prefer to flow different parts ie. FW, ontology, perms and links on different sheets so pls give me pen time

I think top level: both teams need to win an instructive claim on what the role of the ballot is and how I should weigh the aff vs the alt or the squo. Framework debating is often underutilized on the high school level and I think in a lot of debates it becomes a wash, which isnt good for both teams

I prefer for links to be to the consequences of the plan, generally, i find links of omission and reps links to not be super strategic. They are winnable but I would like some aff-specific contextualization with fleshed-out impacts and turns case analysis.

I find in a lot of fiat K ontology debates are really reductive and their isnt really explanations from either side about what the implications of their examples are and why is this the case.

I find 2AC shotgunning perms to be annoying and I give the 2NR leeway for new answers if a shotgunned perm suddenly takes on a new meaning in the 1AR. I prefer perms beyond PDB to be explained in the 2ac in like a sentence

Im not the judge for vague alt theory, use it as a solvency takeout instead

I think alt debating is usually pretty bad and isnt explained enough how the alt solves the links. Both teams need to pay heed to this and do more work on this part of the debate

Clash:

I believe FW is a legitimate form of rejoinder against non-topical advocacy. Having read a K-aff and FW consistently in college I find myself to be middle of the road in these debates with no strong leanings either way

Generally speaking, I view FW as a sliding scale. We meet affs will have an easier time while affs that dont engage with the topic theme at all will have a harder time.

My best advice is to choose an angle against FW and stick to it rather than going for a we meet, counter interp, and Impact turn all in the same 2AR.

I believe for me personally debate is a game that has some value outside of debate. I believe fairness is an external impact, but I find clash or skills to usually be more strategic against most K affs

I think for a winning 2NR in these debates I need clear impact explanation, offense on their CI/IT, and a bit on the case page to minimize case cross apps

I am also quite sympathetic to presumption and rejoinder bad arguments and I think sometimes going for case in the 2NR is quite strategic

For the 2AR to get my ballot explain your theory of power, its offensive applications on framework, and win either a counter-interp that is a better model, we meet, or an impact turn to FW

My final thoughts are I appreciate solid case debating. I think a coherent 4-5 minutes on case with both offense and defense to central claims will be way more strategic than a generic cap K

KvK

I lean on the side that the aff gets the perm, but the burden for explanation is higher than we sorta mention x or we would work in solidarity with y. Treat the perm like independent advocacy and explain why it resolves the links and explain how it would function.

I prefer as specific link contextualization as you can get, I think ontology without contextualization arent the best in front of me

Id like more impact comparison on both sides and explain how your theory of power interacts and supersedes your opponents

CPs:

Some of my favorite args in debate are clever process cps or pics. At the same time, my most hated arguments are perennial troll cps like con con or consult nato

2Ns honestly get away with murder with a lot of these shady cps. 2As hold the line on theory and call out these abusive cp texts

I tend to lean neg on condo at 4 options and below, states fiat, and process cp theory and aff on international fiat, condo above 5 options, and consult/conditions cp.

I usually judge kick unless given a reason not to

Theory is usually not a voter unless the 2nr goes for the arg in question (this excludes condo)

ill vote on condo but im also a reasonable person.

DAs:

Generally speaking, the more ev the better

Impact calc and a good cp/case push is key to get my ballot on a da

Turns case is also a good idea

Case

I have a soft spot for squirrelly affs that interpret the topic in an exciting way

Case debating is underrated - 99% of affs can get destroyed if u just do more than the bare minimum to answer them

Case turns are good and you should be reading lots of them in your 1nc

a trend im noticing with policy affs is alot of them read just god awful impact scenarios - neg pls dont drop them or ill be sad

a lot of case debating is just tagline extensions with rly no argumentative interaction - pls give warrants

go for an impact turn on case :)

T:

I tend to lean competing interps.

To easily win my ballot, treat t like a disad and have a coherent story for why your vision of the topic is better than your opponents

Im not likely to vote for bottom of the barrel args like ASPEC or disclosure

if u hide procedurals ima prob not flow it and if i do realize it ur getting a 25

Misc

I'm fine for the death K, wipeout, spark etc.

Go for memes - trolling is an underrated art in debate

I don't like when teams play music in rounds

The older the card, the better - read some ancient texts

I believe the ballot can only remedy who did the better debating- anything else is reflected in speaks

Nba references are much appreciated but don't say you're the Lebron of HS debate

LD:

K>Larp> T/Theory > Phil > Tricks

TBH i dont know how to give speaks in LD so ill prob default to 29.4 and go from there

generally speaking the closer your are to policy the better

I find phil and tricks debates make me want to slam my head into my desk

Ive noticed a lot of lders are borderline unflowable - do pen drills or slow down and be clear

Basically ditto my policy thoughts here

PF

Ditto my policy thoughts - closer you are to policy the better

i have not seen a good k debate in pf and its likely i never will

I have seen some decent theory debates but they are not fun to judge

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.

Adam White

He/Him

Last Substantive Paradigm Update: 4/12/24

Georgetown '25 (debating). 3x NDT elim participant.

Affiliations: Blue Valley West

adamwhite(dot)debate(at)gmail(dot)com---Yes Chain. Please include the following pieces of information in the subject line: Year, Tournament, Round Number, Aff Team, Neg Team

Feel free to email me at any time for questions, requests, etc.

---Strike Check---

Most familiar with policy arguments; bad for kritiks/arguments that don't contest the aff's core premises but comfortable voting for those that do; intuitively skeptical of affs that don’t affirm the resolution.

My 2NRs over my college career:

vs affs with a plan: 30 CP+DA, 16 DA, 3 T, 6 CP, 1 K, 3 CT

vs affs without a plan: 12 T, 7 K, 5 DA, 1 CT, 4 DA+CA

---General Notes---

Do not send me a speech doc that is not a verbatimized Microsoft Word document absent extenuating circumstances.

Yes marked docs. No cards in email body. Yes card doc with relevant cards referenced in the 2NR/2AR. No inserting rehighlighted ev to make new warrants.

---Top Level---

My favorite debates to judge, and the ones I am most confident in evaluating, are those where 2NR offense is in the form of a disad or case turn against an affirmative with well-explained and coherent internal link chains to specific impacts.

Absent judge instruction to the contrary, I will default to voting negative unless the aff proves the resolution true by example.

I refuse to evaluate anything that occurred outside of the debate round.

I flow by ear and will not follow along in the doc.

---Evidence---

I care about evidence a lot, both in terms of quantity and quality. The 2NR and 2AR should speak to the specific warrants in their evidence they would like me to read.

If I am reading evidence for you, I will only give you access to your highlighted words. I don't care if cards are short, but I care substantially that there is relative grammatical coherence.

That said, I give smart analytics a lot of weight, and I give evidence with no author credentials little weight.

---Case Debating With A Plan---

2As get away with murder. 2Ns should exploit that by explicitly flagging warrants in 1NC case evidence that the 2AC does not contest.

“Util/consequentialism bad” arguments are not very persuasive to me if the aff has a consequence to their plan that they would like me to evaluate in a utilitarian manner.

---Disads---

I like them. I like them a lot. I’d prefer to vote on ones that make sense.

---Counterplans---

I don’t entirely understand debates over sufficiency framing—if the neg offense generated by a net benefit outweighs the impacted solvency deficits generated by the aff, then I vote neg.

I tend to care more about arbitrariness/logic/predictability than debatability, though this is not absolute (for instance, aff intrinsicness tests seem unworkable on many topics even if they are logical).

I prefer for theory debates (process/consult/delay/whatever bad) to be couched in terms of why I should normatively view a specific permutation as legitimate. Otherwise, I have a hard time overcoming the inevitable neg arbitrariness argument.

I find conditionality bad arguments fairly unpersuasive. "We/they get 3!" is not super persuasive to me (see arbitrariness over debatability). I am amenable to the claim that conditionality bad is a reason to stick the neg with all the advocacies, not to reject the team.

I default to placing the burden on the aff to prove their advocacy desirable in relation to both the status quo and competitive advocacies introduced by the negative.

---Topicality vs Plans---

Retweet statement about arbitrariness/predictability over debatability. I view topicality as a descriptive question where we interpret the words in the resolution, not create new ones.

Given the above, I have a very high threshold for interpretation evidence quality (and to some degree quantity) that both teams will have to overcome.

I am somewhat persuaded by reasonability claims that operate at the level of interpretations and less so those that are about the specific aff in question.

I am very amenable to smuggling in topicality debates on PICs out of words in the plan.

---Kritiks---

I am fully comfortable discounting an argument if I do not understand it.

Evidence is important. I am heavily skeptical of concluding that broad, structural claims are true absent a strong epistemic basis for doing so. The world is a complex place, and overarching claims for how everything operates without specificity is a losing game if properly exploited. This also goes for policy-oriented teams, particularly with regard to IR.

The explanation of the kritik should be consistent both internally within the round and vis-à-vis the evidence. If your argument doesn’t start as the security K, it should not end as the security K.

Framework---I will not arbitrarily decide some middle ground interpretation between the aff and neg framework interps unless one team tells me that it's an option. Both teams, please explain your interp: can the neg win for disproving a single aff justification? How do I weigh policy consequences against epistemological indicts? Does the aff get to weigh the totality of their representations? Does the neg get PIKs? Should we imagine the aff as being implemented using the 1AC's representations? Is neg offense against aff justifications based on the policies those justifications would lead us to, or based on the consequences of introducing said scholarship in debate, or something else entirely? I am pretty good for neg framework interps that link turn fairness and clash against "FW: No Ks/plan consequences only," but only if the above set of questions is answered.

---Kritikal Affs---

Against T: I am fairly good for affirmatives that counterdefine words in the resolution in a nuanced/interesting way and defend that interpretation. I feel that most counterinterpretations are entirely arbitrary.

I am highly skeptical that the way I vote in a given debate has any meaningful impact on anything.

If the aff makes an argument for why they should win the debate, and the neg proves that the opposite of that argument is true, then I vote neg.

Given that the resolution and usual policy-making paradigms are abandoned in these debates, I am unsure how presumption should function. Hence, neg teams should explain why I should view presumption in a certain way if they want it to be an important part of the 2NR.

---Topicality/FW---

I am not dogmatic about what impact you read.

When going for a fairness impact, I will need more dot-connecting and explanation in the 2NR than many other judges. I implicitly feel that fairness is an impact, but I find some explanations uncompelling that others have found entirely sufficient.

TVAs are generally overutilized and Read-It-On-The-Neg is generally underutilized as defense, but each have their place against specific 2AC arguments.