Tabroom.com

Yale University Invitational 2021

2021 — NSDA Campus, US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Sachait Arun Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 8, 2023 at 5:47 PM PDT

sachait.arun@gmail.com - put me on the email chain. He/Him.

Last Updated: March 2023

College Student who competed in Policy Debate in High School to competitive success in both lay and technical formats. Next to none judging experience on the current topic (if Policy).

TL;DR - I will try to enter each round a blank slate, only influenced by what happens in the round. I would rather you spend your valuable preparation time actually...ya know, preparing your best strategies instead of deciphering a long opinion piece with 20 different "round-deciding" preferences. If you have any important questions, feel free to ask me before the round--I try to be an open book.

That being said, my most basic ideological skews are here, all of which can be ignored or changed based on what happens in the round.

- I skew towards Policy argumentation and literature.

- I believe that debate is a game

- T > Theory

- I have a strong background in "slow" debating. Not so surprisingly, there are several implications for this. Firstly, I have a slightly lower burden to vote on presumption -- if I do not have a concrete story, I can be easily persuaded to not vote for it. Secondly, I reward slow, concise, and pathos-based speaking more than if you try being a speed demon. I would literally be overjoyed if both teams agreed to a "slow" debate (not necessarily but could happily include stock issues. Remember those?).

- The ballot is yours, speaker points are mine. This one is unchangeable--ask for 30, you just might receive 25's.

Numbered warranting and clash in place of long overviews will drastically raise your speaker points. Please slow down for analytics.

Especially for Policy, I have limited topic knowledge -- assume I know nothing about the community consensus of what’s topical. The better you are at explaining, especially on precision and limits, the more appealing it will be to give you my ballot.

For Virtual Debating: Unless I explicitly say so, if my video camera is not on, do NOT start.

Clash of Civ Debates: In my debate career, I only read Policy affirmatives, and my primary 2NR's versus K Affs were T. This does not mean I will autovote for any team, but if you are a K team, I will require a little more explanation of your subject material and how it interacts with the other team's arguments. If you are going for T, I am probably a better judge for Fairness-based impacts.

Austin Brown St. Andrew's Episcopal School

Last changed on Sun March 13, 2022 at 4:21 PM CDT

Hi, got some in depth stuff depending on what I am judging you in, but also a summary w just generally what I look for and brief background.

TLDR- So, I am a freshman in college who did policy/pf/congressional debate for 4 years and debate as a whole for 6 years. I think I am pretty equipped to hear any argument; Win on the flow, and I will probably (hopefully?) vote for you. I can handle speed to an extent, be clear, i'll say clear if you're too fast. Overall, just explain the argument, do good weighing, extend warrants and tags, be clear, you know the drill.

Credentials: Too proud to leave this out, but also shows the experience I have w debate so it matters :)

- Broke at nats in extemp debate to round 10 (6 elim rounds)

- Broke at nats in pf to round 11 (5 elim rounds)

- Won my districts' congressional debate national qualifier in the senate

- Beyond national stuff, I have won local tournaments in PF, policy, and extemp

- Also, I am really out of touch with lingo and acronyms for these years' topics as I have not judged much, so please be cognizant of that.

Put me on the e-mail chain: aabrown2@go.olemiss.edu

My Pronouns are He/They

More specific stuff below:

POLICY DEBATE:

K's- I like K's, but make sure you understand what you are reading.

FW- VERY important, comes before everything, so extend your standards and reasons to prefer.

Links- I get generic links that apply even if the Aff so much as breathes, but I much much prefer specificity.

Alts- Reject alts are meh.

DAs- Love me a unique or clever disad. If you got a smart disad that you cut, then that's ????

CPs- Love counterplans!

Conditionality - Varies obviously

CP specific responses in the 2AC are fire.

T- Used to do the scumbag 4 T violations with ASPEC hidden in the 3rd shell routine, so read what you want in terms of T.

Legit T violations I can vote on for sure. Impact out the abuse, provide case lists for counterinterps, give some reasons to go competing interps, all of these things help you.

T-USFG- T-USFG is valid. Most T-USFG shells are like 3 minutes, so 2AC is gonna have to be prepared to win. Doable? Hell yeah. Does it take work and skill? Also hell yeah. I never read K-affs in high school, so I am probably biased towards T-USFG, but could easily vote for a K-aff.

Case- Case turns are most persuasive.

Speaks- Speaks are weird; I will start at a 28 for average circuit speaking and then go from there. If you have clean speech docs, it will add to your speaks.

PUBLIC FORUM: Dabbled... competed nationally a few times and made it decently far at NSDA (round 11 i believe) one year. Speak quickly and efficiently to get to everything? Sure. Spread? Absolutely not. Being a little speedier is fine just be understandable and clear.

I flow lots, paraphrasing is fine, but give cites.

Be clever and confident in cross, NOT oppressive.

I decide rounds based on arguments, not speaking. Speaking well is persuasive but will not get you my ballot in and of itself. You need to extend and explain warrants. Do good weighing! Tie it in to the framework! Y'all know how it is.

Theory- If your opponent is inexperienced this feels like a grab for a cheap win / abusive, so pick your battles wisely.

WHEW okay- So overall just do you! This space allows creativity to flourish, and I love that. Debate was honestly one of my biggest passions in high school and still is a huge passion of mine. I dedicated so many hours to it, and I am so excited to continue being involved in the activity and to help it grow! Good luck :)

Emily Chan The Bronx High School Of Science

Shahina Chatur Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 4, 2024 at 2:11 PM CDT

Baylor '25

Colleyville Heritage '21

Email: shahinadebates@gmail.com

I did policy (and some LD) for 4 years in high school and am currently debating at Baylor

Try to make the subject of the email chain: "Tournament - Round # - School 1 (AFF) v School 2 (NEG)" or something similar

TLDR

I'm not going to do work for you. That being said, you should write my ballot in the 2NR/2AR and tell me what I’m voting on -- this means these speeches need to be heavy on judge instruction.

Evidence quality matters a lot more than evidence quantity -- a more technical and organized debate is easier to vote on than a card-heavy debate.

Clash is good. Line by line is good. You should interact with the debate you're actively in, don't just spread through your blocks and move on.

DAs:

I start the round with a 100% presumption of a risk of the DA. This means I need impact calc... Do the risks matter? Do they outweigh the aff's impacts? I don’t know, you tell me.

The same 5 affs and disads on every topic gets boring and you know it -- a good impact turn debate is much more interesting to evaluate than people just reading ev at each other.

Tech>Truth is probably the most applicable here.

Counterplans:

You need to explain why it solves better than the plan. Don't just say "counterplan solves" and expect me to vote on it. Same thing with perms too -- "perm do both" isn't an argument.

Well thought out PICs/PIKs are fun and strategic when debated correctly

I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to do so.

Kritiks (Top Level):

I was a K debater throughout high school and now at Baylor, so I'm probably a good judge for you if you want to go for the K

I've debated/researched a lot of Asian Identity, Pessimism, Logistics, and Racial Capitalism in the past and some Settler Colonialism/Grove and Psychoanalysis currently if that is important to you.

Try not to go for things you're not familiar with -- you're missing out on critical substantive debate when you're reading something just for the sake of it

K v Plan:

Sometimes K debates get muddy if there aren't specific links to the aff, so you should probably find some sort of link that is specific enough to the AFF (or at least attempt to contextualize it). That being said, I’ll vote on a generic link if it's insufficiently answered or dropped.

Tell me what the world of the alt looks like; I'm not going to vote for an alt that I can't understand. Same thing with the perm.

I think the aff gets to weigh the plan, but the neg should also get residual links of reps to the plan -- I can be convinced otherwise, though.

K Affs:

I literally don't care what kind of aff you read -- I have experience reading straight up policy affs to K affs. However, most of the Affs I have read/cut have been K Affs -- this is the kind of debate I'm more used to.

I think your Aff needs a topic link at the very least, unless you have a cohesive answer as to why you don't have one.

Topicality/Theory:

Topicality debates are my favorite when done well. I love good T debates and hate bad T debates. Don't make this a bad one.

I really like nuanced T debates against policy affs. I think a lot of these affs get away with WAY too much than they should (like fiating away literally everything) which is why I really appreciate fun little arguments like extra T and effects T being impacted out in the 2NR.

Case lists + examples of ground loss + a good interp = a good T debate.

Topicality is a question of models of debate, not THIS debate. I would rather you go for an education or portable skills/testing impact as opposed to procedural fairness.

I think that condo is probably the only theoretical reason to reject the team, even then, please come prepared with robust explanations of your theory arguments. For all other theory arguments, you should err on the side of over-explanation and more judge instruction.

FW v K AFFs:

Even as a K debater, I'm still going for FW against K affs in 75% of our neg rounds, so I'm comfortable/familiar with both sides of this debate.

I think a lot of teams have trouble with TVAs and SSD, both on the aff and the neg. Your TVAs should have clear plan texts and SSD arguments should be able to solve the content of the aff as well as the 2AC's answers to framework.

I tend to err neg on the fairness question absent specific aff answers as to why FW can resolve aff offense via the TVA/SSD debate.

I think presumption is SUPER underutilized in these debates. K affs are usually very vague in terms of explaining the advocacy/solvency and I think that presumption is probably a winning strategy against K Affs 9/10 times. A 5 minute 2NR on presumption would probably be my favorite (and most preferred) type of 2NR in these types of debates.

Set up an email chain before the round.

My thoughts about PF are basically Judy and Katelynne's paradigms put together -- look there if you have any lingering questions. Email me if you're still confused.

I think Dave Huston's thoughts on progressive PF are probably a good answer to a lot "Ks" that PFers try to read. I'm not against progressive PF BUT you have to make a strong case for why you're reading what you are. Don't tell Dave that I agree with him (he doesn't need to know that I think he's right).

Notes:

I appreciate sass and assertiveness (don't make this boring), but be respectful. That being said, use your critical thinking skills to decide what you want to read in front of me.

Other than disclosure, I won't make a decision based on anything that occurred outside of the round -- I probably don't know you and I don't feel comfortable evaluating the character of a person that I don't know.

If you're interested in applying to/debating at Baylor, please reach out! You can send me an email or find me in person if you have any questions.

Brandon Chen ADL

Glenda Ferguson Coppell High School

Delon Fuller Hire 8 rounds

Walter Guo Hire 8 rounds

Julie Ha Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 5, 2022 at 11:54 AM EDT

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.

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.

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.

Caelen Hilty George Washington HS

Last changed on Thu February 1, 2024 at 6:36 AM MDT

Caelen Hilty (he/him/his)

caelenhilty@gmail.com -- please put me on the email chain

I debated policy in high school for four years, ending with the CJR topic. I'm currently an assistant coach for George Washington High School.

General Thoughts – I try to be as tab as possible, so debate how you debate best. I'll try to judge whatever kind of round you want to have as neutrally as possible, but here's some of my thoughts on specific arguments:

Case Debate – I think aff teams usually get away with more than they should be able to--I find specific on-case strategies very persuasive.

DA/CPs – The more specific the better, but I’ll vote on anything.

Critiques – I like the K as an argument, but please assume I don't know your literature at all--even if I do have some familiarity with your authors, I will try to evaluate their arguments purely based on your in-round explanation. In general, I think K's are at their most persuasive when they interact with the content of the 1AC/2AC as specifically as possible. Please structure your speeches however you want, but give me a heads up if your speech has a huge overview.

K Affs/Nontraditional Debate – As long as I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that I feel both teams can reasonably be expected to meet, you can do whatever you'd like. Critical affirmatives are definitely fine, just explain the significance of voting aff.

K Aff vs Framework – I don't have preferences about affirmative strategies against framework, if you're just going to impact turn everything, go for it, if you have a clever counter interpretation that's cool too. On both sides, but neg especially in these debates, be sure to articulate how I ought to compare types of impacts at the end of the round--how should I weigh something like procedural fairness against a substantive philosophical objection? Please maintain clean line-by-line as best you can, engage each others' arguments directly.

Topicality – My threshold for T is the same as any other type of argument. If neither team articulates a framework within which I can vote, then I’ll default to competing interpretations, but I’d much rather not have to default to anything. Assuming I’m voting in a competing interpretations framework, I think of standards as impacts to a vote for a given team’s interpretation. Same as my thoughts on framework, I need quality comparative impact calculus by the rebuttals at least. Explain to me what debate looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that model should be preferred to one that would include/exclude cases like the affirmative.

Theory – Please engage the other team's arguments--don't just read blocks and talk past one another. If you expect to win on theory (independently), you should probably give me some kind of substantive reason why a given violation merits rejection of the team, and not just the argument.

Speed – As long as you’re clear, I’m fine with speed, but be mindful that clarity suffers online.

Speaker Points – 28.5 is average. I'll add points for things like clarity and efficiency, and I'll subtract points for particularly messy debating.

If you have any specific questions, please ask. Feel free to email me after round with questions.

Juan Igarzabal Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 9:48 PM EDT

Debators can run any (I mean ANY) argument to me as to why they should win the round from the arguments that they are making.

PLEASE give me examples, solvency, and impact analysis in the round, as well as clashing with your opponents and on their arguments.

Tech/Flow/Tabula Judge, but I get skeptical in very blippy arguments so keep that in mind.

The issue of Tech/Truth happens when deciding clash/which impact worse since debaters didn’t do it themselves (cleaning the debate) (Ex: Ontological violence vs. nuclear war)

I hate intervening

I will vote on topic, K, T, Theory, Performance (which I will judge the performance), Presumption, etc…

For T/Theory, explain and show the abuse. Flesh the argument out and explain why I should, don’t just say “vote fairness, the end”

For K: explain the thesis (don't just say post-modern jargon), impact, link, ROTB, Solvency...

Keep the spreading to 350 wpm. If I don't understand you, I will yell "clear!", but if you keep spreading so bad, I'll just stop saying "clear!".

SIGNPOST PLEASE; DON’T MESS WITH MY FLOW

Any questions? Ask me before round

Down Below is a list of critical Literature that I have read/Judged to give debaters an idea of the literature they can use. Always interested in hearing new arguments

Note: Some kritiks are generic due to the many types it has

Ableism, Cyber-Fem/Borg, Orientalism

Schopenhauer, Agamben Derrida, Marxism,

Security, Afro-Furturism, Ecofem, Necropolitics

Terror, Afro-Pessimism, Empire, Neo-Colonialism

Global Warming, Althusser, Hauntology, Nietzsche

Zizek, Anthropocentrism, Lacan

Neoliberal, Nuclear, Baudrillard, Latinx

Peace Theory, Spanos, Batman, Legalism

Post-Colonialism, Anarchy, Bataille

Libertarianism, Queer Theory, Vilirio

Biopower, Fem IR, Settlerism, Spectacle

Borders Gender Language, Subaltern

CRT, Buddhism, Carl Schmitt, Suffering Rep

Tuck and Yang, Capitalism, OOO, Spanos, Militarism

Ethan Knox Pennsbury High School

Last changed on Sat February 25, 2023 at 4:38 PM EDT

"And therefore, as when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own accord, set up for right Reason, the Reason of some Arbitrator, or Judge, to whose sentence they will both stand, or their controversie must either come to blowes, or be undecided, for want of a right Reason constituted by Nature."

- Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Pt. 1, Ch. 5, para. 3

General

I did LD debate for four years in high school, so I understand the event's jargon and how arguments interact with each other in terms of the framework and contention level. This means that I also flow the debate and will make note if a debater extends a conceded argument (so don't expect to win me over with a flowery 2AR if your 1AR was a dropfest). I am definitely tabula rasa, so I'll accept any arguments made in the round as long as they are either uncontested or better upheld in terms of clash, even if I personally disagree or know a given statistic is misleading. However, I will not accept any arguments that are blatantly offensive or abusive (ex: racism and ridiculous "observations" that make it impossible for your opponent to win the round). I cast my ballot by picking the superior framework and weighing who has the most offense under that framework in terms of cards and contentions.

Speed

I'm alright with a faster than normal pace, but please don't go full blast. If you feel the need to send me your speech doc via e-mail, then you're definitely going past the line.

Counterplans/kritiks/other policy stuff

I'm alright with you running these in the right context (i.e. it's pretty unfair to run a policy-esque plantext at a traditional tournament in which your opponent almost certainly has no familiarity with such arguments). However, I'm probably less likely to vote on these arguments compared to a traditional 1AC or 1NC, so run them at your own discretion. I'm most open to counterplans, as those are pretty intuitive and they already get run all the time in oblique fashion anyway.

Policy

Unfortunately, I am sometimes dragged into judging this event. I did policy a handful of times in high school, but I don't have the same level of familiarity with the event that I do with LD. Most of the stuff from above applies (i.e. no new arguments in your rebuttal speeches, an argument that's dropped and extended is considered true within the round).

I understand that you generally have to spread in order to read your 1AC or 1NC in time, so I simply ask you to slow down (relatively speaking) in your rebuttals and speak clearly when you spread.

Don't run ultra-esoteric kritiks. If your K asks me to do something like "embrace the queer suicide bomber," "embrace the death drive," or embrace whatever form of ______ futurism, I will probably be less likely to vote for it (to put it lightly). My paradigm is generally tabula rasa, but I'd rather be upfront about arguments I'm skeptical of and often don't follow. If you run these arguments, you will probably get killed by utopian fiat, or your opponent will respond at the level of the K and the round will essentially become a coin flip because I won't follow a lot of the clash.

Collapse and focus on a few key arguments if you're arguing over theory. The last thing I want is to have to vote based on some three second blip you made in one of your rebuttals and I didn't even have time to flow properly.

Yubin Michelle Lee Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 22, 2021 at 1:40 PM CDT

Add me to the Email Chain: myl813.ml@gmail.com

Katy Taylor '19
UH '23
1N/2A
She/her

Updates per Online debating: Because of the nature of online debating, I am often times having a hard time understanding/taking in visual cues. Please take this into consideration when debating and prioritize clarity to an extent. Also appreciate analytics, although I guess it's ultimately up to you - if I didn't get it on my flow, it's probably net worse lol

Also feel free to email me with questions if any are unanswered, both before and post round.

General/TLDR:

I think debate is an activity formatted as a game, but ultimately should be used to reap external values/impacts. It also definitely is more than a game to most of us involved; debate is in fact a consuming activity. What I prioritize in evaluation will vary by round, based on the progression of the debate, and I will leave the strategizing for a ballot up to you.

Do what you do best. I’m open to all types of argument as long as it is well executed- I was not a big K debater through HS, but if you do your job I should have no problem understanding the round/the literature. I would much rather judge a nuanced and engaging debate that I am unfamiliar with over a poorly executed round. Likewise, Ks should not be read in the hopes of simply reading the K getting a ballot.

Proper showcasing of your knowledge in the subject, clever strategy, and some courtesy in round make judging easier, more enjoyable, and will work in your favor.

Specific Things:

Framework/T-USFG:

Both teams should have a defense of the model provided by their interpretation. I think Affs should have some relation/link to the topic (not necessarily with a plan text)-I don't think it's easy to win a round with an aff that has no relation whatsoever, but if this is the case, I would expect VERY good reasons to buy that. Offense is key to win FW debates- how well these arguments apply/interact in round are important for a decision. Along with offense, there needs to be well explained impacts by both teams. (i.e. explain what “destroying fairness” does to debate, etc.)

Topicality:

I'm usually not a heavy voter on T, because a) most times T debates feel like nothing more than a time suck and b)I do think that debate is a space that has the capacity in which a variety of dialogues can and should take place, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on it and/or this is the cue to read whatever you want w zero correlation. Both teams need to defend their interp of the topic with well-extrapolated standards and impacts. Mentioning the words “limits”, “fairness”, and “predictability” doesn't mean much until you explain why that matters. Impact comparison and substantive clash over models of the topic via definitions and standards make T debates much easier and more enjoyable to evaluate.

Kritiks:

Despite the fact I wasn't much of a K debater, I feel they are very enjoyable to judge when executed well, and can very well be the opposite if not done so. I have found myself finding K arguments very compelling because I buy that the problematic ideologies that shaped the fundamentals of our society are violent/pose a threat constantly. Well-developed links that are specific and turn case are essential. I believe the framework debate is generally underutilized by the negative, usually those debates end up with the affirmative getting to weigh the Aff. If you read external impacts, you must explain the internal link to that impact. As mentioned above, I was not a big K debater through high school, so I'm probably super close to an actual blank slate- With that said explanation within your speeches and CX will be rewarded, and essential for me to evaluate. A clear explanation of the argument should be a requirement anyway; just know that you will not gain much if not lose expecting me to know each K inside out. The affirmative should have a combination of offensive and defensive arguments. A purely defensive strategy against a K will probably not get you a win.

K Affs:

They need to have a clear and preferably nuanced method that can solve the impacts of the Aff. I think the major pitfall of K Affs is having generic or vague methods that open the doors to a lot of persuasive presumption arguments. There needs to be a defense of why debate is a key space to read the Aff. The 1AR and 2AR should have both components on some level or else I’m left to guess as to how the Aff/aff offense functions against the negative's position. As explained in the K section above, do not assume I’m well versed in the literature you are defending.

Disadvantages:

Be specific. A robust explanation of the link to the Aff and impact calculus supplemented with embedded turns case analysis makes these debates very enjoyable to judge. The Affirmative should try to find holes in the DA, whether that’s through internal links not lining up or through their evidence. I think a combination of offensive and defensive arguments is smart and will make it harder for the negative to hedge their offense.

Counterplans:

They need to have a clear plan text and an external net benefit. Make sure the CP is competitive- as simple as it is I feel like people forget and then I have to vote down on perm. Same with most arguments, the more specific the better. The 2NR should generally be the counterplan with a DA/Case argument to supplement. It's probably helpful for the aff to have some offense- just defense is in most cases not sufficient to beat the CP.

Misc.:

- Strategizing the round is up to you, but I do find myself not loving the timesuck-16 off- strats

- I think case debating is very under-utilized

- recutting evidence from the opposing team is rewarded

- Flashing/Emailing isn’t prep but be efficient

- If you still have questions, ask them before the round

-Don't be rude; there's a difference between that and being sharp

Tess Lepelstat Mamaroneck High School

Travis McClendon Loyola High School of Detroit

Eleni Orfanos Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 4:51 PM EDT

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.

Miles Owens George Washington HS

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:42 AM EDT

General Thoughts – I try to be as tab as possible. However, I think everyone inevitably comes in with some preconceived notions about debate. Don’t feel like you have to adapt to my preferences--you should do whatever you do best. But if what you do best happens to be judge adaptation, here are some of my thoughts:

Framework – All I ask is that you engage each other's interpretations and arguments--don’t just read and extend. Look to my comments on topicality if you're interested in how I try to evaluate standards-based debate.

Case Debate – I think case-specific strategies that integrate intelligent on-case arguments into the 1NC can be really compelling.

DA/CPs – The more specific the better, but I’ll vote on anything.

Critiques – Most persuasive when they interact explicitly with the 1AC/2AC. For example, I like specific 2NC link analysis (doesn’t necessarily need to be carded) that points to arguments being made in the 1AC/2AC, and I like 2NC attempts to gain in roads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency. I'm fine with critical affirmatives so long as you explain the significance of voting affirmative. A general note: given that I'm trying to evaluate your arguments as though I'm hearing them for the first time, please operate under the assumption that I'm completely unfamiliar with the literature you're reading.

Topicality – My threshold for T is the same as any other type of argument, but like all other positions, there are central issues that the 2NR needs to resolve in order for me to vote on T. If neither team articulates a framework within which I can vote, then I’ll default to competing interpretations, but I’d much rather not have to default to anything. Assuming I’m voting in a competing interpretations framework, I think of standards as external impacts to a vote for a given team’s interpretation. That means comparative impact calculus has a huge place in a 2NR that’s going for T. Explain to me what debate looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative.

Theory – Please engage the other team's arguments--don't just read blocks and talk past one another. If you expect to win on theory (independently), you should probably give me some kind of substantive reason why a given violation merits rejection of the team, and not just the argument.

Nontraditional Debate – As long as I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that I feel both teams can reasonably be expected to meet, you can do whatever you'd like.

In Round Decorum – Don’t be mean. Try to have fun.

Speed – As long as you’re clear, I’m fine with speed.

Speaker Points – 28.5 is average. I'll add points for things like clarity and efficiency, and I'll subtract points for particularly messy debating.

If you have any specific questions, please ask. Feel free to email me after round with questions: miles.owens43@gmail.com

Andrew Ridgeway Hire 8 rounds

Parth Shah Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 7:57 AM EDT

pasdebate@gmail.com

Subject the email chain - Tournament Name Round # - Aff Team AFF vs Neg Team NEG

Debated at Maine East (2016-2020, TOC Circuit) and the University of Pittsburgh (2020-2023, NDT Qual)

I will boost speaker points if you follow @careerparth on tiktok, bring (vegetarian) food/snacks, and end the debate as fast as possible.

I took most of this paradigm from Reed Van Schenck:

Career wise, my arguments of preference were more critical (Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism, and the likes). I enjoy judging clash debates, policy vs critical. Traditional policy debaters should take note of my lack of experience in policy v policy debates and rank me very low on their judging preferences.

The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.

When in doubt, referring to the judging philosophies of the following folks will do you well: Micah Weese, Reed Van Schenck, Calum Matheson, Alex Holguin, & Alex Reznik

Everything below this line is a proclivity of mine that can be negotiated through debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts, this includes procedural fairness. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic. All thing said, at the end of the day, I will adapt to your argument style.

I dislike judges who exclude debaters because of what they decide to read in a debate round, I will NOT do that as long as you don't say anything racist, sexist, etc.

Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals. I will boost speaker points if rebuttals are given successfully with prep time remaining and/or off the flow!

Public Forum Debate

The faster you end the debate, the higher your speaks.

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk." Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

Simon Sheaff Dowling Catholic High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:57 AM EDT

Background: 4 years at Baylor University, 1-Time NDT Qualifier. Assistant Coach at the U.S. Naval Academy, 2018-2022, Assistant Coach at Dowling Catholic High School, 2019-Present. Currently a Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science and I work for the Legislative Services Agency in Iowa.

Yes I want to be on the email chain: Sheaffly@gmail.com. Also email me with questions about this paradigm.

Paradigms are difficult to write because there are so many potential audiences. From novice middle schoolers to varsity college debaters, I judge it all. As a result, I want everyone reading this paradigm to realize that it was written mostly in terms of varsity college debates. I think about debate a little differently in high school and a little differently when it comes to novice debates, but I hope this gives you a general idea of how to debate in front of me

== TL;DR ==

Do line-by-line. I do not flow straight down and I do not flow off the speech doc. I am a DA/CP/Case kind of judge. I am bad at understanding kritiks and I am biased towards the topic being good. Be nice.

== Top Level - Flowing ==

It has become clear to me after years of judging that most of my decisions center not around my biases about arguments (which I won’t pretend not to have), but rather around my ability to understand your argument. My ability to understand your argument is directly related to how clean my flow is. Thus, it is in your best interest to make my flow very clean. I used to think I was bad at flowing, but I've come to the conclusion that line-by-line and organized debate has become a lost art. Debaters who learn this art are much more likely to win in front of me.

You are NOT as clear on tags as you think you are. Getting every 4th word of a tag is okay only if every 4th word is the key nouns and verbs. This is never true. So slow down on your tags, I am NOT READING THEM.

I’m not gonna flow everything straight down and then reconstruct the debate afterwards. The 1NC sets the order of the debate on the case, the 2AC sets the order of the debate off case. Abide by that order. Otherwise, I will spend time trying to figure out where to put your argument rather than writing it down and that’s bad for you.

Another tip: Find ways to give me pen time. For example, do not read 4 perms in a row. It’s impossible for me to write down all of those words. Plus, it’s always first and you haven’t even given me time to flip my paper over. And then your next argument is always an analytic about how the CP doesn’t solve and then I can’t write that down either. So stop doing things like that.

== Top Level – Arguments ==

Basic stuff: I love creativity and learning from debate. Make it clear to me how much you know about the arguments you are making. I don’t think this means you have to have cut every card you read, but understanding not just the substance of your argument, but the tricks within them is important.

As I said above, the thing that will be a problem for me is not understanding your argument. Unfortunately, this probably impacts Kritik debaters more than policy debaters, but I’ll get to that in a minute.

I am probably a little more truth > tech than most judges. I believe in technical debate, but I also believe that debate is a place where truth is important. I don't care how many cards you have that say something, if the other team asserts it is not true and they are correct, they win the point.

== Top Level - Community Norms ==

1) For online debate, prep time stops when you unmute yourself and say stop prep. A couple of reasons for this. a) I have no way of verifying when you actually stopped prep if you come out and say "we stopped 15 seconds ago" and b) neither do your opponents, which means that you are basically forcing them to steal prep. I don't like it so that's the rule.

2) Debate is a messed-up community already. Don't make it more so. Be nice to each other. Have fun in the debate while you are disagreeing. If you make it seem like you think the other team is stupid during the debate, it's gonna make me grumpy. I love debate and I love watching people do it, but I hate confrontation and I hate it when people get angry about debates that don't matter that much in the long term. Be nice. Please.

3) This is mostly for high schoolers, where I see this issue all the time: If you are going to send a document without your analytics in it, making the version of the doc without the analytics in it IS PREP TIME. You don't get 45 seconds to send the document. Y'all are GenZ, I know you can send an email faster than that. You get 15 seconds before I break in and ask what the deal is. You get 20 seconds before I start prep again.

== Specifics ==

Affirmatives...

...Which Defend the Topic - I enjoy creativity. This includes creative interpretations of topicality. You should also read my thoughts on DAs as they apply to how you construct your advantages. Clear story is good.

...Which Do Not Defend the Topic - I am likely not a great judge for you. I think I may have a reputation as someone who hates these arguments. That reputation is not unearned, I built it up for years. But over time I’ve come to become a lot more accepting of them. There are many of these affirmatives that I think provide valuable debate. The problem I have is that I cannot figure out an interpretation of debate that allows the valuable "K Affs," but limits out the affs that I think are generally created to confuse their way to a win rather than provide actual valuable propositions for debate. I will always think of framework as a debate about what you JUSTIFY, rather than what you DO, and every interpretation I have ever seen in these debates simply lets in too much of the uneducational debates without providing a clear basis for clash.

I realize this sounds like I have been totally brainwashed by framework, and perhaps I have. But I want to be honest about where I'm at. That said, I think the above makes clear that if you have a defensible INTERPRETATION, I am willing to listen to it. You should also look at the section under kritiks, because I think it describes the fact that I need the actual argument of the affirmative to be clear. This generally means that, if your tags are poems, I am not ideologically opposed to that proposition, but you better also have very clear explanation of why you read that poem.

Negative Strategies

Framework: See discussion above. Good strategy. Impact, impact, impact. Education > procedural fairness > any other impact. “Ks are bad” is a bad argument, “their interpretation makes debate worse and uneducational” is a winnable argument. Topical version of the aff goes a long way with me.

Topicality: Good strategy. Impact, impact, impact. Case lists. Why that case list is bad. Affirmatives, you should talk about your education. I love creative interps of the topic if you defend them. But for the love of god slow down.

Disads: Absolutely. Well constructed DAs are very fun to watch. However, see truth vs. tech above – I have a lower threshold for “zero risk of a [link, impact, internal link] etc.” I love Politics DAs, but they’re all lies. I am up-to-date on the news. If you are not, do not go for the politics DA using updates your coaches cut. You will say things that betray that you don’t know what you’re talking about and it will hurt your speaks. Creative impact calc (outside of just magnitude, timeframe, probability) is the best impact calc.

Counterplans: I'm tired of the negative getting away with murder. I am VERY willing to listen to theory debates about some of these crazy process CPs which compete off of a net benefit or immedicacy/certainty. Theory debates are fun for me but for the love of god slow down. Otherwise, yeah, CPs are fine.

Kritiks: Eh. You can see the discussion above about K affs. I used to be rigidly ideological about hating the K. I am now convinced that the K can make good points. But because I was so against them for so long, I don’t understand them. I still think some Kritiks (here I am thinking mostly of French/German dudes) are basically designed to confuse the other team into losing. Problem is, I can’t tell the difference between those Kritiks and other Kritiks, because all Kritiks confuse me.

Very basic Ks are fine. Realism is bad, heg is bad, capitalism is bad, I get. Get much beyond that and I get lost. It's not that I think you're wrong it's that I have always been uninterested so I never learned what you're talking about. I cannot emphasize enough how little I understand what you're talking about. If this is your thing and I am already your judge, conceptualize your K like a DA/CP strategy and explain it to me like I have never heard it before. Literally, in your 2NC say: "We believe that X is bad. We believe that they do X because of this argument they have made. We believe the alternative solves for X." I cannot stress enough how serious I am that that sentence should be the top of your 2NC and 2NR. I have had this sentence in my judge philosophy for 3 years and this has been the top of the 2NC once (in a JV debate!). I do not know how much clearer I can be. Again, I am not morally opposed to Kritiks (anymore), I just do not understand them and I will not vote for something I do not understand. I believe you need a good link. Yes, the world is terrible, but why is the aff terrible. You also need to make your tags not a paragraph long, I never learned how to flow tags that were that long.

Isaac Chang Stiepleman Hire 8 rounds

Sonia Suben Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Mon February 7, 2022 at 4:27 AM EDT

*** i have very little topic knowledge and tend to think the water topic is very bad. make of this what you will***

mamaroneck '21 -- 2A/1N

kenyon '25, this means im not debating in college

please don't call me judge, i have a name

5 bids my senior year if that matters to you

sesuben@gmail.com

speech times are non negotiable, i will stop flowing. don't ask for double wins

i detest wipeout and (spark can be ok if youre funny and/or charming about it). if you read it i will be extremely grumpy and give you low speaks

top level-- extinction is bad and its good to improve material conditions-- but if you can prove the aff makes those worse in some way or another you will win. my favorite debates are big stick affs vs ks with links to plan action.

presentation stuff

1. i am okay with speed as long as you're clear. if you sacrifice clarity for speed in front of me expect low points

2. dont speak in a monotone the whole time-- emphasize and change your tone. be audible but do not scream please. that isn't pleasant to listen to

3. novices should read a plan

4. i'm not super good with eye contact (sorry) so no need to stare me down during crossex

5. should go without saying but racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc. will absolutely not be tolerated also do not knowingly misgender people

6. i will protect the 2nr

argument stuff

*** update: i am of the opinion that nonblack people should not read afropessimism. if that's your jam, think twice about preffing me unless you can really really justify why its good for you to present it.

1. novices should read a plan

2. i dont care about cx as much as i maybe should, i probably won't listen

3. the 2nr and 2ar are the most important speeches in the debate. collapse to a few arguments that you can really hang your hat on. very convinced by strategic concessions ("even if they win... we still win.") write my ballot for me

4. impact calc impact calc impact calc-- should start in the 2ac/2nc and be extended the whole debate

5. FW-- procedural fairness is probably the only impact you should go for in front of me. go for it as the terminal impact to debate. both sides need to tell me what the purpose of debate is and what the implications are if we give those up. both sides need to contexualize your framework args to be about the meaning of the ballot. if you do not have a TVA go for impacts in the 2nr. affs should read FW vs the k-- i will probably let the aff weigh the plan, but am not into interps that boil down to "no ks."

5.5.- k affs-- i'll vote for you if you win BUT you have to defend that you do something PLEASE im begging you to defend something material otherwise i will be very mad at you

6. specific CPs are a great strat or adv cps with an impact turn

7. my favorite debates are big stick affs vs K strats with links to plan action-- pretty familiar with most lit bases,

8. ENGAGE THE CASE DEBATE.

9. i think neg condo is good, to a point--- as a 2A i get the struggle of answering tons of advocacies so go for condo if you think you'll win

debate is a COMPETITVE GAME. have fun. try to make it fun for me to watch.

people who have influenced the way i debate: ken karas, stefan suben, daryl burch, kevin hirn, roberto fernandez, kj reese

make jokes about these people for higher speaks: stefan suben, tess lepelstat

Jonathan Daniel Sumita Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 12:18 PM EDT

Updated Jan 12th, 2024

Purdue '23

Email (set email chain up before round PLEASE): jonathansumita@gmail.com

TL:DR

LARP-1

K/K aff-1

Theory-2

Performance- 2.5/3? I haven't seen good performative style args in a WHILE and I've been out of the game. At your own risk ig.

Tricks- 4? Do people even read these anymore? Is this just theory?

OV:

Online debate is mid. If you're going to spread, go slower than usual- (75% of your top speed) because sound quality is not as good as it may seem. I am hard of hearing so please focus on clarity.

Experience: CX 4 yrs, LD 1.5 yrs. I did LD and then CX in non-circuit NW Indiana. I'm not as lay as you may think or as my appearance may give off.

General

By and large I agree with Calum Matheson's debate paradigm, in part it reads-

Do as thou will shall be the whole of the law. All styles of debate can be done well or done poorly. Very little offends me. If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a bad advocate of your cause and you should lose. If it’s so wrong and you’re so right, then it should be easy for you to win. Is that really too high a bar? If so, then I have a 26.5 here for you. Do you like it? I made it myself. Just for you.

I'm pretty unpredictable tbh. I like most arguments but that is not what I will judge you on. Tell me why you should win and weigh. If you don't like impact calculus, tell me why I should weigh your arguments and not impacts themselves. I do not want to listen to 20+ minutes of why you should win on a T violation unless you flesh out impacts. I'll vote for most anything if it's done well and (better than your opponents).

Please don't read AI = NW/Extinction in front of me. I don't think it's a real argument.I can be convinced ofc.

Specifics

K: I read a lot of Baudrillard (badly) at Purdue. I really like nuclearism style arguments (Masco), affect style politics/ security arguments get me hyped too. I have a background in philosophy and I really don't care for consequentialism if you must know, but I can be persuaded.

Theory: Sure.

DA's: Love em. Clear links are good, strong internal link chains even better. Give me a story about this issue w/ case.

CP: Love them too. Provide a net benefit pls. Solve the burden of competition or the CP is toast.

T: This ofc is similar to theory but in essence use your best judgement with T, I'll be a hard sell if 'reasonability' is an argument that is made. Ie: "arms control" vs "arms" control is a different story.

Tricks: I don't really care. I'll vote on theory but you gotta go for it in the 2AR/2NR

RVI's:Carefully.

LD General: LD holds a part of my heart so I decided to list a few things.

1. Value structure is the most important piece of a LD debate round. I think this should go w/o saying but it really matters. You must extend and frame the round around your value structure. In LD you can win a round in 3 easy ways and all three revolve around the value structure. If you drop it, it will be very difficult to vote for you.

2. Prefer analytics over evidence. There is a reason the time skew in LD is so bad, it makes it impossible to read new arguments and do good line by line if you aren't spreading. If you read a piece of evidence, it must be very crucial to why I should vote for you. LD attempts to preserve this thing we call "clash" and I support it 100%.

3. Collapse arguments and offense down. The affirmative especially should be doing this in the 2AR. The Negative will try early in their 1NC to spread the AFF thin and what results is where the round goes. The AFF should not be responding to each and every argument, you should aim to eliminate the NEG offense and extend your own offense.

PF General: For Public Forum, there are some important things.

1. You should not be introducing new evidence in the summary speeches. I would even go so far as to say fewer pieces of evidence in the rebuttals, more analytics. Card-dumping is never fun to flow especially given many of you do not create evidence chains.

2. I do not particularly care about crossfire. I do however, pay attention to grand crossfire. With that being said, I will only flow what you tell me to.

3. Do not collapse down until you have kicked it. What does that mean? It means you have terminated any offense that particular argument held. I hate the response "It was a wash/stalemate" when there is clear offense on an argument that you are trying to collapse.

4. Always impact frame from case. Impacts are crucial to why I should care about either side. If you don't, presumption flips AFF and as said above, I will be forced to intervene. IF anything, weigh impacts in the round.

Speed: I can handle most speed and will signal (clear) if I cannot handle it. I will give you several chances to fix it before I stop flowing. (send your docs ofc).

Speaker points: I will generally follow tournament norm. Please note that speaker points are entirely subjective. They reflect how much I like a set of speeches as a performance / technical ability to argue. This means I'll most likely start at 27 and move in increments of =+-.1. If you want a 30, read a shell about it? idk do what you want dog.

Any questions about rounds or whatever, my email is at the top.

Jose Torchio Stuyvesant High School

Eugene Toth The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 6:04 AM EDT

Email for chains or questions: undercommonscustomerservice@gmail.com

Background

Influences: Will Baker, Alex Sherman, Taylor Brough

Pronouns: he/they

Experience:
2016-2020 Debater @ Bronx Science -- Qual'ed to TOC
2020-2024 Debater @ NYU -- CEDA quarterfinalist, 2x NDT
2020-2022 Head CX Coach @ Bronx Science
2023-2024 Assistant PF, LD Coach @ Collegiate

Conflicts:Collegiate, Bronx Science, U. Chicago Lab, NYU

Last Updated: Updated for TOC 04/16/2024

Policy and LD general: Good for anything, mostly read Ks in high school and college. "Debate is a game" is a silly argument. You don't need to go for the alt on the K or a CP to win, but I won't judge kick unless instructed to. I actively coach multiple events and keep up to date with research, so I will have fairly decent topic knowledge.

Policy specific: Fairness might be an impact, but you need to prove it. I don't care if you read a plan, you just need to justify it. Strongly convinced by K condo arguments and I disfavor contradictory K arguments.

LD specific: Honestly fine for anything except tricks. I don't inflate speaks. Order of experience would probably be K > LARP >> phil > trad >> tricks.

PF Paradigm: Don't paraphrase. Cut cards, not corners. Read whatever you want in front of me. I don't care if you spread. Please read theory properly.

IMPORTANT if I am in the back of your debate:

1AC should be sent 3 minutes before start time, emails should be collected before that. If sending the 1AC pushes us more than 5 minutes past the start time, I will take all additional time past 5 minutes from you as prep.
Pen time is important, slow down a bit if you want me to get something down. Speeding through a 40 point 2AC block will not result in all 40 points on my flow. I flow your speeches, not your doc.
Stop stealing prep. Depending on how I'm feeling I'll call you out for it, but regardless of how I'm feeling I'll drop your speaks.
I assign speaks according to the speaker point guide provided to me by Tabroom. It is the most standardizable method and consistently lowers the standard deviation of speaker points when provided to judges. Please do not email me after the debate asking for a justification of your speaker points. They should speak for themselves.
If you are consuming products that I am aware are on the BDS list, I will drop your speaks by 2 full points. Throw out your Starbucks before I see you. This is non-negotiable and excludes computers.

Gloria Wang Hire 8 rounds

Jake Wei Hire 8 rounds

Emily Xu Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 21, 2022 at 7:26 AM EDT

TLDR: I will judge based on whatever framework is given to me/winning. As long are you properly warrant, impact, WEIGH your arguments, you'll be fine. Do whatever you do best. I will only judge whatever is presented in the round. Coverage is important- conceded arguments are the truest. That being said, I still need you to tell me why I should care about the conceded argument.

INTRO

Hello! I'm Emily (she/her), and I currently work as a clinical researcher. I am graduated from Hopkins with a BS in Molecular and Cellular Biology and Duke School of Medicine with my Master in Biomedical Sciences. In undergrad, I competed in American Parliamentary (APDA) with a couple of breaks/speaks. In high school, I competed in policy and started coaching LD/PF.

EXPERIENCE

- 3 years of Policy

- 1 year of PF, 3 years of coaching

- 1 year of LD, 3 years of coaching

- 4 years of APDA

OVERALL:

Ultimately, I see debate as an educational space where individuals are allowed the platform to use their voice in whichever way they want. I value the technical aspect of debate most, so make sure you have good flow coverage, properly warrant your claims, and WEIGH for me. I will not inject my own thoughts and beliefs when judging a round, so you need to make sure you cover all your bases and thoroughly weigh/mechanize your impacts. I will regard dropped arguments as true but be sure to take advantage of that and explain why it matters in the round.

I value framework debates. Please be sure to engage with the framework beyond just reading it at the top. Link back to your framework when you weigh, especially in rebuttals.

I love Kritik debates. When I competed in policy, I leaned very K-heavy. Be sure to properly link to the resolution, or present adequate theory as to why I should ignore the resolution, or why it's bad. Performative speeches are fine with me, as long as you explain the necessity/advantage for performance and what it brings to the round.

Similarly, I will vote on theory arguments as long as they are warranted out. HOWEVER, take more time on your theory, since I am a little more hesitant to vote ONLY on theory. For example, I don't really ~like~ rvis, but will vote on it if dropped or warranted out well. I need the theory debate to be fully fleshed out with tangible impacts to the round. Take a little more time in explaining specific burdens to me (like one more sentence). I've switched debate styles a lot and the burdens specific to a debate format are a little lost to me, so just remind me.

I appreciate arguments explaining how you want me to judge and explaining why this is the case (e.g. role of the judge, role of the ballot). If not contested, this is how I will frame my ballot.

LD SPECIFIC

I do not particularly like/understand tricks. Take your time with the theory. I encourage philosophy debates, but I think they are difficult to properly develop within a round, so be efficient with the development of your arguments.

SPEAKS

Off time roadmaps are encouraged, SIGN-POSTNG is necessary.

From my policy experience, I am okay with speed, but I may be a little rusty. Take that however you want. I weigh content and clarity heavily when assigning speaks. Please be mindful of equity. If you do/say something offensive or make the debate inaccessible, I will dock speaks. Being aggressive/assertive does not mean you cannot also be nice and mindful of others.

Derek Yuan Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 18, 2021 at 5:45 AM PDT

About me:

I've debated PF, LD, and primarily Policy. Qualified to NCFL (cancelled due to corona). I will not vote on anything antiblack, racist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, ableist, etc. I will give you high speaks if you make me laugh. High speaks if you make a Kanye reference. Assume I know nothing about the topic. Explain topic-specific acronyms. Do NOT power tag cards - your evidence better say exactly what you say it does.

For Policy:

I debated at a small school where my team was the only policy team. I couldn't afford to go to camp or hire a coach so all my debate knowledge was obtained from cross-x.com or tournaments. I debated primarily lay at league but occasionally we would go to a larger tournament (like Berkeley or Stanford). For that reason, stock issues are super important to me. This includes - topicality, inherency, solvency, and harms/advantages.

My default paradigm is a stock issues judge - this means aff has the burden of winning all stock issues beyond a reasonable doubt. If neg wins any one of those issues, or mitigates enough, I vote neg on presumption. I don't buy 1% risk of solvency or 1% risk of triggering the impact. I will reward a team with high speaks that really goes down the flow and proves why there are no harms in the squo, but even if there were, they're already being solved for, and even if they weren't already being solved for, the plan wouldn't solve them (harms, inherency, solvency).

That being said, if both teams agree to an offense/defense paradigm instead of the stock issue paradigm, I'll evaluate the round as such.

DAs/CPs

I prefer these. I primarily went for these in high school so I'm most comfortable with a solid DA/CP strat. The more believable the DA the better. I really do not like extinction impacts but do as you wish. Specific DA links into the aff will make me want to vote for you 100x more than generics.

Topicality

Yeah I know y'all are gonna read the same T violations on the top as a time suck. Sure. I will vote off of T, even more compelling with a small aff.

Theory

I default to reasonability. In-round abuse is more important than potential for abuse. Debate is a game with pedagogical value, so fairness is important.

Kritiks

I'm pretty comfortable with your standard neolib, setcol, antiblackness, fem, militarism k, etc. Reading some esoteric nonsense like "Deconstructing radical semiotics through rhizomatic schizoanalysis" isn't gonna help your round though. No matter what K you're reading, really explain your argument and what the k means instead of just throwing out buzzwords and flowy bs that doesn't make sense. If you don't understand or can't explain your own K that is a big problem.

I will vote off of fw. Explain: what specific ground do you lose, why is their interpretation or violation unfair, and what specifically happens to education? Why is your interp a better model of debate?

k aff

I've never hit a k aff or ran one before, but I've read through a bunch during my spare time and understand the basics. I'm not the biggest fan but I'll still evaluate it. I think the resolution exists for a reason so the advocacy, performance, or whatever it is should have some connection to the topic. Don't make the "we are topical" argument if it's pretty clear you're not.

condo

I think neg should get condo but at the point where they're reading more than 3 condo offs, i would probably buy condo bad. It depends on how its articulated though, obviously.

I love line by line.

speed is fine but if I can't understand you I will yell clear.

Tell me a clear story of what happens in your world (how the DA, CP, etc. interact)

tech>truth, i think "truth" requires too much judge intervention to decide which arguments are good enough to be considered true.

Ben Zeppos USN None

Sonya Anne Zin Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 8:03 AM EDT

Debated at Okemos High School 2016-2020

Debated at KU 2020-2022

Coaching at Blue Valley

sonyaazin@gmail.com

T - fine

FW - fine

DA's - fine

CP's - fine

K's - I love these, so definitely fine; race theory/pomo/gender and or sexual orientation

K-Affs - ^^^^

Theory - fine

not much lit base for K's (or much of any arg) on this topic so just explain the link, I/L, and impact.

Non-TLDR

Run whatever you want, be clear, signpost and warrant out all arguments you want me to vote on. If it isn't in the 2nr/2ar, I will not vote on it. A dropped argument is a concession but make sure you point it out and EXPLAIN why it matters. I'm familiar with a fair amount of K literature but some of the heavy pomo/race theory stuff should be explained and warranted.

LBL should be a little more in depth and have a lot more warranted analysis than I've seen recently.

TLDR

Args I've run consistently: Cap, Militarism, Set Col, Antimilitarism K-aff, Set Col K-aff, FW/T-USFG

Args I'm familiar with: Fem, Set Col (and it's varients), Afropess (and it's varients), Psycho, Black Psycho, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Death Good.

K stuff

Link: make sure it's something unique to the aff, something that the aff does or supports through direct evidence or analysis. "Aff does _____ with ____ which causes ______" A link doesn't have to be a direct quote but it does have to be a direct mechanism or flaw with the aff/resolution. If you're critiquing the resolution then at least tie your theory into whatever your are dismantling/restructuring. Other than that, I don't have too much of a high threshold for the topicality of the K or the K aff.

Alt/Solvency for K-Aff's: I have a little more leniency with alt's on a K than an alternative/mode of solvency for a K aff because in my opinion, when critiquing an aff, it should honestly be enough to say that the aff's epistemology is flawed, therefor we shouldn't invest any energy into debating about it, and they should lose. If you're critiquing the resolution though, you need to have some concrete way of doing something about what you've critiqued. A lot of K-affs just kind of say the rez sucks and then do quite literally nothing about it. Even in round education can beat a lot of other off case offense, but you have to explain how reading your aff in debate spills out into something that changes our relationship to the rez. Even in a world without fiat, I need to know why the scholarship of the aff is net better than any scholarship the neg would have access to in a debate under different circumstances.

Case and Case v K Stuff

At the end of a round in which I vote aff, I need to be able to coherently describe the mechanism of the aff, the impacts, and how the aff solves the impacts. If the 2ar doesn't have this or spends a minute doing some sloppy LBL with unintelligible spreading on case and then moves on to answering 4 minutes of the K/FW, I'm probably not going to vote for you. I understand that sometimes people feel like they know their case very well and the "premise" of the aff "should" solve the residual offense, but it gets muddled or you get rushed because you're running out of time on the K. So just be mindful. Explain the warrants of the LBL.

T stuff

Do whatever you want, but I don't really believe in voting on T as a reverse voter but under some special circumstances, I can see myself doing so, assuming the Aff can clearly explain a voter and standards that prove they lost ground by having T run on them (for some reason I have a fear of this, don't ask). Slow down a little on standards and block stuff.

FW stuff

If you don't extend your interp throughout each speech then I probs will have a harder time voting for you, so make sure to do so. Other than that though, do whatever the hell you want. Standards and/or Impact turns being gone for should be extrapolated and contextualized to the type of advocacy/education in the round. Read all the disads you want. Make sure to tell me why policy education might be better vs. critical education in the long run for a certain case scenario. Keep FW separate from framing on case but MAKE CONNECTIONS.

CP stuff

I mean if you want. I tend to give condo more weight when there are 3 + conditional advocacies, including the K, so be a bit careful there.

Impact stuff

IMPACT FRAMING!!!!!! 2ar/1ar as well Block/2nr need to be solid about what impacts/offense is/are being gone for in the debate. There's obviously going to be concessions on both sides at the end of the debate but where are they, why do they matter, and what does this mean for other arguments on the flow? 2ar's/2nr's that write the ballot at the top of the rebuttles>>>>>>

Spreading Stuff

Pls enunciate the tags and don't spread through blocks at the rate of a lawnmower on drugs, especially when/if they're not in the doc. I have a sore spot from a round with clipping so I'll probably say clear like 5 times, and if there's still an issue after that I'll mention something at the end of the speech. If it keeps happening, there will probably be more severe consequences.

Speaks

I'll probably give you better speaks if you're slower and have good arguments than if you're fast and make little strategic arguments. If you're fast and make good args, I'll definitely give you the extra speaker points.

The vibes I'd like us all to strive for are ????????????, preferably in that order. ???? does not include derogatory lanague or disrespect. Rock on!

Login to Tabroom

Yale University Invitational 2021

2021 — NSDA Campus, US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges