email: victoriaajayi204@gmail.com

college parliamentary sophomore debater

Email: niahdebates@gmail.com

Hi humans!

About me:

My name is Zaniah. I did policy debate for four years and recently earned my B.A. in Political Science from The College of New Jersey.

I am new to judging Speech but have observed rounds before and familiarized myself with the landscape through NSDA

Policy Debate

I am open to hearing just about anything as long as you know your argument well enough to explain it as if I was a child/ be thorough. Do not run arguments that you are not comfortable with as it will lower your speaker points and just ruin the debate. Keep the flow clean! Let me know when you are moving from one flow to the next. ( K, DA, Case)

In your rebuttals, give me a clear line on how I should frame my ballot. What does having the ballot mean for you? Do not say "we are winning every flow," instead tell me what offense you specifically have on that flow that I should evaluate.

• I’m completely fine with voting on presumption. Just make a clear statement about what specifically your opponent is missing that requires me to vote that way

• You can make analytical arguments, especially if you feel there is an obvious argument to be made in the debate. I’m fine with you drawing on personal experiences or current policy issues but these should not serve as your primary evidence
• If your opponent drops an argument let me know why it is important that I evaluate the argument they dropped. “They dropped it” is not an extension.

Be sure to engage in framework throughout the round and let me know reasons to prefer yours. I will not do the work for you.

Spreading

You can speak at a moderate speed. I will not pretend that I know what you are saying. If you are not clear I will put down my pen. I will say clear three times then stop flowing.

• “Slow” means you’re going to fast
• “Clear” means you need to annunciate clearer

Speaker Points

• Use your evidence to answer arguments and do a line-by-line, you do not have to read 1000 cards that all say the same thing.
• Have structure, tell me what flow I should be putting your arguments on and what you are answering, this creates a cleaner debate.
• Ask good questions that are conclusive and give you links in CX. I am fine with open cross but please do not dominate your partner's cross examination.
• Be strategic about what you decide to go for in the 2nd rebuttal speech

bronx science 23, umich 27

add me to the chain: guybloom@umich.edu

If you think Pink Frosted Donut defeated Egg Roll in Food Battle 2012, strike me.

also, i am looking for a team to coach, so if youre interested please email me using the above address

Top Level

don't do one of the isms, obviously there's no clear threshold for what makes something round-ending worthy but i will use my discretion.

i don't think i'm very good at debating, and i think a lot of the people i've judged who are in high school probably could beat me in a debate round fairly easily. that being said, i do think about the activity and the way arguments interact a fair deal and i'd like to think of myself as a pretty competent judge for most things. i don't know very many things, though, and if your strategy relies on the inner workings of the courts or dense economic concepts that i would have had to take a class to understand, dumb it down a little. just make writing my decision easier. my debate relevant substantive knowledge kind of begins and ends in psychoanalysis (and i don't think i'm a huge expert in that either, though i do enjoy reading it for fun).

i like clean decisions and will try my hardest to formulate a decision which is a string of discrete yes/no questions rather than sliding scales. obviously, i almost always have to do some linear calculus with the risks of different pieces of offense, but i try to do this as little as possible. the MOST unsatisfying rfds to me were ones which followed the format "well, they were just ahead on this argument so i voted ____". instead, i'll try to say something like: "x argument was won by the aff, since y warrant was conceded which zeros the neg's response z." again, obviously, most defensive arguments do not ZERO the other teams offense, but i hope you get the point i'm trying to illustrate. deciding things like this makes the most sense to me, so if you use this type of judge instruction i will probably be more likely to vote for you.

in highschool i read mostly k stuff, but i would honestly say that in clash debates i find the policy side more convincing. regardless, i am confident that i can judge these rounds impartially.

read whatever you want. my senior year, i read a psychoanalysis aff, a hegel aff, and an aff that said we should kill babies because christianity is true. on the neg, we went for psychoanalysis, wipeout, and "high theory" stuff.

i very strongly believe that debate is a game and as such i will judge the round strictly based on my flow. i am willing to vote on arguments that could be defeated by a single well thought out sentence (and i have in the past). counterintuitively, this probably means i am better for the k than most because i am willing to jettison common sense and vote on arguments that are terrible and obviously untrue (which most answers to "only weigh links to the plan" and "extinction outweighs" unambiguously are). conversely, this means that if you are a team that relies on winning rounds in ways that do not involve my flow, i am not the judge for you. it's not personal; i simply would not know how to evaluate your performance and would probably end up voting against you if you debate an opponent who relies more strictly on the flow.

i'm not the best flower, but i try. start off a little slower and be sure to leave pen time for me. if you give me 5 subpoints in 8 seconds, i'll probably miss at least one.i honestly think most judges are much worse at flowing than they let on, and if pressed in the post round about something they didn't catch, will say something along the lines of "oh well i just thought it was too blippy" or "it was there, but not enough". i think this is cowardly. if i miss something and you ask me about it, i'll be upfront about how i missed it and tell you how it would have effected the round. i don't feel too bad about this, because some of the speeches i've heard are downright unflowable. record your blocks and try to flow them to alleviate this. i definitely make unforced errors sometimes, though, so if a line is very important or round ending worthy, make sure it's not just a second on point 3 subpoint c. to be clear, though, if it IS a second on point 3 subpoint c and i catch it, i'll vote on it. so do that at your own risk, i guess. i wouldn't advise it, since the chance your opponent catches it and i do not is orders of magnitudes higher than the chance that i catch it and your opponents do not.

adding this because it's really annoying me. picture this: the 1nc reads multiple advocacies, but 1nc cross ex does NOT clarify the status of the advocacies. the 2ac reads conditionality bad, says dispo solves, and perms every advocacy. the neg block, in this scenario, SHOULD NOT defend conditionality. it is a waste of time. you should instead say "we were dispo, you never asked, but it doesn't matter now since you've permuted everything". there are a few cases where this is not strategic, and where it lets the 1AR lock you out of a disad + case 2NR. but overwhelmingly this is not true, and the other potential 2NR is something like T.

feel free to postround, i won't take it personally. when i write decisions, i usually try to think of potential things i wouldn't be able to defend in the postround and write around that, and if i can't, i edit my decision accordingly. i think judges that DO care should probably put some more effort into their decisions and take the event more seriously, given that students give up their weekends and pay to attend tournaments (while judges give up their weekends and presumably GET paid to do the same).

all of the opinions i share below are just opinions that won't enter into my evaluation of a round.

Policy (aff) vs Policy (neg)

probably not the best here but i'm competent most of the time. explain acronyms.

cheaty counterplans are cool and i like competition debates. i enjoy clever perms.

zero risk is a logical extension of "dropped arguments are true"-- if you flat concede a piece of defense that the other team convincingly argues zeros your impact, i will give them that. i don't think this should be a controversial opinion-- it seems that most judges agree a dropped scenario starts at 100; this is just the inverse of that.

Policy (aff) vs T

i think ptiv needs an explicit counterinterp

limits seems to intuitively outweigh predictability. i think predictability is more of a yes/no question whereas limits are more of a sliding scale. this opinion is not widely accepted and as such i will default to both of them as a sliding scale.

Policy (aff) v K(Neg)

my honest opinion is that links to representations are an infinitely regressive standard that makes it impossible to be aff. this will have no bearing on how i judge debates.

framework is the first question i'll ask myself when deciding these rounds. i will NOT arbitrarily decide on some "middle ground" between the two interpretations; if the aff wins that the neg doesn't get reps links and the 2NR offense is a reps link, i will literally zero that link. conversely, if the neg wins that the aff doesn't get the plan, and the 2AR goes for only offense based on the consequences of the plan, i will not give it to them. i won't give a 1% risk of a link or a 1% risk of offense. i will ALWAYS decide a singular winner of the framework debate, and framework is not a "wash" unless one of the debaters says it is in their final rebuttal and i decide that they have won that it is.

i try to judge all debates like this ^, but what i've found is that i've overwhelmingly had to take a sort of "proof by cases" approach because framework is so hard to evaluate. for example, i'll find myself in the position of thinking the aff has unanswered fairness offense, the neg has unanswered epistemology offense, and there is no comparison done by either team, so i say to myself "well i know the aff wins if they win framework, but i also kind of think they win if the neg wins framework, so i vote aff and i don't have to decide who actually won framework". this almost always favors the aff because it is plausible for aff teams to win their representations are defensible and good, and in most cases it is implausible for the neg to win the link is a disad which turns or outweighs the case. so, my advice here is twofold. first, answer all of the offense and the defense on framework in the 2NR on point. spend time on framework, since you want me to be confident that you win it. second, outline very clearly why the link means you win under your model and why their offense doesn't apply. something like "even if they win securitization can be good, they have not won that it is epistemelogically valuable or beaten our argument that their specific form of securitization leads to interventions and more insidious forms of racism". or maybe, "even if their form of research is epistemelogically valuable, our offense uplayers that because we've proven that their performance in this round leads to psychic violence which you should unconditionally reject". just give me some delineation or distinction or something so that i can explain to the aff why they've lost and why their offense doesn't apply.

k tricks are cool. i dont think they're undignified or anything, and i won't hesitate to vote on a floating pik or "fiat is illusory" as long as its a developed argument in the block and not just a single line without a warrant.

i think in most cases, "links to the plan" are useless and don't get you anything. the perm double bind is just, like, true against these arguments. the one caveat to this isn't even really a "link to the plan", but if you generate mutual exclusivity off of the logical incongruence of the aff and the alt that's probably fine. i would be willing to vote on a 2NR on the setcol K that says decolonization solves the case PLUS some external impact, and it is mutually exclusive with the aff because fiating the plan necessitates the continued existence of the USFG. the reason i think this is a caveat is because it does not require winning the framework debate in any capacity; it is a competitive alternative that is more similar to a uniqueness counterplan than a kritik.

K (aff) vs Policy (Neg)

i think 1ac cross ex is crucial to establish disad links, grounds for impact turns, and counterplan competition.

most k affs link to cap good. 2as will gaslight you but having read a lot of "K" lit i can safely say that basically all of it starts with the presumption that capitalism is bad. that being said, policy teams should be a little less heavy handed with explaining this link. highlighting a line in their ev that says "capitalism" and some negatively connotated adjective is not going to be nearly as convincing as an explanation that uses the vocabulary of the 1ac and 2ac to explain how their theory of power condemns capitalism. this whole spiel is irrelevant if the 2ac bites the link, of course.

impact turns can be good because tons of K affs just say things that sound bad and assume theyre bad without any real investigation into why people say they're good. obviously don't cross any ethical boundaries or be bigoted.

K (aff) vs T (neg)

i'm pretty confident in my ability to judge these debates. i've been on the aff a lot more, but i agree with most everything the neg says in these debates, so i guess that evens out.

rewriting this part bc i think my views have changed a bit (but probably moreso that what was previously written did not accurately express how i felt). i think the approach to answering framework which relies on redefinitions of words in the resolution and a counterinterpretation is almost always incredibly unstrategic. no, the usfg is not an assemblage, and going for these types of arguments will make it incredibly easy for the negative to point out why your model is untenable. the 2ac can (and maybe should) read these arguments, but unless it is a technical crush it will be very hard to convince me that a more "open" or critical model of debate where everyone kinda just has to talk about something related to the resolution does not link to the limits disad. for this reason, i genuinely believe that for most k affs there is zero utility in defending a topic link. i think i'm in the minority there. i just think the impact turn to T is so much better than the middleground counterinterp and that, counterintuitively, defending a model in which anyone can read anything is probably easier than defending what i previously described (because the negative can easily win that the latter becomes the former, so you might as well just defend the former).

K (aff) vs K (neg)

framework is important to me here in terms of the sequence and filter i use to evaluate arguments.

no perms in method debates seems to overcorrect what is a very real issue. not giving the aff a perm feels nonsensical, but just letting them permute two mostly abstract ideas is obviously less than ideal. on the neg, i think its best to point out how their explanation of the perm might contradict the way the 1ac is explained during cross ex or the way the 1ac authors themselves describe how they think we ought to organize.

alt explanations should be a little more in depth here than they are in clash rounds because the perm usually matters a lot more in these rounds.

i think i'm in the minority here, but i think a lot of these debates are really neg favored. i mean, yeah, the perm is kind of hard, but also not really, and if you're reading a K which genuinely disagrees with the aff, there's a good chance the literature explicitly has answers to the permutation (and probably ACTUALLY disagrees with the aff, in contrast to a lot of Ks with policy affs). this won't really determine anything about how i judge debates but just a thought i have.

final rebuttals should have lots of framing and you should make it very clear what offense you're going for. impact calc is hugely important.

other stuff

dont clip

i think you can insert rehighlightings, if they misrepresent a card its their fault. if it's a part of the article that wasn't in the original card, you have to read it.

ad homs are not arguments i feel comfortable adjudicating. it complicates my role as a judge, and if the situation is so dire that it presents a safety or comfortability concern, i think going to tabroom or your coach is a much better remedy than making an argument about it. its not that im unsympathetic to these types of issues in debate, but i think that accepting the premise that my ballot is an endorsement of the character of debaters is a slippery slope which has some pretty terrible implications. this is probably the one exception i have to tech over truth. i do not care if you out-tech the other team on this position, i genuinely feel grossly uncomfortable writing and submitting a ballot on "this highschooler is a predator/racist/sexist". to be clear, this is about out of round issues. if someone is bigoted in round, im definitely willing to vote on "this rhetoric/performance is a reason to reject the team".

asking for perfect speaks will get you a perfect zero

she/her + stuy '23 (past 2N/current 2A)

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

Policy:

General

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 ran K affs for a lot 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. 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 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

I have gone for condo before, run it well and i'll vote you up for it.

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

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!

Mamaroneck 2023

Yale 2027

she/her

jdavisdebate@gmail.com

T/L

The most important thing is that everyone has fun. If there is a way that I can make the round more comfortable for you, please don't hesitate to ask.

Use trigger warnings during (do not spread them) AND ask opponents before round if you plan to read potentially sensitive arguments.

No ad hominem attacks; no berating your opponents.

Respect pronouns.

Argumentation

Read whatever you want in front of me. I have limited topic knowledge, so be careful with acronyms (putting them in parentheses in a tag is fine).

Tech > truth so long as your arguments are explained and implicated sufficiently.

I will find it difficult to vote for you if you cannot explain your arguments beyond cyclical jargon.

Misc

A marked doc does not mean taking out the cards you didn't read. Clarifying which cards weren't read requires cross/prep time.

I look annoyed sometimes but I swear I'm not.

I encourage you to make jokes about any of the Bronx Science/Mamaroneck debaters from the classes of 2022/2023 in your speeches.

Feel free to email me/ask me questions before and after the round.

Hello!

Please add ddevito@umich.edu to the email chain this summer.

I will try my absolute best to avoid intervention while recognizing some amount is inevitable. Anyone who claims to be impartial on every argument is lying. That being said, I strictly believe in the value of leaving the debating to the students.

I debated in highschool but have been out of it this past year, so you may find value in over-explaining or slowing down on certain technical issues. I really do enjoy techy debates though, especially with counterplan competition and topicality. I have an alright understanding of economics as I'm studying it in college (meaning I'm also excited to hear these debates!).

My background is with policy arguments. I have no disdain for kritiks, but bear in mind my knowledge is limited--especially on weird European philosophy. Please don't be discouraged--anything can be overcome with good explanation (and minimal jargon). I'll be transparent on the fact I've never read a K aff and usually went for framework on the neg (typically fairness).

I'll allow most things until the other team wins they shouldn't be; an example is inserting rehighlightings--it's the debaters' jobs to argue over. I'll default to conditionality and judge kick. Dropped arguments need warrants, otherwise the original argument was incomplete.

Debated for Nashua HS South and DebateDrills, graduated 2022 (fyo). Did policy my freshman year and LD the subsequent 3 years. 2x bid to the TOC my senior year. I ran primarily policy arguments when I debated.

Warning: I have been out of debate for a while. I haven't touched debate since I graduated, and I went to 2 tournaments total my senior year. I know nothing about this topic. I also forget a lot of the specific jargon specific to LD so you're gonna have to explain that to me if you're going for some esoteric Nebel standard.

General

Put me on the email chain: enyagu8@gmail.com

Pleaaaase slow down. If you're unclear or blippy it's gonna make it really hard for me to judge. Honestly you should probably go at 60% speed, 70% max. If I miss something it's only gonna hurt you! I will say clear and slow to try and help you gauge this, but try and be a little aware.

Important: Do NOT be mean in cross. You should know what this means. I will tank your speaks with 0 hesitation.

The following are things I haven't thought about in a while but probably still agree with:

Debate is probably a game

Arguments start at 0% truth, not 100%

If the 2NR is just T, the 2AR does not need to extend case (why does this happen in LD? why do judges want you to extend case? mindboggling)

Default Comparative Worlds >>>>> Truth Testing

Default fairness and education are voters

Time yourselves

Please weigh

Yes I am okay with open cross

If a question was asked before cross ended you can still answer it

My thoughts on disclosure? It's good, it's very good. You should be disclosing with best practices. Does it warrant reading a theory shell on? Depends on what kind. I'll be much more lenient for novices (and this obviously doesn't apply if you're reading from the novice policy packet)

+0.1 speaks if you say "the jig is up" in your last speech

Policy Arguments

I enjoy these debates the most! I love thorough policy debates. Weighing saves rounds, as does specific evidence comparison. Love IR debates, politics can be pretty funny

Theory

I seriously haven't thought about debate for a while so I think I'm average at best when evaluating these debates. I did go for theory a few times as a debater though, so I should be able to adjudicate a standard condo good/bad debate fairly well. I think condo 1 is very most likely good though. For frivolous theory, check the tricks section.

T

I'm okay with Nebel but I swear there is a winnable 2AR vs it every time. Standard T debates are fine

Ks

Act like I don't know your lit (which will probably be likely). Make sure I understand the thesis of your K, or else I can't vote on it.

Floating PIKs are probably bad.

I have very very little tolerance for bad K debate. If you can't explain your literature to a 5 year old (me), then don't run Ks in front of me. Long, incoherent overviews that just sound like you're reading the tags of your cards again are not gonna cut it. If this is in novice/JV, this doubly applies: don't run a K just because you think your opponents won't know how to answer it.

K affs (without a plan)

Defend something. I will negate on presumption if I don't know what your offense is.

T-FW

I'm probably better at resolving T-FW debates than K v K ones. I like fairness as an impact (probably more than education or research or something similar in these debates). These were some of my favorite debates to watch when executed well.

Phil

I don't like phil, sorry! I really like util...I'm gonna lean probably pretty hard towards it. Run phil at your own risk...

Tricks

No. I won't flow them. If you run them in front of me (???) and are sketchy about it in cross, L and really low speaks, like 26 or below.

Trad

I'm gonna be honest with you I don't know what a value/value criterion even is, so...

Novices

Signpost please, it'll make my life (and yours!) so much easier!

PF

The evidence standards in this event are very poor...I would be happy if there's an email chain. Please weigh.

She/her

I want to be on the email chain:) meghana.gunapati@barstowschool.org

Debate Experience: I have been debating at the Barstow School for 7 years

Overview:

Covid-19: I am honestly so impressed with everyone’s work online and how debate works online so I will not dock speaks for internet issues or anything.

I don’t have much argument preference so I will be completely none biased in my judging.

Anything offensive said ie: slurs and such will be an automatic 0 and win for the other team.

Procedurals/ Theory

I honestly don’t have much work with this though I understand most. For topicality you need impacts and because sometimes I don’t understand, you need to specifically explain this impacts out as well as the specific thing the aff violates.

Case Debate

My favorite part of debate. Presumption was where my partner and I won a lot of our neg rounds in college. I can be persuaded to vote neg on presumption, but the work done needs to be specific. I'm more likely to assign a low or no risk of the aff if there's a compelling internal link debate than if the 1AR dropped the third impact D card that's non-specific and two lines long.

I also think a well-leveraged aff can do a lot on other sheets of paper, especially when comparative work with the neg's offense is done.

DA's

This is where "quality over quantity" and "the less true and argument is, the less tech you need to beat it" become really important. Affs can beat bad disads on defense if affs explain why that defense is more important than everything the neg is saying (same goes for the neg with bad aff advantages). In terms of impact calc, I think probability is generally the most important. Zero risk is a thing.

CP

On CP's I think that a CP should be competitive and be able to function. With that I mean they should have solvency advicts, I don't really like PICS in general but if you are reading one be sure you can explain it and actually understand and are not jut running it for the sake of it.

K's

On this topic I know of all the basic ones such as Cap, set col, etc. but if you have a K that is obscure then just explain it to me. The alt is very important to me and I would like examples. On framework I can be swayed both ways aff or neg just which team is doing the better job at explaining their world-view better.

Extra:

A well-articulated New Girl reference .5 extra speaks

Updated for states '23:

I'm Anna, she/her, freshman @ uchicago

Add me to the chain: annakozlova@uchicago.edu

Respect your opponents' pronouns (ask)

Let me know if you are having some kind of tech issues (wifi, microphone) before the round.

Background:

I debated policy for 4 years at LHS (in mass), alternating 2n/2a. Tech>truth***, I will put aside personal biases to evaluate your arguments fairly. Especially after judging a lot of LD/PF in the last year, as well as teaching PF over the summer, i've gotten more experienced with evaluating specific arguments, although I still think there is a fairly universal way to judge them, which are all outlined below.

The main TL/DR for me is the core of debate -- say what you will about tricks and silly arguments, what matters is being able to win on substance, and although I'd prefer that substance be legitimate, I just want to be able to weigh either side at the end of the round. If there is a genuine ethics issue, we can pause the round, but I don't like watching tricks debate all too much. I'm familiar with the topic for this session, and you can assume I have a good amount of background -- I'm also a history and polisci major, so make it interesting. I like K's, good case debate, interesting DAs (if you can spin them in any way as plausible), etc -- not a fan of nitpicky T or tricks debate. Clarity in your argument is critical -- you can be fast, just be clear in both speech and logic. GFW. (Also I'm a big fan of impact calc, that should be in your speech, c'mon).

No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc -- your speaks will plummet.

*********

novpol:

tl;dr - i'm good with any argument you want to run as long as you explain it fully (especially this year, seeing as i have less experience with the topic than in previous years), i have no pref for aff or neg, i've been both a 2n and 2a at this point so i respect the hustle on both sides.

impact calc is also super important to me!

please please PLEASE tell me why your impact should be prioritized, or why your aff is more important.

use analytics - don't just rely on cards.

extend your arguments throughout the round. line by line - respond to your opponents specific arguments.

extend your arguments - keep them, your cards, etc, in the round after you read them once!

stay organized. use your time efficiently, split the block well (ask if you're not sure what this means), be polite in CX, and don't trash-talk.

i'm a more policy-leaning person in general, but i'm down for a good K or theory debate, again if you explain it fully.

GFW!

jvpol:

tl;dr - a lot of the things in this paradigm about how i evaluate arguments will still apply to you, even if you've been debating for a little while. however, if it your second or third year debating, i have higher expectations about the way you explain your off case or your aff, the way you behave during CX and before/after/during the round, and the nuance you give to all of your (and your opponents) arguments.

long:

general: be organized! since it's your first year, all that matters is for you to have fun in the round and learn a lot! good and well-setup flows not only make it easier for me as a judge to evaluate your arguments, but it also makes it easier for you to extend these arguments or respond to your opponent's arguments. also, i'm down for open CX when both partners can respond to and ask questions, but if i can clearly see one of you is talking over and controlling the other, i will not like that and will dock the more aggressive person's speaks. speaking of which, i will not tolerate partners interrupting one another during their respective speeches; i find it rude and toxic for the environment, so please be kind to one another!!! that is one of the most important things!

one of the biggest issues i see novices struggling with, especially during the packet debates, is the lack of analytics until the 2N/ARs. i think it's normal to be worried that the arguments you make off the top of your head aren't going to work, but honestly, if you're just reading cards in all of your speeches that have nothing to do with your opponents' arguments, it doesn't help you during the round. make analytics, point out if your opponent dropped an argument, tell me why you win in your own words, and explain your arguments also in your own words. super duper important for everyone, but specifically addressed to the novpol packet debates.

speaking: i'm fine with spreading, as long as you're clear. be as fast as you want, but if i stop understanding you, i will say clear, and if you don't acknowledge that through slowing down or emphasizing your words more, i will take off speaker points.

CX: i always pay attention to cross ex - you can poke a lot of holes in your opponents' arguments here, and it's just as important to stay persuasive.

case: i enjoy a good case debate; as long as the arguments all interact with one another and you're not just reading random blocks that have nothing to do with the 1AC, we'll be all good! weigh your impacts, defend your 1AC, and extend your authors from the 1AC! they do not disappear when you go into your 2AC and 1AR, so use them!!!

especially with the packet, i find that novices avoid analytics, any arguments that don't have cards, and extending their cards into the 2AC and the rest of their speeches. it feels like a waste of reading cards, for one thing, it's less persuasive, it makes your life harder, it's less educational... overall just extend your cards and arguments! make analytics! take risks! i cannot emphasize this enough (and yes, it's in my paradigm twice, that's how important i find this).

also, your arguments need to be there throughout the round if you genuinely want me to evaluate them - if you say something in your 1AC/2AC but do not bring it up back up until the 2AR (or 1NC and 2NR), i can't vote on it.

do impact calculus! it's great practice and it's super helpful to me to evaluating your case.

disads - i like disads as an argument, although i might not be able to buy politics DAs like elections or senate after the election, but other than that, i'm down for a good story. make sure that the link chain to the affirmative is clearly outlined in the 1NC, and that the impact calculus is there. weigh! your! impacts! explain to me why your impact is larger, more probable, or more imminent, and why it's more important! this is crucial in winning the DA - otherwise, i can't evaluate why your disad should be prioritized.

counterplans - i'm a big fan of counterplans (if they're competitive, but that's up for debate :)). speaking of competition, i come in with no bias about any types of counterplans. aff, if you want to convince me the counterplan text isn't competitive, convince me. neg, if you want to win the counterplan, give me a clear story of how it works, why it solves better than the affirmative, the internal/external net benefits, otherwise i can't vote on it. i don't have much to say about the more policy-leaning arguments, mostly because i'm more experienced with them, and want to let you have free rein with them!

kritiks - i've been mainly policy for my high school years, meaning i'm not well versed in most k literature (except for more policy ones, like the capitalism kritik). however, like i mentioned above, i'm down for any argument, as long as you're able to explain it well. i want to make sure you can clearly articulate links and your alternative, as well as your framework, etc. if i can tell you're just reading blocked out k's from varsity members, i'm less inclined to vote for you. as well as that, interact! with! the! 1AC! even though you're running a k that basically just says "aff bad for x complicated reason", you need to do case debate! running an argument parallel to the aff doesn't produce anything within the round. LINK DEBATE: i also really prefer specific links over generic links, although if you can spin the generic link nicely, i will like that as well. ON THE ALT DEBATE: pleeeease explain your alt to me very clearly. alts are often extremely questionable (to put it nicely), so if you're advocating for it and you go for it, make sure we all understand it. thank you!

k-affs: like i mentioned, i'm not super educated in k literature, and especially k-affs. i absolutely will not pretend that i fully understand your aff from just the 1AC, so please! explain it to me like i'm a parent judge or someone who has never interacted with a k aff, even though i have. i'm also not the biggest fan of them, but if you can somehow convince me my ballot can do something outside of the round, then i may vote on it. i personally do not believe that my ballot has any role other than determining who wins/loses the round simply because of the nature of debate (and how many times you've read the k aff before my round - what makes me unique?). if there is a performance/song/whatever in your 1AC, use that throughout the round if you can, although i'm not exactly sure how it works (again - k aff dumdum, so if your aff is a k-aff, i will be reasonably lenient in your arguments). if you run a tva/fw, explain it to me, be very clear, etc. same as with all arguments, make sure you understand it beforehand, and aren't reading straight down whatever file the varsity folks gave you.

framework - framework! i enjoy framework on the neg, i think it's an important part of debate, and i love a good framework debate with interacting arguments on both sides. explain your interp to me, standards, etc. for the neg - when you're running a K, make sure you explain to me why your framework ISN'T self serving, because often times, i find that it is. other than that, go crazy, i'll happily judge whatever you put in front of me! again, this is super important: understand your arguments! as first years, you gotta know what you're doing so you can learn from the round.

theory/t - this is another argument i'm not the most familiar with, but just like the K, explain it very well. i think fairness is an internal link to education, not that it's an impact, but try to convince me otherwise. i like a good t debate, give me your interp and a case list (underrated!), or a counterinterp, reasons to prefer, etc. i don't really hold a bias about precision vs specificity, so feel free to convince me. i will buy any argument as long as you explain and understand it!

overall, i just want you guys to have fun and learn a lot. as first/second year debaters, all that really matters is that you get educational experience in a respectful and fun way, especially in debate, which is such a challenging yet rewarding activity. i was one of you once, so i will be extremely nice within the round, whether that be if you have a question for me, or are having technical difficulties. no prep time will be taken from you if your wifi glitches out, or your document crashes, because i completely understand! GFW!

nLD/nPF:

i don't debate in these events, but i'm very familiar with the topic for this month as well as general arguments so i can still judge well. i have plenty of experience with judging and teaching PF, but LD is where i lack a little bit (so if you have any arguments that aren't linear, like some forms of tricks, flesh out really well). since i debate in policy, please make sure to lay out the story of your aff/neg or pro/con position very clearly - i value impact weighing a LOT, especially in PF and LD. explain to me why your impacts are more important, whether that be due to your framing, your "solvency", or otherwise. you also need to be able to flesh out, or really thoroughly explain, the chain of events that you're defending. however, i may not understand all of the nuances of a debate like LD if you read tricky arguments, which is something to take into account. i will be able to give an educational rfd (my style is speech-by-speech), because i've seen a lot of these rounds and i've been involved in debate for years, so the round will be productive for you. and good luck have fun! p.s. if any of the policy args apply to you, and i'm assuming they do, take that info!

so...you've read to the end of my paradigm. very impressive!! here's my speak increase/decrease chart:

note: i will not significantly change your speaker points from what i think you deserve - if i think you got a 28 (including some of these things, because some of these you do implicitly and i think they ought to contribute to your final speaker points), i cannot boost you up to a 28.5 or 28.7, but i can give you up to a 28.2 of additional points when you make purposeful changes to how you debate based on my boosters.

28.5 is what i am adjusting from throughout the round.

+0.1 if you post my email without asking me on the email chain - this lets me know you read my paradigm, or at least am aware that i have one, which is a good practice to encourage.

+0.1 if you make a funny new england joke

+0.1-0.3 if you talk to me about any of the things i listed i enjoy - it's nice to know you're human and not just a face on NSDA campus :) (this depends on how entertaining i find your comments)

+0.1 if you show me your neat flows after the round! like i said, organization during a round is super important, and i think encouraging organized flows is crucial in furthering your debate career.

+0.2 if you're nice to your opponents before, during, and after the round - good sportsmanship is so crucial, especially in these crazy times, so be respectful people! don't interrupt a lot in cross ex, don't talk over one another, no personal attacks, no post rounding, no angry facial expressions, etc.

+0.2-4 if you ask me thoughtful questions about the round, ask about how you could have run an argument better, ask about the details about my decision, etc. it's important that you improve, and getting detailed feedback other than just the RFD is incredibly useful! i'll love you taking initiative.

-0.7 at least if you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, before, during, or after your round - i will tolerate absolutely none of this, and while this might not influence my decision by a lot, it will drastically affect your speaker points.

-0.2 if you bash your previous opponents in the round, are rude within the round, scream at your opponents, etc - show proper etiquette and sportsmanship in debate, this is just as important as any arguments you make.

-0.3 if you read arguments such as "trigger warnings bad" or are insensitive to your opponents' triggers - i have been in a similar situation where i had a panic attack due to an aff not putting any tw at the top and could barely debate for the rest of the round. it's a personal issue for me, so please, be understanding.

-0.1 for each time you purposefully misgender your opponents - it's plain rude.

***tech>truth: this is a difficult call to make, because making horrible arguments and banking on them just because your opponent didn't answer it doesn't win you a round. however, regardless of whether or not your opponent makes those kinds of arguments, you still need to respond to them - even though i value the truth of an argument (like space lasers or aliens? no thank you), i'm still going to weigh it even if it's really out there, and if the other team manages to convince me that there is a unique and important reason that they should win the round because you didn't sufficiently answer their albeit obscure argument, it'll be even more important. this is specifically true in policy debate, and occasionally in LD, but in all kinds of debate, i honestly believe that using racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc within a round should cost you the ballot, even if your opponents didn't say more than "this is racist and that's bad, here's why". so all in all, i value tech and truth very similarly, but depending on the round, one will take priority over the other. so just answer all your opponent's arguments, don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc, and be thorough with your arguments!

Hello, I'm a senior at Stuyvesant high school.

I have ran pretty much every type of offcases, although I do prefer running policy offcases and policy affs.

I do prefer a policy off cases, disads, counterplans, and topicalities. I will try to judge kritiks to the best of my ability, and if you are running a k or kaff please make the links, alternatives, and how they all connect clear.

I believe in tech> truth, if an argument is dropped, it is considered true.

You will get 2 minutes to send your file onto the email chain, additional time spent will be taken from your prep time

No new arguments in the 2ar, but putting a new spin on old arguments is fine.

I will judge kick CPs if you're losing on the perm.

Email chain: My email is rlin21@stuy.edu

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Yes, include me on the email chain. zhaneclloyd@gmail.com

Brooklyn Tech: 2011 - 2012 (those three novice UDL tournaments apparently count), 2017 - 2021 (coach)
NYU: 2014 - 2018
The New School: 2018-2020 (coach)

***I used to keep my video off for rounds, but I've since learned that it's a mistake for the morale of the debater as well as for confirming whether or not I'm actually in the room. If my camera is off, I am not in the room. Please do not start speaking***

I currently work a full-time job that has nothing to do with debate. I still judge because that full-time job does not pay enough (does any job nowadays?) and I've built community with people that are still very active in debate, so seeing them is nice. It is also means I'm VERY out of touch with what the new norms in debate are. But everything below still applies for the most part.

In case you're pressed for time

1. Do you. Have fun. Don't drop an important argument.

2. If there is an impact in the 2NR/2AR, there's a high chance you've won the debate in front of me. I like going for the easy way out and impacts give me the opportunity to do that. Impact comparisons are good too. NEG - LINKS to those impacts matter. AFF - how you SOLVE those impacts matter. Outside of that context, I'm not sure how I should evaluate.

3. I flow on paper, so please don't be upset if I miss arguments because you're slurring your words or making 17 arguments/minute.

4. Don't assume I know the acronyms or theories you're talking about, even if I do. This is a persuasion activity, so no shortcuts to persuading me.

5. Obviously, I have biases, but I try not to let those biases influence how I decide a round. Usually, if debaters can't accomplish #2, then I'll be forced to. I prefer to go with the flow though.

6. If at the end of the round, you find yourself wanting to ask my opinion on an argument that you thought was a round winner, know that I have one of two answers: I didn't consider it or I didn't hear it. Usually, it's the latter. So try not to make 5 arguments in 20 seconds.

7. There's no such thing as a "good" time to run 5+ off, but I'll especially be annoyed if it's the first or last round of the day. 10+ off guarantees I will not flow and may even stop the round. I'm not the judge for those type of rounds.

8. I've grown increasingly annoyed with non-Black debaters making "helping Black people" as part of their solvency. A lot of you don't know how to do this without either a). sounding patronizing as hell or b). forgetting that "helping Black people" was part of your solvency by the time rebuttals come around (#BackburnerDA). I'm not going to tell you to stop running those arguments, but I strongly recommend you don't have me in the back of the room for them.

**ONLINE DEBATE**: You don't need to yell into your mic. I can hear you fine. In fact, yelling into your mic might make it harder for me to hear you. Which means you may lose. Which is bad. For you.

If you're not so pressed for time

I debated for four years at NYU and ran mostly soft left affs. I think that means I'm a pretty good judge for these types of affs and it also means I'm probably able to tell if there is a genuine want for a discussion about structural violence impacts and the government's ability to solve them or if they're just tacked on because K debaters are scary and it makes the perm easier.

I do think debate is a game, but I also think people should be allowed to modify the "rules" of the game if they're harmful or just straight up unlikeable. I've designed games from time to time, so I like thinking about the implications of declaring debate to be "just" a game or "more than" a game. Now to the important stuff.

Speed: Through a card, I'll tolerate it. Through a tag or analytics, I'll be pretty annoyed. And so will you, because I'll probably miss something important that could cost you the round. When reading a new card, either verbally indicate it ("and" or "next") or change your tone to reflect it.

Planless affs: Even in a game, some people just don't want to defend the government. And that's perfectly okay. But I would like the aff to be relevant to the current topic. Though I do understand that my definition of "relevant" and a K debater's definition of "relevant" may differ greatly slightly, so just prove to me why the aff is a good idea and why the lack of government action is not as relevant/bad/important as the negative's framework makes it seem.

CP: Wasn't really much of a CP debater and I don't really coach teams that run CPs, except the basic novice ones that come in a starter kit. I think they're a fine argument and am willing to vote on them.

DA: You could never go wrong with a good DA. DAs, when run correctly, have a really good, linear story that can be extended in the neg block and could be used to effectively handle aff answers. Feel free to go crazy.

Ks: I can't think of a neg round where I didn't run a K. I've run cap, security, queerness, and Black feminism. But please, do not talk to me as if I know your K. If you're running pomo, I most definitely don't know your K and will need to be talked through it with analogies and examples. If you're running an identity K, I probably do know your K but expect the same from you as I expect from a pomo debater. Cap, security - you get the memo.

T: My favorite neg arg as a senior. I'm always down for a good T debate. I do think that sometimes it's used as a cop-out, but I also think that some affs aren't forwarding any sort of plan or advocacy. Just stating an FYI and a neg can't really argue against that. So T becomes the winning strategy.

Framework: Not exactly the same as T, but I still **like** it. Please just call it framework in front of me. I've heard various names be used to describe it, but they're all just arguments about what should be discussed in the round and how the aff fails to do so.

Theory: Important, but the way debaters speed through their theory shells makes me question just how important it is. Again, slow down when reading theory in front of me so it's actually an option for you at the end of the round.

I love a team that can make a great argument. I love Ks, CPs, DAs. Don't really like Ts. I am not a fan of speed reading, but you can try it. Tell me a good story, and why I should vote for you, and don't forget to weigh your impacts. (Virtual debate) If I didn't hear the argument, you did not make it even if you sent the drive. I am the Judge so do not debate me on my decision, this is a sport of persuasion, so if you did not persuade me, that is why you lost.

Ian Lowery (also goes by "Izzy" and/or "Bishop"),

Assistant Director of Debate at George Mason University (2022 - Present).

Former Policy Debater at George Mason University (2014 - 2018).

Former Assistant Coach at James Madison University (2020 - 2022).

Former Head Coach of Speech & Debate at Centreville High School (2018-2019)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top Level: I believe that my role as the judge is to absorb the information provided within the round and decide who wins based on the debater's ability to explain and defend their positions. Do whatever you were going to do before you saw my name on the pairing. Treat the following as proclivities that may make my decision easier or increase your speaker points.

I mostly ran kritical arguments during my time as a debater. In my earlier years I did traditional policy but most of my best experience is with the K.

Tech over Truth - I believe in voting on the flow, and unless I am more than 95% sure that a statement or argument is universally false, it can be debated and proven true on the flow. Beyond that, I will still try to be unbiased in my evaluation the argument, but you're rolling the dice.

I will evaluate arguments which suggest that I should not flow or not decide the round based on traditional policy argumentation standards - but I need to be given a clear alternative method of evaluating the truth-value of competing arguments. Otherwise, I don't see how I won't just end up voting for whoever I think was more technical or voting for whichever team I vibed with more (which might be the point... I guess. But trying to predict my vibes without knowing me very well is a dangerous game imo).

Conduct - Don't be a jerk. It's aight to be aggressive, if there's a point/reason behind it. At it's core, I think debate is a game, so everyone should have fun.

Time - I don't keep track of time well in my personal life or in debates. Please don't rely on me for that. Keep track of your own and your opponent's time.

E-mail Chain - Yeah, put me on it: itlowery20@gmail.com

If you have any questions, feel free to email me.

Experience - B.A. in Women Gender and Sexuality Studies, 1 year of college policy, KU, 4 years of high school, for Barstow. Currently coaching for Barstow for the 2023-2024 season. I am most familiar and equipped to judge debates involving Queer Theory, Necropolitics/Foucault, Settler Colonialism, Deleuze & Guattari, and Derrida/Hauntology in terms of both my ability to evaluate technical debate on the flow as well as give productive and pedagogically valuable responses.

Determining Speaks - To me, a good speaker is articulate, persuasive, confident, respectful, and kind. I allocate speaker points based on a debater's skill. However, even if someone is a "good debater" in a skill sense, if they are rude or dismissive to their opponents, their ability as a debater matters much less because they have failed to be a good person. Good speakers should be good people first.

Notes - I have some hearing problems, if you are unclear, I will say "clear." Don't sacrifice speed / the extra off at my behest, just make sure you articulate. Ideal clarity is I should be able to flow without referencing the doc at all.

You are responsible for keeping track of where you mark cards. Please be able to timely send a marked doc / card docs must be marked if you marked cards in the debate.

If reading "extra" cards in a speech that are not in the doc, send them BEFORE you read them rather than after.

Incentivizing Strategies

+.3 for Flow Rebuttals

+.1 for Kicking an Advantage

+.1 for DA/CP/Case 2NR (Novice)

+.1 for K / Case 2NR (Novice)

+.1 for Evidence Comparison (Novice)

-.1 for Unhighlighted Cards - Please take the extra 30 sec of prep to highlight

Eline!

Please add both:

Personal: elinelwpeters@gmail.com

Mamaroneck Email: mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

She/Her

Background : Debated at Mamaroneck High School, and am currently debating at Umass Amherst within the Harvard Debate Consortium. Throughout my debate career, I have mainly read policy affirmatives, whilst going for the K on the NEG. Substantively, I have researched queerness and its intersections with the law both in and out of debate.

I am debating in college, though I do not have familiarity with the high school topic. Prior to the Harvard Tournament, I will try my best to create an understanding and do some research on common arguments. I would likely err on the side of explanation, though that's a good thing to do anyway.

Predispositions:

I will judge kick the counter plan, unless told otherwise.

You don't need to flash analytics.

I will have a difficult time concluding that new affirmatives are bad. I am sympathetic to the perils of being a 2N, though a world without new affirmatives being broken is less interesting.

Hidden aspec D :

I am not very expressive when judging and will probably not convey what I think about arguments until my RFD.

Inserting rehighlighting is ok! Unless it is from a different part of the article from what the other team has read.

Final Thoughts

Be kind to your opponents and their arguments! It does not mean that you can't answer their arguments. It does mean that some people might have an emotional stake in the substance of their arguments; and as such demeaning your opponent in CX or otherwise is not good! I understand competitive incentives exist. I just think that we all could be kinder to one another.

If you are debating online: you don't need to keep your camera on if you don't want to. I will however keep mine on (and if its not please don't start your speech).

If you have any questions feel free to ask! I purposely did not include many debate opinions. Most of them I have can be overcome by outteching your opponent.

I am sorry I notice I update this paradigm pretty regularly and its a work in progress. Whenever I think of something that might be important I add it.

hi! i debated for four years in high school.

add me to the email chain; my email is carissa.qiu@gmail.com

general comments:

novice:

- i will track time of all speeches and prep, but i encourage you to keep track of your own time as well (don't try to steal prep).

- make sure you properly extend all parts of a k or t if you're planning to win on those args.

- cps should have a clear net benefit.

- the da's link to the aff should be well explained.

- weighing and impact calc are crucial during rebuttals. make sure you're weighing under your framework

- coherent spreading is appreciated during rebuttals; go line by line

- feel free to ask me any questions after!

jv:

- tech > truth

- explain theory with all parts, nuance and expand on if you want to win on it

- try to summarize the debate at the end with impact calc

- you can run anything

Email chain: rrn.debate [at] gmail [dot] com

Background: Mamaroneck High School, University of Southern California – Policy Debate

Tech over truth.

Be clear, don’t be surprised when an argument I can’t flow doesn’t make it into my decision. I am slow at typing and on average get down 60% of your speech down on my flow.

Don't clip, be rude, or lie.

I agree with Ken Karas on most everything.

Mamaroneck '22/Northwestern '26

vvrubin1234@gmail.com

(GBX 2023 Update)

PLEASE don't clip, especially at the varsity level. I am following along in the doc. It sucks, is unfair, and will result in a loss.

Assume that I have ZERO topic knowledge. Explain acronyms, slow down on T.

TLDR

The following are just thoughts I have, I will vote for anything obviously excluding things that are racist homophobic transphobic etc.

Tech > Truth but an argument that is less true requires less of an answer to beat it, if that makes sense. You need to have a claim/warrant/impact in order for me to consider an argument (ie. condo in the 2AC cannot be "condo--voter for aff ground" and then a minute of the 1AR)

Framework

Fairness is an impact, but the negative should not just assume I think that. Explain why, or for the aff, explain why not.

I am more persuaded by k affs that are grounded in topic literature, but if you give me a reason to think otherwise, I will evaluate it.

CP

Won't judge kick unless you tell me to

Process CP's are fine but I would prefer a well-researched strategy at least somewhat tied to the topic, smart 2ac perm texts are underutilized

DA

Politics is fine but i prefer a 1nr that does good link spin to a 1nr that card dumps bad evidence

K

You do you, neg v. policy affs I feel like the aff should get to weigh the plan and the neg should get links to reps if evenly debated, but would be persuaded by judge instruction + good impact debating by either side

Don't assume anything about my knowledge of your literature base

T

Read lots of cards

Theory

Other than conditionality, theory is usually a reason to reject the argument not the team. I am more likely to err negative if it wasn't particularly egregious.

Random

I'm generally not expressive unless I'm like, super super confused

Will adjust speaker points to the tournament/division.

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.

Hi! My name is Tanisha Saxena (she/her) and I'm a 4th-year 2N varsity policy debater and a senior at Lexington High School.

Add me on the email chain: tanisha.saxena@gmail.com

(If you are really pressed for time, read the bold parts)

General:

- I'm okay with any reasonable argument (nothing oppressive, hurtful, etc.)

- My evaluation is based solely on what is said in the round, I will believe any claim (even ones that seem incorrect) unless someone says otherwise, I don't impose my own knowledge into the round decision

- Speaker points are based on how well you formulate arguments, and how courteous you are in round

- Tech issues are bound to happen in the virtual world. I won’t dock your speaks or prep for it unless the tournament forces me to

Preferences:

- Please be clear about your arguments, I will follow along with evidence but if you aren't clear when formulating the meaning and link chain of your arguments in cross ex and for extensions, I won't evaluate it as much

- If you read a K be very concise with the explanation of definitions, using buzzwords to confuse your opponent just makes for a weaker round and makes it harder for me to figure out what exactly I would be voting on

- Avoid new evidence in the 1AR, if possible. I can allow new evidence to be read but make it minimal. Try not to bring in new arguments, just strengthen your past ones.

- Write your ballot in the 2NR/2AR, make a laundry list of arguments I should vote for your team on and why. For anyone who hasn't done this before: look at all the off case and on case arguments made and say which flows you are winning on and why. Then, explain why I should value you over the other team. This usually takes like 30 secs at the end of the speech and gives you much more ethos

- Value clarity over speed when speaking. If nothing else then slow down on tags and make sure the tags explain the card well. The most important thing for a debate is that both parties actually understand what the other is saying. I won't stop you if you aren't clear but be aware that it forces me to either miss arguments or rely on what I /can/ hear in the meat of the card to figure out what you are trying to say, meaning your arguments won't be as solid in my mind

- Say which arguments you are answering in line-by-line. This makes it easier to flow and way easier for me to directly compare the clashing arguments

- If you're a novice, I get that you won't have much evidence of a lot of new arguments. In that case, I value reasonability and examples. If you are making a claim, use historical facts you know as proof or explain the possible warrants to best show that I should believe you.

Hi, my name is Joel Swirnoff, and I did policy debate at Lexington High School in MA for 3+ years. I TA'd novices at LHS (in policy debate) in my senior year. I use he/him/his pronouns, and it would be great if you could let me know what yours are, as well as your preferred name if it is different than what is listed on tabroom.

I'd like to be on the email chain- please use the email joeldebate@gmail.com

Look to the bottom of my paradigm if you need a TLDR

Overall/if you have time:

Please signpost! Tell me what flows I need and in what order for your speech, and say "and" in between cards.

tech>truth. This doesn't mean you can just make any claim however, you also need a warrant. If you have a sufficient one, I will presume it is true until the other team makes an argument against it.

Framing ends up being really important in my decision. More on this below.

Spreading is fine, but if I cannot understand you I won't be able to flow what you say. If you are more comfortable not spreading, don't! In the end, it's about what you say, not about flexing how quickly you can talk.

Clarity is super important too, for the reasons above.

Make sure you are extending warrants when you make any extensions! If you tell me "extend Swirnoff- that turns the link" I want to know HOW it does that.

Dropped arguments are concessions, but it is up to you to capitalize on them. Like I said above, I want to hear why that concession wins you the debate, rather than you telling me it wins the debate. Say things like "they dropped our Swirnoff card, this means only the plan leads to xyz impact as..."

Organization is key for both you and me. It helps everyone in the round when you tell us you are moving on to another specific part of the debate. This means saying clearly when you are moving to another flow, or even when moving to another part of a contention (for example: "now onto the uniqueness of the disadd")

Big fan of impact calc, especially when it is explained well! In closer rounds, this and framing is usually how you win.

In your last speech, tell me why you win the debate. Outline the arguments you are extending and say what my ballot should say.

Things specific to Policy Debate:

A note: please don't say you "solve for racism," you don't.

Case: Case is your child, so take care of it. If you are on the aff remember that you start with the burden of proof.

Framing: As mentioned above, framing is really important in my decision. I will default to a utilitarian framework unless told otherwise. This means for soft left affs, a lot of what will likely end up going into your win is an explanation as to why we should prefer your framing of the round. For the neg, you will have to defend your framework as well. I've found in rounds that each team can win under each framework, the explanation just needs to be there.

DAs: DAs are the epitome of tech>truth, and I love debates over DAs if the link is thought out well and is contextualized to the plan. Take me through the different parts of the debate: this will organize my flow best. Tell me what's unique, what the link is, what the internal link is, and what the impact is. One thing I've seen a lot this year is that it's really hard for me to vote on a DA when there isn't a coherent link chain. So please, please, in your 2nr flesh it all out for me and weigh it at the end.

CPs: CPs that are contextualized to the aff are super strong, but remember you always always always have to prove that it is mutually exclusive from the aff. As I mentioned before, take me through all the parts of the CP. For the aff, this means going through POSTAL.

Conditionality: If you are running one or two conditional advocacies, it probably isn't abusive (two can be argued). More than that you've got a real debate on your hands, but I can be swayed either way.

Ks: I love Ks like Cap and Security! If it is well thought out and contextualized to the aff, I'll be a big fan. Make sure you prove to me that the world of the alternative is better than the world of the aff and status quo. If your alt is "Reject the Aff" it's gonna be a much harder sell to me than real substantial change (eg communism as an alt to capitalism)

T: The neg will have to win a couple parts of the debate in order to win T, but it is definitely doable if you devote your 2nr to it. You'll first have to win that the aff is violating the resolution. This includes a good definition of the language in the resolution you think the aff is violating. From there, you have to prove that what the aff is doing is bad for debate or is abusive. I think that fairness IS a voter (sorry Kaz), but it can also be used as an internal link depending on how you see it.

Things specific to Novice LD:

Framework: I love debates about values and criteria. If you can win your framework it's much more likely that you win the round. A well thought out criterion that fits your evidence well makes the round an engaging one that will probably help your speaks.

Definitions: These can really be your friend! Later in the debate you might be having an argument over how certain actions pan out in the world of the debate, and having a strong definition (it's helpful to include why this definition is good) can decide whether I choose yours or theirs.

TOPIC KNOWLEDGE: I do not have much topic knowledge.

Random: You don't need to say "I affirm/negate resolved" or "I urge you to vote aff/neg." I'm aware, but it's not a problem if you do, I just think you should be saving time for actual substance.

FAQ:

Open CX- I don't really care

What should you call me- "judge" is fine

Open speeches- I'd prefer not, but it's not the end of the world. I'll flow it but it probably mentally holds more weight if the actual speech giver says it

Cameras on- I'd prefer it if you had your camera on, but if you're not comfortable don't feel pressured to do so.

New arguments from the 2ac on- I'd really prefer it if you didn't. Add ons are okay but it's much better if you just go with the arguments that came out of the 1ac and 1nc. Exceptions are if a team does something within the bold below.

Keeping track of prep- I'll do my best to keep track of prep but I don't always remember to. Consider this a panopticon tho- I am keeping track of your prep and speaks will go down if you steal.

Speaker points- I start out at 28.3-28.5 and will go up or down based on the debate. I consider clarity, respectfulness, arguments made, quick-wittedness, etc.

Lastly,

Be nice! Respectfulness will usually lead me to giving you higher speaks. If there is a lack of respect or if there is demoralization between opponents, it'll likely lead to lower speaks, especially when this occurs from a male team towards a female or other identifying team.

Racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, ableism, or any comments of the like will automatically dock speaker points and may lead to a loss.

Some stuff about me that I might give you plus speaks on: I'm a big fan of soccer (I'm a Man Utd fan) and really all sports, so if you want I'd be down to talk about it before the round. Also, if you can make jokes about Lex Debate or anyone in it I'll definitely appreciate it.

If you have any questions, please ask, and have fun!

TLDR:

- You can run pretty much anything you'd like in front of me

- I am very much tech>truth

- Be respectful

- framing is usually pretty important in my decision

- Do impact calc

- organize your speeches well, be clear, and say "and" in between cards

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

My email: priya.thiri123@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain.

General Comments:

- When spreading, please emphasize the taglines.

- Roadmaps and signposts are extremely helpful!

- I will track time for all speeches/prep, but I encourage you to keep track of your own time as well.

- To extend a card, analytics are expected.

- Impact calc is very very important. (timeframe/probability/magnitude)

- I like policy affs and am comfortable judging them.

- I like DAs, however, they should link to the aff and be explained really well.

- I like CPs but should have a clearly articulated net benefit

- I am not extremely well versed in K’s but I am willing to listen to K affs as long as they are well explained in CX and speeches.

- I enjoy judging K’s as long as the alts are clear.

- I'm fine with voting on topicality unless neg makes a very strong case.

- I really like framework against K affs and K's and spend a significant amount of time on it throughout the rebuttals.

During the rebuttals, bring everything together. Be persuasive. Don't spread in rebuttals.

**LAKELAND: prep time ends when you send out the email or are ready to start your speech! **

Cornell '27, Mamaroneck '23

She/Her

Email: kiraptretiak@gmail.com & mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

!! Limited topic knowledge (include what acronyms stand for in tags & don't assume any knowledge of topic norms) !!

My priority is always making the debate a safe space. If you do not feel comfortable debating your opponent, please let me know before the round starts and I'll talk to Tabroom with you.

Should go without saying but don't be racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. - L + lowest speaks + email to coach. If you have a Title IX allegation against you, strike me. Use content warnings when necessary - both before & during round.

Tech > Truth to the extent that an argument is fully developed and expressed in a logically sound way. For instance, "they dropped T, vote neg" (the novice special) isn't enough to get my ballot even if technically true because it lacks warrants and requires me to do too much work on the neg's behalf.

Read whatever you want. I think reading what you think aligns best with my personal argumentative preferences will probably hurt you more than help you if that strategy is not generally your preferred strategy i.e. read what you feel comfortable reading. I have a lot of respect for policy debate kids because I know how much effort it takes just to be able to attend a tournament!

Misc preferences:

• Name the email chain with useful info (tournament, round #, teams)
• If you're sending a marked doc, don't take out stuff you didn't read & mark it during the speech - questions about what cards were read go in cross-ex or prep time
• For online debate, turn on your camera or lmk if you can't
• Don't delete tags
• Novices - closed cross-ex
• I like jokes but pls be creative if you want to read a joke type argument (no a-z spec) - jokes abt mamaroneck debaters appreciated. If you don't know any, just name drop Jordan Davis (my former partner) or Jake Lee in your speech and I will be amused

Email chain: ividal1@binghamton.edu
Pronouns: she/her

Open to all arguments as long as you are respectful.

It's cool frfr. I'll judge your round. Don't be a racist or w/e and make your arguments well.

-See Devon Schley's Paradigm, we're basically the same person but I like Afropess less-

Northwestern Debate '26
Mamaroneck High School '22
juliazimmerman118@gmail.com

She/Her

I'm a tabula rasa judge. I leave my personal beliefs out of the round. I have limited topic knowledge, so please explain acronyms. I am a policy-oriented debater, but I will vote for anything that is explained well.
Tech > Truth
Claim - Warrant - Impact
Have fun
Be polite

Topicality: Love a good T-debate. Fewer high-quality cards are better than more low-quality cards. Give me a vision of what the topic looks like under your interp.

Ks: Not well-versed in most K lit. I'm comfortable judging like cap, set col, security, antiblackness, etc., but I have extremely limited knowledge for high theory Ks. I dislike long overviews. Generally believe that Affs should get to weigh plan. I prefer links to the plan. I like alts that do more than rethinking.

K Affs/FW: I have much more experience debating neg v. k affs than aff v. fw. For affs, once again, limited familiarity with lit. For neg, on FW I prefer listening to fairness/clash impacts.

Counterplans: Functional and textual competition. Tell me to judge-kick. Love aff-specific PICs

DAs: Great. Well-explained case-turns make me happy

Theory: I like theory debates. I generally think condo is good.

For Novices: +.1 speaks if you show me your flows

LD Specific (Glenbrooks)
Good for LARP and passable for K. Unfamiliar with Phil. Not a huge tricks fan, but you do you.
Let's limit the RVIs to things that actually matter... Not familiar with topic, so keep that in mind regarding acronyms.