Casey Czerniawski

3rd-year debater at Marist School

she/her

Yes, add me to email chains - caseyczerniawski25@marist.com

You need to read and defend a plan in front of me.

Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponent's arguments (magnitude/probability/timeframe.)

Limited K knowledge - prefer CP/DA debates.

Please do a road map so I can follow on my flow and label your arguments.

Don't ask loaded (rhetorical) questions in CX, it's pretty much pointless, don't be that person-just rephrase the question.

Don't clip cards or steal prep - I understand accidents happen, but I (usually) time your prep and speeches, so please be aware.

This should be implied, but PLEASE time your own speeches.

Flowing is advised-you can extend your arguments better for later speeches.

Give roadmaps and signpost for good speaks (tell me the order of your arguments/when you're moving to a new tagline say AND)

Please refer toAbby Schirmer's Paradigm if you have any more questions.

Sophia Kaye - she/her

Woodward '24

add me to the email chain please - 24skaye@woodward.edu

my inspo comes from my coaches Maggie Berthiaume and Bill Batterman (feel free to look at their paradigms as well :)

background

hey everyone!

i'm Sophia, i have been debating for 6 years and attended Georgetown debate camp my sophomore year and UMich debate camp my junior year and senior year.

because of my years of experience, i am pretty knowledgeable about debate. that being said, you still need to explain your arguments fully so i can evaluate them.

i might seem like I'm in a bad mood but it's either because i didn't get any sleep or i haven't eaten (it's not bc of yall)

remember that if you don't send your analytics not only will your opponents not see them I won't either

even though i go to Woodward i lowkey really like weird k's but ofc policy also slays

fav args : consult India cp, abolition k (from cjr year), condo, and i LOVE LOVE LOVE the set col k

speaking/performance

please do not say i am starting on my first word (what else would you start with?)

TECH >>>>> TRUTH. i think that true arguments are alot easier to debate and win tho. will i vote on the obscure theory you hid on case the other team dropped? maybe but i will be frowning heavily and your speaker points will probably be lowered. i like theory (like condo) debates but i love substantial debates.

clarity > speed (always, always, always) - DON'T CLIP!!

for cards go ahead and speak as fast as you want, but be clear!

i give pretty high speaker points. no 30's (future toc and ndt winner or you memorize the entire 1AC and look at me or ur opponents while spreading it and not clipping, i would probably cry)

extra/basic things

if you feel uncomfortable debating the team that is in front of you for any reason shoot me an email immediately. please tell me before the debate so i can work things out with tab and see what i can do to help.

ALWAYS respect your peers, i do not want to see any kind of hostility toward the opposing team. you need to be a team player and show good sportsmanship. no racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. will be tolerated. this will result in an auto L and a meeting with your coach.

don't steal prep because i will say something, you know better. tech issues always happen, don't stress about it :)

neg terror - i like it but as aff you should not let the neg get away w the stuff they get away with.

PLS PLS PLS PLS CALL ME SOPHIA NOT JUDGE

i often make faces during rounds (ignore them)

if i don't have my camera on (and we're not in prep time), you can assume i'm not there. always ask everyone including me if they are ready

ev comparison and quality ev is so important

if i can't flow u its not an argument.

no warrants = no argument

judge instruction has a HUGE impact on me (i want you to tell me how to write my ballot)

cx

please be respectful during cross

look at me during cross and not to your opponents

i like cx questions that will get straight to the point. i do allow tag-teaming to a certain extent, i still have to hear you speak so i can give you speaker points

no rants please

"what is fiat" gives me the shivers especially if it's a good team. you know what fiat is.

flowing/speech docs

always always give a road map before a speech

give answers in order and preferably number them

send out word docs if you can!

please organize your speech docs (example: if u say ur going on to the k only read cards/analytics for the k)

anything other then yellow, blue, or green highlighting upsets me extremely

rebuttals

i'm a 2a so ik the lying strats in rebuttals :) (basically if they didn't drop it don't say they did i flow!!!)

please go slower on analytics if you can, that way i can flow all the arguments and listen so it's easier for me to get all of your arguments in.

all args

HUGE FAN OF SMART NEG BLOCK SPLITS AND STRATS IN GENERAL (I LOVE ABSTRACT ONES)

case - i am a huge case debater so in-depth clash on case makes me happy

t - don't run unless it's an actual violation, provide a case list that meets ur interp. i'm big on t-usfg against k's i think it's the best strat.

cp - i love cps. smart adv cps have my heart. read the text slowly so i can fully understand the plan. explain why the cp solves the affs impacts better. i feel like i normally judge kick, but i will be even more inclined to do so if you tell me to or don't tell me to.

da - has to link to the aff. explain impacts, i love impact calc. i like politics a lot but (and ik this is hard) you have to have updated uq. if you don't, don't go for it in the block.

theory - i love theory so much (esp condo). if you're going for theory it has to be the ENTIRE 2NR/2AR. i'm more neg leaning on everything but condo.

k - i love k's. explain how it operates practically. i'll weigh the aff unless u tell me not to (u gotta win that tho). explain the alt really well. i LOVE when the k specifically links to the aff. explanation > evidence

k aff's - i don't want to wait until the 2AR for the k to suddenly make sense. i rlly like k aff debates but i'm honestly not the best w performance and abstract k aff's but ik "basic" k's (fem ir, cap, set col etc.)

impact turns - i love a good impact turn. i'm down for any args (i'll listen to the abstract ones like wipeout and spark won't guarantee i will vote for them tho). i believe that war is bad, all forms of discrimination is bad, and all form of suffering is bad so don't try to tell me they are good.

THANKS FOR READING YALL!

p.s. if you say ggs i will laugh

she/her/hers

add me to the chain: 24amurthy@woodward.edu

Woodward '24

General:

- Be respectful to your opponents throughout the entire round

- Racism/homophobia/sexism/etc intolerable. Auto-loss

- Clarity>Speed online.

- ROADMAPS.

- slow down on analytics

- cameras on is preferred, however, if you are unable to I understand.

- down for any argument as long as it's not offensive.

Case:

- IMPACT ANALYSIS in last speeches!! Why should I weigh the aff first?

- remember to answer all turns/squo-solves on case

- open to voting on presumption so defend the case well

DAs:

- must have a complete shell read in order for me to weigh

- not super keen on reading new DAs in the block

- explain how the aff specifically links

- impact calc is always good

CPs:

- must have a solvency advocate in the 1NC

- run w/ a net benefit always (internal net benefits also works)

Ks:

- SPECIFIC LINKS

- be able to explain the thesis of the K in simple terms

• be able to explain in cx

T:

- if you are going for T - evidence comparison is a must.

- Impact out the violation

Theory:

If you're going for theory it needs to be almost the entire 2NR/2AR with nuanced impacts/etc

Extra:

• be funny and I'll give you high speaks

- be patient with tech issues - they're inevitable

- most importantly have fun

Email:

alessiotoniolo25@marist.com

Background:

Policy debater at Marist School. Former public forum debater.

Idiosyncrasies:

Please do not ask loaded questions in cx/crossfire (I might be judging pf). For example,

is killing people bad (in reference to taking one's plan or bringing a topic down on a more substantive level).

If you respond with a loaded question like this and the questioning period is already not serious, I will give

you extra speak points.

I like spreading, but I will disregard any arguments if you are speaking at a pitch above 20,000 hertz and clipping

(you know who you are).

At the barebones, do not completely change how you debate, but regard decent debating etiquette.

Policy:

T: Prefer interpretations that do not just take the meaning down to literal words, but actually relate to what

the topic/case is inferring. I like topicality with good arguments, substantial evidence, and very good standards. I like

it when you strategically go for topicality in the 2nr (as long as you sufficiently use it).

CP: Explain how it relates to case, and how the net benefits link. Please explain how the counterplan works in the

judiciary system.

DAs: Prefer disadvantages if you can link them as a net benefit to the cp.

Case: I like quantifiable and real impacts.

Case add-ons: Do not expect me to vote on them. Generally, use them as a way to burden the negative's time.

K: As long as the aff can provide great answers as to why the K would not work, I can heavily weigh. In most cases, if

the K is radical and the aff hits on this, I will prefer aff. Excellent perm arguments that are very detailed really impress

me.

General: I prefer strategy over the actual quality (in most cases). For example, if you have a meaningful no link or link

turn say on an advantage and the aff does not respond to this, I will automatically disregard that advantage, because it

does not link. Answers need to make sense. Do not repeat your original argument if the other team directly responded

to it. Debate well, and go by your own standards not mine. I am not picky.

Aff-ks: I will automatically vote negative. Sorry but not sorry.

Public forum:

Debate how you debate. Do not be racist.