Background:

Hello guys! My name is Reena (she/her/hers) and you can refer to me by name or by “judge,” whatever is the most comfortable for you. I have a local policy debate background from High School and have judged Public Forum, British Parliamentary, and American Parliamentary debates. I study computer science and psychology at Johns Hopkins University and have a basic understanding of most fundamental tech and bio-related issues and ethics.

You can reach me at reena.assassa@icloud.com for any questions about the round/RFD, as well as for sending evidence cards and additional case material (make sure to add me to the email chain!)

Preferences & Rules:

1. Generally prefer stock issue policy debates with a straight-forward line of reasoning and strong links for each subtopic/voting issue provided to the debate.

1. I want to see engagement between the two teams that go beyond shallow rebuttal (ie: instead of just listing the reasons as to why the other team is “not true” or “no solvency,” but rather provide as to why your side is additionally the better/morally ideal side to vote on.

1. I will attempt to flow at the agreed-upon pace established by both teams in the round, but I am rusty in flowing high-speed spreading and have a strong preference for 350-wpm max debates. Additionally, if you are spreading at an incomprehensible pace, please bare with me and I will attempt to flow as much as possible, but there is a high chance I will not catch everything that you have said. I will say “slow” or “clear” up to 3 times, and if this is not adapted it will reflect in my RFD.

1. As already established by other Johns Hopkins University judges: “if you even, at the slightest, include any rhetoric that is prejudiced or bigoted, you will automatically be given a loss with the lowest speaks possible. i believe that debate should be fair and equitable to all, so if you include any arguments that are prejudiced/bigoted or actively display any actions that belittle your opponents, I will drop you. No exceptions” - Tim Do

1. Please be respectful to both me and your opponents at all times before, during, and after the debate. I despise snappy or shallowly hostile attitudes displayed during a round. Debate (and in my opinion, especially policy debate) should be an educational experience for every judge and debater, and misguided malice is absolutely not tolerated in this space.

Kritiks:

I am familiar with neg Ks but am generally not well-versed in k vs. k or k aff rounds. I will judge any round if thoroughly explained enough (if you can cut through the jargon and unnecessary complexities then I will be happy to flow the round in any direction the teams have decided on.) There is a possibility, however, that if you are not explaining all aspects of your k arg I could confuse your point or be biased towards the policy; so please be wary in how you approach these rounds.

DAs:

If you are running a DA make sure to not only prove the DA but to analyze and weigh why the DA is on balance more harmful than all of the beneficial impacts provided by the opposing team.

Counterplans:

High pref for counter plans that fully solve for the aff and are related to the resolution. It is up to the debater’s judgment to determine whether or not their alternative is better than what is provided by the aff, but I need substantive reasoning as to how the counterplan’s world solves each issue provided by the aff as well as not deviating so far from the resolution that the plans are no longer comparative to a well-informed individual/debater/judge. I do enjoy counterplan rounds but I will set a reminder that it is the neg’s burden to not only provide their line of argumentative reasoning for their counterplan but to also disprove all solvency provided by the aff or establish why their solvency is inherently better/morally ideal.

Topicality:

I’ll judge topicality in the same manner that I would judge every other argument in a round. I do not have a preference for either side’s interpretation of the resolved, but I do believe the aff should provide a clear outline of their interpretations early on in the round. I will judge topicality violations through the lens of the average intelligent individual and am very unlikely to buy far-fetched interpretations/definitions over the more obvious/clearly defined interpretation.

Theory:

I am not well acquainted with theory args. There is a high chance that I will be unfamiliar with the language being used in the debate, and if your case is not perfectly clear on every aspect of your explanation I will have trouble being an objective and well-informed judge for these rounds.

Blechmanbilly[at]gmail[dot]com

time yourself

ask questions about my decisions after the round

good luck

Lexington ‘24

Please put me on the chain: lexusdebate@gmail.com and please have a subject line with the tournament name and round number!

I use she/her pronouns

About Me:

I’m currently a senior at Lexington High School and I’m a 2a

For online debate: I’d really prefer if you kept your camera on while debating if possible :)

I look forward to judging you!

General Debate Stuff:

Please be nice to everyone, debate should be fun

Anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. is a reason to reject the team

Please signpost (verbally letting me know if you’re switching between flows), it really helps with organization

Tech>Truth, except for discriminatory arguments

Clarity>Speed, go as fast as you want but I won't be afraid to clear you

Please tell me how to frame my ballot

No new args in the block or rebuttal speeches, I won't evaluate them as I think it's too late in the round

I think case debate is honestly underrated, I enjoy a good case debate

Please don’t steal prep!!

K:

I’m not very familiar with K literature

I would prefer if you have specific links to the aff. Otherwise winning case outweighs gets substantially easier

K affs and FW:

I'm not great with K affs, again, I’m not very familiar with k literature. I probably won't understand your aff that well but I will still vote for it if you make a good argument as to why I should

Please explain how you solve and why the ballot is key

I’m gonna need something to vote on

More often than not kaffs will have a small blip in the 1ar and then blow it up in the 2ar, develop your arguments fully, please and thank you

I am definitely more neg leaning on T-usfg and presumption args

T:

Do good internal link debating i.e. explaining how precision/education/predictability/etc. outweighs, and why the other team’s interp is not precise/educational/predictable/etc.

CPs and Theory:

I don't have a lot of strong biases about theory

Condo is probably good, but kicking planks from counterplans that have tons of planks probably isn't. Condo is probably the only reason to reject the team.

I’m fine with agent and process cps

DAs:

Do impact calc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Explain the story of the da, especially in the 2nr- make sure that you are doing good link and internal link debates

For LD and PF:

Please please please time your speeches

Read evidence clearly, I think presentation matters as well

Also if there are any speech docs, please send them!

I don't have much experience with PF or LD, but I have been a policy debater for three years at Lexington High School. I'll definitely be looking at the flow throughout the debate so please keep your speeches organized

Speaks:

28.6-29- Amazing :)

28.5- You're doing great!

27-28.4- Could make some improvements

+0.1 If you show me your flows after round

If you have any questions, please feel free to email me (lexusdebate@gmail.com)!

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.

Mamaroneck '23

4 years of policy debate

he/him

Preferences:

If I can't hear what you're saying then I probably won't flow it. It's better to be clear than try to talk too fast. Fine with spreading.

Taglines/Author names mean nothing if you don't extend warrants or the actual arguments present in the card

flow flow flow flow

To win the debate you must not only refute the other team's arguments but prove why your own are superior. Usually the team who knows their own and their opponents' arguments best will win. Going for unique or creative arguments will be rewarded with more speaker points.

-----

Inspired by Jacob Miller's paradigm:

~

✔️-Open cross

✔️-Time your own *and* your opponents' speeches / prep / cross-ex

❌-Answering questions when your partner should be answering (if they ask you for help then that's fine)

❌-Stealing prep / taking too long to send documents / not knowing how to send documents

✔️-Writing your prep time on the board

❌-Ending speeches >20 seconds early. I don't think I've ever seen a team who ends their speeches earlier than the other team win a debate.

❌-Not splitting the block (2nc/1nr) with different arguments

❌-Being rude especially when you (think) you're winning

✔️-Good Impact Calc

~

PF:

I realize it's possible that I'll be judging PF so just in case you read my paradigm and are freaking out since I'm a policy debater/judge - don't worry I know how PF works; my brother used to do it.

Speaker Points:

Debate well and you'll get good points. Debating is hard but if you work hard you'll get better.

If you feel like I made a questionable decision, tell me. You should know why you lost/won on each argument/flow, and my goal is to help you become better debaters. A lot of judges don't take their role seriously and I find that stupid.

Overall

Be nice. Remember that I can be persuaded to vote on anything if it's warranted out well enough so don't let this paradigm sway you from arguing what you want to run. My preferences also don't govern the way I judge, they just influence it. I have no bias for or against either side.*coughs* I may have voted against your team or even you in the past but each debate is a new experience and nothing from outside the round carries on in.

Policy Debate Coach - North Star High School, Newark, NJ

email: tlatta27@gmail.com

Former policy debater and now second year policy-focused coach with some summer lab instruction experience. Comfortable with policy and critical approaches.

General Preferences

Depth > breadth: spread has rapidly diminishing returns with me. Warrant quality will win out so...compare warrants.

I appreciate a speaking speed where individual words are distinct and discernible, at the bare minimum. I'm not receptive to speaking styles with purposely low volume or monotone and this will be reflected in speaker points and, if egregious and repeated, the RFD.

If you want your arguments reflected in my flow, I STRONGLY suggest you DO NOT spread analytics, particularly those not reflected in distributed speech docs or those related to T's and/or Frameworks.

Disads: Uniqueness argument is usually the determinant in my view.

Counterplans: Throw-away cps with no solvency warrants can be defeated by the Aff with much less time than the Neg spends in the block but don't be sloppy in the 2AC. I am receptive to theory here. See remarks on theory below.

Receptive to condo bad. I'm not your best judge for 5+ off-case

Kritiks: Receptive to aff or neg but not as a shield to not engage with the arguments the other team is making. Not clashing will put you behind. The link debate is important to me and you have a much better chance if you compare warrants effectively in this area. Thoughtful Alts, particularly with analytics referencing history/examples are meaningful to me. I do not (yet) have a lot of direct experience with the literature of many areas of kritiks, hence you need to slow down and make them clear

Theory: Given my experience level, I encounter new theory all the time and that is sometimes a challenge. If you want to have an impact on the ballot in these areas, slow down and make your argument clear. Blasting through theory will leave a void on my flow.

Speaker points…28.5 is average clarity, most clear-thinking and focus. More and less of those qualities will be reflected by divergences from that point but will generally not go below 27.

In general, I will give you my full concentration as a judge, provide clear and reasonable feedback and appreciate your efforts to improve my understanding of policy debate and the round we are in.

I'm a versatile judge but also keeping in mind that this is policy debate, I intend on voting at least with the barest minimum required:

1. Framework - what's yours, reasons to perfer, why is your opponents f/w undesirable, etc.
2. Impacts - what is the urgency? In round impacts included. If going for theory, what's the terminal impact of that.
3. Risks - what conquenses will be made from an opposing ballot?
4. Solvency - evidence of proof
5. Topicality/Theory - if there are no voters, I will not be voting on the argument. Independent voters need to be impacted out.

K affs have the burden of proof which means even if you don't claim fiat, solvency is still required. Evidence can be used as proof but there's going to be a deeper analysis needed to support your commitment and legitimacy of your advocacy if it is a performative style of debate especially. I still expect clash and line by line. You cannot get caught up in the argument that you refuse or forget to engage in actual debate. If by the end of debate I don't understand the solvency mechanism being used to solve the impacts of the aff and no analysis on reasons to perfer affs f/w I'm probably going to vote on persumption.

Lastly but should've been firstly, after years of debating and over a decade of judging, I have seen an upward trend in bad ethos in debate. Lets keep it respectful. If there are trigger warnings, they need to be addressed before the debate starts.

Open cross-x is fine.

I'm not going to evaluate any questions past cross x but if you want to ask simple questions during your prep during contructives, that's fine.

My Pronouns are She / Her

Put me on the email chain: Mmesoma.nwosu8@gmail.com

If there is no road map, why would I flow.

Hi, I am Mmesoma. I was a JV Policy Debater on the Regional and National level but I am now a regular judge for regional tournaments. I would consider myself a traditional judge with small exceptions of how you should debate.

Just a Disclaimer, my face moves a lot without my intention. Please do not think I am bored, not paying attention, confused or upset. Just know that I am very much paying attention. If you see me giggle, you said something funny.

Speed:

Spreading is NOT appreciated but I will still carefully listen to spreading cases and judge based on my flow. I believe that speaking CLEARLY is always the pre-requisite for speaking FAST! You do not need to impress me.

Cross Examination:

I appreciate respectful and peaceful cross examination. I do not flow cross unless it clarifies an argument I am confused about but flowing cross is unusual for me. Yelling and abusive behavior will lead to speaker points deduction (you would probably see it on my face) but rudeness/attitude would not be a major RFD on my ballot.

Tricks

Tricks are NOT appreciated at all. Tricks make me uncomfortable as it is an unfair advantage. Instead of tricking your opponent, I feel as though you are tricking me as the judge.

End of Round

I will most likely give a critique once the round is done as well as the vote, if it is okay with both teams. I determine my vote based solely on what is on my flow and full understanding of both arguments. I am not a super super experienced debater, I may miss things, that it is why its so important to articulate and extent your argument as clearly as possible.

If I deem an argument racist, I am not voting for it.

Thank you so much! See y'all in the round.

Mark Perez (he/him)

Newark Science Debate '25

markdebatesnewark@hotmail.com

yes, email chain.

hey! a few things about me,

I am a current Public Forum Debater at Newark Science. I have experience in some forms of debate which include Policy, Public Forum & Middle School Debate. For novices, I understand this is your first year of Debate and I hope to make this your best year possible, the same way many of my influences did for me. I know I'm not that much older than you all but I truly care about debate and what you can learn from it!

My Top 5 Tips:

• Please, Please, Please time yourself!!
• Any form of bullying, Homophobia, Racism, etc is not allowed in my round. Failure to cooperate with this will be reflected in the RFD.
• When it comes to speed, I ask that you areclear.If you cannot maintain a clear voice throughout the round, it will be reflected in my RFD.
• Start every speech after the 1AC (CX) and Speaker A (PF) with a roadmap. I'm not just going to pull random flows out and know where you are.
• You do not need to call me Judge. Hello, my name is Mark! I'm literally not that much older than a lot of you.

My Top 3 Rules:

• I would like to start the round once everyone is in the room. I like to get my ballots in andon time.
• Be respectful of the debate space, you should not be on your phone watching TikTok.
• If you are in the Open Packet division, make sure your speech docs are sent out via Email Chain or posted on the Debate Wiki

Policy Debate:

Off Case Disads:

• When the Affirmative is responding to this, don't just read your cards that respond such as (no link, no impact, etc) WEIGH!!!!!
• Weigh your impacts after you finish reading your Impact card. (Like literally, why should I vote for your impacts.)
• I really don't care much about what your disad is, unless it's not relevant or it doesn't follow some of the guidelines I've listed throughout my paradigm.

Counter Plans:

• Please do not do a counter plan if you haven't read a Disad. Remember, "solves for all the harms of the affs while avoiding the disad). What are you avoiding without a disad??
• Please explain why the counterplan is more desirable than an AFF ballot.
• I love perms so much in the 2 AC, this doesn't mean you have the ability to do it.

Inherency & Solvency:

• You aren't going to summarize every card. HOWEVER, I would like to see somegooddefend & extend after the 1 AC.

Topicality:

• T debate is okay as long as you explain why what the other team is doing is a harm to the debate space.
• Voters is very important. Like, why should I vote for you??
• Policy Debate gets very boring at times so I really love to see topicality. (this doesn't mean always use it)

K (Kritik) Debate:

• I don't have any real experience in K debate. Please, keep this in mind! :)
• Your literature might be great but please... is it topical or not?
• If there is no alt in your K, it's a disad.
• I'm sorry but what is "gobbledygook"?? Please, explain this to me.

Cross Ex:

• My rules are pretty simple, do NOT talk over each other. I will deduct speaker points.
• Open Cross is okay. If I see that only one person is participating, I will also be deducting speaker points.
• Although I don't flow Cross - Ex, itmattersin whether or not you get high speaker points or not.

Magnitude & Probability:

• Please explain the probability and why it outways any possible aff/neg case.
• Always give stats, failure to do so will take away from the debate.
• Don't give me false stats, I have most of the information from helping my fellow novices prep.

RFD:

Once I click submit, I am not changing the RFD. You can make comments, however, I don't plan on changing my RFD.

Weigh

Please, weigh the debate! If you don't, I will move on to my flow where I can see where your arguments are dropped, etc.

Public Forum Debate:

Weigh

A lot of my judging for any form of debate, mainly PF, is your ability to weigh arguments throughout the Debate Round. I believe this is one of the #1 ways to win any PF round so be sure to do this!

Policy Debate (pf only section)

I know for PF, when we see that we have judges who've done Policy we want to turn PF into Policy mode. Donotdo this. I have seen enough of both forms of debate to see when you are trying to go policy on me.

My Job In The Debate Round

Please, do not make a round very hard to judge for me as I will not be putting your arguments together, making impacts for you, etc. As long as you are very clear and organized with your arguments, you should win!

Grand Crossfire

Take turns.. Don't speak over each other. I would definitely make sure that you are asking questions that are beneficial to the Debate Round. I don't really like questions to the extent of "What are your impacts?" or "Why do you think your case is good?".

Final Focus

Make sure to go over voting issues and ask yourself why you should really win the debate.

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

I try to make my paradigm as serious as possible. I'm literally one of the chillest (not) people you've been judged by, sorry if my paradigm doesn't reflect that.

Good luck, everyone! Please, read my paradigm as your ability to cooperate with this will be reflected in the Speaker Points Section.

**Don't try to show off the fact that you read this paradigm.. it will show in the round regardless.**

- Mark (please dont call me "Mark Perez" in the debate round)

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.

Jason Senders (He/Him)

Debater at Mamaroneck High School

Add to email chain:

jsen0012@gmail.com

mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

General thoughts:

Don't change your strategy based on my paradigm. I'm going to give my specific thoughts on arguments below, but just do what you do best. I'm willing to vote on almost all arguments if they are explained well, so just stick to what you do.

Tech > Truth. A dropped argument is a true argument, but there must be a clear extension of a claim, warrant, and explanation of why it matters.

Condo good, but can be convinced otherwise.

Extinction outweighs, but I can also be convinced otherwise.

Open cross ex is fine

Fairness is an impact.

When it comes to framework or topicality, I don't have a preference for which impact you go for, just make sure to explain it well.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I will say "clear" if you are not.

Do:

Be nice. Debate is a safe space. I won't tolerate any racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic, etc. language or actions and I will vote you down if I see it.

Flow

Line by line

Impact Calc

Properly use cross-ex. Try to set up arguments for later speeches or ask clarifying questions.

Compare warrants in evidence.

Show me that you have a strong understanding of the arguments. Give me a story about the arguments and why they matter in this debate. Great analytic > Great card. A card is nothing without a strong explanation and extension of it.

Do judge instruction in final speeches. Tell me why you won and how I should evaluate this round.

Maximize clash and education in the round

Have fun

Make jokes (Especially references to famous movies (comedies best))(Also, will take jokes about Mamaroneck debaters)(Good jokes will be rewarded with a boost in speaks)

Don't:

Clip cards

Steal prep

Make sexism/racism/ableism/homophobia, etc. good arguments

Only extend the tag of a card

Talk over your partner

Specific thoughts:

Policy Affs:

You have 8 minutes of 1AC offense. Use it to your advantage. Present to me good well-researched evidence. Have specific solvency evidence and explain to me how the plan solves your impacts. Specific impact scenarios are better than generic impact scenarios and it is a lot easier to win probability with specific scenarios. Also, please do not read an EXCESSIVELY vague plan text. I think that on the neg reading a lot of defense on case is a smart and underutilized strats. I also love to see case/impact turns.

K Aff:

I used to strongly dislike K affs, however, I'm starting to come around on them. While I would still definitely prefer to judge a policy round, I'm fine judging a K aff round. For K affs just do whatever you do best. Since you don't have a plan text, I prefer it when teams have an advocacy statement but am still willing to vote for K affs without them. Although I am starting to come around to them, I still naturally find myself leaning neg toward them. For the neg, going for framework is always a good option. Fairness is an impact. I'm willing to vote for almost all impacts on fairness, so don't narrow down the impact debate according to my preferences. I feel like the Cap K and Heg DA are underutilized against K affs. Most of the time, they are just tossed in the 1NC, but I like when teams mix it up and go for one of these in the 2NR.

Topicality:

I love a good topicality debate. If you do not have a strong topicality argument or can't explain it well, then don't go for it because I'm probably not going to vote for it. On the neg please give me a case list and an in-depth explanation of your impacts and why they matter. Tell me why your interpretation is best and the model that it sets for debate. Fairness is an impact.

Counterplans:

I love counterplans. Advantage counterplans can be lots of fun to go for. If you are reading an advantage counterplan you must have a solvency advocate for each plank somewhere in the debate for me to even consider whether the counterplan actually solves that impact. New solvency evidence in the block for planks justifies new 1AR answers. I enjoy most advantage counterplans, I find them simple and pretty effective. I love well thought-out process cps with aff-specific solvency evidence. Show me a creative way that the aff can be implemented and why this way is better than the aff's method. I won't judge kick unless instructed to starting in the block. If the 2NR says judge kick and the block didn't mention it then I'm not going to do it.

Disads:

I love disads. Whether it is a generic disad or creative aff-specific disads, I love them. Specifically, love politics DAs. It's unfortunate that there are such few good disads on the NATO topic, but I would love to see a great disad in a round that I am judging. Please explain to me the story of the disad and break down all parts of the disad for me (UQ, link, I/L, and impact). Also, do impact calc on it. It's also great to use a disad that has impacts that turn case.

Kritiks:

Generally dislike, except for Cap, Security, and IR. Postmodernism Ks like Baudrillard and Psycho are okay, but I don't love those either. For neg, have specific unique links to the aff. If you have a competitive, and solvent alt that will definitely help you with winning the K. Also, try to win root cause and/or turns case claims. Normally, I lean aff on kritiks and am willing to let the aff weigh the consequences of their plan, however, I can be convinced otherwise.

Theory:

I'm willing to vote on most theory as long as it's an actual theory argument coherently extended throughout. For example, I will definitely vote on condo, but don't go for severance perm is a reason to reject the team when the perm is perm do both, at most, it might be a reason to reject the argument. Do line by line on the theory debate, it will make it much better and make it significantly easier for me to side with you.

Lean neg: agent CPs, advantage CPs, PICs, CPs recut from aff ev, process CPs with an aff-specific solvency advocate, plan vagueness, condo (normally up to 2-3, but can be convinced otherwise)

Lean aff: international fiat, utopian fiat, epistemic fiat, kicking planks, 2NC CPs, CPs with no solvency advocate, CPs that only compete textually, ASPEC.

Paradigms I mainly agree with: Ken Karas, Jake Lee, Eleni Orfanos, Billy Blechman, Ian Poe

austin sheppard☹

add to email chain

austinshepparddebate@gmail.com

mamaroneck 23

4th year varsity debater

havent debated since april 2021⌛

be clear

i wont flow so make your points known

i do not know this topic in the slightest.

tech>truth

explain your reasoning

more speaks if you tell me who you want to win the world cup⚽

if u or someone on ur team knows who my partner or I am or my brother +.2 speaks

bring me food +.3 speaks

have and and make conversation with me-dont be boring

u will be in BIG trouble if u cheat

mamaroneck 24, 4th year debater--ive read all types of arguments

email chain -- samsiegeldebate@gmail.com

she/her - judge/sam both fine to address me as in round

feel free to ask me about anything, even if it didnt take place in the round, im here to help you learn!

basics:

prioritize your safety over debate. i’m a resource if you need anything at all, feel free to reach out.

have fun and be nice

you do you.

if you are an under-resourced debater and need some help, im happy to slide you some notes/lecture slides, just ask me!

less judge instruction = less happy with my decision

novices should endorse clash

stop spreading analytics, and send them out preferably

i will likely not say clear, but if you are unclear i will not be flowing.

the death of line by line is real and an epidemic

ask pre round if you want to know thoughts on certain arguments

i will either be quite expressive or look angry the entire debate--it is not your fault i am just focused

for high speaks:

tell me you read my paradigm by saying/typing the secret password: "sam you're the best judge i've ever had"

use cx well

tell me your debate hot take!

+.1 if you show me your flows! (i dont care if theyre good or not, try your best)

things that will get you an L + 25

offensive arguments or intentional/repeated disrespect of your opponents

being excessively mean/humiliating will get you a 27.5 maximum - esp if your opponent is significantly less experienced than you are

Please put me on the email chain: christal.stclair12@gmail.com

Yes, you can spread, but PLEASE BE CLEAR.

Yes, it can be open CX.

Any type of argument is fine with me. But keep a SAFE SPACE for EVERYONE!!!

Offense is very important (Winning=Offense).

**************************************************************************************

Generics ...

• DO NOT say anything racist/homophobic/transphobic. If you think your opponent has said something that could be one of these just make the argument and impact it out (it'll take like 30 seconds).
• I debated for Newark Science for 4 years (doing both Policy and LD) and was primarily a K debater (this does not mean I will vote on one just because it's read) but I've a lot of different arguments.
• Impact out all of your arguments!
• Truth over tech until tech overwhelms truth (probably because you were inefficient). As in, you should be grouping arguments and working to boil the debate down yourself. Yes, I love big pictures but there needs to be some actual substance too like you can't just read a 4-minute overview in the 1AR over multiple flows that don't engage anything and expect a ballot.

Specifics ...

CPs are fine, just prove mutual exclusivity (b/c I am likely to buy a perm with a good net benefit). A clever PIC is always good and fun but be ready to defend why you get to steal most or certain parts of the aff, especially against a K or Non-T aff.

DAs are good too, but generic links are ineffective, and if the aff proves that to be true I am less likely to vote on it.

- I'm also not as persuaded by nuclear war impacts. You can try, just have a good internal link story (this is very important, make it logical and easy to follow).

Ks are my favorite! BUT I will not pretend to understand "gobbledygook" or really high theory that is not properly explained, so err on the side of over-explanation (esp. if you're reading the philosophy of a long-dead French white dude). Have specific links to the AFF, point out specific warrants and give analysis on how the world of the alt vs. the world of the aff functions, and you got my ballot!

FW shells are interesting as I do not have a bias on it, so do whatever you want. Just prove why I should adopt your FW shell and compare it to the aff's.

I have a HIGH threshold for voting on T/Theory especially if the violation is unreasonable.

But just try to have fun and learn lots in the round!!!

pronouns: he/him/his

email: taseenm@bxscience.edu

make sure to add me to the email chain

Senior at Bronx Science

LD: This is the first time that I've judged this event. But policy is pretty similar I dont think it should be a problem, just make your arguments clear, show me why you won, and I'll award you the ballot.

do whatever you want, just know your argument and be able to explain them to both me and your opponents

Point out what makes you win the round, the point of the 2NR/2AR is to show why you win, so write my ballot for me

Also, spread if you can, that means if you just zoom through your analytics and I don't understand what you say, then I'm not flowing it.

Don't be racist, misogynistic, bigoted, etc. It's weird and violent, straight up gonna give you the loss, just be nice and respectful to everyone in the "room".

Have fun, its literally a game to help us learn stuff, don't be the person that gets us annoyed when we tried to spend our weekends having some fun.

See you in round!

**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

2022 - Policy Debate Update

You should consider me a new policy judge and debate accordingly. Here are some general thoughts to consider as you prepare for the round:

Add me to the email chain: My email is geri.turi@gmail.com

Non-Topical Arguments: I will not understand Ks or non-topical arguments. I DO NOT have an issue with these arguments on principle, but I will not be able to evaluate the round to the level you would expect or prefer.

Topicality: I am not experienced with topicality policy debates. If you decide to run these arguments, I cannot promise that I will make a decision you will be satisfied with, but I will do my best.

Line-by-line: Please move methodically through the flow and tell me the order before beginning your speech.

Judge Instruction: In each rebuttal speech, please tell me how to evaluate your arguments and why I should be voting for you. My goal is to intervene as little as possible.

Speed: Please slow down to a conversational pace on tags and analytics. You can probably spread the body of the card but you must slow down on the tags and analytics in order for me to understand your arguments. Do not clip cards. I will know if you do.

email - avelikov2006@gmail.com

More likely to vote on policy than K.

Make sure CP has a net benefit that is well hashed out. Directly tell me why the CP solves better/solves for more than the aff, not just that it solves the aff too.

Please establish a clear story for me to vote on with good impact calc considering not just your arguments but how they stack up against the other team's.

Giving good roadmaps and directing me across flows throughout your speech will improve your speaks.

Include a picture of an adorable bear or turtle in the email chain and you'll get +0.1 points.

A good recipe for some sort of food will get you +0.2 points.

please add me to the email chain: kayleighwishner@gmail.com

Varsity debater at Mamaroneck

she/they

don't be mean or offensive

be nice, respectful, and have fun!

My judging opinions:

I have debated most policy arguments but that doesn't mean I wont vote on a K/K aff I think those are really interesting

Clarity>speed but spreading is fine

I will not vote on any "death good" type arguments

cross x is a really important part of the debate (especially of the 1ac/1nc) so good cross x answers/questions could bring up speaker points

Condo is a voter if you make it clear that it is, one sentence in the 1ar and 2ar doesn't make it a voting issue

and obviously don't clip cards or cheat

If you make a pun/joke about a horror movie you get +0.1 speaks