I debated 30 years ago -- so I'm still learning what's still current. Happy for you to spread as fast as you like, obv.

(My past: MBA winner, top speaker at Harvard, dropped out in semis of TOC to compete for a scholarship!, NCFL champion)

I'm happy to vote based on Topicality and Kritik -- I'm happy to vote based on any argument that wins logically, and I try to avoid bringing in my own biases. I'm equally happy to vote based on straight weighing of advantages and disads.

Please avoid open cross-x. I believe each person should have equal time to ask and answer questions.

Feel free to ask me to update my paradigm if you have questions.

roybahat@gmail.com

Please put brand@responsible.com and lowelldebatedocs@gmail.com on the email chain

Long, long, long ago; back when dinosaurs still roamed the earth, I was a regional finalist in High School impromptu and parli.

Now I am merely a parent judge and no longer have a dinosaur to ride, so instead I judge IE and Parli (and now Policy).

SQUALS 2023: I am a lay judge and have been judging debate for four years (two years for policy). Please, please, please don’t spread. I’m not going to vote on anything completely absurd like squirrels not having proper scuba gear leads to extinction. I will try to be as tech > truth as I can be, but my biases in terms of truth will probably influence decisions even if I don’t intend that to be the case. I have expertise in 5 areas of science and engineering.

Please read an actual plan in 1ac. We are not here to debate about the value of debate or try to attach metaphysics to real and important earthly problems.

Topicality: I will understand topicality and vote on topicality if you can prove that their plan has made the debate significantly unfair.

Kritik: Don’t run these with me, they’ll confuse me and I’ll mark against you for them if I’m confused.

CP: Love counterplans, bonus points if they are unique and well explained.

DA: Please don’t read some generic link, make the link specific to the aff, and make sure to explain impact link chain clearly.

Case: Love case debate, if you can prove you know the aff better than the affirmative does and then prove its a bad idea I will be very impressed and give you good speaks.

Cross-X: I flow cross-x, don’t be overly aggressive or rude, it will reduce speaks. Strong cross-x which will increase speaks include: any question that highlights a missing link in the argument or an inconsistency in the argument.

+0.1 if you tell me what your favorite dinosaur is before you speech

In IE, I particularly look for

* good transitions

* cohesion (does it sound like a single talk instead of unrelated series of short monologs)

I strongly dislike when the enthusiasm to show emotion interferes with diction and severely treble shift voices.

In Parli,

* I have difficulties when people speak too fast. (Especially if it is faster than my pet dinosaurs used to run.)

* I am generally not persuaded by "theory" in Parli.

PF GGSA 2: I haven't judged PF before; I usually judge policy, so I don't have much experience with the technical aspects of PF. I'll still flow and weigh arguments and other flow-judge things, but you might need to remind me of some of the more PF-specific stuff.

Currently a senior @ College Prep. Been debating in policy for 4 years, coached by the one and only Ian Beier :)

• Usually, the 2A/1N, but have debated as 1A/1N, 1A/2N
• "Debate is probably a game, but I can be easily convinced otherwise. I will default to whoever is winning framework." - Callum
• I am open to anything; do your thing and have fun. We are all here to learn.
• I also do tech stuff; If you've got questions/curiosities regarding technology in debate: feel free to ask! I am pretty familiar the programming side of the debate wiki & student side of tabroom, programmatically interfacing w/ sci-hub, libgen, etc.

More technical things:

Quick Things:

1. Please include me on the chain: yfang@college-prep.org

2. Tech > Truth. Default framework is util good, but you can reframe this.

3. Cross is binding; Tag team cross is ok. Please, no yelling during cross.

4. Time your own speeches & prep

5. If you have a tech issue, let me know. We can pause the round to give you time to resolve it. I can probably provide some support on the spot as well.

6. If you are reading Ks or k-affs, please explain your argument clearly - I am familiar with the general stuff (set col, security, cap), but please explain specific ones/abstract ones (Foucault, Baudrillard, OOO [and with this, wipeout is probably ok... though I will probably hate voting on that], psychoanalysis, etc.)

7. If you are spreading: please go slow on large chunks of analytics (especially with theory). Or, if you want to read fast: flash the analytics.

Argument Specific Stuff:

T: Ok. But please don't package Ks into Ts and then remove the alt. Just read a K.

K: See #5 above. Generally ok with it. RFD might take a bit longer, as K cards are generally pretty thick.

CP: Cool. I will vote on condo (usually, this is the only theory ill vote on unless something really bad happens). Cardless CPs are ok ;)

DA: Go ahead. If it is some weird ptx, please explain or how it is different from the other ptx DAs being read on the circuit during that time.

Case: They are great! Often missing in policy due to the myriad of off-cases people read. I would like to see more case debates.

"for the neg, those hard right affs link chains are often very dubious, i would love to see someone actually point that out" - Callum

Speaks: If you spread well (aka tone changes on tags, etc.) that's a plus. Novices: If you show me your flow (actual flow; no blank pieces of paper, please) at the end ill add 0.1 to your speaks.

Clipping/Toxic Debating etc.:

Don't clip cards*. Don't mark every single card. If you know you won't get through everything don't write such a long speech.

* If you find that the other team is clipping, please let me know, preferably with some sort of evidence (audio/video recording for this purpose is ok. I usually won't stop you from recording). I will stop the round and investigate.

Don't steal prep/speech time.

Racism, sexism, ableism, discrimination of any kind, and overuse of explicit language will not be tolerated. I will warn you if things cross the line. If it happens multiple times I will call tab to sort it out.

Have fun.

(Hi, I am software developer at Microsoft. I have three kids, aged sixteen, eight, and four. Please take care to take careful notes during the debate. This will be useful when you have job at Seattle tech company. Take care to be nice to each other. Without niceness, you will get fired at Microsoft.

Please be aware to have fun. Good luck!) - Sabrina

Add me to the email chain: lowelldebatedocs@gmail.com AND ethanllee1247+debate@gmail.com

Please title the chains something along the lines of: Tournament Round # --- Team Code [AFF] v Team Code [NEG]

Junior from Lowell High School, I do lay debate and circuit debate as a 1A/2N. I am coached by Debnil Sur, so look to his paradigm for extra info. Prefer to not be called judge, "Ethan" is fine. I am likely not much older than you.

Tech over truth, but arguments need warrants.

Pls time your prep.

Don't be mean or do a bad -ism or -phobia.

For Lay: Only have a fast round if both teams agree to it. I will still evaluate these debates technically, but there should be more explanation of individual arguments.

Ethos matters - those who sound more persuasive will be more persuasive.

If there are any other questions, you can ask them before the round!

Debater @ College Prep '23 - policy and parli

Please put me on the chain: tleung@college-prep.org

Tech>Truth

Cross is binding

Don't steal prep

Explain your K's/K affs

Racism, sexism, discrimination will not be tolerated and you will be dropped with 0 speaks. Otherwise, please feel free to run anything you want and read however fast you want as well. Remember to have fun.

I am a parent judge. Explain all arguments clearly to me, please no spreading. I will determine the winner based on strong argumentation, presentation of each side's points, etc. I'm a lay judge, but I will be taking notes during the debate and weighing both sides according to how much arguments are introduced & responded to. Please be respectful and polite to each other during cross-examination, and remember to have fun! :)

Debate is an educational activity. Do not gamify it.

Public Forum should be accessible to the public.

Lincoln-Douglas should engage with relevant philosophies and their practical consequences.

Parliamentary should be creative, off-the-cuff argumentation.

Policy should explore policy-making and its impacts on society.

Focus on the basics of persuasion that carry over to real life.

a. Speaking extremely fast is rarely persuasive.

b. Exaggerating impacts is never persuasive.

c. Speak clearly. Stay calm.

I am a parent judge so please do not spread. Don't run a K on neg or aff. I am fine with any other arguments but make them reasonable and explain them well enough so I do not need to have background information on them. Don't mumble and be coherent.

Good luck to all competitors, have fun, don't take a W or L too seriously.

I debated from 16-19 doing PF and LD and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. Davis CS '23. This is my fifth year judging and eighth year in the debate-space.

Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:

1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs (so that I can open it directly within the browser).

2. Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

3. I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. I generally dislike how gamified debate has become - especially LD. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities. Progressive argumentation is a practice which big schools utilize to extend the prep gap between them and small schools. Hence, I believe that traditional debate is the MOST educational way to go about this activity.

Your job as a competitor is to make my job AS EASY as possible. The easier you make it, the greater the likelihood of getting my ballot. The less truthful the argument, the more work you have to do to convince me that your argument is true. I am tech over truth generally but it's a lot of work to prove factually untrue arguments. It's in your best interest to make sure your arguments are truthful because then you do a lot less work to convince me which makes the round easier for you to win.

I'll accept theory on the condition that there's real demonstrated abuse in the round(going over time repeatedly, spreading when asked not to etc). You should be willing to stake the round on theory - meaning that it should be the only argument that matters in the round. Running shells and dropping them is dumb. Breaking "norms" are not indicative of abuse - you cannot expect someone new to debate to be familiar with every norm on the national circuit.

I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific/friv shells. You have to do a ton of work to convince me that bare plurals is actually abuse and not just an article written by some random guy at VBI - and there's a variety of other shells that this applies to.

Disclosure theory created by big schools to trick smaller schools into giving up their prep advantage on the wiki because it's "more equitable". A fundamental part of debate is developing the ability to think and interact with your opponents' case, not reading off pre-written responses that coaches write for you (which is really easy to tell when you're doing it and irks me).

Performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate so needless to say I don't really enjoy listening to them.

Ks are fine. If it's something unique, you need to explain it thoroughly. If I don't understand the K, I can't vote for it.

Spreading is silly. Slow and good >>> fast and bad. I don’t think being unintelligible on purpose is a very good strategy to winning debates in real life either.

Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.

Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. Phil is enjoyable as well. But you need explain explain explain explain.

I don’t think off-time roadmaps are a real concept. When you speak, outside of introductions and niceties, it should be running on someone's time.

Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate (because the analysis is really shallow - "they don't support my VC so they auto lose". If its not that then I really enjoy it. )

If I am judging PF and you run progressive nonsense, it's an automatic loss. PF is MEANT to be accessible to the public. My 90 year old grandpa should be able to judge a round and understand what is happening.

In all events, I don't really care about cross since it's an opportunity for you to set up future arguments. I usually know who's won by the second to last speech (1NR in LD and negative summary) so unless the round is particularly close I don’t flow the last speech (2AR or FF).

It will serve you best to think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge rather than a circuit judge.

I will reward smart arguments with higher speaker points. Weigh effectively and weigh often and provide warrants for your arguments. This is the path to my ballot! Just tell me how and why to vote for you, do not trust me to understand and extend your implicit arguments.

+ speaks for Lebron.

Hi, I'm a senior

Please be nice to each other

jvuong2@thecollegepreparatoryschool.org

i'm fine with tag cx if everyone else is too (please ask other team before doing it)

Please recite the first 7 lines of the Aeneid, in Latin, in meter for +0.001 speaker points.

Tech > truth

clarity > speed

i love funditionality, i think its really fun

Hello, I am software engineer at Google. Please keep in mind that I do not know about NATO and actually have a good friend named Nato. Do not offend her.

During the cross examination period, I will take bullet point notes and expect every other debater in the room to do so as well. Failure to present adequate notes will result in an immediate loss and a meeting with all parties, including the coach. It will be good experience when you are software engineer at Google.

My mother-in-law Sabrina Huang (her paradigm applies as well) debates with my husband William Pirone, and we are all one happy family (peep College Prep debaters).

My mother Sabrina taught me to take debate very seriously from her position as a professor of International Relations at the prestigious University of California, Berkeley. I will not tolerate using "UC Berkeley" or "Cal" or "UCB" as it is disrespectful to the University of California, Berkeley. Using a shortened version of the University of California, Berkeley is unacceptable and may result in an automatic loss. I wish you luck in your steps to become software engineer at Google.

Make sure to have an interesting debate. You don't want to have the only clash happening in a spectator's Clash Royale game. This has happened before, and although Clash Royale may be more productive than having two ships passing in the night, in-round clash is helpful too.

–––––––––––––––

Hi, I'm Julian and I'm a senior at College Prep. You may think I'm a troll, but I hear it a lot and think it's unfounded (ha). I've debated a 2A, 2N, double 1, double 2, and did a round maverick before, so I know how hard giving a 1AR can be or giving a 2NR on a position you don't know well. I've gone for a ton of arguments over the years, including a blatantly untopical corporate crime affirmative (my favorite argument), nonunique politics disads, and arguably the best of the best: Triple-O and wipeout (we even won on it once, and imagine what happens when you say wipeout for your past 2NRs). Ian Beier taught me most things I know about debate, so if you're looking for a more comprehensive philosophy go take a look at his paradigm.

If I'm judging you, you're probably doing novice policy. I was in your shoes 3 years ago, and I know you might be nervous. Remember to have fun, and I'll do my best to make it a helpful experience for you. If you're in novice policy, you can probably ignore pretty much everything else on this paradigm.

I think debate is a game, and the ballot goes to whichever team better explains why they should win. Other than that, everything else is open to interpretation. Even my thoughts on what debate is are up for debate in a round. I heavily lean tech > truth, and I will vote for "bad arguments" if you win them. Your speaks might take the hit if the argument is heinous enough. Other than that, do what you want to do with the round. It's yours.

Although there are some arguments that I am more familiar with than others, don't let this stop you from trying out a new position or something like that. As long as you know what you are talking about and don't use a ton of buzzwords as a substitute for real explanation, you should be good to go. I've done a few debates on this year's topic, so I'm not going into the round completely unaware.

Feel free to email me at jvuong@college-prep.org if you have any questions about what's here. Put me on the chain!