Hi, I'm Ariv Ahuja (He/Him). I'm a fourth-year senior debater for Lexington High school. I compete on the national and local debate circuits.

Email: 23stu077@lexingtonma.org

Novices

You are responsible to time your and your opponent's speeches.

Give me an off-time road map before your speeches.

Arguments must contain a claim, warrant, and impact. Implicate all your arguments and why they matter.

I'm cool with speed if your opponent is cool with it. Just make sure you're speaking clearly.

In your final speeches make sure you weigh and collapse. Think about the round in terms of offense and defense. Also, try to clearly frame the round towards the end - tell me why you won.

Be respectful to your opponent. I will dock your speaks if you are racist, sexist, offensive, etc.

Preferably don't read stuff you don't understand.

I strongly discourage reading Ks/Theory/Tricks etc. against novices. If it's a trick or theory shell that is clearly explained I might vote on it, but my threshold for responses on these will be pretty low.

Speaks reflect a combination of strategic choices, clarity, quality evidence, and quality arguments. I'm pretty generous with these.

I will disclose the ballot and speaks if you ask and the tournament allows.

JV

In short, I will evaluate whatever arguments are in the round with an open mind. Although I might not be familiar with the Phil or Kritikal literature you running so do your best to explain it. I recommend just reading what your comfortable with.

The quick prefs are in terms of how good I am at evaluating those arguments

Quick Prefs:

Theory - 1

I read a lot of disclosure and ran all sorts of theory arguments, I think friv is ok but it's obviously harder to win.

Trix - 1

I also read a decent amount of these. Make sure there warranted and extended and I'll probably vote on it.

Policy - 1

Debated a lot of policy, so I am pretty familiar with these.

Phil - 3

I probably won't understand much other than Kant, although I'll try my best.

K - 3

I read a couple of K's the ones I'm most comfortable with are Abelism and Physco. I also understand the generic K's, Set Col, Security, Afropess etc.

Speaks

Speaks reflect a combination of strategic choices, clarity, quality evidence, and quality arguments. I'm pretty generous with these.

Hi, I'm Tisa! I'm a junior and a third year varsity LD member at Bronx Science. 

pronouns: she/her 

email: biswast@bxscience.edu

- Be respectful towards your opponent! Do NOT be racist/sexist/ableist. 

- Give me voters and clearly explain why I should be voting your side. 

- Weigh, extend, and signpost when responding to arguments/framework.

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

Millard North '17, currently a PhD student in Philosophy at Villanova University^

Head of Debate at the Brearley School

^ [I am more than happy to discuss studying philosophy or pursuing graduate school with you!]

Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com

Conflicts: Brearley School, Lake Highland Preparatory

Last Updates: 9/26/2023

Scroll to the bottom for Public Forum

The Short Version

As a student when I considered a judge I usually looked for a few specific items, I will address those here:

1. What are their qualifications?

I learned debate in Omaha, Nebraska before moving to the East Coast where I have gained most of my coaching experience. I qualified to both NSDA Nationals and the TOC in my time as a student. I have taught numerous weeks at a number of debate summer camps and have been an assistant and head coach at Lake Highland and Brearley respectively.

2. What will they listen to?

Anything (besides practices which exclude other participants) - but I increasingly prefer substantive engagement over evasive tactics, tricks, and theory cheap shots.

3. What are they experienced in?

I coach a wide variety of arguments and styles and am comfortable adjudicating any approach to debate. However, I spend most of my time thinking about kritik and framework arguments, especially Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Deleuze.

4. What do they like?

I don’t have many preconceived notions of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like and I greatly enjoy when debaters experiment within the space of the activity. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate I will enjoy whatever you have to present.

5. How do they adjudicate debates?

I try to evaluate debates systematically. I begin by working to discern the priority of the layers of arguments presented, such as impact weighing mechanisms, kritiks, theory arguments, etc. Once I have settled on a priority of layers, I evaluate the different arguments on each, looking for an offensive reason to vote, accounting for defense, bringing in other necessary layers, and try to find an adequate resolution to the debate.

The Longer Version

At bottom debate is an activity aimed at education. As a result, I understand myself as having in some sense an educational obligation in my role as a judge. While that doesn't mean I aim to impose my own ideological preferences, it does mean I will hold the line on actions and arguments which undermine these values.

I no longer spend time thinking about the minutia of circuit debate arguments, nor am I as proficient as I once was at flowing short and quickly delivered arguments. Take this into consideration when choosing your strategy.

Kritiks

I like them. I very much value clarity of explanation and stepping outside of the literature's jargon. The most common concern I find myself raising to debaters is a lack of through development of a worldview. Working through the way that your understanding of the world operates, be it through the alternative resolving the links, your theory of violence explaining a root-cause, or otherwise is crucial to convey what I should be voting for in the debate.

I am a receptive judge to critical approaches to the topic from the affirmative. I don't really care what your plan is; you should advocate for what you can justify and defend. It is usually shiftiness in conjunction with a lack of clear story from the affirmative that results in sympathy for procedurals such as topicality.

Theory

I really have no interest in judging ridiculous tricks and/or theory arguments which are presented in bad faith and/or with willfully ignorant or silly justifications and premises. Please just do not - I will lower your speaker points and am receptive to many of the intuitive responses. I do however enjoy legitimate abuse stories and/or topicality arguments based on topic research.

Policy Arguments

I really like these debates when debaters step outside of the jargon and explain their scenarios fully as they would happen in the real world. For similar reasons, good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence - I am a strong judge for spin and smart extrapolation. I tend to like more thorough extensions in the later speeches than most judges in these debates.

Ethical Frameworks

I greatly enjoy these debates and I spend pretty much all of my time thinking about, discussing, and applying philosophy. I would implore you to give overview explanations of your theory and the main points of clash between competing premises in later speeches.

If your version of an ethical framework involves arguments which you would describe as "tricks," or any claim which is demonstrably misrepresenting the conclusions of your author, I am not the judge for you.

Public Forum

I usually judge Lincoln Douglas but am fairly familiar with the community norms of Public Forum and how the event works. I will try to accommodate those norms and standards when I judge, but inevitably many of my opinions above and my background remain part of my perception.

Debaters must cite evidence in a way which is representative of its claims and be able to present that evidence in full when asked by their opponents. In addition, you should be timely and reasonable in your asking for, and receiving of, said evidence. I would prefer cases and arguments in the style of long form carded evidence with underlining and/or highlighting. I am fairly skeptical of paraphrasing as it is currently practiced in PF.

Speaks and Ethics Violations

If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused. If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C. However, less serious accusations of misrepresentation, misciting, or miscutting, should be addressed in the round in whatever format you determine to be best.

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)!

hi! you can use "ben" or "judge"; i'll respond to both. any pronouns are okay

i've done 2 years of policy and 2 years of LD for bronx science '23

add me to the email chain: chenb10@bxscience.edu AND theorderwillbe27off@gmail.com

important

i'll say this a lot below, but be clear. i'm a horrible flower w/poor hearing !!!

also important: i haven't done debate in a while. these quick prefs below are updated accordingly, but i wanted to emphasize i wouldn't recommend running high Ks and theory/kant—treat me as a parent judge that can deal with **some** speed (don't spread) and common args

quick prefs:
1 - LARP
2 - lay, capitalism
3 - If you don't know your strategy
4 - Ks
5 - T, theory, tricks, Kant (DO NOT.)

if you're about to have me as a judge, keep these things in mind

1) funny jokes get you speaker points (literally anything is funny to me). debate is a performance but so many rounds feel like a chore (if i'm judging you at a local tournament, please practice being comfortable and lighthearted with your cards!!!)

2) tech>truth, blank slate

3) won't judge kick default; give me a comparison between squo and plan and tell me in round clearly

4) a former policy debater—not the best judge for theory and kant—i wouldn't run this, especially if your file is packed with that stuff since i don't understand and absolutely can't flow it

5) make comparisons throughout the round, esp. in the rebuttals—i'm usually forgiving if you at least make an effort, but i won't compare worlds without you setting it up

6) i have bad hearing, so be clear, clear, clear, and be respectful to your partner and opponents

7) i'm going to say "clear" if clarity is consistently a problem—the more times you hear clear, the lower your points will be

good luck!

Harrison High School '22

Include me on the email chain please: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

Hey! I'm James Cox (He/Him), and I'm currently a senior at Harrison High School, in Harrison, New York. I primarily compete on the national circuit, but I am also familiar with the traditional debate. If I am judging you, you're likely a novice, in which case below are some things that I'd like to see in the round. If you are a more advanced novice, please don't try to debate "circuit" just because you think I want to see that. I am tech>truth for the most part, but I have 0 tolerance for racism, sexism, etc., and I have no problem dropping someone if an argument is made that is harmful to other bodies within the space.

If you and your opponent are frequently competing on the national circuit, here is the link to Chetan Hertzig's paradigm. I agree with 99 percent of everything said here.

Hertzig's Paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

novice rounds:

1. WEIGH. YOUR. IMPACTS. PLEASE. Novice rounds get irresolvable super quickly, so using weighing in your speeches is necessary (probability, magnitude, etc.)

2. Signpost! Please tell me when you're extending your arguments, or when you're responding to your opponent's.

3. Give voters! Write my ballot for me.

if you have any questions about anything written here, please email me or ask before the round! Debating as a novice can be scary, so I'll try to provide as much feedback as possible in my RFDs.

Updated 12.04.2021

TLDR

Background: Been judging for a long time, I'm currently a science teacher who judges sporadically during this time.

How I determine the winner: I will pick the strongest argument a round for that to determine the winner. It could come from any theory, k, or traditional style. If you are going to run a k or theory, do it well and be confident in that because I am not the most familiar in them. I strongly prefer traditional debate (like if you run traditional debate, I will appreciate 10 times more), but do what you feel will help you win the round. (More in this in the long version).

Weighing and voting issues: give me them so I know what you believe are the things I should value highly in the round. It will help you win.

Speed: speak clearly and if you speak too fast after me telling you to slow down 3 times, I will likely stop flowing. I judge what I flow, so that could cost you the round.

Respect: Be respectful of everyone.

GOOD LUCK!

LONG VERSION
Basic Information About Me:

I am a teacher and I have been judging in the circuit since I was a junior in high school for Novices, and then during my time in college I have judged here and there (so about 7 years). Most of my judging experience does come from 6 years ago, so I am not an expert in the nuances of debate.

Debate Style/Technique/Arguments

I know and understand the fundamentals of debate. Like don't go new in the 2, I know what is a turns is, what are extensions are, etc. I am aware of theory and k-shells, but don't fully understand the nuances in them. If you are going to run these things on me, I would expect that you know what you're doing and that you could "guide" me through the round as to why you're running them and why you believe that using them would help you win. I won't know if you're doing them correctly, so I am assuming that you are. If I suspect that it was not done well, then I probs won't pick you. With that being said, I do like when there is some type of traditional debate, but run what you feel most confident in or what your strongest arguments are.

I feel most comfortable and confident judging traditional style debate. It's fun for me, and if you want the best decision where I can fully defend my reasoning for decision forever, you should have a traditional style round. One thing that I do love is solvency. Please explain to me how your side solves best.

That brings me to my main point, I am not going to nitpick your "technique" in the round. However, I will nitpick the strength and delivery of your argument. I vote for whatever argument(s) hold(s) the most ground in the round. If your main argument is not the strongest argument in the round or you just weren't good at expressing why it should be, don't expect to win. Were you convincing enough? Was there a lot of evidence to support that argument? That is what I mean by strength and delivery.

Weighing and Voting Issues

Weighing and voting issues are IMPERATIVE to me. Since I do base my vote on what is the strongest argument in the round, weighing and voting issues tell me that from your perspective. We all have different experiences and backgrounds because of that, we are going to value things differently. I might value an environmental or education argument highly because of my interests and passions, but you may value a criminal justice or economic argument highly because of whatever reason. Weighing and voting issues tell me as a judge what to value and sort of how to think. When you weigh and give me voting issues, I will then look at the rest of my flow and figure out how that compares to your competitor's arguments. If you don't weigh or give me voting issues, then I will do that for you and it might not be in your best interest because it might cost you the round due to the strength of your arguments. You and I could think that your strongest arguments were 2 separate arguments and that's what could cost you the round.

Speed

We are in a pandemic and we are doing all of this virtually. With that we have to deal with potential complications of technology and wifi, and those barriers that prevent us from seeing each other in person. For that reason, I care a lot if you enunciate your words and speak clearly. I am comfortable with most speeds, but would prefer if you build up to it and don't go super sonic speed. I judge what I flow. If you are speaking too fast and/or you aren't clear, then that will be a problem. If you are speaking too fast for my comfort, I will say "Clear" or "Slow down". I expect you to slow down and stay at that speed for a little while. If I do say "clear" or "slow down" 3 times in the round, and you don't fix/adjust your speed, after the third time, I will likely stop flowing for you for the rest of the round. You will most definitely lose speaks as well, and since I judge what I flow, it might cost you the round. Don't let this happen to you.

Respect

I get that debate is competitive. I get that everyone wants to be the best and win the tournament. That in no way gives you an excuse to be disrespectful to your opponent or me. If you curse or say something transphobic, racist, sexist, homophobic, or anything offensive at any point in the round, you will lose. I will drop you with whatever is the lowest score I could give you. This comes from the moment we are all in the "room" together to the moment I submitted my decision. At no circumstances is any form of offensive language acceptable, even if it's under your breath. There are like a billion different words and phrases you can use in the English Language, you can avoid saying something offensive. I have no tolerance for this.

Facial Reactions/Expressions

One thing I've found out about myself is that I am a person who shows a lot of my emotions through my face. If I am making a face and you're wondering, "oh that doesn't look good". You're probably right. It either means I am miserable, bored, or like I am confused out of my mind. If you see those faces, I'd change your argument so you don't have to see those not so good faces.

One Final Note

Good luck to everyone! I know we are living in a crazy time right now, but you got this! Be confident in who you are as a debater and you will do well. I typically like to give a "reading test" in my paradigm, but there isn't one this time, so be happy about that. :)

LD:

Email: bduan24@scarsdaleschools.org

Phone #: 917-582-2788

Hey, I’m David Duan and I have been debating on the national LD circuit for 3 years now. I also dabbled in PF for a couple of months (as a joke…). You can basically run any argument and I’ll vote for it as long as it has a clear link chain and impact.

• +0.1 speaks if you share your case with me before the round

• I appreciate clear extensions and will not vote on any argument not extended through the final speech

• I value strategic concessions, don’t try to go for everything; you only need one argument to win the ballot

• If you are reading precut responses make sure you understand them and are able to respond to the rebuttals

• WEIGH!!! Explain to me why your impacts or arguments are more important than your opponents

• I love a strategic usage of Cross-fire in order to get your opponent to concede args

• Remember to sign-post (tell me where you are on the flow and which arg you are responding to)

• Don't cheat or miscut evidence

At the end of the day, a win or a loss doesn't actually mean anything. Don't over-invest into the ballot - it doesn't mean anything about you as a person or a debater - it just determines who won a particular round, so relax and try to enjoy yourself. Given this, I also expect that debaters are respectful to each other and everyone in the round. Additionally, feel free to tell me if I'm doing something/acting in a way that makes you feel unwelcome, either during the RFD or during a round.

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

LD:

WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP ON ASKING IF IM A PARENT JUDGE???? I DONT HAVE ANY KIDS!!!??

A little bit about me: I am a proud father of twelve, Geo-Conservative, strict federalist Republican, pro-lifer, and a faithful believer of Christ. I used to do high school Lincoln-Douglas in the 80's back when the activity was in its prime. I was on the judging panel when Steven Douglas defeated Abraham Lincoln, just so you know that I am serious. I was also the champion of the Kentucky local county championships in Dramatic Oratory where I beat my archnemesis Gertrude on a 5-0 decision.

When I was in high school, I debated for the Young Republican's club where I advocated against climate change along with my peers. Please do not read warming bad, as it reminds me of this little Gen-Z-er named Greta Thunberg whom I find very generally suspicious. However, if you must refer to "climate change" or any things that could possibly trigger me and remind me of the elections back in '12, please censor it and refer to it by the "c-word." I have a PhD in philosophy and I care for the quality of your arguments over the quantity.

Here are some of my preferences:

- try not to AFFIRM becuz i have NEVER voted AFF!!! i don't liek eating TURKEYS or NATO !!! you may see that i have AFFIRMED in the past but that is because i DONT know how to use TABROOM !!! if you are AFF good LUCK trying to WIN the ROUND but you will never WIN so if you FORFEIT in ADVANCE i will give u ?THIRTY spekas!! for bravery because CHIVALRY is not DEAD!!!!!!1!!

- don't read DISEASE impacts in FRONT of me!!!! there is NOTHING that can't be solved with ESSENTIAL OILS !!! so these arguments are all FALSE!!!!

- why do people keep on telling me to FLOW??? that is for RIVERS ONLY!!!! know your PLACE in This World!!!!

- why do ppl keep on asking me if i've ever sat on a panel??? why would i sit on a panell when i could STAND?? i am very health conscious!

- SPREADING!!! is NOT okay!! debat is abt COMMUNICASHON!!1! we are not in gymanstics class!! do not spread, the round is not your nutella jar and i am not you're toast!!!

- i ONLY judge off of SPEAKER POINTS because im too TIRED to LISTEN!!! so PLEASE have a PRETTY VOICE@!!!!

- i ONLY give my RFD in SPANISH!!! to encourage learning FOREIGN LANGUAGES!!!1!11

- if you are a GOOD debater I give you TWENTY SPEKAERPPOINTS because IT is on a SCALE of ZERO to THIRTY for a REASON!!!

- what are "CRITICS"?!!??! i should be judging YOU!!! not the OTHER way AROUND!!!

- THEORY is for SCIENCE only!!!

- FRAMEOWKRS!!! are also for HOUSES only!!!

- TRICKsKSKS? is this HALLOWEEN?

- LARP??? we're not at a FURRY convention??? u///u owo????

- lastly, HAVE FUN!!! if i don't see enough ENJOYMENT i will give you both ZERO SPEAKS!!!

(Inspired by Sophia Tian)

I am an educator and assistant coach at Science Park high school. I have judged LD and policy debate locally. I do public speaking and am a motivational speaker. Be very clear. Do not spread. Creating a big picture is really important. You must clash with what the other person says. Crystallizing the debate at the end of the round is extremely important. Tell me why I should prefer your understanding of the debate over your opponents. I love anime and manga as so surprise me with some if you can.

Hi, I'm David and I debated for Scarsdale '24

I qualified to the TOC 2x, mainly reading phil, theory, and a few Ks. I am extremely bad for policy vs policy.

Put me on the email chain: polarpenguins24 [at] gmail [dot] com

Circuitdebater: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Library its a super amazing resource for getting started with progressive debate!

Novice LD paradigm:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bK4ByBl9-xCtH6J50CEL2v9ufWIxro1h-XP9oywCpXw/edit?usp=sharing

TLDR - tech>>>truth BUT arguments must contain a claim, warrant, and impact for me to vote on it, even when being extended. I'll be slightly more leniant for the 1ar and 2ar otherwise affirming would not be possible. I don't like implicit clash and am skeptical of the legitimacy new cross apps.

I'll try to conform mostly to the assumptions that both debaters make about the implication of arguments (paradigm issues, X is repugnant=dtd, nuke war=extinction) because it seems the least interventionist. I will (ambivalently) default to fairness & education being voters only if it is excessively clear both debaters are making that assumption. These defaults can be changed by saying "no warrant." dont make me default.

I'm bad at flowing if you're unclear or too fast - if i say clear or slow please repeat what you said esp if it's important since i probably already missed arguments.

Quick prefs

phil: 1

Theory: 1

T: 2

policy v policy: 4-strike

policy v anything else: 2

Ks (pomo and identity/material): 2-4 depending how its read

security/IR K: strike

tricks: 2

Phil

- did this most as a debater

- wont vote on presumption/permissibility unless explicitly triggered or round is irresolvable, default presumption affirms permiss negates

- win a central claim & implicate e.g. naturalism vs nonnaturalism, internalism or constitutivism or externalism, realist or antirealist, consequentialist vs deontological vs aretaic

- hybrid phil/k is cool if debating a k

- have a defense of humanism/ideal theory if you are reading it

Policy

- dont larp v larp in front of me pls

- i do not understand cp competition

- textual competition is lowk fake

- judgekick valid under TT paradigm but not as much for CW

- cool impact turns are good, i'm open to literally any including extinction and death good.

- advantages just feel wrong i dont think we're gonna die if we do nothing but the ev is what it is ig

Kritik

- this is cool, i've thought of phil v k the most

- saying "independent voter" does not make it one

- lbl>ov

- do k fwk debate or u lose

- i dislike rejection/refusal alts unless actually grounded in the lit

- a lot of cards just don't have a warrant, good evidence goes a long way. if your opponent tells me to read your evidence and it says nothing i will have to disregard it

- dont combine a lot of theories of power and j go for one in the 2nr. either maintain your weird combination or only read one thesis claim.

- performance is fine, but i have a much higher standard for framing in these debates, explain how to engage

- link wall = ur cool

- non t is fine, but if you're impact turning tfw you need a really clear explanation, and slow down please, I will probably have no idea what the impact turn is if you blitz through your blocks. I am probably biased towards framework espeically when there's a compelling tva.

- I know about baudrillard, berardi, virilio, lacanian psychoanalysis, mollow, edelman, warren, heidegger, wilderson, setcol, weheliye, deleuze.

- don't like policy "Ks" like IR, security, empire, i do not know what that means

- i dont like ontology claims when u dont have a psychoanalysis warrant. just say you're making a structural claim

Theory

- will vote on anything

- theres a diff between funny and annoying frivolous theory - e.g. circuitdebater theory vs. must not say X word

- shells must indict practice of reading args, not the validity of args. e.g. must not read 1ar theory legit, dtd, no rvi, ci, highest layer is a shell that proves those paradigm issues are wrong, not that the act of reading those paradigm issues are wrong, meaning I should conclude to not use those paradigm issues, not to drop the debater.

- reasonability, dta, and round abuse are underused

- weigh early

- default to assumptions of both debaters. if i can't tell, like if its a low level or a lay debater then it's dta, no rvi, reasonability. these are changed with a single warrant.

- must still have warrants for paradigm issues

T

- weigh

- i think semantics is persuasive since i think TT is true

- reading T as TT is chill too

- persuaded by “must not defend implementation” on resolutions that are value statements. An example is "Resolved: Justice requires open borders for human migration" which does not imply the hypothetical implementation of a policy action. Check my JF23 wiki for the T shell and i'll give you high speaks if you give a good 2nr on the shell.

Tricks

- i'm nowhere near a hack. i am happy to not vote on tricks with no warrant at all like tacit ballot conditional.

- I like tricks with warrants like indexicals (read with warrants), skepticism, permissibility triggers, etc.

- tricks must have an implication in the speech where they're introduced

- pretty sus of extemped tricks (im bad at flowing) and hidden tricks

Speaks

- i'll prob average around a 29

- i reward being funny, nice, mean but in a funny and nice enough way, good spreading, not reading off the doc for your entire speech, round vision, efficiency, and demonstrated knowledge w case

I am a lay judge.

I am interested in well organized opening arguments supported by good research.  I also would like to hear thoughtful and to the point rebuttals to opponent's contentions/counter arguments. 

I'm a 4-year Extemp speaker and a senior at Bronx Science.

Extemp:

• I think humor is so underutilized! But don't force it if you're not the type to be funny, and don't be insensitive in your jokes-- i will rank you very low for that
• Have the general extemp structure down (Intro, 3 reasons, conclusion)
• Speak clearly and confidently

Any other speech and debate event:

I'm a lay judge so you're free to use as much technical debate jargon/theory as you'd like, but I won't guarantee that I'll understand :) Spreading is ok, but not preferred. If you do decide to spread, please send your speech doc to jiange3@bxscience.edu. Basically, do what you want at your own risk

LD-specific:

• Weigh, extend, and signpost your arguments to make things easier for me and so I can give as much credit to you
• Summarize why I should vote for you in your final rebuttals-- I'm not the best at flowing, so this would be super helpful!!!

This goes without saying, don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. Let's be respectful to one another so we all can have a fun time :))

Condensed Paradigm:

Refer to Jose Rivera for all my opinions on debate. I have no topic knowledge. I'm a traditional judge from a traditional part of the country.

Email: jk4790@columbia.edu

Pronouns They/Them

Policy Debate

The debater bears the responsibility of reviewing the paradigm before the commencement of each round and posing any necessary clarifying questions. My evaluation of the round will proceed under the assumption that it has been reviewed, regardless of whether you did so or not. I will not verify if you have read my paradigm, nor will I issue any warnings related to it. Non-compliance will have consequences, as I am weary of debaters neglecting it, and my patience has reached its limit in debate rounds.

1. I have a strong aversion to spreading, so please refrain from it if you desire me to follow your arguments. Anything not on my flow will not be considered part of the round, irrespective of how well it is explained or extended. Depending on the speech, it may, at best, be treated as a new or analytical argument, and subsequently evaluated accordingly. I am open to being included in the email chain; my email is jk4790@columbia.edu. However, being part of the email chain does not guarantee that I will flow everything I read. I only flow what I hear, so ensure that your arguments are audible. I will be monitoring the round to ensure that no one is cutting cards, and I will call out teams for such actions, so make sure to follow proper procedures. I will drop cards before penalizing the entire team, and continued card-cutting will lead to me stopping the round and reporting it to the tab room. Furthermore, I will not vocally request clarity, nor will I provide time signals except to indicate when your time has concluded. I find these actions unfairly distract debaters and divide my attention, so rest assured, you will have my full attention.

2. I have a strong distaste for theory. I disapprove of disclosure theory and consider it an invalid argument. My bias against this argument stems from a time when there was no debate wiki, and I do not recommend presenting it in my rounds. Regardless of the argument, I prefer it to be relevant to the topic. I am equally invested in the topic as I expect debaters to be. However, I am willing to listen to a wide range of arguments as long as they are effectively articulated and explained (refer to point 3). I have encountered some unconventional arguments and am open to hearing new and innovative ones. To earn my vote, an argument must have a discernible impact and a clear explanation of how that impact is reached. A simplistic equation of A + B = C will not suffice; I require a narrative explaining how the impact is derived and why it holds significance. I will not vote for a dropped argument unless it is the only option, which I consider to be an instance of judge intervention. Debaters should guide me on how to vote, and I will penalize speaker points if I am required to do the work for you. Keep this in mind during your rebuttals.

3. At the outset of each round, I approach it with a blank slate, akin to a 6 or 7-year-old child. Arguments should be explained with this in mind. My own knowledge and opinions will not influence my judgment; I evaluate solely based on what is presented in the round. For instance, if a debater claims that the sky is purple, provides evidence supporting this claim, and it remains uncontested, then, for the purposes of the round, the sky is considered purple. I emphasize this because I regard any deviation from this principle as judge intervention, which I strongly oppose and will penalize with a reduction in speaker points. By default, I adopt a standard policy-making framework at the start of each round unless instructed otherwise. This principle also applies to evidence; your interpretation of evidence is authoritative unless challenged. If challenged, I will examine the evidence and make a determination based on my understanding and how it was contested. This may lead to a reversal in my judgment on an argument, the dismissal of the evidence, or a change in my ballot.

4. I diligently monitor speech times and prep times and rely exclusively on my timer. My timer counts down and will only stop when you declare "stop prep." Once you utter those words, I expect you to be prepared to send the file. I do not want to hear excuses about copying arguments to a file for the email chain; I will include that time as prep. It should not take long to send a pre-prepared file via email, and I will wait until all participants have received the file before allowing the following speech to begin. However, be aware that I may reset prep time if an unusually long delay occurs. It is essential to note that I will not halt my timer for any reason once a speech has commenced, except under extreme circumstances, and technical difficulties are not considered such circumstances. If you opt to stop your timer to address an issue before resuming, keep in mind that my timer continues running, and your speech time is being consumed. Additionally, I expect all debaters to refrain from using their phones during the round, including the intervals between speeches and during prep. Such behavior is disrespectful to the activity of debate and to your opponents, and I will deduct speaker points for it. Furthermore, I will not evaluate any arguments presented from a phone, especially if you have a laptop available in the round.

5. In JV and VCX, Cross-X is unequivocally closed; there are no exceptions. In NCX, I will only permit it if requested; otherwise, it is closed. Should you decide to have an open CX despite not requesting it, I will dock speaker points.

6. Finally, I expect respectful conduct towards both me and your fellow debaters, and I appreciate displays of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of each round. Any disrespect will result in a deduction of speaker points on a per-incident basis. Continued disrespect may lead to the involvement of tournament staff and lower-than-average speaker points, though I do not anticipate such circumstances.

E-Debate:

A. Cameras must remain activated at all times. I will not flow teams with deactivated cameras, and you have been forewarned that this may lead to your loss. I will enforce this rule rigorously, as I have encountered non-compliance in the past.

B. Prep time will continue until speeches are received in the email chain. Do not assume control over the time, as previously mentioned. I maintain timekeeping responsibility and will adhere to my timer. I will initiate the speech timer when you conclude prep AND subsequently send the speech. I have zero tolerance for any deviation from this protocol, as teams have previously exploited this to gain an unfair advantage. Sending an email should be a straightforward process, and if you encounter genuine technical issues, please inform me, as the tournament offers Tech Time for this purpose. Otherwise, I will enforce speech time. I do not take this matter lightly, as I am tired of being disregarded as if I am not an integral part of the debate round.

C. It should go without saying, but please ensure that I am ready before commencing your speech. Initiating a speech before I am prepared will result in missed arguments on my flow, and I will be significantly displeased. Your speaker points will reflect this, and if it pertains to a crucial argument that I missed, it may influence the outcome of the round.

D. Spreading on camera is ill-advised from both a technical perspective and my personal dislike for spreading. E-Debates are already challenging due to the varying devices, internet speeds, ect.

+.1 speaks for Adventure Time References

+.1 speaks if you bring me snacks that I like

My decision will consider holistically how well you back specific arguments with specific evidence and data.

Best to not base your entire case on outweighing frame.

Naming specific current (living) politician/govt official or political office will make your case feel more about politics than morality. Avoid!

With emailed cards, 300 WPM is my preference. Please don't spread, unless you send me your case & cards. Also, even if only one side spreads, I'd prefer that both sides send cases & cards.

Repetition ≠ extension. Use time effectively and efficiently. Arguments made past time will likely be struck. Please monitor your own time (prep as well). I will only jump in if there is a discrepancy or if time is significantly exceeded.

During prelims, I will not reveal my decisions, unless tournament rules specify otherwise. For rounds after prelims, I will reveal my decisions, unless tournament rules specify otherwise.

RFDs will always be written.

Add me to the email chain: phlw7@hotmail.com unless you're using Tab's file share. Speech drop feels like a waste of time.

Email: lins10@bxscience.edu

Pronouns: she/her

Hello! I recently graduated as a 4-year Extemper at Bronx Science and am not that well versed in other categories of Speech & Debate. I will try to evaluate off the flow, but I won't be the best judge for very technical debates. I would appreciate if you went at a relatively conversational speed or at least started slowly before building up.

I will try my best to evaluate any argument you read, but don't assume I know what any terms or argument buzzwords mean; make sure to explain/weigh your arguments for my understanding and just generally good debating. Please be respectful to one another while proving your arguments.

To my Extempers out there-- make sure to contextualize, and please don't read off your legal pad or notes :))

To my Speechies out there-- go ham with it!! Fluency, flow, and intonation is what I'll look for/comment on the most.

my name is anuka and I did debate for a couple years in high school. I did policy my freshman yr of high school and then switched over to ld my sophomore year. I debated a bit my sophomore year but debated like once or twice my junior year and then not at all senior year.

currently I am a freshman in college and am "part of" Columbia's debate team (aka I wanted the free sweatshirt lol)

im not very experienced in tech but will evaluate any arguments as long as they are well warranted and explained. take that as u will and plz dont read anything too crazy. if you have any questions email me

good luck

email chain: anuka.debate@gmail.com

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.

1 year out from Bronx Science. I didn't compete that much in my senior year but I am pretty knowledgable. If you can explain your warrants, I'll feel comfortable voting on it (except for tricks). See below for my prefs:

Lay - 1
Larp - 1
Theory - 2
Ks - 2/3/4
Phil - 4
Tricks - 5/strike

(He/Him)

Hi. Call me Rusem. I did LD debate at Bronx Science for 4 years.

Email: paulr@bxscience.edu

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

For Novice LD:

- I will evaluate framework first. Whatever framework wins will be how I evaluate offense.

- Please have extensions, signpost, and most importantly, weigh comparatively.

- Don't be ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

- Have fun!

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

For Varsity LD:

Tech > Truth. I'll evaluate any argument so long as it has a claim, warrant, impact, and isn't blatantly atrocious like racism good. I'll still vote on spark and death good.

Prefs: Overall, do what you do best and I'll try my best to adjudicate. Just because something is ranked lower should not discourage you from reading it. 1 = Most familiar/Best at judging this. 4 = Least Familiar/Worst at judging this.

Phil - 1

Theory/T - 1

Tricks - 2

LARP - 2/3

K - 3

Defaults: comparative worlds, epistemic confidence, presumption negates unless the neg defends an advocacy different from the status quo, permissibility negates, DTD, competing interps, no RVIs, norm setting > IRA, T > Theory, yes 1AR theory, no judge kick.

Phil: I love it. This was the main style of debate I did in high school. I'm familiar with most frameworks (Kant, Virtue Ethics, Hobbes, Contracts, Levinas, Rawls, Plato, Rule Util). Make sure to explain your syllogism well. Don't blip past a million buzzwords. I think having a long, well-developed syllogism is better than spamming a bunch of independent reasons to prefer. Phil v Phil debates tend to be more blippy so please go slower on analytics and give top-level framing issues of the framework debate. I think examples of your/your opponent's philosophy in practice are underutilized.

Theory/T: These debates are interesting. Go slower on the interpretation text and provide a warrant for the violation, especially in topicality debates. Spec is cool. Make sure to have definitions in T debates. You should extend paradigm issues but you do not have to extend the warrants if it goes conceded. I recommend having a briteline if you are going for reasonability.

Tricks: These debates can be very funny. I like tricks I have never seen before, phil tricks, and weird skep warrants over dumping a bunch of a prioris and incoherency definitions. I will evaluate every speech so do not read "evaluate the debate after x speech" or "evaluate the theory debate after x speech."

LARP: I find these debates to be the most boring but I like weird counterplans that have a solvency advocate. I'll try my best but you probably do not want me judging a super technical policy debate.

Kritiks: I am most familiar with Cap, Deleuze, and security. Understand your lit base well and explain your theory of power well. Explain why your view of power/morality/the world is true and why I should care about it in the context of this resolution and/or round. I will not vote on an argument that I do not understand so avoid using a lot of jargon.
I'll happily vote on a non T aff or a performance aff if it is won on the flow.

Miscellaneous:
- Be nice.
- Don't steal prep. Compiling the doc is prep. Sending is not.
- Send anything prewritten such as blocks/overviews.
- Post-rounding is fine so long as I don't find it to be rude.
- I'll disclose speaks if you ask unless tournament rules say otherwise.
- I most likely will have little to no information about the actual topic lit since I haven't kept up with debate.
- I don't flow CX except for writing down the status of advocacies.

I am a parent judge. Please debate about the topic and avoid progressive arguments.

Please:

1. Speak clearly and with persuasion
2. Give voters
3. Weigh

Have fun debating!

Hello my name is Kaylin Proctor, my pronouns are she/her/hers. 

I competed in Lincoln-Douglass Debate for three years of high school and graduated in 2020.

Currently, I am a member of the Howard University Speech and Debate Team, competing in IPDA and NPDA. 

Please introduce yourself and your pronouns at the beginning of the round

Feel free to ask me any questions

Judging style:

• I will time the round but please also time yourself - I will kindly let you know if you go over time
• I will flow the round so providing a road map is helpful

Criteria for a ballot in your favor: 

• Strong logic and reasoning
• Utilizes common LD flow and verbiage 
• Adhering to LD guidelines and rules - will listen for technicalities 
• Clear and dynamic speaking skills 
• Courteous and Respectful cross ex. - RUDENESS will not be tolerated 
• Stickler for reputable sources 

Hello there, I am Bryan (he/him). I am a senior and debate LD for Scarsdale High School on the national circuit.

If you have any questions/concerns before round, feel free to contact me at bryan7shi@gmail.com. ????

Add me to the email chain if there is one.

novice ld

Read whatever you want as long as you are not being mean, offensive, or exclusionary. Ultimately, you are the debater, so you do you. I will give feedback after each round and encourage you to ask questions.

Arguments should consist of a claim, warrant, and impact; be extended throughout all the speeches; and weighed. Doing all of these things will massively increase the probability that you win the round.

Give me a clear route to the ballot. In other words, make sure you provide a summary of the arguments that win you the debate, specifically at the end of the 2nr/2ar. This will greatly increase your chances of winning the round, since I will have a clear picture of how the round breaks down. Make it crystal clear which arguments come first, outweigh, have the largest impact, etc. Otherwise, I will be mildly irritated sorting through arguments for you.

Give me the order of your speech in the form of an off-time roadmap or summary, otherwise I will be mildly irritated having to figure out where to flow your arguments. Signpost your arguments.

Finally, I love a spicy in-depth framework debate.

speaks

I tend to be fairly generous with speaker points. Being funny and making clever arguments will reward you with higher speaks. Being mean or cheating will result in lower speaks. In general, debating to the best of your ability will yield high speaks.

Organizing your arguments in a coherent and persuasive manner will increase your speaks.

Please come to round early. I will be very unhappy if you show up in the last 5 minutes, and even more unhappy if you show up right before the round starts.

+0.3 speaks if you bring me a bag of (lays<3) chips before round

TIME YOURSELVES

Scarsdale High School ‘23

She/her

Email: katherine3shi@gmail.com (If there’s an email chain, add me to it)

Hello, I’m Katherine! I have debated for Scarsdale High School for three years and am currently in my senior year of high school.

(Yes you can call me Katherine, you don't have to call me judge)

Note for online debate: Please locally record your speeches so that if there are any tech issues they can be resolved. I will not let people redo their speeches.

If I'm judging JV, I'm fine with all styles (k/larp/tricks/theory/phil), provided you give good judge instruction and have a claim, warrant, and impact, novice points apply, and start slow then get faster when spreading. I don't flow off docs and I do not know the topic.

Since I’m mainly going to be judging novices, here’s a few things I really want you to do/know of (Some of these are taken from Vivian Guo’s paradigm):

1. WEIGH and weigh as early as possible -- I will be very inclined to vote on your arguments if you just weigh them

2. EXTEND a claim, warrant, and impact -- I have a pretty high threshold for an "extension". You can't just say the name of a card. I also need an explanation of it/what it does. If I don't hear an extension it's unlikely I will be willing to vote off of the argument

3. Don't cheat or miscut evidence. And if you're stealing things from the wiki at least understand what you're reading

4. I will either drop you or tank your speaks if you do or say anything offensive (e.g. being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc) during round

5. If you want to bring progressive debate into the round you should make sure your opponent is comfortable with it and take every step to be accessible. I will evaluate any argument you read in round, but if you read a kritik and cross ex makes it abundantly clear you don't know what you're talking about, your speaks are a 27 at best

6. Say the order/off-time road map before you start your speech

7. If for some reason something in round made you uncomfortable, or you just have lingering questions pertaining to the round, feel free to talk to me after round if I’m not double flighted or to message me on facebook

8. As a general rule for the debate round (and for life), be nice to everyone -- we’re all spending our entire weekend to talk about some obscure resolution so it’d be nice if we didn’t have to add rude opponents on top of that

9. If you make the round funny in a non-offensive way, I’ll raise your speaks +0.1

If you have any questions about my paradigm ask me (within reason i.e. not spending more than 5 minutes clarifying something) before round.

Hi I’m Steven!

I competed in congress during high school so I’m incredibly familiar with the event. I am the former Captain and novice director of Bronx Science

Few things about what I'm looking for:

Sound logic about how the bill and your argument interacts with the squo and the rest of the round

Evidence that I can look up (Say actual citations I need a date and source)

Rhetorical appeal (I competed a lot and for a long time so I’ve heard every intro you can imagine. Dont use anything canned - def don't use an intro you heard from a recording) - honestly if you have a really good narrative that's delivered well throughout your speech I will probably pick you up even if your content isn't super strong

Refutation and weighing (You need this in any speech cycle even if you’re the spons, I expect pre-ref (in a spons) so I know how you think your speech will interact with the round)

Speaking (Im going to flow speeches and questions, but an important aspect for this event, to me, is the presentation of your arguments) However, I will say that generally I am much more of a flow judge by all accounts, but if I'm blown away, an excellent speaker might end up being my 1

Lastly for pos, I personally loved poing when I was a competitor so I totally respect it. You’re going to be ranked well (t4) if you do a good job. If you really want to win my ballot here (or potentially avoid losing my ballot), if you do use an algorithm to track speaker order you should also be keeping track on paper.

I realize all of this sounds super nit picky but trust me my judging is gonna to be really chill

Last note: Have fun :D

Scarsdale High School ‘23

he/him

Email: jadentepper@gmail.com (If there’s an email chain, add me to it please)

Hello, I’m Jaden Tepper. I have debated for Scarsdale High School for four years and am currently in my senior year of high school. (You can call me Jaden, you don't have to call me judge).

Since I’m mainly going to be judging novices, here’s a few things I really want you to do/know of (All of these have been taken from Katherine Shi):

1. WEIGH and weigh as early as possible -- I will be very inclined to vote on your arguments if you just weigh them

2. EXTEND a claim, warrant, and impact -- I have a pretty high threshold for an "extension". You can't just say the name of a card. I also need an explanation of it/what it does. If I don't hear an extension it's unlikely I will be willing to vote off of the argument

3. Don't cheat or miscut evidence. And if you're stealing things from the wiki at least understand what you're reading

4. I will either drop you or tank your speaks if you do or say anything offensive (e.g. being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc) during round

5. If you want to bring progressive debate into the round you should make sure your opponent is comfortable with it and take every step to be accessible. I will evaluate any argument you read in round, but if you read a kritik and cross ex makes it abundantly clear you don't know what you're talking about, your speaks are a 27 at best

6. Say the order/off-time road map before you start your speech

7. If for some reason something in round made you uncomfortable, or you just have lingering questions pertaining to the round, feel free to talk to me after round if I’m not double flighted or to message me on facebook

8. As a general rule for the debate round (and for life), be nice to everyone -- we’re all spending our entire weekend to talk about some obscure resolution so it’d be nice if we didn’t have to add rude opponents on top of that

9. If you make the round funny in a non-offensive way, I’ll raise your speaks +0.1

If you have any questions about my paradigm ask me (within reason i.e. not spending more than 5 minutes clarifying something) before round.

Stuyvesant '22 (debated circuit LD for four years)

Email: maxwell.zen@gmail.com

I haven't touched tech debate in a year! So try not to go at top speed and especially at the end make sure to explain the round a little bit better than you normally might.

For context: I was mainly a phil+theory debater, so I'm more familiar with those debates. Other than that, I'll vote on anything as long as I understand it, and I don't have any strong ideological preferences.

Update: I've gotten some emails asking what my preferences are with tricks - don't go overboard if your opponent is clearly inexperienced, and make sure all tricks are in the doc at the same level as an analytic (but feel free to hide them in larger analytics if you really want to). If they're not in the doc I probably won't vote on it. Other than that, I'll vote on pretty much anything as long as the explanation in the 2n/2a is clear.