Updated 1/12/23 for Mt. Vernon

Background

I am a sophomore at Columbia University. I did policy debate at Interlake HS for 4 years as a 2A and went to the TOC. My argumentative style was heavily policy leaning until my senior year, which was much more “flex”.

Top Level

I have zero predispositions towards the vast majority of arguments in debate. Technical skill matters far more to me than the type of argument you are going for; all I ask is that you attempt to have good faith engagement with your opponents’ arguments and to stick to the flow as much as possible.

Otherwise, here are a few thoughts that frame how I view debate:

-- 2ARs/2NRs would benefit greatly from 15 second overviews explaining why you won. I think 2As/2Ns worry too much about answering every single argument on the line by line at the cost of not having a coherent explanation of what the ballot should look like. Having that kind of global strategic vision is much more important than answering the fifth subpoint on the perm debate!!

-- Clash please!! Explain how arguments interact, not just why your arguments are correct. Cross-apply and concede arguments with intent. Be willing to admit when you are wrong just as much as when you are right.

-- K teams should focus more on explanations of theories of power and link specificity. Hiding behind buzzwords does not make your argument more persuasive :’)

-- Policy teams should aim for quality over quantity. Rebuttals should isolate fewer pieces of main offense/defense on each page.

Pre-Round

Put both emails on the chain:

brianchen49@gmail.com

interlakescouting@googlegroups.com

Make the email subject something that makes sense (tournament, round, teams, etc).

PLEASE be aware of power dynamics within debate - this can take many forms:

-- White cishet men domineering over minority debaters

-- Being rude to each other and/or your partner

-- Being unnecessarily aggressive/overdoing it against debaters that you are substantially better than

I'll react negatively if any of these happen - please don't!

Misc.

Email me directly if you have questions about this paradigm, my RFDs, Columbia, my experience with debate, or anything else.

I care a lot about the debate community and want to see all of you succeed. Please do not hesitate to reach out!

Hi guys, I am a PF debater.

Here's my email for an email chain: roushu.chuang@gmail.com

PF Specific:

-Please don't spread. If I can't understand your argument, I will not vote for you.

-Please don't bring up any new argument in second summary or final focus.

- Weighing is really important! But do comparative analysis aka don't fake weigh, i.e. "we outweigh because of scope and thus we should win". Make sure to carry through with comparative analysis of both sides.

Preferred Pronouns: they/them

Paradigm for Policy

TL;DR:

I debated policy for Woodgrove High School for 4 years, where I coached the team during my 2 years as captain. I graduated from Columbia University in the City of New York, where I coordinated volunteer debate coaches with 'Youth for Debate' to provide free debate education to students in NYC public schools.

K debaters -- please remember not to assume that your audience already knows your literature as well as you. Clearly explain the nuance of your K.

Tech over Truth.

Open-cross is okay (but hogging will lose you speaker points). Clear spreading is okay (see below for details). Please signpost and roadmap.

Please put me in the email chain: lizzieclarkie22@gmail.com

Policy Paradigm:

Consider me a blank slate. I don't care what you're running as long as you explain it to me well. Run what you’re good at and knowledgeable about, don’t try to fit what you think fits my paradigm. I can go traditional or non-traditional, but am admittedly more experienced with traditional.

My default for evaluating a debate: Debate is a game. I will compare the world of the aff and the neg and decide which is better based on the framework of the debate.

In the 2NR/2AR - don’t just do a line-by-line of as many arguments as you can cover and expect to win. You have to show me what I am weighing and why I should weigh these arguments in your favor.

T:

I have a relatively low threshold on T. If you can win a link I will evaluate it. You can win on T as long as you extend an impact and explain why what the Aff did is bad.

Spreading: Spreading is okay, but if I can’t understand, I will shout “clear”. I have to ask you to speak more clearly more than 3 times, I will stop asking, and simply stop flowing. What I don’t flow, doesn’t exist. Don’t expect to win off unintelligible arguments.

Speaker Points:

Stolen from Giovanni Cianciaruso (my pal!) who stole it from Isaac Brown (who idk) who stole it from Patrick McCleary (also who idk):

“I give speaker points based on how effectively students articulate their arguments, regardless of the type of argument. Above a 29.5 deserves to contend for top speaker, 29-29.5 is a speaker award, 28.5-29 is good/should be clearing, 28.1-28.5 is on the cusp of clearing, 28 is average, 27.5 is below average, 27 needs work. Any lower and you are probably either in the wrong division or did something offensive. Given what I've seen from people who compile the data on this stuff, this seems to be somewhat close to the community norm.”

Things that can bump your speaker points: jokes; good organization and flowing

Things that I have often taken off speaker points for: Rudeness towards teammate or opponents; stealing prep time; hogging an open-cross-ex; any attempt to cheat.

Email me with questions: lizzieclarkie22@gmail.com

hello!! please speak slowly and avoid unnecessary theory or jargon, and you will win my ballot!! :)

Hi! I’m Lorielle, a sophomore at Barnard, originally from ATL. I debated Policy for 4 years between middle and high school. Please add me to the email chain at lg3162@barnard.edu if you make one. Feel free to ask me any questions before and after the round. I love debate, and I’m so excited to hear your arguments. Just relax and have fun!

YAY YFD!

In sum, first-year out who will vote off the flow. Please weigh.

I debated for four years for Horace Mann (class of 2019) and attended TOC in my upperclassman years.

While I will act as a tech judge, I also value some truth in arguments—the more far-fetched your argument seems, the more likely I am to buy simple, logical responses. However, I do vote off the flow as much as possible, so in the second half of the round, please fully extend all arguments you expect me to include when deciding.

Please weigh—otherwise, you'll be unhappy with my decision. Please also interact with your opponents' weighing if they provide any.

Technical things: I discourage but can handle speed, prefer fleshed out logic over blippy card dumps, don't require defense in first summary unless second rebuttal has frontlined (which is also optional), and have minimal to nonexistent experience with all types of progressive arguments (but am open to voting off substantive theory shells for actual in-round abuse).

I have no knowledge about the current topics as I do not coach; please do not assume I know anything about stock arguments or topic-related acronyms.

Small things: Set up before me and do the flip if you are able; no need for handshakes; I think speaker points are very arbitrary and try to inflate them a little (shh).

Last of all, please let me do if there is anything I can do to make your life easier—debate is about learning and having fun fun at the same time, and I believe everyone in the round should work towards making that happen.

For further reference, please check out this paradigm written by my teammates Sajan Mehrotra and Ethan Kim: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fw2VpOyJbxFPYGz2jseTGfbbZiUgIRQJqh5LvCgbahw/edit?usp=sharing

Hey guys! I'm Sebastian Javadpoor, and I competed on the circuit for 4 years in Public Forum, Congressional Debate, Duet Acting, Duo Interp, Extemporaneous Speaking, and Impromptu Speaking. As for qualifications so you don't try to trick me (O_O), I've won state championships in three different events, was nationally ranked in four, and qualified to nationals in four (Extemp TOC, NIETOC, and NSDA). Currently, I am a Public Forum debate coach in NYC while studying Political Science/Psychology at Columbia, so I am still keeping up to date with what is going on in the PF scene.

PF Paradigms:

1. Do. Not. Spread. Please. I've done debate for a while, and it's still annoying, and it doesn't really help the debate space. You can speak quickly, but once I say clear, do not go back to that speed.

2. S I G N P O S T ! It's a really ez way to make the judges luv u!

3. I won't time checking cards for the first 30 seconds, after that it comes out of prep. Also please reference the name of the card in your case so I can flow it more easily. And if you want me to check an opponent's card personally, lemme know and I will do so while forming my decision.

4. I don't flow cross fire but if it gets a bit too heated I will probably give ya a dirty look and may drop your speaks a bit. Please be nice. Being a meanie but winning on your args still will result in a drop.

5. I am pretty strict on the flow, and I want to see some good clash and weighing. What isn't extended throughout the round to the end will not be used as a reason for my decision. So please coordinate and flow through what you want to collapse on!

6. Time yourselves please.

7. Debater math is insta-dropped. Have evidence for your calculations!

8. If you spot misrepresenting in an opponent's card, call it out and I will specifically ask for it. If I find that you are right in contesting the card, it is dropped. Don't clip, powertag, splice, make up your own news source, etc. It also would make me drop your speaks.

9. I really really really don't like theory in PF (especially disclosure theory in local tournaments). However, if you argue it well, I won't let my bias prevent you from winning off of it.

10. Speaks start off at a baseline of 26. 30s are rare but I will be favorable to those that incorporate rhyme into their speeches.

11. If you ask if I favor tech>truth, the answer is a "mostly yes"

Policy Paradigms!

Not much policy experience but I'm a flow judge so it'll be fineeeee.

BQ Paradigms!

I also do not have much experience in BQ, but considering its similarity to PF in terms of structure, most of those points still apply. Again, I'm flow, so take that into consideration when forming arguments.

also - email for speech docs (if necessary) - sebastianjavadpooracp@gmail.com

some important views on debate:

tomato---------------------------------------x---------potato

also, put me on the chain please: liconnor21@gmail.com

for pf camp:

 - i did 2 years of pf and 2 years of ld

please WEIGH

2nd rebuttal should frontline everything

im ok with any type of argument that's not racist, sexist, etc. (don't say racism is good) - but most pf debaters don't run k's, theory, etc. properly so if you can't please don't :)

im ok with speed but you should be clear. i will yell clear twice and then speaks will tank - if i cant catch anything, then that's self-inflicted.

email me if you have any questions: lirose2022@gmail.com

cl4319@columbia.edu

Debate should always be fun, educational, and safe - please ask questions before/after the round if anything is unclear. I'll always disclose and feel free to ask or say something if you disagree with my decision.

Everything needs to be warranted

Summary is the most important speech in the round - collapse, extend links and impacts, frontline, and weigh. Any offense and defense needs to be in summary and FF (because summary is now three mins, defense is not sticky). Basically I should be able to listen to only summary and FF and make the correct decision.

I think spreading, Ks, theory, and other prog args are overdone in PF and defeat the purpose of the event. I will evaluate them but I'm generally predisposed to not vote for them; I also never ran them as a debater so I'm not the most familiar at judging them.

Have fun!

I did some debate in high school and now judge and debate APDA in college. Please be respectful in rounds. I prefer that you do not spread. I like clear signposting and lots of weighing to make my job easier. Have a great round!

Hi, I'm Miles. I did LD in HS (BTW c/o2022) and now sorta-coach PF in NYC. I study Philosophy and Intellectual History at Columbia (sorta pretentious); LDers, that does mean I probably will be pretty familiar with your frameworks...beware. Please don't assume I'm too familiar with the current resolutions, bc I'm not.

If you have any q's email me at miles.udwin@gmail.com :)

LD: I'm most familiar with trad LD, but you can debate however you want (though Iprobably won't vote on a K). I'm a pretty standard flow judge: win the flow and you'll win the round. That said, please do the impact calc for me, I hate having to do any weighing or extentions myself (I actually think it's kinda unfair if I do have to). I'm ok with speed, just know that I am off caffein rn and might fall asleep (if you do speed, speech dox are greatly appreciated).

PF: Um....win more arguments than the other team. Go. Fight. Win.