add me to the chain! aa11146@nyu.edu or anastasi.agafonov@nyu.edu

new york university / college of arts and science / economics and public policy

she or they

prounciation: (ann-uh-stah-see)

"I break mirrors with my face in the United States." - MC Ride, Death Grips

important: if you have triggering content in your argument, please disclose that to me/your opponents!

General

i'm a college student (feel free to ask me questions about nyu or college life in general!) and did four years of policy debate in high school. i was a K debater but dabbled in all styles of debate. i am not persuaded by arguments outside of debate ("this you?" callouts stay out of round). i don't vote for racist/homophobic/transphobic etc.. arguments or debaters. don't misgender anyone in round. seriously.i will dock speaks if it becomes a repeat problem. if it gets worse i auto drop or call tab. be passionate but not cruel/mean - yes there's a difference. do not speak over each other in cx. i consider the last two speeches to be the most crucial - notably the 2NR (i hate a 2AR that just lies, yes i can tell xx), frame the ballot story at the top! if you ask me for my email imma assume you didnt read my paradigm which i think is crucial before every round.

tech > truth

i'm a firm believer that every off read in the 1NC should be a potential 2NR strat. also i flow cx, i live for a good cx. i'm very suspicious of a 50 word DA shell.

if you're doing policy debate dont call it crossfire -- call it cross ex.

one of the biggest game changers for me is organization. i cannot stand disorganized debate because it makes it that much harder to sit through, flow, and write my RFD. a team that grabs my attention will be writing my ballot story in those last speeches and having a clear path to the ballot.

Case

I LIVE FOR GOOD CASE DEBATE. i will respect you ten times more if you line by line stuff from the case flow, it's such a power move. case debate has gone extinct and i would love to see some engaging case debate. 2a's should keep their case o/v's SHORT. anything over thirty seconds is unnecessary and wasting my time. case turns are my favorite flavor of offense on this flow. case outweighs is a certified banger as well and can win an entire debate for me.

Ks

i adore kritiks with my entire being. keep o'vs short, i can't stand seven minute o/v's. thirty seconds max. also kinda obvious: reasons to prefer fw, internal links to standards (this is more on k affs) are all amazing.

kicking the alternative and using the link/impact debate as a reason to vote neg is good -- i hate pointless alt debate on the neg. if youre losing on the alt, just kick it.

some k lit i am very familiar with: cap/neolib, set col, queer/fem abolition, queer rage, queerpess, queer ungov, queerpess. basically anything queer, fem, set col, or cap i know super well. i've read many antiblack arguments too and are familiar with them (afro futurism, afropess, etc) but never ran them. oh, and if your team is completely non-black, dont run afropess. read this: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

if you're a pomo fan, im probably best for baudrillard, bataille, deleuze, AND FOUCAULT! please nuance these arguments however -- k debate is great if its in context to the aff. im suspicious of voting on links of omission. also 2nc link walls must be intense!!! have multiple levels of links. im a sucker for a baudrillard case turn.

note: i hate edelman. a lot. i can hate on them for hours.

K Affs

yes. pref me k aff people. i like K affs obviously, as long as they’re somewhat relevant. have a strong topic link, is what i'm saying. my biggest pet peeve is neg teams who cry about k aff's skewing ground when 99% of the time they really dont. i feel like most teams forgot how to go for t/fw this year. K affs DO get perms, period.

Theory/T

i hate disclosure theory for lots of reasons (its a skill issue) but if you win it on the flow i will hesitantly vote for you. i’m not the biggest fan of theory in general--but it’s fine if you read it to me. going for condo bad in a 2ar is not my favorite but a good condo 2ar will always make me happy. i also lean pics good, again: its a skill issue.

CPs

really not my style but it's fine. if you're an eight off and case debater and half those cps are not competitive i'm going to lose my mind. cps with conditional planks kinda get on my nerves. i usually think cp theory is poorly executed but if you win it on the flow i'll vote for it.

Speaks

i can flow pretty fast but if you're gargling mouthwash or "running a marathon" in your speech please go a little slower. it wont hurt to have me hear your arguments. lord almighty please go slow on your tags. it bothers me SO MUCH if you spread your tags and i can't differentiate. i will tank speaks for unclear spreading on the tags. say next before you move start the next tag! i need to flow!

PF

most of my general preferences apply here, but i love crossfires that seem well thought out and can point out holes in the other team's arguments. if you write my ballot in the final focus, i'll be able to evaluate the debate a lot better. try not to talk over your partner during grand crossfire, it's a pet peeve.

Misc.

+0.4 if i receive caffeine or a good snack from you.

+0.2 if you mention death grips (my fav band <3)

+0.2 if you show me an image of a dog with a funny/fucked up haircut (i have many examples on hand, feel free to ask)

+0.1 if you give me a song rec

+0.1 if you use the word "chicanery" in your speech (better call saul reference)

Email Chain

Kekeli6504@gmail.com

Quick notes (Credit to Chelsea Hodgeson for this)

I’m only going to flow what you read, not what is sent on the email chain. The purpose of this is to provide an avenue in the event of contested evidence.

I do not flow cross ex/crossfire, it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding but the only way to execute this is to include it in a speech.

Background:

Hi, my name is Kekeli (She/Her) and I am currently studying Environmental Science and International Studies at Emory University. I've done policy debate for three years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, and Congressional rounds before. I've run antiblackness, cap k, policy args, and a decent amount of theory. I’m fine with spreading but it is to your benefit that you are clear and slow down on tags and analytical arguments.

If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me it's bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

TLDR:

I will vote for most things. This includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory.

I generally believe that you should do what you do best, just make sure that you guide the judge through your strategy.

(However, for PF do not run disclosure that requires more than the constructives.)

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe I haven't judged that many rounds on this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and performative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.

2) I will default to rejecting the argument not the team unless you tell me otherwise (see above)
3) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

4) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
5) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though my own experience was as a K debater (I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate my biases.

debated in policy in high school

email - safib2026@gmail.com

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I've done policy debate @Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy and PF rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. I go by any/all pronouns. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements you will lose. also don't try to tell me climate change is real

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Ks, Counter Plans, and theory.

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything.

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.
2) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

3) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias (I fully admit I am a K debater, although I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate it.

yes chain: sheima.ben-abdallah.27@dartmouth.edu

4 years HS policy, currently debating @ dartmouth. I am good for what you're good at.

.

If it's policy, I have topic knowledge. LD or PF, not so much.

.

I primarily read kritiks––– good for k affs

I'm mostly in the back of clash debates--- good for framework

I think conditionality is probably good

.

preferences:

(edit: 11/29/2023-- pls do not read LD tricks or PF off-time roadmaps in front of me i will be bored )

please time yourself, ev ethics challenges r not case negs, "concede the ballot and lets have a discussion" = L 24

.

speaks usually stay within the range of (28.4––29.4)

I reserve the right to end the round if I think it's reached an uneducational and unsafe point.

Please put me on the email chain: nilmo.contreras@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 a couple of 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 have 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!!!

Hello all! I am excited to judge you!!

my email: victoriadrengel@gmail.com

Things you should know:

1. evidence: use and reference evidence! this means extending the warrants and referencing cards by name
2. spreading: if you choose to spread please be clear; I flow by hand so please give me time to adjust.
3. ballots: give me as much judge instruction as possible ie. write out my ballot, however you choose to do so.
4. tech/truth: I am more tech over truth unless blatantly obvious, especially if other parts of the flow interact with that specific portion of the debate
5. signpost: lmk the number of pages I will need, the order, the names of pages, and lmk if you are doing an extra long overview
6. cross-examination: I am fine with open cross-examination but make sure both partners speak equally and in a balanced manner; also please be respectful as debate is first and foremost an educational activity and should be a safe space.
7. I'm fine with any arguments with obvious exceptions ie. don’t be racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. Nonetheless, I am the most familiar with kritiques: cap, security, antiblackness, and sett col
8. >5 off: you will probably lose me in these debates, but again SIGNPOST

email: kdeodatt25@gmail.com

Hi debaters!

I do not have a preference in arguments, I'm fine with DAs, Ks, Topicality etc; But if you are going to run an argument, I expect you to know it well. Don't just read an argument and expect me to do the work for you. Part of being a great debater is critically thinking and proving why your point matters.

I weigh framework heavily in a round; tell me who should get the ballot and why.

Clarity>speed... If it is not on my flow, it will not be evaluated in the debate round.

I love a clean-cut debate, be respectful to one another. Have fun and simply believe in yourself!

YES, INCLUDE ME IN THE EMAIL CHAIN diallob2@bxscience.edu,bronxsciencepolicynovices@gmail.com ; bronxsciencedebatedocs@gmail.com

Hey all! Please add me to the email chain -- diallob2@bxscience.edu; bronxsciencepolicynovices@gmail.com; bronxsciencedebatedocs@gmail.com

My name is Baila Diallo (he/him/his) and I am a current varsity debater and novice director at The Bronx High School of Science.

Tech > Truth.

Some general things for novices - Be on your best behavior, try to have fun. Do whatever you want don't adapt your strategy because of me I am comfortable judging policy of k rounds.

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

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.

time yourself

Newark Science '25

ashleylourencoacts@gmail.com

email chain subject line should be: [Tournament Name] '[Year] | Round [X] | [Team [YY]] (aff) vs [Team [ZZ]] (neg)

I will not pretend I am able to hear and flow every word of the 400 wpm 1ar so no tricks, pen time, don't refer to args by the cite (I don't flow author names)

don't be a jerk

offense offense offense

~~~~~~~~~~

I did policy for like 3 or 4 years. I do LD now. I can judge your debate! If you care about that stuff, I have been in my fair share of bid rounds... I have a K background and for the last three years have read mainly antiblackness and some sett col.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct3CLVSEBPs

Disclaimer: PLEASE SLOW DOWN WHEN SAYING AUTHOR NAMES.

Yes!, I'd like to be added to the email chain -- [millerl@bxscience.edu][bronxsciencedebatedocs@gmail.com]

My name is Levi Miller (he/him/his), and I was a 4 year debater, captain, and novice director at the Bronx High School of Science, and debated mostly Ks ranging from Deleuze to Sexton to Glissant. Some people who have influenced the way I debate: Alex Eum, Guy Bloom, James Donovan, Zach Zinober, Harvard BS, Jack Booth.

Top Level:

I was a broadly successful debater at Northeast Nats, and was extraordinarily mid relative to competition at larger tournaments like Glenbrooks or Emory. I think I'd be comfortable as a decently high pref at northeast tournaments, but I'd recommend prefing the qualified coaches in the pool over me at larger nats.

Tech over truth, now and forever. That means if you want to go for Christian Wipeout, Death Good, or a nonunique Elections DA I will evaluate each argument the same and am comfortable voting for anything. No isms.

My brief thoughts about debate at large:

I think debate is a pedagogically valuable activity that exposes students to current events, critical literature, and methods of rhetorical persuasion.

I also think policy debate is a uniquely inaccessible activity: the most successful debaters attend expensive debate camps, and pay for private coaching. The Michigan Debate Camp --> TOC pipeline has really devalued local debates in a way I find extremely problematic, and the constant flux in debate programs across the country is reflective of this.

I think every debater in the room needs to do their best to prioritize accessibility: this means adapting to paper debaters, disclosing all broken arguments in full-text on the Wiki, etc. National circuit debaters who tie disclosure practices to critical literature should evaluate their own privilege relative to their program, and the overall activity. This is just a skill issue tbh. The only time I ever practiced bad disclosure in my career was because I was about to face team far better than me in late outs at a tournament -- this was literally a skill issue.

This also means kindness.

Paradigm Note:

Everything below are my opinions on debate, and won't influence my decision one way or the other --

K v FW:

- The resolution is a collectively agreed upon starting point for debates and research which debaters either choose or choose not to enforce. It is the job of kritikal teams to instruct me as to why I should put the resolutional basis of debate on hold as an adjudicator. It is the job of teams going for T-FW to instruct me as to why I should vote negative to enforce the resolutional basis for debate.

- I have no preference when it comes to clash or fairness at large, and believe both are impacts. I think it is more strategic to go for clash against identity-related arguments, and fairness versus PoMo teams, but teams going for T-FW should go for what is most comfortable for them.

- I believe T-USFG is a question of topicality, and T-Tactics is a question of framework. I believe these are important distinctions. I think when debating framework, the content of the 1AC is offense and should be utilized as such. In T-USFGvK debates, I am broadly unconvinced by "state bad," or "excluding content" arguments, as topicality is a question of procedure rather than content.

- I think C/I's need to impact turn either limits or ground to access a net benefit, and need to win sufficient defense re the other. I think counterinterpretations are broadly better versus clash rather than fairness.

- Predictability =! limits, this is an annoying misconception.

- The Models K: I will evaluate T debates as a question of competing interpretations until told otherwise. If I evaluate a countermodel, no models, or "just this round" framing, it should be clear to me by the end of the round. Negative teams should identify early in the round that the affirmative is going for the Models K, or I think they will have a hard time.

- Fairness double bind and "debate is a game" are convincing arguments, but need to be connected to some impact -- this impact can be fairness, but far too many 2NRs think "debate is a game" is enough to respond to specific 1ar warranting about in-round violence, etc.

- the TVA and SSD are defensive arguments; if either go dropped, the 2NR needs to implicate this relative to both team's offense.

Theory:

I truly hate these debates, and will hold them to an extremely high threshold.

You probably need to steer me along here once we get to your second dispo counterinterpretation, I'm very unfamiliar with these debates.

K v Policy:

- A lot of judges will say "framework ended up being a wash" in RFDs in K v Policy rounds. I find that dumbfounding.

- I think the optimal strat is to go for a FW interp that mutes the aff, or justifying a Pik in the 2NR.

- I think when going for the alternative, teams need to win link turns case AND external offense. I think teams going for the alternative will either have to flag an epistemological sequencing question (I think most of these debaters would be better suited going for FW), or fiat the alt to some extent.

- I think neg fiat is good.

Policy v Policy:

I'm likely not as familiar with these debates as others in the pool. A couple points:

- zero risk is a logical extension of "dropped arguments are true"-- if you flat concede a piece of defense that the other team convincingly argues zeros your impact, i will give them that. i don't think this should be a controversial opinion-- it seems that most judges agree a dropped scenario starts at 100; this is just the inverse of that.

- PLEASE explain the meaning of each acronym! I am not very smart.

- I think uniqueness controls the direction of the link, but am unpersuaded by "uniqueness overwhelms."

- International Fiat is probably abusive, but can also probably be justified.

- I will vigorously protect internal net benefits. This means: if a team reads wipeout and a NGA CP with an extinction internal net benefit, I do not consider that a double turn.

- "Debatability" and "predictability" are the most persuasive standards in PDCP debates -- I think a well-warranted "debatability" impact will be forever more persuasive than "real world" standards.

Presumption:

KvK:

I think affirmative teams have the burden of proving that their plan/aff produces a positive departure from the status quo, but this departure need not necessarily be material. Negative teams going for a presumption/materiality push should tie this to some significant offense such as the alliance turn, info dissuasive, etc.

Policy:

Dropped defense is zero-risk, but these debates should be easy DA 2NRs rather than a full presumption 2NR.

If a negative team defends an advocacy in the 2NR (i.e. such as a CP), the burden of presumption flips negative when I evaluate two alternative worlds, but negative teams should still compare aff and cp solvency.

Public Forum:

I honestly don't understand this activity.

1. Evidence practices in PF are atrocious. This manifests as:

a) teams blatantly miscutting or misciting evidence, or not even citing evidence for whatever reason.

b) strange 5+ minute downtime where one team flags or calls for a card, and the other team needs to "look" for the card they've read in the round, some reason.

2. There's limited warranting...? I think this stems from your evidence practices -- I will have difficulty evaluating a round if there isn't sufficient comparison of warrants in two competing pieces of evidence (i.e. clash...)

a) you don't win the debate because you "collapsed" or "weighed." How is it possible that teams will forget to "do weighing?" If I'm left with two teams just claiming their "contentions" are better than the others because they "collapsed" and "outweigh" on "timeframe" I'm going to be pretty lost by the end of the round.

Here are my requests:

1. Send a speech doc that contains all the evidence you are about to read before the speech.

a) If you have improper citations or paraphrase I will stop flowing.

2. If both teams choose to do some strange evidence exchange after speeches I will run everyone's prep time.

Newark Science | Rutgers-Newark (debated for both)

Email chain: Ask me before the round. Different vibes, different emails ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If it matters, I've done basically every debate style (LD/CX in high school. CX, BP, PF, (NFA-)LD, Civic, and Public in college). I don't care what you read, I'm getting to a point where I've heard or read it all. I implore you to be free and do what you want. I'm here to follow your vibes so you let me know what's up. Just remember, I'm an adult viewing the game, not participating in it. Only rule: no threats (to me or other debaters)!

General notes:

• Spreading is fine. Open CX is fine. Flex prep is fine.
• Having an impact is good. Doing impact weighing is great. Impact turns are awesome.
• Truth over tech until tech overwhelms truth (probably because you were inefficient).
• Again, do what makes you comfortable. Whether K aff, DA 2NR, 12 off 1NC, 2 contentions and a dream, whatever just don't leave me bored.
• I am offering an ear to listen when debate forgets that it should be creating good (enough) people. Don't be afraid to find me or talk to me after a debate or just whenever in the tournament. I'm willing to do wellness checks BUT I am NOT a licensed therapist so no trauma dumps because I will only be able to tell you a good ice cream shop to go to with your team.

Random things I feel the need to emphasize ...

• Please. Please. Please. Do not try to appeal to me as a person for guilt-tripping purposes. I gave up my soul for a fun-sized Snickers bar years ago. If you say "judge have a soul" or some variation of that, you're speaking to an empty vessel. I'm here to coach my kiddos, judge and leave.
• IF THERE'S AN OFFER TO PLAY A GAME OR HAVE A DIALOGUE OR WHATEVER ELSE IN PLACE OF A ROUND, I'm putting on a 2 minute timer after cross (assuming all of the speech time is taken) for a discussion of the rules of the dialogue or game and how to determine the winner. The opposite side must then determine if they want to have a traditional round or not. If you go one route or the other, you cannot switch! I'll immediately assign a loss for wasting my time because I could have been prepping my kids or watching a game show where people tell the camera that they're "really good at this" just to immediately lose because they don't have knowledge on Black people or international relations.
• I have a fairly good poker face. I say fairly good because I like to laugh so if I get an outrageous message or the round is meant to be funny, I'll crack. Do not use my expressions as a measure for how well you're doing or not on a general basis though.

Hi! Please put me on the email chain: graceodebate@gmail.com

I use she/her pronouns and am a current Junior at Lexington High School :)

**Note for online debate: please be clear, if you have tech issues please let me know before the round.

If you're reading my paradigm, you're probably a novice, so here's what I look for:

I'm fine with policy, if you run a k or a kaff make sure you explain everything. I lean more neg on theory (ie condo, 50 state fiat etc). Anything more than 3 condo is too much in the novice division. I default to competing interpretations but can be swayed the other way.

I won't judge kick the CP unless told so.

DO:

Line by line! Extend your own arguments and answer your opponents arguments. Point out if your opponents didn't answer any arguments and explain why that supports your argument. You can use the “they said…. But …” format to answer arguments.

Sign post! Tell me when you are moving onto a new offcase (ie. Next off, the states CP)

Make sure you do impact calc! Why does your impact matter more? (that includes ev comparison- why is your author better?

Make sure you prioritize your arguments in the last speech. Tell me how I should evaluate the debate/which argument I should be voting on (ie. you can vote on the DA debate because they dropped… Which means …)

CP- I’m fine with agent and process CPs. Love a good CP and DA debate.

DAs :) Explain the story of the DA. Especially in the 2nr. Make sure that you are doing good link, internal link and impact calc debate (especially in the 2nr- weigh the impacts of the DA vs the impacts of the case)

Case- LOVE a good case debate. DO Case turns, Impact turns. Get some offense on the case debate flow. Case debate is underutilized so take advantage of it.

T- I default to competing interpretations but can be swayed the other way. If you are going for T in the 2nr either the entire 1nr should be T or a majority of it should be T. I value evidence comparison (date, author qualifications etc.) but I also remember to do impact calc (ie. ground, limits etc.). Make sure you have offense and defense on the flow (ie. why their interpretation is bad and why yours is better).

K- I don’t have a lot of experience here. My experience in Ks goes to the extent of the Cap K and stops about there. If you run anything else please make sure that you explain the entire story of the k.

DON'T

-Be sexist/racist/homophobic/etc.

-Be mean to your partner or opponent

- Be mean to your partner or the opposing team

- Read arguments you don't understand

- Read arguments the opposing team doesn't understand without trying to explain it to them during cx (this is directed at k affs)

- Make tagline extensions (see above)

- Steal prep!!! I see this a lot.

- Make new arguments in rebuttals (1ar, 2nr, 2ar)

- Just point out dropped arguments-- explain what it means and how it helps you

**If you don't know what any of this means, ask me before the round!

Speaks

28.6-29- Amazing:)

28.5- You're doing great!

27-28.4- Could make some improvements

+0.2 if you show me your flows after round

+0.1 if you make me laugh

+0.1 if you win on presumption (but i don't advocate for it)

+0.1 if you mention my partner Anika Basu :)

Good Luck! Have Fun! You got this!

If you are running a K, please explain the world of the ALT.

Hi Im Mariama :)

bronxsciencedebatedocs@gmail.com --> add to the chain

hidden.aspec@gmail.com --> add to the chain

Im a senior debater at Bronx Science.

Tech >>>>>>>>> truth

Clarity >>>>> speed

email chain >>>>>> speech drop

i'm probably judging novice, so if its packet please only read packet args. if its open, I don't care what you run but you should only run arguments u understand, I will be annoyed if you cant explain any of your args in cx.

pls time your own prep and speeches, I forget to time but I try my best to time everyones prep/speech.

don't steal prep :((

be nice to ur partner if ur rude to ur partner im docking ur speaks .5 :)

be assertive in cx, not rude their distinct.

for more detail view guy blooms paradigm.

(ma-ree-ah-ma)

Dont read anything racist/xenephobic/sexist etc. its an auto L and the lowest speaks possible.

Free Palestine

(She/Her)

I debated Policy in the national circuit for Science Park High School for three years and Public Forum for the remaining year. Since then I have judged for LD, Public Forum, Parliamentary and Policy.

As a judge I feel that my only obligation is to give both sides an equal opportunity to present and defend their arguments. I will not do any work for either side, what is not said is not assumed and will not be considered. I will vote on any winning argument. (theory, K, etc.)