hi debaters!

Email: eha2123@columbia.edu

General: Please be KIND!

I didn't do high school debate but I've done a lot of college APDA.

Here are just some guidelines to win my ballot:

1. If you can explain your point very well, I will vote on it. The explanation matters more than the argument content o as long as I can get a coherent warrant for an argument, and it's not blatantly offensive, I'm willing to vote on it.

2-Independent voters need to be warranted. Tossing out a claim without any reasoning attached to it is not a coherent argument. If anything it will hurt your case! Please be considerate.

3. ALWAYS Weigh between arguments. Every type of debate gets messy whether it be theory, framework, or clash of civs. Weighing really helps me resolve these rounds. ( literally, tell me exactly why I should vote for you)!

Remember to have fun!!! We are all here to grow, argue, and learn. I know debate could be extremely stressful but try to lighten up and enjoy some of the experience! Also, be generous to somebody who isn't versed in circuit norms, is a novice, etc. Let's try to keep the space inclusive.

If you have any other questions, let me know.

I prefer clarity first and foremost. This is not only important for me but important for your opponent. Please signpost well and clearly state/outline your framework, contentions, sub points, etc. and add clear transitions when you start discussing something different (ex. moving from rebuttals to impact and weighing). Focus on clash and define voters.

Speaking-wise, I am okay with speed as long as you enunciate but also ensure your opponents can understand you. Speak confidently, don’t sound monotonous, and place emphasis when appropriate.

I will not factor crossfire in my decision of the round unless you reference it in your speech (which I suggest doing, use cross to your advantage!)

Most importantly, be respectful! You are debating the argument, not the person.

James Coppersmith

Columbia University

Class of 2026

Heeeeeeeeyyyyyyyy debaters! I'm James, a freshman at Columbia with some previous experience competing in PF in HS. Overall, I try to base decisions on which side has laid out a clear path for how their policy will lead to a greater good than the other side's. Just draw clear connections between your policies to their effects, weigh, and use relevant examples/evidence if applicable. Also, please speak at a reasonable pace so that I can flow your arguments properly and give you credit! Thanks, and I can't wait to see what you have in store!

Introduction (I forgot to Update)

Note for Last-Chance: I basically forgot to update my paradigm again. I will be judging LD, so here is the TDLR: I am a progressive judge, no Tricks, literally run whatever you want. I will note that I would rather you run what you are most comfortable and best in. I'd rather watch a good Trad round than watch you run a K badly because you think it will give you points because it's my favorite argument. This is the best piece of advice I will give you! Other than that, good luck; also, don't be afraid to run trad because I am progressive. I am open to both!!!

Education

Lincoln East High School 2018 - 2022

Columbia University 2022 - Present

Pronouns

He/Him/His

Email

Please add me to the email chain zjdino27@gmail.com.

Bio

Hello, my name is Zoran, and I've been competing in debate/speech for the last four and a half years (yeesh). I was a part of the Lincoln East Debate/Speech teams, where I've competed in two years of LD, two years of Policy, three years in Extemp, and a mixture of congress here and there. Overall had great success in the Nebraska circuit on both teams, qualified for Nationals in Policy, Extemp, and Congress multiple times, and competed at NIETOC (Speech). I also competed on the National circuit in high school for both LD/Policy, so I understand the differences between national and local. Currently, I compete with the Columbia Debate Society, where I judge APDA and compete in APDA/BP. Lastly, I am studying Political science and Business.

-

General Information

Online

• Cameras: I am perfectly fine if you have your camera off for reasons, whether it be for tech/personal matters. I will have my camera on and would be happy if all of you did the same, but I understand, given the circumstances.

• Speed: Generally, go a little slower and speak louder for online rounds; this will help everyone involved in the current round!

Speed/Clarity

I am good with higher speeds, do keep in mind it's been a while since I've competed in the high school circuit, so I will need a bit of time to adjust. I will say SPEED if you are going too fast. On the other hand, please be CLEAR; people don't understand how important it is. I do not care that I have the speech doc. I will say CLEAR two times for each speaker. If you continue to be unclear, I will drop speaks and not flow your speech.

Revised Speaks

• 30: Best speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Perfect speech | 99th percentile

• 29.0 - 29.9: Top speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | little to no flaws | 90th percentile

• 28.0 - 28.9: Above average speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Few flaws | 75th percentile

• 27.0 - 27.9: MID speaker at tournament | Flaws were present | 50th percentile (Where most speaks will now fall)

• 26.0 - 26.9: Below Average Speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Many flaws | 25th percentile

• 25.0 - 25.9: Weak Speaker at the tournament (varies by tournament size) | Filled with flaws | 10th percentile

• Below 25: You said something egregious (this has happened already at a tournament. Let's not have it happen again)

Ethics

I want to include this section because I am a biracial debater who participated in a predominantly White circuit—moreover, the lessons and equity I have seen come from the APDA circuit in college. I do not tolerate any form of racism, sexism, gender discrimination, ableism, etc., when I am judging. I will call out any form of this I see in rounds and automatically drop the team doing such acts. The team that has done such acts will get tanked speech 25 or lower, and the winning team will get 29s. This is more out of respect for what has been said in rounds.

Moreover, if you believe I may be unethical regarding how I hand out RFDS, my flowing style, or anything else. Please email me (with the email above), so I can improve in the future! Debate is fundamental to me and can be stressful and challenging for everyone. I hope this eases your tensions and sets a lens for how I view ethics in rounds.

-

Paradigm

TLDR

I was a progressive/traditional debater in high school, where I competed on the national and Nebraska circuits in Policy, LD, and Congress. I am fine with everything, and my favorite argument is the K. My least favorite is the CP. But I will vote on anything. I am still a newer judge, so if that concerns you, strike me, but I have judged numerous nat circuit policy rounds.

Flowing

I flow tags & authors on the case level. I fully flow entire shells for topicality/theory/FW, so please read the t-shell slowly. I am extremely annoyed when teams on the neg read the shell as evidence. It's not helpful when more and more debaters are not sending shells over speech docs, please slow down for shells at the very least. I am fine with speed, but not when it comes to a straight shell. In addition, slowing down on tags/authors also helps differentiate the flow, especially in online debate. I need to tell you are switching audibly; you can still go fast, but it should not be the same speed as the card.

Game/Education

Tbh persuade me on this, I can see both sides, so whoever is winning the flow for the round decides.

LD/Policy

General

I am combing both of these because I see a lot of crossovers already, and it's applicable where necessary. I will have an LD-specific section at the bottom for some nuance stuff.

Disclosure

I am mixed on disclosure. I will go ahead and vote on it; if you are running it, please send a screenshot with the wiki page. I am not looking for you. If AFF says they are breaking new, and it's true, don't run it. However, if you are running an identity K like anti-Blackness or are a minority debater, I am persuaded to hear disclosure bad arguments. Overall though, it is a procedural fairness argument.

Tabula Rasa

If you know what this means, you understand how I view rounds.

Plans/LARPing (LD)

I like the plan if it's formatted well and the plan text is engaging. The more hyper-specific the plan, the better. Please give me something truly unique. Also, if you want to LARP in LD by using a straight Util (Standard/Value/V-C) or insert a plan text go full f***ing ahead. I will love you. I am perfectly fine with traditional LD (more details below), but I am okay with you all breaking LD. One caveat is to make sure the plan links to the topic somehow. I will still hear the theory/FW arg on plans aff bad. But if it doesn't link, I have to vote you down (unless they drop the FW/theory, lol).

K/Performance Affs

I love K affs. I ran a Deleuze K Aff for most of the senior year; I am perfectly fine with it, but could you make sure it links to the topic in some capacity? If it doesn't, then FW/theory will be more persuasive. Also, if you are hit with theory/FW, I found it very powerful to use your authors to argue against it instead of basic analytics or general block files. Improves the ethos to such a degree. I also ran a performance Aff on anti-Blackness with Tupac lyrics. So yeah, I am the best person for this in many rounds, so this is your chance to run this stuff. Please do it!

Kritik/K

K is love, K is life. I am a K debater through the through. I am tired of policy teams not closing on the K. I understand it's not the right call, but I like it. I am also tire of policy teams running 2/3 card K (this might be a personal gripe). General links to the topic are fine but weak if the link is directly tied to the affirmative. More specific the link, the better! I only buy the perm if you de-link from the K. Like, don't read perm evidence if you didn't argue on the link debate. I am familiar with Deleuze, anti-Blackness, Cap, Set-col, and security, and I am least familiar with Puar, obscure authors, and model-minority myth. But I like a meaty K, and if you spend an entire 2NC on the K, you are my hero (please make it worth a whole 2NC).

Disad/DA

Tbh, little to say here. I like DAs like all of them (Linear politics etc.); could you ensure the link and UQ are clear? I've seen this more and more, where people run a K link with an impact with no alt. I don't know if this is a DA, but if you want to run your K as a DA without alt solvency, Go for it. Offense is offense.

FW/Theory

I will always prefer you engage with the affirmative if possible. I think boring FW/theory shells are cringe and suck the life out of interesting rounds. For example, if the aff is disclosed and mentions this, well, I find the FW/theory dumb. In addition, when it's a common K argument, It's even more cringe. Yet, I will vote on it if debated well. The only time I see theory on the level of FW necessary is if aff gets up and some Unicorns invade America, go full ahead; that ain't predictable in the slightest. I mentioned this above, but if your performance/k aff can link to the topic area, I see its relevance. On the other hand, for other theory arguments, go for them. Some are more persuasive than others. Vague alt and disclosure are always good.

• Speed Theory: I am making a section for this, unless needed, such as for accommodation. This is bad in policy. I can buy this a bit more in LD, but I feel there are easy accommodations like disclosure, asking for speech docs beforehand, whatever. However, if your opponent is not accommodating to you, please run the theory and provide evidence, whether it be an email chain. I will vote on this!

Topicality

I ran a lot of topicality (minor repair test) and found it pretty cool. It might just be the NATO topic, but it's been a little confusing (probably due to topic knowledge) a lot of the t arguments, so make sure to explain in detail the t flow for me. This is arguably one of the easiest places to vote. I default to reasonability.

CP/PIC

My worse argument. I wasn't much of a counter-plan debater in high school, but I understand the nitty gritty. But, the techier the CP flow becomes, you will lose me. Also, if you are closing on the CP, could you please explain this to me? If there is one area where I could squirrel, it will be the CP/PIC flow. Also, could you make sure the CP/PIC is competitive? I am also fine with word PICs.

LD-Specific

• Preface: It's been a while since I have competed in LD. I was progressive but still ran trad, when needed. I have no topic knowledge for (Columbia 2023) so bear with me.

• Value/Standard/V-C: If you are running traditional, that is perfectly fine with me. I start primarily at the top level with the framework for the round. I do not care if you have the Value/V-C or just a standard. Don't think if you win FW, you win the round unless it's a Kant vs. Util round LMFAO

• Contention-Level: Contention-level is where you win rounds in LD. Making sure to have strong offense and defense is key

• RVI: Ye, y'all get RVIs; theory in the 1NC is hella abusive, so I buy it.

• LARPing: I mentioned this earlier, but I am fine with this in LD, link to the topic, of course, but neg will probably read FW. Now, would this be amazing if you both decide to LARP; I will love you. I would email your competitor beforehand if you want to do this, and I will evalaute the round like a minature policy round.

Condo

I think Condo is good. I will listen to condo bad args, so don't worry about that. My biggest pet peeve is when going a condo route, make sure what you are closing on makes sense together or just entirely collapse to one flow in the 2NR. For example, do not close on a topicality shell and an Aropess K in the 2NR; those literally do not make sense together. But, ye, if you want to spam the flow with 3 Ks, 2 CPs, and a DA, we are chilling.

Truth vs. Tech

I prefer tech more, but I do not want the most blippy args coming out of nowhere. I see the two as compliments; the higher quality evidence with insane tech is *chef's kiss*

Tricks

Right now, I am open to trick debate (for the time being). I am still unaware of the nuance of it all and have yet to hit many tricks debaters or judged. But this will be updated if it's a terrible way to debate.

Hello!

My name is Krishma and I am current a freshman debater and I have experience judging parli (college and high school) and very little experience judging PF and LD. In my brief PF and LD judging experience, one thing I encountered a lot was spreading. PLEASE, I encourage you to not spread in rounds I am judging. I prefer quality>quantity (and I really cannot decipher words when debaters speak that fast).

Any unethical content (racism, homophobia, etc.) results in automatic loss and low speaks. It is important to be respectful in rounds and I will be upholding this strictly.

Also I am not familiar with tech words. So unless I can infer what you are talking ab in rounds, I would not waste time using very particular debate jargon.

Background:

Academic (Business) Librarian & Tenure Track Faculty Member - Southern CT State University

Parent of HS Debate student

Education: MLIS (Univ of IL Urbana Champaign), MA (Univ of Cincinnati)

Bio: I am a graduate of and debated 4 yrs of NPDA for Point Loma Nazarene University and served as Assistant Director of Debate at Grand Canyon University. I currently serve as Head Coach at iLearn Academy and still judge around the NPDA circuit.

Updated LD Philosophy: I enjoy and can keep up with spreading. But this quick whisper-mumbling stuff is nonsense. If you think a. that's really spreading b. what you're saying is intelligible, you're kidding yourself. You can go fast but you gotta up the clarity. Forcing me to read all of your cards instead of listening to the speech to understand is asking me to do way too much work and I must infer any analysis being given. It also makes it significantly harder for me to understand the nuances of how the arguments interact and I would prefer not to miss something important.

TL;DR: I strongly believe that I don't have any strong beliefs when it comes to debate rounds, I ran all types of arguments and faced all types of arguments. I see every round as an individual game and don't try to leverage my preferences into my decisions. Go for what you will. I won't complain.

Speed: Speed is usually fine depending on your clarity. I have more comments about it in the LD section. Online, depending on how fast you are maybe 80% is better in case you want me to get everything.

Theory/Framework: These are fine. I include this to say, that I don't mind your squirrely or K aff, but I'm more than willing to listen to the other side and you should be prepared to respond to framework or theory.

K's: K's are great. K's have a place in debate. I enjoy K's because I believe I can learn from them. The only issue is I am not great at being strong on critical literature bases. I believe that people who resent that type of debate altogether are stuck in an ultimately noneducational way of thinking. That being said, I'm not afraid to vote on "this doesn't make any sense". Just because it's a game doesn't mean it shouldn't be accessible.

I will say if I had to choose between the 2 I'd rather have a straight-up policy round.

CP: Just do it right if you're gonna do it? idk the goal is not to get permed right?

Condo: I don't see condo as an issue. I won't forbid myself from voting for condo bad if it's argued for well enough or the strategy really is being that abusive. Some people have ideologies, but I think that's more of a meme at this point.

I am not a big fan of RVI's at all. I will only look to vote for one if it was unresponded to or within a unique context. But my least favorite and seemingly most common is spending X amount of minutes on a frivolous T, then saying you deserve the win for wasting your own time. If it is truly frivolous then either they won't go for it or they'll lose on it if they do. I will not reward it and I find it surprising at the number of judges who don't think twice about it.

Speaker points: I'm not a fan of speaker points so I plan on being a bit of a point fairy

Pronouns: she/her

I am a college freshman in Barnard/Columbia in my first year of APDA debate. I did PF in all of HS, so while I do know basic terms and flowing and whatnot, I am still learning the logistics of parliamentary debate specifically. That being said, that does not mean I am incapable of my job.

1: This debate should be designed for the average person. If a random stranger on the street would not understand what you are trying to say, don’t expect me to. Just because I understand debate theory or jargon doesn’t mean I will favor you for it.

2: Please PLEASE fully demonstrate your impacts and why they matter. Weigh! I spent too long during HS trying to learn this; better late than never. I fully appreciate even a simple comparison that really nicely sums up why you won the point.

3: No spreading. I have seen spreading. I am not impressed. That will not change.

4: Organization is key. Clean and clear arguments, analyzed points, and even an off-time roadmap would be great. Not necessary, but nice to know what to expect.

5: I keep my own time; you are welcome to keep yours. I normally bang the table when your time is up, but if it's an online tournament you can give your preference if you want me to cut you off.

6: Goes without saying, but any oppressive comments (sexist, homophobic, racist, etc.) are an automatic drop and the lowest speaks I can give. I do not tolerate anything of the sort and will most certainly report it.

I like to think of myself as being experienced in the debate world, having been here for 3 years. I also know what I would’ve liked to see in my judges, and I try to fulfill that the best I can for you all. Have fun, relax, and I look forward to what you have to say in your debate rounds. Good luck.

For any inquiries (don’t hesitate to reach out), I can be found at nk3033@barnard.edu

This is the second tournament I have judged so far. I am a relatively inexperienced judge.

I will be following the standard rubric for judging.

Hi everyone! Background - I’m Isabel Marks, a senior and captain of the Bard HS Early College Queens debate team (plug for our insta @bhsecqdebate). I’ve been debating for five years. Mostly East Coast parli with a little bit of West Coast parli/PF. Reach out with any questions/comments/concerns at im411q@bhsec.bard.edu!!

These are all preferences! Debate however you want to debate :)

1. Be funny/creative! Debate is long, life is short! I am definitely interested in hearing your wackiest argument.

2. I try to avoid judge intervention – make that possible by signposting, taking your opponent’s arguments at their best, and telling me what happens when I vote for you.

1. It’s great if you say something in all three speeches but you don’t need to. If it’s on the flow (before rebuttal obviously), it’s on the flow and will be considered for the ballot.

3. WARRANT THINGS. You can't just say them! You have to explain them! This is where quality > quantity comes in. You can run as many subpoints/contentions as you want, but I can't vote on anything unless you clearly explain why it's a good point. This is the most important thing in the round.

1. A statistic/example is not in and of itself a warrant. Explain why it matters & how it works!

2. I shouldn’t have to say this, but don’t do internet research during tournaments where that’s not allowed. If you did do that, don’t read a niche statistic because then I will know?

4. Engage with your opponents in good faith! Respond to the best version of their argument, not the worst version. Don’t strawman. Don’t be a dick.

5. I’m fine with speed, but will always prefer eloquence/word economy/clarity. Don’t spread your opponents out of the debate.

6. +1 speaks if you reference Richard Nixon, the death of third spaces in the US, or use Taylor Swift lyrics as a warrant.

7. General protocol about how if you say something racist/sexist/homophobic/etc I will give you low speaks and report you to equity. NYPDL policy is not to drop, but these arguments are really easy to debunk so it’s probably a terrible idea to run them. Debaters often make super ignorant arguments and I don’t want to hear them. Poor people are people. People who haven’t had access to good education (or simply chose not to pursue it) are people. Addicts are people. You get the gist. People who don't have your life circumstances or have not made your choices deserve respect, help and access to resources.

1. Read trigger warnings at the top of your speech please! Do not be the kid who says “the impact here is, trigger warning for suicide, an increased risk of suicide.”

TECH DEBATE STUFF

1. K’s are cool! A few caveats

1. Use K’s because you actually have a problem with the existence of the round, not because you want to dunk on your opponents. Dunk on your opponents by having better arguments and winning the flow.

2. Please for the love of god no prewritten K’s! In the wise words of Nate Berls, they are a huge advantage over the other team. It should be about the motion, directly interact with the motion, and be written during your prep time.

3. I don’t automatically prioritize them over all other arguments made in the round. I get why layering exists, I just disagree with it. Genuinely engage with your opponent’s arguments!!!!

4. I need you to explain how my ballot is solvency if I'm going to vote on the K. I have a hard time believing that the result of a debate round is going to lead to change but I’m def curious to hear your reasoning!

2. Theory is dumb… win the round, not the rules of the round. You’re more than welcome to protest definitions, contest the framework, whatever, but I’m not dropping the team automatically so you don't need to give me your whole spiel.

3. Counterplans are also dumb! Debate the motion!

4. FOR NYPDL DEBATES: Reminder that a lot of NYPDL rules require you to say the word “abusive” if your opponent does something unfair (i.e. abusive definitions, abusive counterplan, etc).

Debate is not a perfect medium. It’s fun to do! I’ve learned a lot! But it also doesn’t allow for nuance or concession in the same way that a discussion does.

Hi! I debated World Schools format for two years in high school and some BP. As of 2022, I do college debate (mostly APDA and some BP).

I'm fine with most arguments, but here are some basic guidelines:

1. Don't spread–I can't give you the win if I don't understand you. Slightly above regular conversation speed is ok.
2. I've never debated in the US high school circuit so I won't understand any specific technical terms.
3. Be as clear as you can about your logical flow, weigh and tell me how to vote!
4. I'm not familiar with a lot of theory so it's probably best to avoid it unless you can explain it clearly to me in round.

Violating equity (homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc) will result in an automatic loss and low speaks. Feel free to email me with any concerns or issues regarding such behaviour.

Email: sm5332@barnard.edu

Tyler Prozes

MHS '25

Tech>Truth

Junior Policy Debater @ Mamaroneck High School

Email: tprozes@gmail.com

If Policy: add mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com to the email chain.

+.1 speaks if you start every speech with "The Fact of the Matter is..."

Update for MAMO!!!:

*Be Nice

*Don't waste our time.

*Extend your offense! Use the flow for stuff!

*Compare impacts.

*Use warrants, i.e specifics reasons in the cards for why your claim is true (i.e why does Climate Change cause extinction?

Policy:

Debate is a game and tech>truth so all of this is preferences. I will vote on it if you win it. Screaming 'they dropped x' will not get you anywhere. Explain that, warrant that, don't just assert that if they didn't drop it.

Case:

-2AC gets away with murder. Contest that.

-Do internal link and solvency takeouts, not just mindless impact defense.

DA:

-T/C is the way to go. Try and access it higher up on the internal link chain.

-Link probably controls the direction of uniqueness.

-I view it holistically, i.e, what are the chances we get to the terminal.

-If the DA is incomplete (I see this especially often with politics) 1AR get's new answers AND a lot of leeway.

-This is my favorite offcase though.

-Pls understand how Congress works.

K:

-Framework is a yes/no question. It will never be a wash. That is how I will start the debate.

-'Middle Ground' makes no sense because you can't compare reps and material impacts.

-Links of ommision or to the squo are probably illegitimate.

CP:

-'Process CP's bad' probably works far better as justification for the intrinsic perm.

-Just win on the perm, please.

-Normal Means competition is probably bad.

-Condo is good but neg flex is weak.

T:

-Reasonability and Competing Interps both make sense, but reasonability is defense.

-You need to explain how I should evaluate reasonability. I.e if you produce a definition from a major dictionary.

-You still need an offensive reason, i.e predictability, to win it.

-Every topic is probably neg biased.

K Aff:

-Fairness is a terminal impact.

-Clash is probably good.

-The impact turn is more strategic than the C/I.

Parli:

Don't know much about Parli so if you see this I am probably judging for a friend.

A few things:

Avoid Parli-specific Acronym's please. But if it's a broader debate term (like flow) I'm perfectly fine.

Why is there a 'grace period?'

Write my ballot. Good weighing wins rounds.

I am an experienced judge. I am happy to evaluate any arguments you want to run. I have been judging for 10+ years. I don't have any preferences and am excited to see you all approach the round you want to.

Hi Debaters! It's a great honor for me to serve as your judge and for me to be back at PF debate.

I was a former PF, BP and APDA debater, with the highest honor of national champion in PF and BP.

For the sake of debaters and the judge, please enunciate everything (particularly the arguments) and be logical. Please do NOT speak TOO FAST. Particularly for an online tournament, it's crucial to be clear and remain the speed at an appropriate level.

Please feel free to communicate BEFORE the round starts and I would do my best to accommodate and provide the best experience for everyone :)

I have seven years of experience with high school speech and debate. Now, I am a part of the Columbia Debate Society with one year of college debate experience. I have judged high school Parlimentary and PF.

For all debates, I will pick a winner based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. When judging communication, I take into account speaking pace and organization. I do not enjoy spreading, and I like it when speakers clearly outline their arguments and line of reasoning. I will flow with you to keep up, but I also appreciate sign posting.

Other than speed, I have no strong preferences about cases and am open to listening to all arguments. Please be considerate when addressing sensitive topics!

i prefer a more lay style of debate

I'm new to judging PF and have experience judging one APDA tournament.

I appreciate speakers being respectful towards one another and speak clearly and slowly. Please support your arguments with evidence and evaluate their impacts.

Good luck!