I coach policy and public forum debate at Success Academy Midtown West Middle School and have coached with BDL and Able2Shine. Much of my paradigm is based on a MS debate level but I enjoy higher level debates, too. I have been in forensics over a decade; four years of PF, two of Parliamentary, and four years of IPDA experience competing and many in speech. I can speak directly to older teams about my paradigm if they have questions.

DISCLOSURE: I have chronic dry eye. In most situations this is not an issue, but I know how frustrating it can be too look up and see your judge isn't paying attention or is falling asleep. If you see me closing or covering my eyes or even crying please understand it's a medical issue and not indicative of my attention span or emotional state.

danabellcontact@gmail.com for the chain.

My experience is mainly in IPDA, Public Forum, and Parliamentary Debate, with Policy being well understood but not a favorite. I prefer educational rounds with an emphasis on accessibility.

Feel free to ask me for specifics in the room.

1. Most debates can be won or lost over one central issue. Define that issue for me and tell me why your side should win. I love threading a value throughout the debate to help me weigh. It's the Pubfo in me. Sorry.

2. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reasons (voting issues) you think I should vote for you.

3. Cross examination matters. I flow it probably more than anything else said in the round. I will consider the ability of you to actually understand what you say. I want cards to be read, not recited.

4. POFO: I love framework debates and definitions debates. Emphasis on definitions debates. Squirrels are one of my favorite animals. Observations, Ks, have fun but make it accessible POLICY: Love T, love K, don't hate Performance. All I ask is you commit. A dropped K or T arg is a big waste of the round and it's not a reason I'll drop you, but it could be what sets up your downfall. Be cautious!

5. I can understand fast speaking. BUT KEEP TAGS AND AUTHOR SLOW. I'd rather you present four excellent arguments than eight ok ones. I don't literally "weigh" the arguments in quantity.

6. Be kind and speak with inflection. I dislike being able to tell that you don't really understand what you're saying. This is a debate, not a speedreading contest.

10. SIGNPOST AND ROADMAP!!! Organization matters. Time that I have to spend shuffling my flows and figuring out what exactly you're responding to is not time that I'm spending actually hearing you.Take that extra 30 seconds of prep to make sure your speech is actually in the order you're saying it's in.

11. Body language is a language; people watching can understand when you're being patronizing and don't respect who you're speaking to.You are debating even when you are not speaking.

12. You're meant to be making this debate for the sake of society, not each other. Excessive "alphabet soup" and a general ignorance towards the fact there may be someone in the room who doesn't understand the very niche language of policy debate is an annoyance to me.

13. PF specific: I love a good framework but if there's an egregiously strong point outside of it I'll listen to "forget framework" arguments. I prefer analytics over reading cards 1000%. I usually vote for the more educational team. Also, it's "Public" forum, not Policy. (REAL) Spreading with no email chain in PF is a typical auto-drop (if that makes you want to strike me and this is a MS-HS tournament, I doubt you actually spread that fast and I mean that for collegiate teams.)

I believe in being the brand. I look for scholars who not only know their policy but are able to articulate it beyond the cards. An argument that isn't concise is no argument at all. I aim for my scholars to present themselves along with the materials they've prepared. I look for presentation and projection; if a scholar knows information but can't present it as if they wrote it, I deduct. I don't want you to memorize; I want you to enact the procedures of informing and persuading. Having worked in news and politics for over 3 years and being part of multiple political campaigns, I seek scholars who believe in the narrative they are pushing. A lack of confidence results in a lack of composure, and you can't win a debate if that's where you start.

I debated for CUNY for three and 1/2 years so I ran a decent amount of arguments dealing with policy but not so much in the critical aspect of debate rounds. I vote on anything as long as it is given to me in the rebuttals clear, concise and logical. Even though I am not profound in certain kritiks, as long as they are explained to me then I will most likely vote for it, unless I disagree with the viewpoint of that kritik. My viewpoint deals with race arguments and how it prevents certain impacts such as genocide. I am really patient so I will not take time for jumping files but please make sure that it doesn't prolong the round for too long. Please be sure to accommodate for the other team if all your files are on the computer and you flow on it as well.

she/they, trans, autistic, jewish, senior

email is rayenryu47@gmail.com, add me pre-round

big k/theory debater, not a huge fan of policy, i just find it boring

fw: huge fw fan, fw debates can suck but fw is always a prior question and good fw gets me going

t: hate t, don’t run it unless the aff is obviously nontopical (k aff/worlds away from the resolution/butchering the resolution)

cp: if you run a cp and a k, 99/100 times i’ll completely ignore cp unless u choose to lose fw. they’re boring, don’t have much to say.

k: debated mostly cap and identity k’s, the more radical the better, but you won’t lose points for running a “generic” k

general stuff: misgendering ur opponent more than twice will have you lose the round, same with any hate speech, so on. being a twat will heavily deduct ur speaks, be kinda on time, be prepared. arguments like extinction good or death good or removal of x identity good will be ignored.

i am hungry and can be bribed.

Harvard '28 | SA-HSLA MA '24

-

Who am I?

[Long Time Policy Debater]
[Previous Experience: Lexington Semi Finalist 22, Dragon Invitational Semi Finalist 21, Various Speaker Awards, Dragon Invitational Semi Finalist '22]

[K Debater]

Arguments

Run what you wish (MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND IT)

[Aff: Topical version of the Affirmative]

[Negative: Kritiks (Love them if they are allowed) (Please use a Counter Plan and make sure you know how to counter a permutation)]

Spreading/Speaking:
You are able to spread but make it where I can fully understand you

What I want from you?

Call me Zack, not judge

30s are given to speakers who are able to demonstrate high understanding of the topic at hand

Run Jokes, +0.25 if you make a joke about your argument and it can be correlated with it, -0.1 if you're mean and unkind with the joke +0.5 if you make a personal example [you'll start at 27.5 with me and go up or down based on how good or bad you do as a speaker]

No (Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Etc, as it will not be allowed in the judging space)

Be Respectful

Email me (always)

Zackfdebate@gmail.com [Possibly could change] [Or simply ask]

Hi! I'm a policy debater at Brooklyn Tech and my pronouns are she/her.

Add me to the email chain - slforman5@gmail.com

General

I am tech>truth and I will vote on anything (spreading is fine as well.) However, I will not vote for you if you are racist, homophobic, or say anything hateful/harmful during the round (I will also lower your speaks.)

Please remember to impact your arguments and extend evidence.

CX is binding, but for something your opponents said to be put on the flow, say it in your speech!

CX is open

In the rebuttal speeches don't forget to tell me why I should vote for you. Write the ballot!

Specific args

DAs - I like das but remember to extend links and impact them out.

CP - cps are a decent strat and I will vote on them.

K - Ks can lead to really good and interesting rounds but make sure you know what you are talking about. If you can't explain it and your opponents point this out, I will not vote on it.

Theory - I will vote on theory.

COACH G - EMAIL : RYAN.GOSLING@saschools.org

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches? A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually. How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches? Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches. How Should Debaters approach Evidence? Citations after article introduction are preferred. How would Oral Prompting affect your decision? It won't How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position? Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical. What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position? Empirical Please explain your views on kritical arguments. Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support. How should debaters run on case arguments? Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. How should debaters run off case arguments? Make sure they have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand. How should Debaters run theory arguments? The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a persons style or flaws of method.

Winning on technicalities isn't winning a debate. What other preferences do you have, as a judge? Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.

Hey! I prefer to be called Kaylah but if your used to judge that's ok.

I can 100% time your prep for you but please time your other speeches.

Add me to the email chain: kaylah.jackson@sascholar.org

Check after the round for feedback if it's not up before it ends.

You don't have to spread, just make sure you get to all your arguments.

(DO NOT force yourself to spread if you cannot)

If you tell me a joke i'm gonna laugh :)

Hi, I’m Faith Jones, a 10th grade policy debater that competes on the Brooklyn Tech Debate Team.

Pronouns: She/Her

Policy Debate History

• 4 years at SA Ditmas Park
• 2 years at Brooklyn Tech

TL;DR:

Yes, I would like to be put on the email chain: faithcatherinejones@gmail.com

Yes, open cx is fine, just make sure your opponents are ok with it as well.

As long as you’re clear, spreading is also fine.

Lastly, run whatever you want. I don’t care as long as you are respectful to your opponents and I as a judge.

——————————————————————

Opinions on specific args:

T: Yes.

FW: This makes my life so much easier as a judge, please run this and make sure you extend the arg throughout the debate.

Theory: Interesting arg would love to see it be run.

DAs: I like DAs. Debaters must make sure to to extend the link and explain impact calc and how your impacts outweigh your opponents impacts.

CPs: They’re fine. Debaters make sure to explain the net benefit and why the cp is mutually exclusive.

Ks: Please run this. This year’s topic is extremely problematic, so point that out. Just make sure the impact and the alt for the K are clear.

Heg good args: I won’t vote against these args, but I hate them. I personally feel as though these args are problematic as they completely neglect America’s history of wrong doing.

Any discriminatory behavior or args will result in me docking speaker points.

Other Things:

(Credits to Ruby for the rest)

CX is binding, but you have to bring it up in a speech for it to be a part of my decision.

Spreading is fine but please slow down for card titles/authors, analytics, and rebuttal speeches.

I’m tech > truth until I think it interferes with clash. In other words, if you make claims that are so obviously false that it’s hard for your opponent to engage with your arguments, I’ll be much more truth > tech. Also, if there’s a very close debate on an obviously false argument, I probably won’t vote for the false argument.

If you have any questions about my paradigm please ask me before the round.

Hello! My name is Nate Kolker and I use He/Him pronouns. I'm a 4th year policy debater at Brooklyn Tech. My email is nkolker2725@bths.edu

I'm heavily inclined to vote on PIC's theory.

I don't have a preference on speed, as long as you slow down for analytics and tags and speak clearly.

Time Keeping - I will keep time for all arguments, but I highly encourage debaters to keep their own time for each argument and also to keep time for their opponents speeches, in order to encourage a nice tight debate.

I very much as a judge appreciate Crossex's that don't run over time.

I love a good topicality argument if it's run well and you understand it

Arguments that are obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you go ahead and run them.)

I enjoy a substantive debate that has real clash versus ill formed half baked ideas or ill-linked impacts

I appreciate weighing mechanisms where you explain to me why I should weigh your impacts over your opponents.

Rudeness and talking over your opponent when they are already speaking first will lose you speaker points.

I appreciate when debaters give me voters during the final speeches in a round. Your final speech should have a clear explanation of why I should vote for your team.

I will take off speaks for speeches ended before the time is up.

I'm fine with all arguments as long as you have a link, a link chain, and an impact and you show that you clearly understand them. K's are great

I'm tech over truth to an extent. If an obviously false claim is completely dropped, I'll have to vote on it. However, if there's a tight debate on your obviously false claim, do NOT go for the obviously false claim! I weigh truth in my voting decisions. This doesn't really apply to most traditional nuke war type policy arguments; I get that dramatizing is kind of the point of policy.

Email for email chain : lydaouda223@gmail.com

Clarity>Speed
K's/K affs are fine but you must explain what the alt is and how I should value it over the opposing team.
You can run anything in the round, just explain it well.
I will have a prep time running but do keep your own prep. More comments can be given pre round. Don’t be racist, sexist, or abelist and have fun.

email: rubylyttonhirsch@gmail.com

I wanna be on the email chain but I mostly flow by ear

Hi, my name is Ruby, I’m a third year policy debater at Brooklyn Tech, and I’m mostly a k debater. My pronouns are she/her.

Obviously don’t read anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I love ks but if you can't explain/don't understand your k, I probably won't want to vote for you, especially if your opponent points it out.

T is really fun. If you go for t in the 2nr make sure you kick the rest of your args and go on t and only t.

CPs and DAs are also cool

Random things:

CX is binding, but for something your opponents said to be put on the flow, say it in your speech. Open cx is fine.

If they drop something, point it out and tell me that it matters.

Spreading is fine but please slow down for card titles/authors, analytics, and rebuttal speeches.

I try to avoid judge intervention, but I will throw out any completely new arguments made in the 2ar.

Write my ballot for me in the 2nr/2ar, and make sure to fully extend things throughout the round.

Email: cydmarie.debate@gmail.com

Hi everyone! Here are a few things about my style/preferences to keep in mind:

1. Tabula Rasa: I try my best to enter each debate round with a "clean slate." I leave my biases at the door and will judge solely based on the quality and skills of your argumentation. I consider myself a pretty chill judge.

2. WEIGH WELL. I often find it difficult to judge rounds involving little to no weighing. I HIGHLY consider impacts in my decision-making.

3. Rebuttal Speeches: Stay away from being redundant, meaning your rebuttal speeches shouldn’t sound like your constructive speeches. Paint a picture, and tell me why your side should win.

4. Create a legitimate clash. Please show me the contrast between your world and your opponent’s world. Make the distinction obvious to me.

5. I enjoy cross-examination/cross-fire periods. Take advantage of your c/x periods and ask your opponents specific, meaningful questions.

6. A bit of aggression is fine in debate, but I will not tolerate disrespect. Please be a kind and decent human being. *Any racist, and discriminatory arguments or language will result in low speaker points and may result in the loss of the round.*

7. Impacts: I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

8. I will never vote for a "human extinction good/death good argument."

9. Speed: Clarity>Speed. Just please project your voice and roadmap, and make sure you're clear. Speak at a reasonable pace. If I can't understand you, then I will probably stop flowing and that's a problem.

10. There's a theatrical component to debate. I want everyone to have fun. Be expressive, focus on your posture, gestures, and eye contact. I will increase speaker points if I see a great demonstration of this in the round.

BEST OF LUCK AND HAVE FUN! :)

Run whatever you want

Don't say anything inhumane

I will be timing you so don't try to steal prep

Call me Joanne or Judge (your pref)

I'll give you a 30 if you have the best speech in the world

Make jokes related to your speech, I might just boost your speaks

Add me to the email chain: joanneopokudebate@gmail.com

DON'T MAKE THE ROUND BORING, MAKE IT INTERESTING ;).

Contact me at: oyosairee@gmail.com

Bit about me:

--I debated for SAMW/SAHW(it's complicated) for all four years of middle school, I now debate for HSLA-MA doing policy.

--If you lose/win, It's because I genuinley thought you did and will provide extensive reasoning both post round and right after as to why I made that choice

-Don't bother trying to argue it, take the feedback and go, I'll answer questions whenever you have them

preferences in terms of speaks

Try to time yourselves,as a catch all for mistakes.

Clarity over speed, at the end of the day, I'll prefer the most well articulated arguments over the ones spoken the fastest. Open Cross, but 1 partner should not be the only one talking, that makes the other one look bad, which is not what either you nor I want.(closed cross if there is a maverick debating)

Do not say anything disrespectful, or discriminatory, including but not limited to , racism good, sexism good, homophobia good. Your speaks will die

DO IMPACT CALC, especialy if you're a novice. Tell me WHY your impacts are so important, why it's more important the other team

--Role of the ballot arguments--> please don't make me vote on this, I personally think it's a dumb argument, especially in novice, just explain it well

Keep it fun!reference things, add jokes, we're not congressmen here.(yet)

you need to disclose before the round, teams win because they're better, not because they cheat

At the end of the day you're here to have fun and to learn, even if you lose all your rounds you're still learning something

I'm an experienced policy debate judge with some PF experience. Open to any argument as long it's properly explained.

Also, very technical and will go based on my flow.

I don't flow cross-fire unless given some theory that explains why I should. Speed reading and spreading is fine. Impact analysis and voters are a must. Organized and clean debates is a faster way to earn my vote on the ballot.

Overall I don't intervene in debates as I feel it's an educational activity for the debaters. Most importantly I wanted everyone to have fun

Hello -

I am a simple person who prefers a natural tone in debates.

My only request is that you do not spread if you do not need to. If you raise an argument by spreading, and an opponent does not address that argument (purely because of technical speed) I will not hold that un-heard argument as more valuable for scoring.

Good luck & have fun.

email:

christopher.polidoro@saschools.org

2023 - TOC UPDATE:

pretty much the same to be honest.
Despite being a very, very, very average debater (just a few late elims here and there) during my time [loooooong ago, im like an old man at this point bro], I can empathize with TOC-goers and how it's often their last [big] tournament. I'll try my best to make an accurate decision but do listen to my other parts of my paradigm. I am rusty and have a big emphasis on ~clarity~ of speech.

krispy kreme donuts and pickle speech bonuses are not in application for the TOC.
sorry folks
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PARADIGM UPDATE FOR December 2022
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
I have not judged debate in the past three years beyond a few middle school tournaments in the past month. I will be unfamiliar with this new topic besides a basic understanding, and you should start slow in general. I'm not the best with hearing spreading in general and being over a laptop likely makes that worst.

Your better off treating me like a smart parent judge (talk fast but preferably less spreading) who has some basic knowledge of debate rather than an old debater out of high school, since it's been 5-6 years and I didn’t end up doing college debate at all.

A lot of basic, intuitive debate theory is no longer intuitive to me since it's been like five years. I'm basically 50 in young people years at this point. If you think you don't have to dumb things down because of my past, you are WRONG. You will set yourself up for an L.

COACHES PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE PREFFING ME MAN. EVEN IF YALL KNEW ME FROM BEFORE OR SOMETHING.

My cheat sheet should still be pretty accurate, but treat #1 as even higher than before.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
yo whats up? I’m Osmane and I debated at Newark Science for 4 years. I was pretty average for a debater, never really too high level and barely won anything so take that in to account when preffing me... yeah heh.

Bring me Krispy Creme Donuts and i'll boost your speaker points by 0.2
Buy me a packaged pickle (Like Van Holten's) and ill bost them by 0.3
[inflation update, KCDonuts now only grant a 0.1 boost, and pickles by 0.2]

GO SLOWER THAN NORMAL! I haven't judged in a solid minute and know only surface layer knowledge about this topic. I also have trouble hearing in general sometimes, so clarity is really important in front of me. I'll say clear twice before i start deducting speaks instead of saying clear.

Osmane's Cheat Sheet:

1 - Traditional Debate (Morals, not phil, like old school LD debate)

2 - Identity-related kritiks (fair warning: I'm not too good with highly abstract interpretations of identity),

3 - Counterplans, Disadvantages, Topicality

4 - Theory

Wildcard: Untopical Affirmatives - The more feasible/material it is to me, the more receptive it'll be to me. An untopical aff to use rhetoric in debate rounds to spread positivism is probably more receptive than an aff about throwing trash around as a symbolic way of fighting back against capitalism through ecological BURST!

I'm a first year, so DON'T assume that my judging will reflect the way I debated. I'm a wild card and you should pref me as such.

My email for speech docs is osmaneprince1@gmail.com

My influences in debate have been Chris Randall, Jonathan Alston, Elijah Smith, and Devane Murphy. Also Osmane, that guy is sexy, phew. [2022 revisiting and man, he really is.]

Note: Most of those influences are HIGHLY material people who take abstract things to their logical ends (i said most of them.). This means a material K that I can see logically working is better than some convoluted junk I can't understand. Use more common talk with me than debate jargon, I barely ever understood it.

Conflicts:

-Newark Science

Basic things:

don't say racist, sexist, or messed up things like Death is good.

I enjoy a slower delivery to spread where I hear emphasis and a more persuasive approach to vocalizing your arguments. I'll award higher speaks if you speak as if you were an impassioned speaker.

Kritiks

I read these most of my junior and senior year. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. I do not want to see K’s messed up so I have a pretty high threshold for K’s. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as anti blackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. I'm very material in alternative explanations, so if you don't explain the alternatives . . let's just say winning your K will be harder. If your going to be running some sort of post-modernism, I HAVE ALMOST NEVER understood the abstract way people run it, so run it 'materially' if possible. I might not be the best for it but I'd rather you go for POMO that your good at then messing up hard on some identity-based K

CPs

wasn't ever really my thing, but go for it. I'm not too versed on CP theory.

Tricks

ha. HA. HA! HA! no.

Theory
Just like people think that I love K’s because I debated for Newark, people think I hate theory which is pretty damn right. I hate frivolous theory and the rigid technicality based formatting of theory. If it's legitimate and I'm like "yeah naw that opponent did some abusive junk" i'll consider it though. I rather you make it an in-round disad as opposed to a separate theoretical argument. I default Education > Fairness, Reasonability and drop the argument.

DA’s

Their fine. I feel like people love to read these crazy scenarios in order to magnify the impact. More power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense.

Plans

eh. neutral bout them. I rather a plan than a super abstract aff.

Presumption.

I don't like voting on this because everyone has their own idea of how it works. This is mine:

Neg has presumption until they read some sort of alternative (via k, cp, or whatever.) then it shifts to aff.

Perms:

you drop it you lose.

Speaker points

Like I said, I really like passionate speakers. That'll boost up your points for sure.

add me to the chain: alyssa.santiago@lmghs.org

i like k's :) run anything you're good at though! i'm cool with policy-based debate too if cp's and da's are your thing.

If you want to play rock, paper, scissors with me before a round, I will not back down to such a challenge. (If you lose I won't doc speaks)

Hello, my name is Adja Seck and I'm an NYU student. I have done debate for over four years having to experience in Parliamentary, congressional, policy, and debate forums. In my debate space, I encourage students and debaters to make sure that they know what they are arguing. I should not have to make assumptions and explain your cards.

I have preferred and seen students running black fem affs and negs that have a discourse over kritiques, plans, and thesis. If students run Topicality cases, I would prefer them to do so with several Kritiques and plans that substitute the failure of the opposing team and solve the topic.

In my rounds, I will not allow card dumps in the last two speeches of the round, nor open cross-fires. The crossfires for me are used to analyze the speaker's quick thinking skills. I take Crossfires into account when assigning speaker scores.

If both teams do not read me solid cases with cards that I have to look over for clarification, I will make a decision using a reform policy-like mindset. I also allow off-time roadmaps

Students of course should be respectful during their rounds and use their time actuality. There will be room for flexibility. I disclose only the student's choices and if there is no time crunch in between rounds.

By the end of the round the winning team will have rebutted all cards,(if able to), presented and carried out cards and assertions that have stood, has been able to read and interpret their case at all moments of the debate, and is respectful to the opposing teams and to the judge, me.

I've done debate for 5 years now.

Run whatever you want. I'm fine with everything, K's, CP's, Da's, and others.

Don't say anything inhumane. Don't to be rude, say anything racist, sexist, or slander of any kind. If you do something like this, then I will be forced to give my ballot to the other team.

Make sure you add me on your email chains for cases with this email:poppylains@gmail.com

If you spread or speak fast notify the other team, I'm fine with whatever pace make sure you guys are clear, I like speed but I also like clarity.

Remember this is a learning space, we are here to improve not hate on eachother.

Tech>Truth, but if you presude me otherwise I will lean with the truth.

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD and policy at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its and LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

--

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech.

Hi, I am Khadydiatou Thiam,

Email chain: thiamkhadydiatou05@gmail.com

This is my Paradigm:

- Make sure that you always stick to your case.

-Don't drop any arguments (But if the other team does not point out the dropped argument I might let it slide).

-Make sure that your Affirmative has a clear plan because if I cannot understand it I won't vote for it.

-Impacts Calc is an easy ballot for me

-Disads: Running this is one of the common negative strategies. I would vote on it but just make sure they link to the Affirmative that you are running it against

-Counterplan: These are an okay strategy just make sure you run it with a disad or at least have a net benefit.

-Permutation: This is the easiest way to address a CP just make sure that you don't drop it and prove that it would work.

- Topicality: This is not the best negative strategy in my opinion but if it makes sense I will vote on it.

-K: I'm a flex debater so I would love listening to a K Debate

-Other than that just don't be rude, don't say anything offensive and most importantly HAVE FUN!

Gene Thomas

Debated at the University of Kansas 2016-2020

My ideal debate is a massive detailed counterplan w/ a good DA - do with that information what you will those are just my preferences and what I enjoy the most, but I have judged my fair share of clash debates and will give my more detailed thoughts and preconceptions below

Context is important so any of my thoughts below may change depending on what is happening in a given debate, so any of my ideas listed reflect how I would approach debate absent of judge instruction and the context provided by the situation.

I love seeing students having fun and being engaging. Please, if you feel comfortable, make jokes and employ your personality.

FW/K affs

For K teams: Please do your thing and do what you do best. My thoughts on framework are below so you can tailor your strategy to beat what I think are the most convincing arguments.

FW: I think fairness is an almost impossible impact to win against a prepared opponent and most of the internal links here(like predictability) are just internal links to education arguments anyway so your time is likely better spent making your impact just be education. I also think that a TVA is likely your best way to generate some level of impact mitigation to a non traditional affs offense. If your plan is to say the aff isn’t discussing something important I think you’ll be unlikely to have a lot of success in these types of debates. I’d recommend focusing more on internal link defense or offense because I can almost guarantee the aff is talking about something pretty important.

Random thought but I think your interpretation of the res isn’t any more predictable than the K aff if your interp picks and chooses portions of the resolution.

DAs

What is there really to say here? I like politics DAs, but topic DAs are likely more valuable from an educational perspective.

CPs

I think competition is ideally the result of textual and functional competition. Counterplans ideally have a solvency advocate. 2nc counterplans may persuade me that condo is bad so ideally counterplans have all their planks in the 1nc.

Ks

K team: Like I said before please do your thing and my comments on what I think are most persuasive are listed below to help you tailor your strategy to me. One more thought - I think movements alts don’t make a lot of sense to me

Vs K: I think when debating Ks impact framing and framework are your best plan to win because permutations and defense are likely pretty hard to win against most of these types of arguments. I personally prefer the style of big stick aff v K rather than soft left affs but do you.

7yrs of policy debate experience
Include me on the email chain -- My email: iby2248@gmail.com

- - -

I'm good with spreading.

Don't be any of the "-ists" (Racist, Sexist, etc.)

Call me Judge Or Ibrahima (Ee-bruh-hee-ma) in round (really wtv you prefer)

- - -

I can be swayed by any argument as long as it is fleshed out well. I believe in Tabula Rasa, although from my experience in debate, I like it when the Affirmative weighs the hypothetical implications of not doing the affirmative effectively. For the negative, any negative argument (traditional or untraditional) can be ran as long as its argued beyond a threshold.

As a judge, I default negative if the Affirmative has not done enough work to prove how the benefits to implementing the plan outweigh the status quo AND any potential harmful aftereffects to doing the plan. Whether it is a Kritik, TVA, CP, etc., the Aff must provide enough defense of their case and can't rely solely on hypothetical implications.

Not too familiar with this years topic so don't expect me to know every term.
- - -

Don't violate any of the non-negotiables: no sexism, no racism, (any of the -isms). No insensitive comments. No blatant disrespect. Treat debate what it is, an academic space and a platform for the voice of marginalized communities and a way for new ideas to circulate.

- - -

More comments can be given pre-round.

---

DO NOT CHANGE YOUR STRATEGY FOR THE BALLOT - I AM OPEN TO ANY AND ALL ARGUMENTS.

I coach speech at Loyola School. My pronouns are they/them.

My speech paradigm is simple. Don’t be ableist/homophobic/racist/etc when choosing your material, and be a respectful audience member. Otherwise do you. When I was a competitor, I performed the seminal teen vampire romance Twilight as an HI, a DI, and a duo in the same season. Truly anything goes.

_________________

The following is my debate paradigm from my days coaching policy at SA Harlem North Central:

A note for high school JV/varsity competitors: my paradigm is geared towards the kids I typically judge, middle school novices. However, a lot of this applies to high school novice debate, and dare I say higher level high school debate. I'm a little rusty on higher theory/kritikal lit because the median age of my students is 12, so just make sure to explain those texts thoroughly. Feel free to ask me for specifics in the room.

1. Most debates can be won or lost over one central issue. Define that issue for me and tell me why your side should win.

2. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reasons you think I should vote for you.

3. Cross examination matters. It is as much a part of the debate as any speech.

4. 99% of T arguments are not convincing and unless the aff is wildly untopical, I will not vote on it. I will almost always default to reasonability, unless you can give me a fantastic reason not to.

5. I recognize that spreading is a necessary evil of this activity. I’d prefer if you wouldn’t for accessibility reasons. If I cannot hear your arguments, I cannot weigh them.

6. Speak like you care about what you're talking about. Inflection will boost your speaker points. Studies have shown that communication is 55% body language, 38% tone of voice, and 7% words only. Keep that in mind as you give your speeches.

7. My least favorite kind of debate to judge is one about procedural issues and debate norms. Keep it on the issues. Let's talk about how to make the world a better place, not whether or not condo is bad (and for the record, I'm on team limited condo good).

8. Any kind of "death good" or "rights bad" argument will get you an automatic L. I'm not here for racism, homophobia, transphobia, cissexism, ableism, classism, or any other oppressive frameworks of thought. Cheap tricks will get you an automatic L.

9. Argumentative clarity > technical flair. Debate can be elegant. Complex topics can be explained in concise language. I will often defer to the team who demonstrates the most effective understanding of the subject matter. Kritiks are welcome only if you deeply understand them.

10. SIGNPOST AND ROADMAP!!! Organization matters.Time that I have to spend shuffling my flow tabs and figuring out what exactly you're responding to is not time that I'm spending actually hearing you. Take that extra 30 seconds of prep to make sure your speech is actually in the order you're saying it's in.

11. Above all else, be kind to each other. Demonstrate respect in the way you listen and respond to your opponents' arguments.

12. If you're not taking notes during my RFD I'll stop talking and leave :) I know that sounds really aggressive but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to spend time and effort parsing through my notes and giving detailed feedback if you're not going to write it down somewhere.

Hi,

First and foremost we’re here to have fun and learn. You should be treating each other with respect and be kind. I take speaker points for rudeness.

I judge under the assumption that stock issues are the framework of the round. If you wish the round to be judged based on a different criteria it needs to be made clear in a framework argument.

Final speeches on both aff and neg need an overview with impact calculous.

I do not judge nor vote on cross x but i do listen to it. If something is stated in cross x that you feel will be beneficial to your debate then you need to address in a speech. Nothing in cross x will apply to voting decision, but you can pull from cross x to use it in your speech.

If you make a fairness argument then tell me why don’t just say fairness. Don’t contradict your own fairness argument. (ex. If you states bringing up new arguments in a neg block is unfair bc aff doesn't have time to answer it but then the 1ar answers you are proving your own fairness argument wrong)

I DO NOT vote on new arguments brought up in 2 a/n. You should know your 1 Ac and how long it takes to read it, shorten it if you have to. 2 AC is not there to finish the 1AC. Same for 2Nc don’t run a whole new argument in the block.

I don’t flow based on the email i flow based on whats said I have no problem with spreading but you do need to slow down on tags and authors also provide clear transitions for cards and arguments.

Roadmaps: 1 ac doesn’t get a roadmap, that makes no sense to me, 1NC need to just say how many off case and then where you plan to go on case (ex. 3 off then on). All speeches try to stick to the roadmap you give.

I have 8 years of debate experience in total, primarily through Public Forum coaching and competition, Congress coaching and competition, and British Parliamentary competition. My college education is in public policy research methods.

Chain: ryan.westwood@saschools.org

(I probably won't look unless there are clash-relevant evidence issues at the end)

ALL DEBATE EVENTS

• Debate is a privilege. Help make it more accessible. It’s concerning to me that debate is being almost universally personalized and gate-kept by absurd barriers to entry like pre-round disclosure, spreading, tricks, and exclusive identity politics.
• If you are citing studies, especially to quantify stuff, I care about the methodology. I like properly represented statistics and methodological criticism.
• PLEASE have an offline means of evidence-sharing (there is an ancient technology called the "flash drive" for this purpose), in case there are connection issues.
• Paper-based/in-round-disclosure debating (if any of you are still out there...): Evidence must be provided to opponents on request. The requesting team's prep time starts when the requested evidence is received, and, if there is only one copy of the evidence, it must be returned to the opponent when prep time is stopped.
• I have a bias toward traditional debate vs. progressive debate, especially if it centers on exclusive (and usually reductive) identity politics in a vacuum. It seems to always throw objectivity out the window. Also, debate is inherently zero-sum, so identity debates are bound to devolve into harmful ad hominem nonsense, with teams assigning identities and non-identities to each other and indicting them accordingly. I’ll do my best to objectively evaluate these debates, but you will almost always lose me if your advocacy revolves around nihilism. Please at least try to make your assigned role as Aff or Neg matter, and--if it's PF or LD--avoid advancing plans.
• [TLDR: "Theory" about the rules of debate is usually nonsense to me, and I recommend you stay away from it.] The NSDA has already set evidence rules, including one which explicitly permits paraphrasing and none requiring anything beyond in-round disclosure on request. So, advocating for new evidence rules in-round is like advocating for new speech time limits in-round: it is paradoxical and unfair to opponents who acted on the official rules vs. the ones you are making up. Unless explicitly contradicted by the tournament-specific rules, the NSDA rules are what new competitors, new coaches, and local-circuit/small-school teams, at least, are presumed to look at when making decisions about whether to paraphrase, etc., so I have a difficult time seeing rules "theory" as having the impact of inclusion. AND it's almost impossible for you to stay topical, because it doesn't matter which evidence is more reputable if you aren't providing any evidence for me to compare, AND your position as Aff or Neg becomes irrelevant once you devote your entire case to off-topic rules "theory". All that being said, I think debate is fundamentally about creativity and not necessarily about winning or losing, so I will never hold a grudge or stop listening just because you are running rules "theory", especially if you acknowledge the official rules and make the argument relevant to your assigned role in the debate.

Policy:

• The average intelligent voter’s Truth > Tech
• I am relatively new to advanced policy. Treat me as a flay judge. If you use policy-specific jargon beyond the basics (burdens), explain plainly and briefly what it means for my flow. You can speak fast, but please do not spread (stay at or below ~300wpm). I don't want to read your evidence, I want to hear it.
• I may ask to see evidence if there is unresolved clash between sources. If I find out your evidence is misrepresented, I will ignore any of your arguments that touch it. Misrepresent: to give a false or misleading representation of, usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair.

Public Forum:

• PF is built to be an accessible debate. You can speak fast, but please do not spread (stay at or below ~300wpm). I don't want to read your evidence, I want to hear it.

• The closest thing you have to fiat power is setting a relevant framework. Give me something to weigh early if you don’t have a case framework. A debate is won by the team which wins as outlined or implied by the better-justified framework/weighing.

• Principles are valid impacts if well-justified and clashed appropriately against other impacts.

• I may ask to see evidence if there is unresolved clash between sources. If I find out your evidence is misrepresented, I will ignore any of your arguments that touch it. Misrepresent: to give a false or misleading representation of, usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair.

• The average intelligent voter’s Truth > Tech.

Email: kwdebate21@gmail.com *include me on the email chain*

Conduct: Be organized, prepared and considerate of yourself and others. Don't steal prep time and always communicate with me about any tech issues as they are happening.

Decision Making: Have clash with your opponent, compare positions, explain and extend your cards & arguments. In the last rebuttal arguments paint a story that frames the round the way you want me to decide it. I'll vote where you tell me to if there's not significant responses or opposition to it. At the end of a debate it mostly comes down to impact assessment and warrant comparisons. If you do go down the impact weighing route you must explicitly tell me why I should weigh your impact/case over the opposing side.

Aff: Run what you want, I honestly don't care as long as it has some sort of relevance to the topic. If you go down the K route you MUST properly explain your case; I have a substantial understanding of many K literature base, but always prioritize clarity over unnecessary complicated K jargon. If you have a performative Aff you need to extend and explain the relation of the performance to the Aff and to the resolution as a whole.

Neg: Have a clear strategy throughout the debate. Run what you want, just explain. Don't continuously complain about the Aff's strat b/c I promise you I won't care (unless it's absurd, which I highly doubt). Defend your rights to certain links & interpretations. I agree presumption matters but explain why it does; i.e. ground, limits etc.

Extra (Policy):

- I will vote on T/FW if you win the impact it has on the debate

- (DAs) Have clear links and link/impact stories. Have reasons why the DA turns case.

- (CPs) Have a good & clear net benefit. Perms must paint a story of the new squo and what it would look like. Theory is a MUST.

- (Ks) Alternatives need to articulate what their world looks like, how it resolves the links. Be able to explain the FW/warrant in a way which provides negative ground and debatability.

I will time all speeches and will NOT count arguments after the timer.

~ PDM IB: ALEJANDRO SCOTT

Hey yall,

I'm Shiloh and I am currently a policy debater at SA-HSLA. I do not have many preferences when it comes to arguments and I will enter the round with a clear slate (in other words, run whatever you want). I am a fan of good debating and I will vote for the team that does so best. I like moral obligation/ROJ args. For both sides, If you're going for an extinction impact, give me a clear link chain (don't cry extinction without explaining how it happens). It's up to the debaters to explain to me how I should vote in the round, I would prefer to do as little thinking as possible. Finally, please add me to the email chain: @shiloh.williams@sascholar.org

Neg:

• If you're going to run T, please clearly articulate how the aff violates and extend those arguments over the course of the round. Try not to repeat the same exact ideas because I will get bored. If the round gets messy, I will vote on T but if I believe that the neg does not do a good job of explaining how the aff specifically violates the res and why it's bad for debate I will fall back on the other off
• Clear link chains// Do not say that the aff leads to your impacts without explaining how
• Weigh your impacts with the aff's // create as much clash as possible so it's easier for me to vote

Aff:

• Impact calc
• Why should solving for your impacts be prioritized in the round?
• Clearly explain to me how the aff changes the status quo

Speaking:

• Spreading is fine, but if I cannot understand something I will not flow it
• Open-cross is fine
• I don't like rude debaters.
• This goes without saying but do not say anything outrageously offensive, I will vote you down

Feel free to ask me any questions and good luck !