Tabroom.com

NY Fall Faceoff at Mamaroneck High School

2023 — Mamaroneck, NY/US

Novice CX Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Addison Bartlett Mamaroneck High School

Billy Blechman Mamaroneck High School

Andreas Charalambous Mamaroneck High School

Alexis Chen Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 3:14 AM EDT

Lexington ‘24

Please put me on the chain: lexusdebate@gmail.com and please have a subject line with the tournament name and round number!

I use she/her pronouns

About Me:

I’m currently a senior at Lexington High School and I’m a 2a

For online debate: I’d really prefer if you kept your camera on while debating if possible :)

I look forward to judging you!

General Debate Stuff:

Please be nice to everyone, debate should be fun

Anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. is a reason to reject the team

Please signpost (verbally letting me know if you’re switching between flows), it really helps with organization

Tech>Truth, except for discriminatory arguments

Clarity>Speed, go as fast as you want but I won't be afraid to clear you

Please tell me how to frame my ballot

No new args in the block or rebuttal speeches, I won't evaluate them as I think it's too late in the round

I think case debate is honestly underrated, I enjoy a good case debate

Please don’t steal prep!!

I’m not very familiar with K literature

I would prefer if you have specific links to the aff. Otherwise winning case outweighs gets substantially easier

K affs and FW:

I'm not great with K affs, again, I’m not very familiar with k literature. I probably won't understand your aff that well but I will still vote for it if you make a good argument as to why I should

Please explain how you solve and why the ballot is key

I’m gonna need something to vote on

More often than not kaffs will have a small blip in the 1ar and then blow it up in the 2ar, develop your arguments fully, please and thank you

I am definitely more neg leaning on T-usfg and presumption args

Do good internal link debating i.e. explaining how precision/education/predictability/etc. outweighs, and why the other team’s interp is not precise/educational/predictable/etc.

CPs and Theory:

I don't have a lot of strong biases about theory

Condo is probably good, but kicking planks from counterplans that have tons of planks probably isn't. Condo is probably the only reason to reject the team.

I’m fine with agent and process cps

DAs:

Do impact calc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Explain the story of the da, especially in the 2nr- make sure that you are doing good link and internal link debates

For LD and PF:

Please please please time your speeches

Read evidence clearly, I think presentation matters as well

Also if there are any speech docs, please send them!

I don't have much experience with PF or LD, but I have been a policy debater for three years at Lexington High School. I'll definitely be looking at the flow throughout the debate so please keep your speeches organized

Speaks:

28.6-29- Amazing :)

28.5- You're doing great!

27-28.4- Could make some improvements

+0.1 If you show me your flows after round

If you have any questions, please feel free to email me (lexusdebate@gmail.com)!

Dani Chung Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 8:31 AM EDT

Hi! I'm Diane (you can call me by my nickname Dani), and I'm a high school policy debater at Lexington High School, MA.

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

In Round (General)

1) Be clear when you read. I'm guessing that you're not going to spread, but whether you do it or not, be clear. I won't hesitate to say "clearer". And if you don't make your speaking clearer, you're getting low speaks.

2) Do NOT run 10+ offs. I don't think that's productive for an educational debate (and I believe in education). So if you run that many, I will probably give you low speaks.

3) Signpost. For example, If you're giving the 1NC, make sure you say "First off is the states CP....Next off is the IRS DA....etc". Also, every time you move on from one card to the next, say "next" or "and" or anything that makes it clear that you're reading a new card.

4) Be polite! This is a round, and nobody is debating to hurt each others' feelings. If I hear any concerning remarks, I will give you LOW speaks.

Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended within the context of the round. Engage in the fw debate by directly weighing your standards against your opponents. I won't vote on fairness as a voter, but if you explain why fairness is an I/L to education (the impact), then I would vote on education.

One-off FW: I don't like these debates. But if you MUST, make the debate clear and easy to understand because if you spread analytics, I probably won't be able to flow everything. But truly, try to avoid having these debates as a novice. I don't think you're ready for them.

Theory and T: Make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. Actually take time to impact it out in the 2NR by clearly articulating your standards and voters. T, for me, is pretty easy to vote on: if you run something that doesn't apply to the aff at all or the aff meets your interp, I will probably not vote for it unless the aff somehow drops it. This gets to my 2nd point - NEVER DROP THEORY OR T. This is a voting issue.

DA: UQ is very important, but it's often not debated often. If it's a UQ card from 2018, it's most likely non-unique and even if you argue everything else well I won't vote on the DA.

CP: Do impact calc, emphasize the internal/external net benefit so that it's even clear to a middle-schooler. Then I will believe that the CP is net better. Also, try not to run a CP with 5 planks, that's not good for clash, and it's a tactic that novices are not capable of handling.

K: I am familiar with basic, generic Ks (like cap and setcol), but I don't really know high theory like Baudrillard. I tend to lean towards policy so I don't like Ks but if you HAVE to run it bc you know nothing else, one suggestion: KNOW YOUR K. I only say this because there are a lot of novices who take varsity stuff and read it without properly understanding. Know the link, the impact, and the alt. Also aff you should never drop FW or else I would default neg even though they did a terrible job explaining the K. But remember that FW is not everything, so make arguments along with FW. Also, don't kick the alt.

K affs: Don't read it if you're a novice. I will automatically assume that you don't really know what you're saying.

Katreena Deodatt Newark Tech High School

Baila Diallo The Bronx High School Of Science

Kara Dillon Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 11:31 AM EDT

Hey I'm Kara

Please add me to the chain: karadillon07@gmail.com

Mamaroneck '25, third year debater, pronouns are she/her

Policy debater, always been a 2A--

- treat me like a lay judge LOL

- Tech > truth

- do what you are most comfortable with

- be kind-- wont tolerate in round violence

- CX -- dont be rude -- cx is very important, know your aff, just dont be annoying. Interrupting and talking over people, being rude is different from being convincing

- plz write the ballot for me, be as convince as possible so i dont botch the ballot. top of 2nr and 2ar should have comparison, make statements about why im voting aff or neg.

K affs

justify why you are reading the k on the aff, should be related to the resolution in some way. Explain why your aff comes first. I am not versed in high theory, please take extra time explaining it and its relation to the debate space. Explain why the ballot solve/weigh the importance of the ballot/how your model of debate solves. Dont just say buzzwards-- assume I'm dumb because I probably am. Give me an explanation

Impact out disads on FW/ explain why they matter

Framework + T

I often read FW or T in rounds-- I will vote on either.

counter interpretations should have comparison, explain why your interp is better. Have a clear violation or ill default to we meet.

KvK debates

As a policy debater-- ive never been in a KvK debate so please do more explanations

Explain your advocacy, explain buzzwords, case debate is important

Policy Affs

Please act like I dont know how your aff works, truth is I probably dont. Start explaining your long internal link chain to me during cx and your rebuttals, especially if its kinda iffy or not obvious.

Your entire 1AC is a justification for your way of understanding the world. Use that in K debates – don’t get distracted from talking about what you know best.

I tend to read policy with a lot of law mentions.

DA's + CP's

Good with DAs, CPs, any combination. Your CP should have a clear net benefit (internal or external) by the 1NC. I don’t love CPs with tons of planks, especially because I usually forget what a lot of those planks were by the block. If you read 10 off, I am going to feel bad for the aff.

K vs policy affs

links are super important-- make inround links and true links, impact them out, and explain why they turn case. Individual links on the K are like mini disadvantages to the aff. Specific links are important, state bad links are probably not the smartest if thats the only thing you have. Explain your links-- explain why links of omissions are bad if your the affirmative

Alts are often neglected in K v Policy rounds, plz explain why your alternative solves the K-- explain your alts.

Framing – if you’re going for util arguments, I am probably persuaded more by avoiding mass biological extinction being good to the extent that people can make their own choice about their own value to life rather than just preserving future generations.

Theory

Prefer spending some time sitting on these arguments rather than just one-liners i.e. “severance is a voter” or “no perms in a method debate”. Explain why I should care-- dont just say buzzwords.

(addie lowenstein inspired paradigm)

Noah Iyoriobhe Calvert Hall College High School

Ashley Lourenco Newark Science

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 6:48 AM EDT

Newark Science 2019-2025.

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

email chain subject line: Tournament Name 'Year | Round x flight x | Team (aff) vs Team (neg)

----

would like my paradigm to be understood as honest communications of how I think about debate as a fyo.

----

I'm either a mid flower or everyone in this activity is pretending to be a great one.

debaters must include transitions between cards, advantages, off, etc. i’m not sure how reading a speech with the same tone throughout is supposed to help anyone flow.
would prefer to flow your debate on paper so no tricks, pen time, don't refer to args by the cite — i usually cannot catch a real author name — unless there is a speech doc I can look back at later to find an author name.

----

general

CX crossover into LD. I was brought up on the K. I read mostly Afropessimism, antiblackness and plans for the last few years of my career. In general I prefer clash debates.

sorry, will not vote on eval, tricks, give me a 30, spark — that umbrella of LD arguments.

if you say "I know this argument is silly but..." chances are I am not taking it seriously. Be reasonably confident in what you go for and your speaker points will benefit.

k v policy: I have the most experience here. I like hearing a framework debate where both teams explain what offense their interpretation would exclude. to be honest, I find most debating on the alt to be under-warranted by both sides. That being said permutations need to have a net benefit in the 2ar. I like one-off k debates with in-depth impact defense debating on case.

k v soft left: I like these debates most. what I said above still applies. do link versus link turn weighing. I think case needs to be more contested in these debates.

k v k: cool. I believe that for the aff more time should be spent on theory of power indicts and case outweighs and for the neg the most time should be spent on the link debate.

*I never invested much time in understanding high theory. I get baudy a bit, and beyond that, be warned that you might lose me.

Kaffs: exclusively read them for a few years of my career, debated them very often; only a fan of some. I think Kaffs must explain solvency more clearly than what may be the norm currently, and i’m not sure that I can be convinced that affs do not need to solve. I think more kaffs could just defend the topic to be honest. I believe that a Kaff should have an advocacy statement/method. I don't love kaffs that aim to destroy the debate space or something like that and tend to think they are corny.

*The best framework v kaff 2nrs in my opinion go for limits as an internal link to fairness & a tva that is terminal defense to the impact turn as opposed to what is known as "street T", "black framework", or a 2nr that goes for education as an impact.

On that note, I’d like to see more clash debates like cap good etc.

policy v policy: would like to judge more for the experience but because I don't have or see these debates often, I might not be the most comfortable in a high-level policy debate. if you are going to have a high-level policy debate in front of me, you will find that judge instruction maximizes the chance that I am evaluating the round with a full understanding of your strategy. judges with different backgrounds have different understandings of how debate works, and mine is likely not the same as students who will get into a policy throwdown.

Soft left affs vs Policy 1NC: I detest lazy util debating (extinction kills everyone so it also hurts x group) but love a good util v critical framing debate.

theory: I'm not someone who thinks about theory all the time, but given that theory debates are inevitable, you should do judge instruction and go all in on one standard.

*stop calling theory with education/liberation impacts Black e.g. black condo.

ld specific

trad debate: i like this. you still need to do weighing, line by line, and judge instruction.

phil: It's ridiculous how little I know about phil. please do not underestimate the levels of explanation I need in these debates. Honestly just treat me like the parent judge that you need to dumb down an argument for here. I'd be more comfortable in a phil v policy debate than a phil v phil debate.

theory: I feel ill-equipped to speak on rvis lol

will not vote for nonsense; explained above

cx specific

theory: don't really want to see this here unless it's disclosure or in the realm of condo/pics bad.

phil: don't want to see this here

pf specific

I don't know event format and would just prefer if debaters kept their own time.

ks: don't want to see this here

theory: don't want to see this here

I will try to abandon my progressive defaults.

Ian Mcilhenny Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Mon September 16, 2024 at 5:55 AM EDT

Ian Mcilhenny (He/Him)

For Email Chain:Ianmcilhenny1@gmail.com

Also add: mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

Preffing

I'm good for anything but here's how high you should pref me based on argument preference

High: Policy vs the K/K vs Policy/FW debates

High/Medium: Policy v Policy debates

Medium/Low: K v K on anything that's not the cap k or equally digestible.

Low: Theory

General

Tech>Truth, bring anything to the table.

I flow on paper and not the fastest flow tbh.

Reading arguments you understand well > Reading arguments you think I will like.

Policy

Anything goes, my favorite debates are impact turn debates.

Disads: these debates are fire, almost every single one of my neg rounds against policy affs have been the politics DA and Case. I think turns case is really important and will take you very far. Case specific is also really helpful.

Counterplans: I like cheaty process CPs, especially the ones that don't just compete off of just "should". I default to judge kick.

T: I default to competing interps but am down to vote on reasonability. I love dubiously topical affs and want to see neg teams take them up on it. limits is a better impact than ground. Predictability/precision is the best impact.

Theory: not my strong suit. I'll still vote on it. Anything other than condo is probably a reason to reject the arg. I have never gone for condo in my life.

Kritik

These have been the rounds I have been in the most, almost exclusively on the policy side, but have thought extensively on the strategies on the K side as well. I am comfortable evaluating anything from identity Ks to high theory Ks and love good framework tricks. I am pretty well versed in most literature bases, but don't assume I understand everything you say.

Fairness is an impact unless the k has won it is not. Generic defense must be contextualized to procedural fairness.

Debate can be more than a game.

The best Ks probably don't have unique links or solvent alternatives and moot 8 minutes of the 1AC. That being said, I do love seeing a K that has strong links with good turns case analysis + an overpowered alt, though that does require a lot more prep.

Extinction probably outweighs and I will default to it unless instructed otherwise. K teams should have objections to consequentialism or just win framework entirely.

Microaggressions is probably a losing argument but wins a lot of rounds.

Calling random stuff a "voter" is not very persuasive.

Framework is the most strategic position against k affs and I would expect the aff to be very prepared to debate t

Novices

have fun

Speaker points

be funny or entertaining and you'll have noticeably higher speaks.

Hannah Mehler Mamaroneck High School

Qingci Meng Lexington HS

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2024 at 6:32 AM EDT

Email(Add me to the chain): tatodawae@gmail.com

Name and Pronouns: Edmond Meng, He/him

tech >> Truth and Open Cross is OK

You can call me Edmond instead of Judge.

If you are a novice reading this, please remember that novice year is all about learning (ESPECIALLY LEARNING HOW TO FLOW AND DO LINE BY LINE). It should be fun, and educational. If I vote you down please don't feel bad, it is not a negation against your abilities.

Reading >6 offs, K-affs, against novices during early season is not the best practice. I will not vote you down for it or deduct you speaks, but I suggest you to move onto the next level.

I like any arguments.

READ THIS: Don't bring new Off case positions in the neg block - put them in the 1NC - I am not going not weigh them. DO NOT expect me to do the work for you. Tell me what to think, and how see the debate. OR ELSE I will have to intervene.

Dos and Dont's

DOs

Signpost
flow
Be passionate in Cross, BUT NOT RUDE
Line by Line
Clarity over speed
Overviews
Impact Calc
Clash
Have context I.E. tell me why a certain card you read is advantageous to your specific argument
Don't drop case
Think of debate as a picture, and you as the painter. tell me why such and such details matter to YOUR ARGUMENTS.
Be Confident
Be persuasive
send speech docs
keep track of speech times
Do your last speech to a track or music ;)
Make arguments on the fly, I love hearing analytics based on empirical examples - IE cards aren't everything. I am not going to read cards for my decision UNLESS you instruct me to do so.

DON'Ts

Don't Be a bad person, which includes being homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, etc.
Don't clip cards
Don't steal prep(Being unprepared is part of debate. Nobody is truly prepared for everything. Its better to learn time management early)
Don't be rude

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY TLDR: Card dumping will not cut it. I'd rather you debate with smaller amount of arguments but with excellent contexts and clash.

Benjamin Miller Mamaroneck High School

Gabriella Miller Mamaroneck High School

Joy Okaro Newark Tech High School

Jonah Porat Mamaroneck High School

Tyler Prozes Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 5:29 AM EDT

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.

-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.

-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.

Jose Rivera Newark Tech High School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:27 AM EDT

Policy Debate

It is the responsibility of the debater to look at the paradigm before the start of each round and ask any clarifying questions. I will evaluate the round under the assumption it has been read regardless if you did it or not. I will not check to see if you read my paradigm, nor will I give warnings of any kind on anything related to my paradigm. If you don't abide by it you will reap what you sow I am tired of debaters ignoring it, and myself in a debate round my patience has officially run out.

1. I hate spreading slow down if you want me to flow your arguments if it is not on my flow, it is not a part of the round. It doesn't matter how well it is explained or extended. At best, depending on the speech, it will be a new argument or analytical argument and will be evaluated from then forth as such. I do want to be part of the email chain, my email is thehitman.310@gmail.com, note that just because I am part of the email chain does not mean I flow everything I read. I only flow what I hear so make sure I can hear your arguments. Beware I will be following along to make sure no one is cutting cards and I will call out teams for cutting cards so be sure to do things correctly. I will drop cards before the team and continued cutting will result in me stopping the round and contacting tab. Additionally, I will not yell clear, and I will not give time signals except to inform you your time is up. I find doing this splits my attention in a way that is unfair to the debater and often distracts debaters when called out. You will have my undivided attention.

2. I hate theory and have only voted on it once (current as of 1/8/25). In particular, I do not like disclosure theory and think it's a bogus argument, as I come from a time when there was no debate wiki; as a result, I am highly biased against this argument and don't advise running it in my round. Also, regardless of the argument, I prefer they be related to the topic. I am just as interested in the topic as I expect debaters to be. On that note, I am willing to listen to just about anything as long as they are well articulated and explained(See 3). I have heard some pretty wild arguments so anything new will be fun to hear. Know in order for me to vote on an argument, there needs to be an impact on it, and I need to know how we arrive at the impact. But I want to know more than A + B = C, I need to know the story of how we arrive at your impact and why they matter. I will not simply vote on a dropped argument unless there is no other way to vote and I need to make a decision, I consider this Judge intervention, and I hate doing this. You, as a debater, should be telling me how to vote I will have to deduct speaker points if I have to do any work for you. Keep this in mind during your rebuttals.

3. At the beginning of each round, I am a blank slate; think of me like a 6 or 7-year-old. Explain arguments to me as such. I only evaluate things said in a round; my own personal knowledge and opinion will not affect me. For example, if someone in a round says the sky is purple, reads evidence the sky is purple, and it goes uncontested, then the sky is purple. I believe this is important because I consider anything else judge's intervention which I am highly opposed to and, again, will result in a speaker point deduction. That being said, I default to a standard policy-making framework at the beginning of each round unless I am told otherwise. This also applies in the context of evidence, your interpretation of the evidence is law unless challenged. Once challenged, I will read the evidence and make a decision based on my understanding of the evidence and how it was challenged, this may result in my decision on an argument flipping, the evidence being disregarded, and/or the ballot being flipped.

4. Be aware I do keep track of Speech times, and Prep, and go solely by my timer. My timer counts down and will only stop when you say stop prep. Once you say "Stop prep" I expect you to be ready to send the file. I do not want to hear I need to copy arguments to a file to send as a part of an email chain. I will run prep for that. It should not take long to send a prepared file through the email chain, and I will wait until all participants receive the file before allowing the following speech to start but do not think you can abuse this I will restart prep if it takes an abnormal amount of time. Also extremely important to note I will not stop my timer for any reason once speech has started for any reason outside of extreme circumstances, and technical difficulties do not count. If you choose to stop your timer to resolve your issue before resuming, know that my time has not stopped and your speech time is being consumed. Also, aside from using your phone as a timer, I expect all debaters to not be on their phones during the round (this includes in between speeches and during prep). I think it is disrespectful to debate as an activity and to your opponent(s), and will deduct speaker points for it. Keeping that in mind, I will not evaluate any argument read off a phone, especially if you have a laptop in the round.

5. In JV and VCX, Cross-X is closed, period. NCX, I will only allow it if you ask. If you don't, it is closed. If you decide to have an open CX anyway, I will deduct speaker points.

6. Last but not least, be respectful to me and to each other, and I would appreciate a good show of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of each round. Any disrespect will result in a speaker point deduction on a per-incident basis. Continued disrespect will result in notifying tournament staff and lower-than-average speaker points. Although I do not expect it will go that far.

E-Debate:

A. Cameras must be on at all times. I will not flow teams with cameras off. Do not be surprised if you lose because I did not flow it you have been warned. I will not be lenient with this as I have been in the past.

B. Prep time will be run until speeches are received in the email chain. DO NOT assume you control the time as mentioned above. I am keeping time and will go by my timer. I WILL start the speech timer if you end prep AND THEN send the speech. I have zero tolerance for this, as teams consistently abuse this to steal prep. You should know how to send an email; it should not take long. If you are having genuine technical issues, let me know as the tournament has Tech Time, I can run that timer instead, otherwise, I will run speech time. DO NOT make light of this I am tired of being ignored as if I am not a part of a debate round.

C. Make sure I'm ready this should be common sense, but for some reason, I have to mention it. If you start a speech before I am ready, I will miss some arguments on my flow, and I will be highly annoyed. Your speaker points will reflect this, and you may lose the round as a result if it was a key argument that I did not flow.

D. Also, spreading on camera is a terrible idea, and I highly advise against it from a technical perspective and my general disdain for spreading. E-Debates are tricky enough with varying devices, internet speeds, and audio equipment affecting the quality of the stream, spreading in my experience is exceptionally disadvantageous, do so at your own risk.

E. REMINDER, I Control speech and prep timers, and speeches DO NOT stop because you are reading the wrong speech or can't find where you are at on a document; once the timer has started, it stays running until speech time is over. I do not know why I have to mention this, but recent judging experiences have told me it must be mentioned.

Lincoln-Douglas

I am very new to judging Lincoln-Douglas Debates. As such, I am relying on the debater to frame the debate for me, particularly in the rebuttal. Arguments should always be responsive to what your opponent is saying if you wish to win them. Explain how your arguments interact, and your line of argumentation means that line of argumentation weighs in your favor. In general, I think all arguments should be filtered through the lens of your values and criterion. That work must be done by the debater, not the judge. Additionally if what you say matches what is on my flow the chances of you winning are high.

I want to be on an email change, I ike to follow along as evidence is being read. My email is thehitman.310@gmail.com

Particularly in rebuttals make sure you are filtering aregumens through Value, Criterion and FW.

Jason Senders Mamaroneck High School

Last changed on Tue April 18, 2023 at 5:53 AM EDT

Jason Senders (He/Him)

Debater at Mamaroneck High School

Add to email chain:

jsen0012@gmail.com

mhsdebatedocs@googlegroups.com

General thoughts:

Don't change your strategy based on my paradigm. I'm going to give my specific thoughts on arguments below, but just do what you do best. I'm willing to vote on almost all arguments if they are explained well, so just stick to what you do.

Tech > Truth. A dropped argument is a true argument, but there must be a clear extension of a claim, warrant, and explanation of why it matters.

Condo good, but can be convinced otherwise.

Extinction outweighs, but I can also be convinced otherwise.

Open cross ex is fine

Fairness is an impact.

When it comes to framework or topicality, I don't have a preference for which impact you go for, just make sure to explain it well.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I will say "clear" if you are not.

Do:

Be nice. Debate is a safe space. I won't tolerate any racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic, etc. language or actions and I will vote you down if I see it.

Flow

Line by line

Impact Calc

Properly use cross-ex. Try to set up arguments for later speeches or ask clarifying questions.

Compare warrants in evidence.

Show me that you have a strong understanding of the arguments. Give me a story about the arguments and why they matter in this debate. Great analytic > Great card. A card is nothing without a strong explanation and extension of it.

Do judge instruction in final speeches. Tell me why you won and how I should evaluate this round.

Maximize clash and education in the round

Have fun

Make jokes (Especially references to famous movies (comedies best))(Also, will take jokes about Mamaroneck debaters)(Good jokes will be rewarded with a boost in speaks)

Don't:

Clip cards

Steal prep

Make sexism/racism/ableism/homophobia, etc. good arguments

Only extend the tag of a card

Talk over your partner

Specific thoughts:

Policy Affs:

You have 8 minutes of 1AC offense. Use it to your advantage. Present to me good well-researched evidence. Have specific solvency evidence and explain to me how the plan solves your impacts. Specific impact scenarios are better than generic impact scenarios and it is a lot easier to win probability with specific scenarios. Also, please do not read an EXCESSIVELY vague plan text. I think that on the neg reading a lot of defense on case is a smart and underutilized strats. I also love to see case/impact turns.

K Aff:

I used to strongly dislike K affs, however, I'm starting to come around on them. While I would still definitely prefer to judge a policy round, I'm fine judging a K aff round. For K affs just do whatever you do best. Since you don't have a plan text, I prefer it when teams have an advocacy statement but am still willing to vote for K affs without them. Although I am starting to come around to them, I still naturally find myself leaning neg toward them. For the neg, going for framework is always a good option. Fairness is an impact. I'm willing to vote for almost all impacts on fairness, so don't narrow down the impact debate according to my preferences. I feel like the Cap K and Heg DA are underutilized against K affs. Most of the time, they are just tossed in the 1NC, but I like when teams mix it up and go for one of these in the 2NR.

Topicality:

I love a good topicality debate. If you do not have a strong topicality argument or can't explain it well, then don't go for it because I'm probably not going to vote for it. On the neg please give me a case list and an in-depth explanation of your impacts and why they matter. Tell me why your interpretation is best and the model that it sets for debate. Fairness is an impact.

Counterplans:

I love counterplans. Advantage counterplans can be lots of fun to go for. If you are reading an advantage counterplan you must have a solvency advocate for each plank somewhere in the debate for me to even consider whether the counterplan actually solves that impact. New solvency evidence in the block for planks justifies new 1AR answers. I enjoy most advantage counterplans, I find them simple and pretty effective. I love well thought-out process cps with aff-specific solvency evidence. Show me a creative way that the aff can be implemented and why this way is better than the aff's method. I won't judge kick unless instructed to starting in the block. If the 2NR says judge kick and the block didn't mention it then I'm not going to do it.

Disads:

I love disads. Whether it is a generic disad or creative aff-specific disads, I love them. Specifically, love politics DAs. It's unfortunate that there are such few good disads on the NATO topic, but I would love to see a great disad in a round that I am judging. Please explain to me the story of the disad and break down all parts of the disad for me (UQ, link, I/L, and impact). Also, do impact calc on it. It's also great to use a disad that has impacts that turn case.

Kritiks:

Generally dislike, except for Cap, Security, and IR. Postmodernism Ks like Baudrillard and Psycho are okay, but I don't love those either. For neg, have specific unique links to the aff. If you have a competitive, and solvent alt that will definitely help you with winning the K. Also, try to win root cause and/or turns case claims. Normally, I lean aff on kritiks and am willing to let the aff weigh the consequences of their plan, however, I can be convinced otherwise.

Theory:

I'm willing to vote on most theory as long as it's an actual theory argument coherently extended throughout. For example, I will definitely vote on condo, but don't go for severance perm is a reason to reject the team when the perm is perm do both, at most, it might be a reason to reject the argument. Do line by line on the theory debate, it will make it much better and make it significantly easier for me to side with you.

Lean neg: agent CPs, advantage CPs, PICs, CPs recut from aff ev, process CPs with an aff-specific solvency advocate, plan vagueness, condo (normally up to 2-3, but can be convinced otherwise)

Lean aff: international fiat, utopian fiat, epistemic fiat, kicking planks, 2NC CPs, CPs with no solvency advocate, CPs that only compete textually, ASPEC.

Paradigms I mainly agree with: Ken Karas, Jake Lee, Eleni Orfanos, Billy Blechman, Ian Poe

Samantha Siegel Mamaroneck High School

Caitlin Solis Mamaroneck High School

Dewayne Stephenson The Bronx High School Of Science

mikey sullivan Mamaroneck High School

Sanjana Tata Mamaroneck High School

Ivelisse Tirado Newark Science

Miguel Tirado Jr. Newark Science

Anatoli Velikov Mamaroneck High School

Kayleigh Wishner Mamaroneck High School

Katie Wong Mamaroneck High School

Login to Tabroom

NY Fall Faceoff at Mamaroneck High School

2023 — Mamaroneck, NY/US

Novice CX Paradigm List

Judges