SADL PF 3
2023 — Manhattan, NY/US
HS Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHello, I'm Ayesha Adams, I'm a current public forum debater (subject to change), at Success Academy High School of the Liberal Arts Manhattan. I did policy for 2 years, and have done a couple of pf tournaments, so I have experience within debate.
My email: ayesha.adams@sascholar.org or eshie0304@gmail.com (For Email Chains)
For Debaters:
1) Please be CLEAR, I prefer hearing your cases then seeing you finish your speech. Please make sure I can understand everything you are saying to make sure it is evaluated in the round.
2) For cx, please create some clash, no one wants to watch a boring cx round please make it interesting and something that adds to the round. Also make sure your cx questions are useful. Create clash!
3) Please clearly state your contentions, if you don't have contentions please clearly state your arguments.
4) Please be respectful to each other and to me, I will take off points if you are disrespectful in any sort of way, I will allow some sass, but don't be rude
5) Please do impact calc, during your speech and flush it out throughout the whole speech
6) I would prefer if you would time yourselves, thats critical to being a great debater
7) I will never vote for a death good argument, if you do this I will doc your speaks, please be respectful and don't do things like this.
8) In your final focus please tell me why I should vote for you and why you win, I need more than just "Judge we should win", I need impact calc
9) Lastly, please be nice, and have fun, don't worry too much about having me judge you I'm pretty chill when it comes to debate + judging! :D
Hi, I'm Rachel and this is my 5th year of doing debate. I've been doing policy and currently do it at bronx science.
My email: kassiopeia016@gmail.com
For Policy:
Tech > Truth
I'm fine with you being fast but as long as you're clear. I will say clear twice, after that it's a speaks deduction.
I'm not the biggest fan of k's but if you properly explain why it matters and how it solves best, then I will still vote for you
For DA's, T's and CP's:
I'm a huge fan of Da's T's and Cp's. I think you can make them extremely fun and well - versed. That being said however, You need to fully flush out how you solve the aff for CP's
You need to explain to me the link story and how they cause your impact for Da's.
If you go for T as neg, it needs to be the whole 5 minutes of the 2nr. You need to fully explain how they are harming the debate world and extend everything.
If they dropped an argument, don't just say they dropped it and that's why I vote for you, you need to explain what it means if they dropped the argument. I'm not going to do the work for you
For Public Forum:
I don't have much experience in this form of debate, but I do still know a decent amount of things. Still create an email chain.
Be slow and clear, I need to understand you and so should your opponents (for novices)
Do impact calc and fully flush out your impact and why it should outweigh
Same thing as policy, if they dropped an argument then you have to tell me how that impacts the debate and what that means
I'm not going to do judge intervention
For Crossfire: Be assertive but don't be rude or disrespectful. Try to use it to help build your arguments or make clarification. Don't let one team fully take over the cross fire, both teams should be asking questions
If you start your speech with judge thank you for being here, I'll deduct your speaks. I'm not going to give you more speaks for this
Some Overall stuff:
In your last speech, give me a role of the ballot
I'll vote against any racism good, sexism good etc arguments
If you're disrespectful towards your opponents or partner then you get low speaks and an auto L
Please Flow, it helps you get better at debate and smaller risk of dropping arguments
You guys are all novices, have fun with debate. You're all still learning debate
hi! my name is sophie balyasnaya, I go to si tech.
deasinia@gmail.com for the email chain
firstly, I have experience in both policy and pf, and i understand LD, so i can judge either one of those 3 styles of debate! I'm a lay judge, but that doesn't mean you pull sneaky tricks to try and get a win.
PLEASE BEHAVE. I won't take off points at first if you're being rude or obnoxious, but its respect to both your judge (me) and opponents to act in a manner-full way.
second, SPEAK CLEARLY. I've been exposed to enough pf and policy to know what spreading is. You can spread BUT the limit is when I can't understand you anymore. PF is about presentation and if I can't understand you, thats a bigger issue then if you don't get through your card.I will clear you if i cannot understand you.
third, impact calc. tell me why your arg is better, faster, better for the environment. all of that. if you do that and the other team doesn't that shows a better understanding of the topic and of the style of debate. If neither sides do this then the debate is going nowhere and me as a judge can't tell who thinks they're winning and where my ballot should go.
I'm okay with off-time intros but if I feel you're just stretching it I'll start your time. With "I want to thank everyone for being here." no. please don't do this. if u do it---minus speaks (not that much dw).
any arg you run you have to understand. if you're running a k--be my guest. If you have a pre-written speech and you don't know what you're talking about--thats bad.
tech > truth
finally---have fun! win or loss you tried your best and you have to be proud of yourself !
tl;dr
T - I need a clear reason in what the aff is violating with clear warranties in the 2NR
CP - I need a net benefit
Yes, like Barclay's center
Pronouns: He/Him
Email: barclay.blair@sascholar.org or oddballbfb@gmail.com if there are permission issues (please include me on the email chain I suck at flowing)
Hi there, I am a policy debater currently going to HSLA-Brooklyn, and have debated for 5 years in various styles. I am pretty open to most arguments, and just have fun.
General:
Overall, I think that the norms of debate are constantly changing, and encourage theoretical/meta arguments during the debate round. I really enjoy Ks and theory arguments, as long as they are reasoned out. Generally, tech>truth, but if there is a real violation in the round (full on spreading without sending cards, unlabeled gish galloping, etc.) I am less likely to sway tech, just make sure to call it out in round. Also, please don't misgender anyone within the round, obviously mistakes happen but if it becomes a repeat issue I will have to stop the round. Also if I space out for a minute I'm sorry, I have ADHD and forget to pay attention sometimes (this is also why I request a speech doc lol). One more thing: I request that you don't eat or chew gum during the round.
Policy:
Tl:dr:
Tech>truth, I am a big fan of theory and ks, just make sure to fully explain everything, and just have fun.
Case:
Please focus on case during the round -- don't let the neg control the round on aff. Make sure to extend your case throughout the round, and I encourage line by line on case. I do believe that theory violations can outweigh case though so if you are confident enough to do 5 minutes of T in the 2nr, go ahead.
Conditionality:
Generally, I think condo is good, but obviously I'm willing to be swayed in those like 14 off rounds. Aff, just collapse and weigh case.
DAs:
Not too much to say on DAs, they can be really solid if ran well, and really meh if not. Make sure to expand on your link story and establish a solid internal link.
CPs:
I am a pretty big fan of CPs, and think if they are run well, they can easily outweigh the aff. Make sure to clearly establish and extend the net benefits as well as explain why they are competitive. As a note, I probably won't vote on PIC theory off the bat, I think PICs are competitive and interesting, but if it is enough of a violation, I will vote on it.
Ks:
Kritiks are definitely my favorite argument to run in a round, as long as they are done well. I cannot think of a round in the past 2 years where I have not run a K on the negative side, and encourage the use of them. Make sure to fully explain and extend the framework you are going for, don't just say "capitalism is bad for education, aff loses", explain why, and why I should prefer the neg's framework. Also make sure that you explain why the alt works and why it fits under your framework, and don't be afraid to kick it if you are clearly losing that flow. I am most familiar with Cap k, security k, fem k, orientalism k, and a few more. I've seen a lot of anti-blackness, afro-pess, anti-queerness, set col, etc. arguments but have not personally run them, but again, am open to them. (Note: I do not recommend running afro-pess if you are a non-black team).
Topicality:
I am not very big on topicality and think it can fall into the realm of nit-picking a lot of the time but will vote on it if it is a real violation (or they don't respond to it).
Theory:
I am a pretty big fan of theory and think it can be really interesting to talk about the meta side of the debate round. However, please don't call out specific debaters in round; I will stop the round if I believe something offensive was said (also don't hesitate to come to me if you believe so, I might not catch everything) but I hope that's not going to be a problem. Note: I am not a huge fan of disclosure theory, I think on-the-fly prep is a part of debate and we all have access to the internet, but I will vote on it if I think there is a solid violation.
K Affs/Planless affs:
I'm not too familiar with K affs/planless affs, but I am pretty open to round-bending and wacky arguments. Most of what I've run in this realm has been meme-y, but I definitely will vote on both serious and satirical K affs. Just make sure to establish framework and tell me why a plan isn't necessary/why we can't run a plan within the resolution.
Spreading:
I'm not a huge fan of spreading personally, but I understand that it is a part of debate and will allow it. However, I have to actually be able to make out what you are saying -- don't just jumble words together. I'm fine with spreading cards, but make sure to slow down for the tagline so I can flow those. Regardless of spreading, I request that you send me documents, but this is especially the case if you are going to spread. Also, if you are going to spread your rebuttals, send me and the opponents a speech document; I won't vote for you if I can make out 3 words in the rebuttal and I certainly won't penalize your opponents if they can't understand it.
CX:
I am a big fan of crossex in policy, and believe it can, at times, be more useful for one side than an entire speech. You can obviously ask questions if you are confused about your opponent's arguments, but I suggest that you use it to poke holes. As for speaks, I will dock speaks if one person is dominating cross, but only if it is a repeat issue, I understand if the other needs to prep. I'm fine with open cross as long as both sides agree, but if there is a maverick in the round, I will let them decide.
PF:
General:
Like I mentioned, I'm not super familiar with PF, but I know the basic rules. As a policy debater, I can't deny that debating about the debate round gets my rocks off, so push the framing of the debate. I will vote on pretty much any [not-awful] framework (util, epistemology, deontology, etc.), just make sure to clearly establish both why that FW should be preferred as well as how your arguments meet that framework. I would also like some in depth resolutional analysis, especially because I am not very familiar with the topic. Contest definitions -- don't let your opponent define things as whatever they want; it's only going to hurt you to not provide counter-defs. Other than that, make sure to clearly lay out your contentions and why I should vote for them over your opponents, and just have fun.
Speed:
For the most part, you can just refer to the spreading section of the paradigm. I understand if you have to speak fast, only having 4 minutes (why policy is better :3), but just make sure I can understand it. Also, same for policy, I'm really awful at flowing by ear, so I do ask that you send me speech documents if you have them.
Crossfire:
A lot of what I said for policy crosses over (pun intended) to PF, I love when one team uses crossfire to poke holes in another's arguments. Please don't speak over each other; it's very annoying, and be respectful. I'm alright with a little sass during cross, but make sure it doesn't get heated/disrespectful.
I'm new to judging, and pretty fresh in PF but got a good grasp of the way things should function. Essentially my belief is you should sum up your foundation of your argument and why it should be more important than the other sides.
hi! im a debater @ hsla-manhattan. I have experience in CX, PF, and LD. brianna.lu@sascholar.org if you start a chain (im 99% sure you won't)
only thing you *need* to know is this: my flow is my ballot so whatever is on there is my decision.
stuff:
- clarity > speed ur cool if u speedy tho
- tech > truth but deliver your evidence well--it's the foundation of your case, not just another thing to talk about. please don't call for cards repeatedly; it gets rlly excessive. dont lie tho, ur not slick
speeches:
- run arguments that you understand. prove that you have truly internalized / are capable of presenting a case beyond your cards
- do impact calc!! tell me your impacts AND why they outweigh ur opponent's impacts--i want to hear "magnitude" "timeframe" "solvency" etc.
- signpost & [offtime] roadmap!organization will help both you and me so much. please name your contentions if you have them (idk what ur doing if u don't), balance offense/defense, and extend both in the rest of your speeches
- crossfire isn't rebuttal, so don't waste your time. interact & have clash!! this is debate after all (make cx spicy)
-framework, if you run one, should not be dropped: make sure FW is extended through all speeches. i typically do not vote on FW unless one side clearly accesses it better
- tell me the role of the ballot/judge and i will listen. otherwise i'll default to who did the better debating (at SADL i realize it usually comes down to consistency of arguments throughout your speeches)
- ALWAYS collapse on ur winning argument by the end of the debate
- if an argument is still conceded after summary, it will not be considered in final focus.
speaks:
- ur arguments matter, but the way u present yourself does too--be confident & proud! use hand gestures & look up during speeches; stay engaged with the judge. your case may be good but YOU are the one delivering it.
- as long as u feel the space is right, please make jokes in ur speeches.. a funny round will make my day. i'll boost ur speaks
others:
- please time yourselves, i kinda suck at keeping track for u
- always use ALL ur prep (but dont abuse it)
- being disrespectful/inhumane is an auto-drop. bye bye
- both sides win in the end: it's a learning experience. DON'T GET DISCOURAGED!!!
- talk to me before/after the round! ask questions! i wanna get to know y'all & am always happy to help
all in all, have fun & good luck!!
***if we vibe together & u show ur personality, ur speaks will be gorgeous. also, snacks are greatly appreciated thx thx***
drc what u do just be clear & respectful
feel free to ask questions
will probably ask u for flow paper
I am a policy debater so PF is still kinda new; did do LD for a hot second
Time y'all selves and idk just be cool don't be weird
lmk if u have an iPhone charger