Email Jororynyc@gmail.com

Perry Hs

ASU Finance

Assistant LD coach at Peninsula, 2023-Present

Cleared at the Toc.

Alot of the way I think comes from Amber Kelsie, Jared Burke, Tay Brough and Raunak Dua - LD thoughts from Elmer Yang and Gordon Krauss.

Condense the debate to as few arguments as possible and have good topical knowledge.

Mostly read K arguments - Some policy arguments on the neg. Some Affs had plans.
I am bad for Phil or Trix.
FW: Fairness is an impact,
I also have an increasingly higher threshold for K debate because most of it done in LD is bad.

I wont flow until 1NC case so I can read evidence. I also have no problem telling you I did not understand what you said if its not explicit by the last speech. I also wont yell clear.

Hi,

I'm Ksenia (she/her)

I debated pf, parli, and ethics bowl throughout high school and I have limited experience with policy from judging/middle school debate. In general:

• If you promote anything sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, classist, etc... arguments then I will, at minimum, drop the arguments from my flow and dock your speaks.
• Weigh!!!
• Please include me on your email evidence chain and if you have questions after a round, feel free to reach out: kbaatz3@gmail.com
• If you are in an online tournament, please don't show your phone timer on the screen unless your opponent is exhorbitantly over time (30 sec or so). This is just a personal pet peeve. I will also keep track of time.
• Well explained, reasonable analytics > random cards.
• It is totally reasonable to indight evidence when giving refutations, but try to go further. Provide logical arguments for why their argument is outwieghed, incorrect, turned, etc...
• I am open to voting for more creative and out-there arguments as long as you can reason them out clearly.
• I'm comfortable with progressive argumentation (particularly K's, T's and Theory). I would discourage disclo theory because, in my experience, it is often used against less experienced, underresourced debaters to get free wins for varsity teams. Also, disclo debates are often less interesting because everyone uses the same exact arguments. Be creative.

Mamaroneck '23

4 years of policy debate

he/him

Preferences:

If I can't hear what you're saying then I probably won't flow it. It's better to be clear than try to talk too fast. Fine with spreading.

Taglines/Author names mean nothing if you don't extend warrants or the actual arguments present in the card

flow flow flow flow

To win the debate you must not only refute the other team's arguments but prove why your own are superior. Usually the team who knows their own and their opponents' arguments best will win. Going for unique or creative arguments will be rewarded with more speaker points.

-----

Inspired by Jacob Miller's paradigm:

~

✔️-Open cross

✔️-Time your own *and* your opponents' speeches / prep / cross-ex

❌-Answering questions when your partner should be answering (if they ask you for help then that's fine)

❌-Stealing prep / taking too long to send documents / not knowing how to send documents

✔️-Writing your prep time on the board

❌-Ending speeches >20 seconds early. I don't think I've ever seen a team who ends their speeches earlier than the other team win a debate.

❌-Not splitting the block (2nc/1nr) with different arguments

❌-Being rude especially when you (think) you're winning

✔️-Good Impact Calc

~

PF:

I realize it's possible that I'll be judging PF so just in case you read my paradigm and are freaking out since I'm a policy debater/judge - don't worry I know how PF works; my brother used to do it.

Speaker Points:

Debate well and you'll get good points. Debating is hard but if you work hard you'll get better.

If you feel like I made a questionable decision, tell me. You should know why you lost/won on each argument/flow, and my goal is to help you become better debaters. A lot of judges don't take their role seriously and I find that stupid.

Overall

Be nice. Remember that I can be persuaded to vote on anything if it's warranted out well enough so don't let this paradigm sway you from arguing what you want to run. My preferences also don't govern the way I judge, they just influence it. I have no bias for or against either side.*coughs* I may have voted against your team or even you in the past but each debate is a new experience and nothing from outside the round carries on in.

First, I need to understand what you are saying. The best debater isn't always the FASTEST.

Secondly, I want to see strong class and line by line refutation. The better you are at listening and flowing, the better you'll do at speaking. Especially for rebuttals.

Finally, as a judge for Middle School debate, I rarely judge on topicality in a case file league. but I am willing to if it played properly.

My Paradigm is extremely simple.

Firstly, I need to be able to understand the things that you say. The best debater isn't ALWAYS the fastest.

Secondly, I want to see strong clash and line-by-line refutation. The better you are at listening and flowing, the better you'll do at speaking. Especially for rebuttals.

As a middle school debate coach and judge, I rarely vote on Topicality in a case file league, but I'm willing to if its played properly.

Hi everyone who is reading my paradigm,

My email is eyoungquist@averycoonley.org for the email chains.

I’ve been coaching policy debate for six years at the Avery Coonley School in Downers Grove, IL (it's a middle school). I’ve also judged a few rounds of high school Public Forum. I kind of fell into the job as a debate coach- I didn’t have any debate experience in high school or college. I've taught Literacy for 16 years, and social studies for the last three.

That being said, please treat the debate room like a classroom in terms of behavior and decorum. If the way you are acting would not fly at your school, don't do it in front of me. Debate can get heated, the CX can get pointed, but outright rudeness, swearing, etc. will come with penalties.

In terns of judging-I always view debate through the lens of a solid analytical argument, just like I would in my classroom. I need a cohesive argument, solid support, analytics, and a breakdown of why your argument is superior to your opponents’ argument. An “A” debate should look like an “A” paper.

Two things I don’t like to hear are extremely fast talking and cards that don’t support their tags. It’s great that you got through a lot of evidence and tried to put a lot of things on the flow sheet, but if you are only reading a sentence or two from each card and it doesn’t add up, it’s not a real argument. I need depth. I need CLASH.

I am really against fast reading. If you words are jumbling together and I can't make it out, it's not going on my flow. If I can't make out what you are saying, I am going to give you a "clear." If it continues, I'll give you a second one. Beyond that, I will disregard it if I can't make it out.

The round is going to go to the group that clearly lays out their argument (love signposting) and advances their ideas clearly while pointing out the flaws in their opponents’ presentation.

I’ll take T’s and K attacks that are on topic and make a valid point, but don't try to shoehorn something in just because it's what you always do. If their case is barely hanging on to being topical, go for it. Can you make a legit critique with some SOLID links? Go for it. Just don't get too esoteric on me, and MAKE SURE THE LINK IS SOLID (yes, I said it again)!!! Blocks of jargon with no real tie to the case will not work.

Please don't run a "K" Aff on me.