Damien JVNovice Scrimmage

2018 — La Verne, CA/US

Naomi Alan Paradigm

2 rounds

Email: nalan0815@gmail.com

I have debated policy debate for 3 years in high school 2008-2011 and have judged for about 5+ years now. I always disclose.

I REALLY like to see impact calculus - "Even if..." statements are excellent! Remember: magnitude, time frame, probability. I only ever give high speaker points to those that remember to do this. This should also help you remember to extend your impacts.

  • I don't like when both sides keep extending arguments/cards that say opposite things without also giving reasons to prefer one over the other. Tell me how the arguments interact, how they're talking about something different, etc.

Be sure to extend (especially your T voters). If it's going to be in your last speech, it better be in the speech before it. Otherwise, I give weight to the debater that points it out and runs theory to block it from coming up again or applying.

---------------------------- Miscellaneous ---------------------------------

I do not count emailing/flashing as prep time unless it takes around 3 minutes. Tag-team cross-ex is ok as long as it's both teams agree to it and you're not talking over your partner.

Full disclosure: I'm not familiar with a lot of K's beyond the basics (cap, fem, etc.), and FrameWork tends to be a mess, so those might need a little more explanation on K solvency for me or ima get lost

Jennifer Flores Paradigm

3 rounds

Background Info

I did 3 years of policy debate in high school and I am currently a Junior debater at USC.


-I enjoy policy affs since that is usually what I do personally.

-K affs are okay but you have to work towards convincing me that your aff can accomplish something.

-Same goes for K's in general just prove that your alternative is effective at accomplishing something. Don't just say reject the aff explain why exactly this should happen.

-Theory is okay but if you want to win on this you will have to spend quite some time on it.

-T is a voter and I will vote for if I have to.

-I encourage you all to use analytics because it shows how you have really put time towards the topic and that you are knowledgeable

Other Stuff

I understand that one can get heated during a round but I will not hesitate to dock speaker points if you are rude, disrespectful to anyone in the room at the time of the round.

Make sure that you are clear because if I can't understand you I will not flow it. I am also okay if you Tag Team during cross-x.

I would also like to be included in the email chain.

my email: jenny1013635@gmail.com

Leon Garcia Paradigm

2 rounds


LD: policy pls (below should still be applicable)

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.

TL;DR Go for what you're most prepared for and can execute the best because that's what really makes debate fun and productive. All that aside, please read a plan in the 1ac. I'd rather hear a debate about whether or not ketchup is a smoothie than a k-aff.

I'm not very familiar with the topic; while I do have a grasp of international relations theory (to an extent) none of it is specific to arms sales.

My Beliefs:

Debate is good

Tech > Truth

Clarity above all else

Clipping is bad

My leanings:

Utilitarianism is good

I, as the judge, am a policymaker

Fiat is a good thing

A couple Great cards + explanation always beats 10 pieces of mediocre ev

There's never an excuse not to do line by line


Fairness isn't an intrinsic impact, same as education. It can be an internal link to other things but simply ending your impact calculus with "They KILLED FAIRNESS" won't do it for me. Now, having said that, I am of the belief that affs are progressively getting less and less topical and that's bad for debate and abusive to neg teams. Just treat your extensions and impact work like you would any DA. (I WON'T EVALUATE T AS A DA. TOPICALITY IS A YES OR NO QUESTION. RISK ANALYSIS FOR T IS ABSURD). I also lean heavily towards competing interpretations; the quality of your ev does matter.


If your entire strategy solely centers around the K, I'm most likely not a good judge for you. I can certainly understamd your generic Cap and Security K but any high theory requires a whole lot of explanation for me. Just because I understand what you're saying doesn't mean you can weasel your way around with bad links if it's even somewhat contested. If you're aff I'd down to see an impact turn (obvious exceptions, of course, are: racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, etc.) If you say "Fiat Double Bind" or run Death Good, your ceiling is a 26.

K-Affs (Includes Framework)

If you read a K-Aff, strike me, I don't care. (If both sides are willing to have an Irony debate, then we can talk.)


I love PICs the most but they always need a solvency advocate. Other than that (in my opinion), I think most clash is best done on solvency.


The only theory I feel even remotely comfortable voting aff (TO REJECT THE ARGUMENT) on are utopian fiat bad, object fiat bad, riders DA bad, delay cps bad, and floating piks bad. Condo is generally a good thing and I personally think you're better off not reading that 30 second shell if the neg is running just 2 conditional advocacies. Perf Con is still a thing though. Also, in principle, I judge-kick. I think that if I default to Condo being a good thing, and the status quo always being a logical option, it would be illogical for me to choose a plan of action when doing nothing would be better.

Also, I won't vote for Word Piks. This certainly doesn't excuse excessively disrespectful behavior but I don't think saying the word "dumb" warrants a loss.


I like politics a lot and I like engagement and clash at the link level even more so. Turns case analysis (vice versa for the aff) is always a good thing and should be a must have.


I love impact turns and my personal favorites are: Heg Good, Warming Good, Cap Good, Dedev, and China War Good. It will take a lot for me to evaluate 0 risk of an impact. It can happen but your cards need to be far better.

If you sneak in a reference from The Wire I might be inclined to increase your speaks.

Betty Thai Paradigm

3 rounds

Background Info

I participated in speech (3 years) and LD debate (1 year) for three years for Granada Hills Charter High School (TCFL). I am currently a sophomore policy debater at USC.


Overall, be very clear. Act as if you’re explaining something to a sixth grader. Guide me through your arguments.

I enjoy policy affs since I personally run those. Feel free to run K affs, but please do make an effort to convince me and help me understand why I should vote for it, as I am not familiar with K's. This goes for K’s in general as well; don't just reject the aff, but also explain what the alt can accomplish.

Make sure to extend your case. I understand it is difficult to deal with both off and on case arguments, but be strategic and use your case as an offense. The negative should not ignore case either; make sure to address on case arguments as well.

T’s and Framework debates are fine as well, but please be very clear in your argument and impacts.

I'm not a fan of Theory arguments; I don't think they're as productive.

Tech > Truth

Speaker Points

Be clear in what you say. Tell me clearly how I should be voting; list the reasons. Be polite. I understand the stress of being in round and debating, but there is no need to be overly aggressive. Feel free to spice up rounds with jokes (memes, puns, League of Legends references), but please be appropriate. Please do not make any arguments that may be racist, xenophobic, etc. Ad hominem arguments are not good either.

Because of my speech background, speaking clearly and delivering speeches are very important for me to understand your arguments and to show your knowledge of the topic and your ability to effectively debate.

Misc. Debate Information

Please include me in the email chain using: thaiicetea394@gmail.com

I do not considering emailing or flashing to be part of prep time, but please do not break this trust. If you are having technical difficulties, let me know. Be transparent.

Road maps are extremely helpful in guiding my flows and decision. Overviews are fine as well, and please clarify if it is on the line by line. Framing is important as well, especially in LD.

Tag teaming in cross x is perfectly fine, but make sure you’re not talking over your partner. Understand that it is their cross x and act accordingly; invite your partner to speak if you need help.

After rounds, I will disclose my decision, but not speaker points. I will also do my best to give constructive criticism. Please feel free to ask any questions.

Just have fun! Debate is a space for us to learn both about the topic and about ourselves. Just relax and do your best.