Tabroom.com

The Princeton Classic

2018 — Princeton, NJ/US

Varsity LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Wilfredo Abrahante Roslyn HS 6 rounds

Chris Adams Unionville 6 rounds

Neil Agrawal Freehold Township 2 rounds

Kenan Anderson The Bronx High School Of Science 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 3, 2021 at 4:01 AM CDT

kenan.s.anderson@gmail.com

UPDATE for Minneapple 2021:

I haven't judged Varsity LD since... I don't even know when. So slow down A LOT and anything invented in the last 1.5 years I probably won't know about.

I have a strong natural inclination to consequentialism. If your framework is not consequentialist, especially if it's a critical ROB or ROJ, you need to explain VERY DIRECTLY and VERY BLUNTLY how it filters offense. Otherwise, I'll probably not understand and evaluate the round differently than you would like.

I debated on the circuit for four years. In general, I think debate would be better if it was slightly slower, much more topic-focused, more accessible to lay folks, and had way way way less theory. I'm saddened by the number of rounds that are not resolved by whether the core issue of the topic is good/bad. You should win because you have good arguments, not because you tricked your opponent in some technical game of extensions and cross applications. Disclosure is probably good. Needlessly specific disclosure shells are probably not.

A Note On Speaker Points: Evaluating some sort of "subjective" skill in a single debate is hard. Instead, I use speaker points to reward what I consider good, educational, and persuasive models of debate. This means your speaks will be low if you try and win on frivolous theory or short "X is an independent voting issue" and you'll get great speaks for smart affirmative cases or well thought-out negative strategies. Bonus points for not reading the same plan/DA/K/ etc as everyone else on the topic.

Bonus data because I'm a nerd - looking at varsity rounds only I vote neg 52% of the time (a pretty minor bias given the sample size). Feel free to use this to answer bad (NEG SIDE BIAS JUSTIFIES XXXXX) arguments. Also in out rounds I squirrel 20% of the time. If you're interested in stats for your or a judge you know lmk. I have a python script that does it really fast.

Debate GIF by Third Rail with OZY

Sam Azbel Scarsdale HS 6 rounds

James Briski CR North HS

Richard Burns Buchholz High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 16, 2024 at 7:46 AM EDT

In all types of debate, keep in mind: QUANTITY IS NOT QUALITY. Don't try to win by simply overwhelming your opponent(s) with arguments. Gish gallops will not work with me, so don't try them.

I am an old-school LD judge. I want to see a clear values clash and hear some philosophy, not just a long list of cards. Cases that are not grounded in ethical theory will have a harder time winning me over. Kritik cases are fine so long as they are not abusive -- that is, so long as they leave the opposition some ground from which to argue. A kritik of the resolution is fine, but generic kritiks that could be run against any case / resolution are not.Also, any out-of-round kritiks just aren't going to work with me. These almost always revolve around claims that I have no way to verify, or debaters essentially making up rules that they they then accuse their opponents of breaking.

I am STRONGLY opposed to spreading in LD. I believe that it is the bane of the event. Certainly it is an excuse to toss out a lot of abusive one-way hash arguments. Anything much faster than a typical conversational pace is likely to cause me to stop flowing your case. Make your point with QUALITY, not quantity.

Please do NOT offer to send me your case. If I cannot follow your case AS YOU PRESENT IT IN THE ROUND, you are NOT communicating it clearly enough.

Tech cases are unlikely to impress me. Win with strong arguments, not technicalities.

Semantic arguments are fine, but keep them on point; don't descend into trivialities.

In Public Forum, I am similarly NOT a fan of "progressive" debate. This is PUBLIC forum, so make arguments that could impress any reasonably well-informed and attentive audience, not just judges who know all of technical debate language. Make reasonable claims which clearly support your side of the resolution, support them with significant and relevant evidence, and weigh impacts. Tell me why your impacts outweigh your opponents', tell me why your evidence is superior to theirs, tell me why your claims lead to me voting for your side of the resolution.

Emily Carter Phillipsburg 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 10, 2024 at 10:39 AM EDT

Hi! Here are my LD, PF, and Congress paradigms.

Email: carteree23@gmail.com

Debate experience/about me: I'm currently an English teacher in Philly but I'm heading to law school this fall. I spent seven years as an assistant coach for Phillipsburg HS in NJ where I coached the Congress program. I am on hiatus from coaching this year but I'm still judging a little bit-- not nearly as much as in previous years though. When I competed back in the day, I did mostly LD + sometimes Congress in Maine from 2010-2014, and did NFA-LD + a tiny tiny bit of speech at Lafayette College until 2016.

Drexel Law '27, Penn GSE '21 (MS.Ed), Lafayette '18 (BA)

----

LD

The short version: My background is pretty varied so I'm good with just about any arguments in round. I'm pretty tab; tech > truth; I want you to run whatever you think your best strategy is. A couple of specific preferences are outlined below.

Speed: I'm good with anything! If you're spreading just put me on the email chain.

DAs: I like DAs and enjoy policymaking debates in general but I am a little old school in that I don't really like when they have wild link chains and impacts just for the sake of outweighing on magnitude. I'm not gonna drop you for it but I think there are always better arguments out there.

T/Theory: Please save it for instances of legit abuse. I can keep up but there are definitely way better theory judges than me out there so keep that in mind.

Traditional: I competed on a small local circuit in high school and am always good for this type of round. Please weigh & give me voters!

Other stuff (CPs, Ks, aff ground): This is where the overarching "run whatever" ethos truly kicks in, though you should be mindful that I am getting very old and need you to err on the side of over-explaining anything new and hip. I love a good CP; PICs are fine, and I don't really buy condo bad. I was not a K debater when I competed but I've come to enjoy them a lot-- I am familiar with the basics in terms of lit and just make sure to explain it well. Plan affs? Absolutely yes. Performance affs? I think they're super cool. Just tell me where to vote.

And finally: have fun! Bring a sense of humor and the collegiality that makes debate such a special activity. I'll never, ever, ever drop you or even change your speaker points just for being an "aggressive" speaker, but please use your best judgment re: strat and speaking style-- i.e. if you're a varsity circuit debater hitting a novice, it's not the time for your wildest K at top speed, and that is something I'm willing to drop your speaks for.

You can ask me any further questions about my paradigm before the round.

---

A lot of my PF thoughts are the same as LD so this will be very short (tl;dr -- run your best strategy, extend/weigh/give me voters, and I'll vote on the flow)! I do think it should be a different event with different conventions and too much progressive argumentation is probably not great for the overall direction of PF, but I won't drop you for it.

Also, I judge a fair amount but I've never coached PF and I am also getting old so I definitely don't have as much topic knowledge as you. Please err on the side of explaining acronyms/stock arguments/etc.

---

Congress

I did Congress as my second event in high school and it's what I primarily coached. I am a pretty frequent parli at NJ, PA, and national circuit tournaments.

I'm a flow judge and my #1 priority is the content of your speeches. While your speaking style and delivery is an important part of the overall package and I’ll mention it on ballots, it's called congressional debate for a reason, and I'll always rank a less polished speaker with better content higher than somebody who's a great orator but isn't advancing the debate. This may make me different than judges from a speech background, and that might reflect in my ranks-- but it's why we have multiple judges with different perspectives, and why it's so important to be well-rounded as a competitor.

I love a good first aff but they should follow a problem/solution structure. If you are speaking past the first aff I need to see great refutation and your arguments need to explicitly provide something new to the debate; don't rehash. Humanizing your impacts and explicitly weighing them is the quickest way to my ranks.

I don't have terribly strong opinions re: the PO-- just be fair, knowledgeable, and efficient and you'll rank.

Jesus Cepin Hire 6 rounds None

Kavya Chandran Hire 6 rounds

Kavya Chaturvedi Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun December 8, 2019 at 8:21 AM EDT

Some Info about Me:

I was a policy debater throughout high school at Ransom Everglades and went to the TOC my senior year. I'm currently a junior at Princeton University. I'm a member of the Princeton Debate Panel, and am studying public & international affairs.

Very Important:

Debate becomes unpleasant to participate in and judge when the debaters are excessively mean to one another.

In the words of Maggie Berthiaume: "Please be nice. If you can’t be nice to others (the other team, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don’t prefer me. Ignore this and you will almost certainly not be pleased with your points. There is a fine line between competitive spirit and needless cruelty — know it. Repeatedly and annoyingly interrupting people while they are trying to answer your CX questions will lower your points."

Policy Paradigm:

General:

1) I haven’t judged any rounds on this topic, so it’d be helpful to explain all acronyms and programs that you think are relevant.

2) I will judge by the flow. As a result, doing clear line by line will make it far easier for you to win. That also means that I’m not at all a fan of long overviews. It’s much easier to judge if we all have the same understanding of how arguments fit together, rather than 8-minute-long overviews that I have to put together at the end of the round.

3) I was a 1A/2N so I try to protect the 2NR from unpredictable 2AR maneuvers.

4) Evidence quality is important. The more you explain your evidence in the context of your opponents, the farther ahead you will be. I’ll read cards when they are contested by both sides and if they’re relevant to the large issues of the debate.

No Plan Affs: Debate is a game and the role of the ballot is to vote for the team that did the best debating. Policy-making can be productive. There’s a difference between framework and topicality. Procedural fairness is an extremely important impact and a well-prepared opponent is crucial to fair debates. Specific topical versions of the aff are fantastic and that part of the debate is often the most decisive.

T: Topicality is a debate about what the topic looks like in the world of either team’s interpretations, and that’s how it should be explained. I generally believe that reasonability comes before competing interpretations.

Theory: I don’t think I have any strong pre-dispositions for theory debates, only because I didn’t have many of those debates. I would greatly prefer to watch debates about content rather than just debaters reading pre-prepared theory shells without any real clash.

Disads: They’re good, especially topic disads. Also, politics DAs are cool. They let debaters learn about current events and provide predictable ground.

CP: Huge fan. Generic counterplans are fine, as long as you have specific solvency advocates and clearly articulated net benefits.

Ks: I probably know very little about the literature that your kritiks are based in. That means the burden of explanation is higher and link work is extremely important. I do think that turns case arguments can be effective but I will be sympathetic to the aff’s arguments on the perm and their explanations of why pragmatism and policy-making is important. I am not the correct audience for death good arguments.

LD Paradigm (for the Princeton Classic):

I know very little about LD, but here are some miscellaneous thoughts I have:

1. Theory: I'll start by saying that I sometimes find myself struggling in theory debates, mostly because I don't have lots of experience for what the norms for theory are in LD. I would suggest that if you go for theory, either do so slowly and clearly, or go for substance.

Some theoretical dispositions: explain why fairness and education matter and why it's a reason to reject the team, not the argument. Disclosure is a good thing because it allows for better, more fair debates with more prepared debaters. I will probably default to reasonability. Proving actual abuse is better than potential abuse. Also, RVIs just don't make sense to me.

2. Topicality/Framework: I think affs should be topical and policy-making is good. I will probably understand the basic concepts behind most kritiks, and they should be extremely well explained and impacted out.

3. Policy Style Arguments: These are great.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round!

Paresh Chauhan Princeton 5 rounds

Zhen Chen North Allegheny Sr HS 6 rounds

Henry Curtis Lexington HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 19, 2020 at 10:45 AM EDT

--This is my first major edit to my paradigm in, like, two years, so ask me questions before the round if there's anything here that doesn't make sense or I forgot.--

I debated four years of policy and one year of LD in high school from 2003 to 2008. I've been coaching LD since I graduated and I've been with Lexington for the past 5ish years. I'm also working on a PhD in philosophy (this doesn't mean what you think it means, see below).

General info/Speaker points stuff

--Email chains are cool, include me on them: hcurtis@albany.edu

--Run whatever you want to run as long as it isn't actively offensive. If you want a K debate, have a K debate. If you're looking for a values or stock debate, that's cool too. The space is yours, do what you want with it. There's stuff that I'm probably less good at judging than other people, but I won't drop you for running a specific type of argument unless, again, it's actively offensive.

--I'm 100% team tech over truth. A dropped argument is a true argument. That being said (and this applies generally as well), the dumber an argument is, the lower my threshold for a response is. So, while most arguments require actual, thought out responses, if you respond to "must concede after the AC" by just saying "no I don't", that'll count. So, don't drop stuff, but don't waste time on really bad arguments. If an argument is given without a warrant, it doesn't need as developed of a response.

--On that subject, warrants are cool too. I hate vague extensions, they bother me and that'll reflect in your speaker points. If you're extending a card, a theory shell, anything really, give me the warrant behind the card. What does the [evidence/shell/value/whatever] say, why is it right, and what does that have to do with my ballot? Better extensions and better storytelling mean better speaker points. Blippy extensions with no explanation require less to respond to because, as above, blippy extensions are bad arguments.

--I'm not the best at flowing. This matters less in a world of speech docs, but for stuff like detailed underviews (like cramming drop the debater, RVI, reasonability, and random evaluate theory after the 1AR spike into the same subpoint) or longer theory shells, slow down. No, seriously, slow down. I won't get all of the details, and then when you're posting me after the round about how I could have missed underview A, subpoint 3, as extended with random other thing on a totally different flow as defense somewhere else, I'll just say I didn't get it on the flow and we'll both be mad.

--I don't like doing work for debaters. Embedded clash is a nicer way of saying judge intervention. Don't make me do it. Offense weighing and comparison is probably the most important thing for me (and key to good speaker points). Don't just say why your stuff is good, say why your stuff is better/more important to my ballot than their stuff.

--Last thing for speaker points, the most important factor for me is strategy. If you make strategic arguments and there isn't anywhere where I think you should have done something different, then you'll get very high speaker points. Strategy is number one for me, but that gets weighed against not being a jerk in round, being funny, and being a good speaker. If you do everything perfectly but you're not a clear speaker, then you won't get a 30, but you'll still get above a 29.5. I'll say clear or slow if I need to, but if I say it a couple of times, then you should know what'll happen to your speaks. If I say clear, don't do that thing where you're clear for a couple of seconds and then just go back to how you were speaking before. Also, general rule of thumb, be loud. I don't hear stuff very well, so the louder you are the better. Don't scream at me, but you get the point.

T/Theory

--At least 80% of my neg ballots when I debated policy were on T. Love me a good T debate.

--General stuff: I default to competing interpretations, no RVI, drop the debater unless told otherwise. Also, general pet peeve, if you're going to tell me drop the argument and it isn't blatantly clear what argument I'm dropping, then tell me what argument I'd be dropping.

--RVIs need a little bit of work for me. You need to convince me why you get RVIs in the first place (RVIs are much more convincing against multiple shells or 7 off strats) and then actively identify what constitutes an RVI and why.

--1AR theory is fine-ish, but when a round turns into shell versus shell, it usually breaks down into incomprehensible nonsense and then I get sad and then I trash your speaker points. If it gets to this point, what makes me happy is offense comparison. This is usually easier if we're weighing between fairness and education voters, but if it's fairness v. fairness, then be super specific about why your opponent is being worse for fairness than you are. Compare offense, don't just extend yours. Alternatively, go meta and tell me why aff or neg theory comes first. Either way, don't ignore the other side of the flow, because then I have to do weighing for you and nobody likes that.

--I'll vote for disclosure shells, but the dumb argument vs. strength of response weighing from before applies here. If there's straight up nothing on the wiki and they're from a school where you'd expect something to be there, then fine. But if it's a small school non-circuit debater and/or your interp is "must disclose all speech docs, past 2NR strategies, and what they've had for lunch the past five days", then a lesser response is required.

--Generally speaking, if there's an obvious win on substance and a more difficult win on T or theory and you go for T or theory, I consider that a less than strategic move and it'll reflect in your speaker points.

DA/Counterplan/LARPy Stuff

--I was a policy debater after all, so I'm pretty comfortable with this kind of debate.

--Impact calc is your best friend. Good impact calc means good speaker points and typically is a tiebreaker if I want to avoid intervening. If I have a better understanding of why your impacts matter more than your opponent's, then you're probably going to win.

--This is a general thing, but I'll highlight it here and elsewhere, but extensions should include storytelling for me. Don't just extend the cards from the disad, explain the warrants and tell me how they link together into the story of the disad. Better extensions, better speaker points.

K/Framework

--So remember how I said that me being a philosophy PhD doesn't mean what you think it means? I study bioethics and general normative theory and have had any knowledge/appreciation of continental philosophy beaten out of me over the last 5 years. So, I'm actually not the best at evaluating super dense Ks, high theory, that sort of stuff. That being said, you can totally run it if that's your thing. However, you're going to ahve to take extra time for storytelling. What's going on in the K, what does the aff/res do that is bad, why should I care, and what do you do to make it better/different? So, don't avoid running Ks if that's your A-strat. Do what you do best. Just be good at it and we're fine. If you've grabbed a K from a teammate that you haven't seen before and don't know how to properly extend and explain, it probably won't go well and you should consider doing something else (this applies generally).

--Framework v. framework debates are almost as bad as theory v. theory debates in terms of incomprehensibility. So, do active weighing work. Why does your framework matter more? If your framework precludes, why? If they say their framework precludes, why doesn't it. If both frameworks preclude each other and I have no in-round way to determine whose actually does, we're all going to be upset.

--Role of the ballot/role of the judge is probably the single most important layer of the flow. I mean, you have the power to tell me what my ballot does. Use it to your advantage. If you win that the only thing I should care about is whatever the role of the ballot says I should care about, that's kind of a big deal. Use it to your advantage. On the other side of the flow, you really should spend time here if you're responding to a K.

--Totally fine with performances, but, and this also applies generally, weighing pre versus post fiat offense and why the performance itself matters is pretty important. This is another area where the role of the ballot is your best friend.

--Like I said, I'm usually pretty good about ethics frameworks since that's kind of what I do for a living. That being said, debate phil is 99% of the time waaaaaaayyyyyyyy different from academic phil. This is especially the case for K authors like Foucault, but also for Kant, Mill, Rawls, etc. So, you'll have a little more leeway with explaining evidence for something like a Kant framework, but you still need to do actual extensions and explanations.

Other miscellaneous stuff

--Again, if this is your thing, this is your thing so do it, but I'm generally not a fan of tricks. Most tricks arguments fall into the camp of bad arguments I describe above where a response of "nuh-uh" is sufficient. Again, if this is what you do, then do it, just be super clear about where stuff is located, both when you're reading it and when you're responding to stuff in c/x. Nothing is more infuriating than shifty c/x responses. Saying stuff like "lol I don't know what an a priori is" when it's pretty clear you do is an easy way to get your speaks docked. Don't be that person.

--In that regard, unless you legitimately don't know what the person is asking about, don't say "I don't know what that means". If you've been to camp or the TOC or on the circuit at all, I assume you at least have some understanding of what terms like pre-fiat or spike mean. That's being shifty and wasting c/x time and it's annoying.

--Flex prep is fine. To a lesser extent, so it using c/x time as prep if you want. It isn't a good look, but c/x time is your time to ask questions and use it strategically. Asking questions is generally better than not. Also, both c/x and flex prep are binding.

That's all I can think of for now, I'll try to be better about updating this more regularly. Again, if something here isn't clear or if you want to know more, find me at the tournament and ask or ask me before the round starts.

Farhan Damani Hire 6 rounds

Manya Deehr CR North HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 24, 2018 at 3:55 AM EDT

· Speed: "Whatever you think you can do, I can handle". That being said, there is some element of communication that gets lost with speed, especially if your opponent can't handle the same pace. If you go too fast and I cannot flow then you DROP those contentions and evidence, plain and simple. So if you going fast detracts from the quality of clash, then that's your fault, not your opponent's. Also, if you're spreading for the sake of speed, and I can't understand the words that are coming out of your mouth, then there's nothing I can flow. You'll know you're being unclear if my pen hits the desk, I take up knitting, and I give you the death stare.

· Jargon: I'm not a fan of it, as it detracts from the ability for people not well versed in the activity to follow it, but I've gotten used to it.

· Argumentation: LD is a theoretical debate, and if you expect to pick up my ballot, you'll keep it that way. For example, you can talk about Gardasil, but if you don't impact it back to why it justifies compulsory immunizations, you just wasted my time. Also, you're not solving for anything (that's policy). Because it's a theoretical debate, you can't even assume that the problems you want to solve for exist in the first place.

· Kritiks: Cute? Yep. Amusing? You bet. Don't try to skirt the resolution. The debate is supposed to be a battle of competing values on a nationwide topic. When your value is something based around the expanding the education of debate, then you're avoiding the fundamentals of the event.

· Make sure you are somewhat comprehensible when reading cards. I don't need to hear every single word in a piece of evidence but I need to know that you are actually saying something coherent.

· Speaker Points will reflect how well you debated and how well you conducted yourself during speeches and throughout the entirety of our interaction and that with your opponent. My mother used to tell me "if you are really good at something, you will never have to tell people that you are, they will know." In other words, no need to bring your opponent to their knees. You can win with grace and kindness.

Eric Deng Byram Hills HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 16, 2022 at 7:56 AM EDT

If you cannot spread, but are trying to, please don't. I'd much rather hear you be coherent as opposed to stumble and double breathe every 5 seconds to imitate spreading.

Space - If an aff defends the topic but doesn't defend "implementation" in the traditional sense because of the way the topic is worded, I still have a hard time conceptualizing why it doesn't link to disads.

HW 22 - I have not judged in over a year. I do not know anything about the topic, and I don't remember every opinion that I've ever had about debate. That being said, if some of the pet peeves I had before come up, odds are I will be even more irritated by it. Just look up my wiki for arguments that I generally liked.

Online debate is annoying, send out docs in a prompt manner. The 1AC/1NC I generally do not care how fast you go, just make sure that everyone is in agreement on what was read and what wasn't. Both of you should record for potential shenanigans. I don't care if your camera is on/off, but just make sure I can hear you. If I yell clear, sometimes it might not be your fault, but its your responsibility to just slow down. If I didn't hear it, then I didn't flow it. Just something we have to deal with in online debate.

San Marino HS 18

NYU 22

dengeric2k@gmail.com for email chains

About me:

I debated on the circuit for 2 years at San Marino High School in CA. I received 5 career bids and made it to octos of the TOC. I did college debate for a year as a 2A. I've taught at VBI and TDI/SJDI. My primary argumentative preferences were for policy arguments, though I did read a fair share of affirmatives that did not defend the topic. These preferences have not really swayed anyone from reading arguments I don't like in front of me, despite my best efforts, so you do you and I'll do my best to adjudicate. I am not super active coaching or competing anymore so I do not know what core topic lit is nor do I understand the "hip" new K.

For a tl;dr of arguments that I read when I debated here is a link to my wiki with open-sourced docs: https://hsld17.debatecoaches.org/San%20Marino/Deng%20Neg disclaimer: I read a lot of arguments that I personally disliked or did not find persuasive, the frequency of arguments read usually indicates my like or dislike of those arguments.

I used to have a long spiel, but I think nobody cares because people still read bad arguments in front of me. Instead, I will just give some random thoughts on arguments:

Disclosure -- pretty much non-negotiable, I'll listen to arguments that are based on academic literature/philosophy but I will not listen to arguments relating to fairness and education against disclosure. e.g. disclosure = surveillance? weird/bad argument, but I'll listen. disclosure = worse for fairness and education? not a fan. new affs bad/round reports disclosure/must open source etc do not fall under this -- they're both true, but I'd much rather the debate be about anything else.

Nebel T/Plans bad/T-generics/T-bare plural -- whatever variation of no plans/plans bad that you are running, it's boring and demonstrates a lack of preparation and research. I will vote on this argument but I hate it and you should too.

theory -- frivolous theory arguments are not my strength, nor am I particularly found of them.,I'm not any good at judging these debates because they're way too messy and it is not something that can be resolved by excellent debating due to them being late-breaking and the plethora of new arguments that end up being made. if you're THE theory debater this year you're not gonna like me

K Affs/Non-topical affirmatives -- beat framework, have a defense of your model not just your aff; solvency based on wins/losses/ballots is highly questionable and I'm skeptical of these arguments. Those reading framework should have a defense of their model. Fairness is an impact, and attempting to solve the aff through a tva or education is not necessary but may be helpful. Those reading Ks against K affs will probably not like my decision both ways, as I am not the best judge for in-depth debates about philosophy/academic literature.

RoB/standards/ld philosophy -- saying any of these things does not mean its the only thing that matters (that's what debate and impact calc is for) -- I view these things as just buzzwords in order to substitute with real impact calc. I would prefer you not be lazy and actually explain instead of hiding behind these words.

truth vs tech -- this is arbitrary -- if your strategy is predicated on winning blatantly false/unwarranted arguments by spewing out a bunch of them, I am a) not going to be able to flow them, and b) the threshold for convincing me the opposite of your arguments is very low. Technical debating is made easier with truthful/well-researched arguments.

Plans/DAs/CPs/etc. -- evidence quality matters. You should want me to read your evidence to confirm the claims that you are making, otherwise your argument probably isn't as good as you say it is. I have a soft spot for advantage counterplans and the states counterplan, but find that many teams are not answering/reading these in the correct manner. I am not a fan of the "everything except this one instance of the topic" PIC as I find that these are mostly disads with a counterplan text attached and no real solvency advocate. PICs should exclude a meaningful part of the aff and have a solvency advocate. If your PIC falls under this category, I will most likely significantly lean aff on theory. Otherwise, I slightly lean neg on most counterplan theory questions. Conditionality is probably good, but its certainly winnable that its bad in LD.

misc -- If this is still a thing, I strongly dislike evidence made by debate coaches/meta-articles about debate. They're subjective and incentivizes people to write debate articles to make an argument in round. I will just treat it as an analytic.

speaks -- I give low speaks relative to people, but maybe other people are inflating? If you're trying to win top speaker, I'm probably not the best judge for you unless you're really good.

Chintan Dixit Thomas Jefferson HSST 6 rounds

Anil Duggal Niskayuna 4 rounds

ZoÃ« Ewing Byram Hills HS 1 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 15, 2019 at 8:32 AM EDT

Hi! I did LD for 4 years and graduated in 2017, going to TOC twice and clearing there as a senior. I coached Byram Hills for two years. I've also worked at camps every summer since graduating, as Co-Assistant Director of NSD Philly 2019 and as a lab leader at NSD Flagship 2017-2019, TDC 2018, and VBI LA I 2017.

Email: zoeewing99@gmail.com Please put me on email chains!

General

I have no preference as to what you do with your speech time as long as your arguments have warrants and some framing as to why they're relevant. Don't assume I’m familiar with any dense literature and clearly explain the ballot implications of every argument.

I will aim to be as non-interventionist as possible and will vote on almost* any argument as long as it a) is not abhorrent and b) contains a logical warrant. Examples of arguments I would not vote on include "racism/sexism/homophobia good" (because those are abhorrent) or "the sky is blue so affirm" (because that lacks a logical warrant).

*I've added a couple of exceptions, scroll down to the "other notes" section to see them.

Please slow down on interpretations, advocacy/framing mechanism texts, and author names. I don't check speech docs in round, so don't bank on me reading along with your speech. I only check speech docs if some detail is contested or if it's my fault that I miss something.

I also believe strongly in trigger warnings for graphic narratives or discussions of particularly sensitive issues. I am fine stopping rounds in instances where a debater is unable to debate due to triggering material--please let me know if this happens. I expect the debater who failed to give a trigger warning to concede the round in such instances.

Defaults
These should never be relevant because I will never use a default if an argument is made on either side of the issue—the defaults are only here for the (hopefully rare) case when no debater makes a single argument on some important framing issue.

Truth testing over comparing worlds
Competing interps over reasonability—I also have no idea how I’d evaluate a “gut check” reasonability brightline so please don’t ask me to gut check. It would probably not work out in your favor.
Drop the arg on theory, drop the debater on topicality
No RVIs (and if the RVI is won, I meets do not trigger RVIs)
Metatheory before theory; T and theory on the same layer
I don't have a default side for presumption. In the absence of any offense left in the round and no presumption arguments made, I would vote for the person who had better strategy/technical skill/argument quality (in other words, the person I would give higher speaks to).
I don't think a default for whether Ks or theory should come first in the abstract is possible since they're both just pre-fiat arguments about what debate should look like. I'd default to whichever position indicts the other probably, but these positions frequently indict each other, so weighing really matters here. Just make those meta-level framing arguments and avoid chicken-and-egg debates.

Important note on defaults: If both debaters carry out the debate under some shared framing assumption that was not argued for, I will use that shared assumption as my default rather than these (i.e. if both debaters collapse to theory shells in their 2NR and 2AR but forget to read a voter, I would act as if a voter had been read rather than intervene, cross all theory off the flow, and vote for some random 1AR substance extension).

Other Notes

Please be ready to debate when you walk into the room – this means pre-flowing during your opponent's prep if you need to and having the AC speech doc ready to send.
I end up judging a lot of rounds that result in determining the validity of very short arguments made early in rounds that end up mattering much more later in the round (e.g. spikes). These often rely on making judgments on the weight of each argument on a somewhat arbitrary basis. I do everything I can to evaluate the round in a non-interventionist manner, but the burden is on debaters to prevent situations in which intervention could occur. If you plan to muddle rounds to sufficiently confuse your opponent to win, please ensure that you are not also confusing your judge to the point where I cannot easily trace your path to the ballot.
To be more specific about the previous point, if a round has two contradictory spikes that indict each other and one debater wins one spike and the other debater wins the other, I will default to argument quality/strength of link weighing. There is no way to be absolutely objective about this, so please interact your arguments!
NEW: I will not vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the [insert speech]" if the argument is made in the speech mentioned in the spike. For example, I won't vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the 2nr" if it's made in the 2nr. This is because any answer to the spike is technically a theory argument, making it unclear if even evaluating answers to the argument is legitimate. I will also not vote on this argument in any speech absent a clear articulation of what constitutes the theory debate and just generally have a low threshold for responses.
I require theory violations to be verifiable. I’ve seen rounds where people lied about whether a position is broken or whether something was on the wiki. Just provide screenshots please! If someone makes an I meet to an unverifiable shell with no verification (i.e. a disclosure shell without screenshots or a coin flip shell that's just word of mouth), I default to the I meet being true (innocent until proven guilty).
I won’t go to someone’s wiki to check a disclosure violation myself—that’d be like looking up a definition on T.
Flash/email everything you read off your computer to your opponent and judges! People often exclude analytics when they flash stuff and those are sometimes hardest to flow.
If I have met you at previous tournaments or camps, please don't make conversation with me that could make your opponent feel excluded. I promise that reminding me that I have judged you before or that you know students I coach will not have any bearing over whether I will vote for you--I would have marked you as a conflict if that were true, and it just leaves your opponent feeling rattled and unsure of whether I will be impartial. I have been on the opposite end of this enough times to know how much it sucks when it looks like your opponent and judge are friends.

Speaks

I will try to assign speaks based solely on strategic vision, argument quality, and in-round behavior. I will say clear/slow/loud as many times as needed. I do not disclose speaks during the RFD but will if you come to find me individually or email me after the round.

I dock speaks for:

Being unnecessarily rude/patronizing/condescending (especially when you’re much better than your opponent)
Lack of framing issues
Being racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc—this is a given
Stealing prep time/not being ready/delaying the round in any way
Having gendered language in your pre-written spikes/shells/etc
Talking about what I did as a debater or making personal appeals to me, talking about my former teammates, the debaters I coach, or well-known people in the activity--this excludes people with less "rep" or fewer connections in debate and makes everyone uncomfortable

Have fun—this is your activity! Make it a good experience for everyone. I am happy to answer questions about my paradigm before the round or about my decision after the round.

Daniel Fernandez West Orange High School 6 rounds

Jayanne Forrest Byram Hills HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 14, 2023 at 5:39 AM EDT

I'm Jayanne [ JAY - Ann ], a.k.a. Jay.

I debated for Fort Lauderdale HS (FL) for 4 years in LD and Policy. I am a pre-med Columbia University (NY) alumna, with a BA in African American and African Diaspora studies. I currently coach for Lake Highland Preparatory school.

My email is mayjay144@gmail.com. Start an email chain, Speechdrop, or use file share on NSDA Campus. DO NOT share me to a google doc of your case, but feel free to send me a google doc link with view-only access.

quick prefs:

Policy arguments & T - 1

Critical arguments/Ks - 1 [non-topical AFFs: 2, not my fave if they could have been T with same lit base as the framing]

Theory - 3

Frivolous theory/trolling/tricks - 4/5/strike

** note: I get triggered by graphic depictions of anti-black violence (e.g. very graphic examples of police brutality, slavery etc) and sexual assault. If you plan to read afro-pessimism, please read a trigger warning or simply take out horrific examples of gratuitous violence. Black violence is not a spectacle for an audience, these are real people with real experiences.**

LD/POLICY:

- I don't disclose speaker points. I base speaks off the clarity of speech, the quality of arguments, and the strategic choices in the debate.

- I don't want to flow off speech docs, speak clearly and slow down on tags + author names. PLEASE PAUSE BETWEEN CARDS.Internet connection and computer issues do not grant you extra prep time. If debating virtually please locally record your speeches.

- I get annoyed by asking for "marked docs" when there are marginal things cut out (e.g. one card is marked, cards at the end of the doc aren't read, etc.). I think knowing how to flow, and not exclusively flowing off a doc solves this.

- I'm not a big fan of complex theory/skep/tricks or heavily pre-written stuff that you do not understand. I encourage you to do whatever you are passionate about, just take the round seriously.

- I think there are productive ways to engage in critical race theory. I don’t think that non-black debaters should be reading radical Black advocacies (e.g. afropessimism, Black nihilism etc.). Read your social justice positions, but please leave our radical Black authors/groups out of it. If you're not Black and you read aforementioned positions I will not vote on it. If you say any racial slur written by the author (or just on your own whim) I will drop you and give you zero speaker points.

PF:

Hi! I did not do PF in high school but I have coaching experience. You can read anything in front of me, but the onus is still on you to explain your arguments! Collapse and weigh impacts clearly for good speaks and an easy decision.

PSA: If you say anything blatantly anti-black, misogynistic, anti-queer, ableist, etc. and your opponent calls you out, I will drop you. Debate should be a home space for everyone and you are responsible for the things you say because it is a speaking activity.

Britani Fraser Harrison 6 rounds

Pankaja Harish Acton-Boxborough Regional HS 4 rounds

Chetan Hertzig Harrison 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 4:04 PM EDT

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.

To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Shadman-as-sami Jahangir The Bronx High School Of Science 6 rounds

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:31 PM EDT

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.

LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

Ashley Kim Timothy Christian 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2019 at 6:24 AM EDT

I debated for four years for Timothy Christian School and graduated in 2014.

**NEW: PLEASE READ**

What makes me really happy and engaged in rounds: Cases with a strong, unique framework, and that tell a story or paint a picture that appeals to emotion, logic, and intuition. Debaters who extend their frameworks, actively impact arguments back to them, and use their frameworks to exclude their opponents arguments when possible.

What makes me really sad and bored in rounds: Generic util frameworks like "maximizing well-being", "maximizing happiness", "societal well-being", which lead to debaters to try to cover too much in the round and then eventually mutually agree implicitly or explicitly that whoever achieves X wins the round.

**LD**

I value substance and clash (engaging with and actually addressing the warrant of your opponent's argument, weighing, etc.)
I'll evaluate any argument or position as long as it's well-warranted and you give me a working method of evaluation.

Theory is fine as long as you prove that there is actual abuse in the round.

I don't want a line-by-line off-time roadmap. Give me a general roadmap (e.g. "Framework, AC, NC") then signpost (e.g. "Contention 1 subpoint A", "the Neg f/w", "their second contention", etc.) as you debate.

Please confirm with your opponent that you're both okay with flex-prep, evidence sharing, etc. before the round starts.

**Varsity LD**

I have not judged varsity much in the past couple years. It is safe to assume that I have little to no familiarity with circuit arguments. If you run circuit-type arguments, I will do my best to evaluate your position, but it is your burden to be absolutely clear about what is happening in the round. I can evaluate new information, but I don't know all the technicalities associated with circuit arguments.

**All LD**

Please give me a method of evaluation for the round, and link contention level arguments into whichever method you think is winning in the round. Please weigh arguments. I'll flow new arguments and analyses in second rebuttal speeches but I won't vote on them. I generally accept new cross applications, since those involve pre-existing arguments.

I assign speaker points on a 25-30 point scale. Speaker points will reflect how I perceived your ability to make and extend effective arguments, and strategize overall. (25 - completely unprepared, 26 - below average, 27 - average, 28 - good, 29 - very well-done, 30 - excellent; offensive arguments may go below a 25; I don't believe I've ever given lower than a 26 before, and my average is probably around a 28; I try to be a little more lenient with novice speaks, but this doesn't always happen; I also try to assign speaks relatively, based on previous rounds within the tournament)

Good arguments and extensions include a claim, warrant(s), and impact(s). I'll give some leeway to aff extensions, but they must include more than the label ("the value criterion," "Contention 2," "the impact," "[insert card name]"). If an argument is dependent on another argument, you should extend all relevant parts to make your point. If you're the Neg debater and have ample time to do so, I expect a thorough extension of all relevant points. If you're the Aff, please at least extend the claims of the underlying points and explain the important one as needed.

If you are a more experienced debater obviously facing a novice or non-native English speaker, and I detect abuse (spreading, tricks, etc.), this will probably reflect in your speaks.

I won't say you can't spread, but just know that the faster you go and less clear you are, the greater risk you run of me not understanding your arguments. The faster you go, the more I'm just listening for key words and less I'm actually trying to understand what you're saying. If you are going to spread, start slow then speed up. Slow down for tags and card names and anything you really want me to understand/write down. I'll say clear if I don't understand you, and if I say it twice you should consider permanently slowing down.

Recently debaters have started sharing cases via email/USB? This is fine, but don't bother asking me to share your case with me in advance. I'll evaluate the round based on my interpretation of what happened in speeches - if both debaters are clear, my interpretation should be pretty close to what actually happened in the round. I only call for evidence after the round if I feel I need it to make my decision, but this doesn't happen often. If I couldn't understand your evidence/I didn't evaluate it the way you wanted me to, you probably weren't as clear in the round as I needed you to be.

Overall, I'm pretty technical (or I try my best to be at least), but when the round is unclear or very close, I'll probably end up looking for the easiest way to evaluate and judge the round. With that said, if you can appeal to both being technical and giving me an easy way to judge the round, not only will I probably consider your arguments more positively, it will probably also reflect well in your speaks.

Side note: You can ask me to time your speeches/prep for you, but based on experience, I've learned that I am generally a poor time-keeper. I highly prefer debaters to time themselves and each other, and especially keep track of prep-time. If you at least want me to write down your remaining prep time, I will do that for you, just let me know.

**PF**

I've judged PF many times now in the past couple years; I understand PF debate is supposed to appeal to persuading the general public, but like LD, I evaluate the round pretty technically. I also get that there isn't exactly a framework structure in PF, but at least give me some sort of method of evaluation. After all, there must be something that you're trying to achieve. So make that goal explicit, and link back to it throughout the round.

The problem I've had with most PF rounds is that clash/weighing is done poorly, so the round ends up unnecessarily close, making it very difficult for me to make a decision. Please, as best as you can, don't let this happen!

As with LD, I am not a good time keeper, and am even worse with PF. Everyone should keep track of their own time and each other's time.

**ALL**

I will dock speaks for unprofessional dress. I'm fine with casual professional dress and I'm pretty reasonable overall, but you should not come tournaments in sweats and sneakers. If you have special circumstances that prevented you from dressing appropriately and you're worried that I am going to dock your speaks, you can notify me before the round - pass me a note or something if it's a private issue.

Michael Landau Scarsdale HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 13, 2021 at 8:24 AM EDT

Some quick and important stuff for the 2020 virtual season (full paradigm and bio is below and unbolded):

1. I'm happy to listen to and vote on Ks, theory, phil, LARP, tricks, etc. (pretty much all the standard LD stuff). I also tend to have a pretty good ear for speed so that shouldn't be an issue.

2. I've noticed that I tend to evaluate debates pretty technically. The debaters that tend to perform best in front of me (no matter which types of arguments they are reading) are very good on the line-by-line but are also able to do bigger picture weighing and argument interaction. This basically means I'm very skeptical of embedded clash so I'm willing to vote on shorter arguments if they're dropped or mishandled but those arguments needed to be weighed and interacted with the other important arguments in the round.

I debated for Scarsdale High School for 4 years and qualified for the TOC my senior year. I currently attend the University of Pennsylvania. I also coached Scarsdale for 2 years and taught at NSD for two summers.

I will vote on any argument that has a warrant that at least somewhat follows from the claim and is impacted back to an evaluative mechanism deemed important in the round. I have no preference for any one type of argumentation: this means that you can feel comfortable reading framework, LARP, Ks, theory, tricks, etc. in front of me. You should do what you do best and feel is most strategic in the given round.

Framework: These debates are enjoyable, but they can get very messy if both sides are just extending preclusive arguments and not doing much interaction. Weighing between framework warrants will be extremely helpful if you want to win a framework debate in front of me. Also, you should make clear what impacts matter under your framework (i.e. whether it is ends-based or means-based).

LARP: Good evidence comparison and impact weighing are the keys here and will be rewarded.

Ks: I view role of the ballot debate in a similar fashion to framework debate. That means that you should be doing interaction between your role of the ballot and your opponent’s role of the ballot or framework. If you lose the role of the ballot debate, the impacts of the K only matter if you explicitly link them to your opponent’s role of the ballot or framework.

Theory: Please slow down while reading interp texts so that I actually understand what shell you are reading. Absent any arguments to the contrary by the debaters in-round, I default to competing interps and no RVIs. All voters (even fairness and education) need to be justified. I will not vote on new 2AR theory or a 2AR RVI to a new 2NR shell (I will vote on new 2NR shells however if they are won).

Tricks: They need to be impacted to something, even if it is not a standard. Likely tricks will link to a role of the ballot (i.e. truth testing) which means that if your opponent wins an opposing role of the ballot they may have no impact.

Mina Lee Harrison 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue December 8, 2020 at 4:16 AM EDT

important for 2020:

- i have not judged a debate round since Harvard 2019 so please slow the frick frack down especially when you start and don't expect me to be up-to-date w all the new jazzy tricks and fun things yall have come up with

- the internet is unpredictable and things happen and everyone is stressed out right now about like a trillion billion things so please be kind and understanding w each other thank u

t/l:

- i really dont care about things so despite my personal preferences i still evaluate most arguments as arguments and will vote on them if and when they are won so just do good debate thank

- tricks/friv theory/a priori/skep/racism good/other bullshit is out, Ks and performance stuff/policy is in, philosophy/high theory is eh (it's interesting, i’ll try my best but if I don't understand it then I don't understand it and I won't vote on itttttt), traditional debate is fine

addendum: T is fine i guess. like i am much much much more willing to listen to a T debate than a theory debate

addendum #2: if you can win a ~compelling abuse story on theory then like sure i'll vote for it i guess i have done it a good number of times before

addendum #3: fun fact i have almost a 50-50 voting record on t v k affs so stop reading half-assed k-affs/neg k strats in front of me bc u think i will like them better it is soooooooooooo annoying

-disclosing is good

-email chains are good (minaslee00@gmail.com)

-debate is about education if you just treat it like a game, treat other debaters like your enemies, and treat your arguments like cheap shots at winning, i will be sad and so will you when the round is over

-bc of the above point, i do like answering questions about things you think you could have done differently/other learning opportunities from the round so feel free to ask or to hit me up on facebook/email

-idc who your coach is or who you think you are, if you think i made a bad decision and you and your ~ posse ~ decide to yell at me for the sake of trying to prove me wrong as opposed to trying to understand the decision i will just leave the room lmao

-i don’t really care that much about things and i am usually very tired

-be nice

-i don't care if you sit or stand please stop asking me

-please don’t shake my hand

-please start slow especially in the morning i am so tired spreading is so fast i do not know why people think it is a good idea to scream at me at 40000 wpm at 8 in the morning :(

Quick thoughts because I’m too lazy to write a real paradigm:

0) An introduction: hello I debated for Edgemont LD (2018) and now I go to Princeton where I don’t do debate because hahahahahahahaha. I was coached by Brian Manuel, Rodrigo Paramo, Jack Ave, and was heavily influenced by Aurelia Williams, Chris Randall, Eli Smith, Jacob Koshak, and Sydney Pasquinelli. Put me on the email chain: minaslee00@gmail.com

1) IMPORTANT: I like sass but don’t be mean! I almost quit debate on three separate occasions in my senior year alone. I also almost quit debate after my second tournament ever because I was laughed at for not knowing deontology. People suck. If someone is clearly not as experienced as you and you read 7 off I will give you a 25 and you may also lose! So! Don’t! Be! A! Dick! As much as this activity can suck sometimes there are things I have learned that I wouldn’t have been able to learn anywhere else in high school and I will always, always be grateful for that. Don’t be the reason someone feels like they need to walk away from those opportunities.

1.5) Evidence ethics/other out-of-round issues: a) dont be shady with your evidence b) if you're going to make accusations, then be willing to stake the round on it. i'll stop the round, look at the evidence, and decide the round based on whoever I think is right on the question. but tbh there are so much unnecessary politics and personal/ad-hom attack brought into rounds whenever this happens and they make me uncomfortable and sad and angry please treat debaters like people thank you

2) I'm honestly pretty expressive, just read my face and you'll have a good idea re: how I feel about the round

3) Arguments I read: I mostly read policy-esque arguments with critical impacts and then second half of senior year I said “fuck it” and went really hard for ID politics K debate. I finished out my career reading a performance aff that I also ran as a neg K in outrounds. That being said, if you can explain an argument really well to me I will probably vote for it. Don’t assume just because I was a “K debater” I know all your warrants and I’ll just make the arguments for you when you blip through them. In fact, if you do that and you’re missing warrants I will be EXTRA sad and so will you when you hear my rfd. My favorite neg strat my senior year was one-off K where most of my case arguments were just links to the K so if that tells you anything about how much I enjoy the explanation of complicated critical (or even philosophical) arguments, there ya go

4) JUST BECAUSE I READ AN ARGUMENT DOESN’T MEAN YOU SHOULD READ IT IN FRONT OF MEEeee. Do what you’re good at (for the most part) and if you explain it well to me I’ll probably vote on it. I don’t hate philosophy, I was just never good at it so I never read it in high school. But if you think Kant is a cool guy and you can get me to understand his nonsense, then sure! Go for it! I’m telling you right now though I have no problem just being like “I did not understand this argument so I did not vote on it”

5) EXCEPTIONS: If you read tricks/frivolous theory/a prioris/whatever etc. etc. in front of me I will just pretend I didn’t hear you and not flow it and just doodle some flowers on my flow and also kill your speaks (see: Rebecca Kuang)

6) Flowing and analytics: I’m going to flow what I hear so if I say clear and you don’t slow down or get clear and if I miss 25 of your 30 analytical arguments and any of your post-rounding includes “but it was in the speech doc” I will just shrug my shoulders, pack my stuff up, and go get myself a coffee. NOTE: I’ll say clear/loud/slow twice and then your speaks will probably go down, but I’ll keep saying clear to keep the round going

7) T v K: I know I read a performance aff but tbh I think I’m pretty 50-50 on the T v K aff debate. I am definitely not 50-50 on the K v frivolous theory to answer Ks because people don’t actually know how to answer Ks, and if you try to randomly up-layer to answer a K that you handled poorly, I will be sad and so will you when you see your speaks and probably also the results of the round

8) ON FAIRNESS: I don't really think it's its own voter, i'll vote on it but i usually just evaluate it as an internal link to education which means that i also care about in round abuse more than i care about norm setting by default, but i will listen to arguments to the contrary i suppose

9) More on theory in general: if there's actual abuse then obviously go nuts with theory but in general theory debates really bore me and so if you must run theory I will likely be very lazy in evaluating the debate and if I can find something easy to vote on or a simple reason to default to other flows where there’s more interesting offense, I will probably do so. I was also never particularly good at really detailed theory debates, so my evaluation of intense line-by-line argumentation will probably be shit. Sorry :)

10) disclose lol.

Ethan Li Cypress Woods 4 rounds

Michelle Li Byram Hills HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 15, 2020 at 9:22 AM EDT

*Updated for Scarsdale 2020*

Hunter '18, NYU '22 - I qualled to the TOC my senior year and went to 2 policy tournaments my freshman year of college.

I taught at VBI for two summers and coached a couple of debaters (with several bids/bid rounds) for two years, but I don't coach now. I have not done any topic research, and I don't care what you do as long as you do it well. I've left my old/more detailed paradigm up below if you have any questions/want to know how to get better speaks/want to know my preferences.

**ONLINE DEBATE:

-PLEASE start a little slower for the first couple of seconds of your speech. Also, in general, please slow down a bit if you're not clear. I'll try to call clear but like... it's online debate lol

-If you're recording speeches please record them separately! Sending a recording that's longer than a few minutes will take 10 years and I will never get to hear your speech

-You can still extemp arguments but including analytics in docs is probably helpful in case of potential internet issues

-I always say I'll try to time speeches but I never actually remember so time yourself+your opponent

*Update 3/9/19: I have now taken the hot Cheetos policy off my paradigm. Rest in peace.*

Tl; dr: feel free to read anything. As long as you have warrants, don’t rely on your lingo, slow down on plan/interp/standard/etc. texts, make your links/abuse stories as specific as possible, weigh, and are not blatantly offensive (sexist/racist/ableist/homophobic/etc.), we should be good. I like unique arguments of all "types." It is ultimately is your round, and you should go for your best/most comfortable arguments. I will take the route of least intervention. If you have any questions, feel free to fb message or email me!!

Email: limichelle0809@gmail.com I’ll only flow along with the speech doc for names of cards, but won’t rely on it so that I don’t miss extempted args. Compiling the speech doc is prep but flashing isn’t (unless it takes you a suspiciously long time to flash).

Things (I say "things" because some of you think these are arguments but they really are not) I will not vote on, and will dock your speaks for:

-Sexual assault doesn't matter/rape good/some other version of that -- I will actually stop listening to part of/the rest of the speech if you say this.

-Any version of "oppression doesn't exist/is good" (this is not the same thing as extinction outweighs)

-Unnecessarily bringing up your opponent's private life as a reason to vote for you -- especially if the implications are homophobic/sexist/etc.

Misc. Defaults (very, very loose, and only apply if no one makes any arguments in round) and other stuff:

-Tech>>>truth. I also think the burden is on the debaters to point out misrepresented/powertagged evidence, so I won't interfere

-Text>spirit

-Ethical confidence

-The more creative you are/entertaining the round is, the better your speaks will be

-I think CX is something that can only help and not hurt you. If you're really funny in CX, your speaks may go up, but it's cool too if you need all of it for clarification questions if you don't understand the other debater's position. I also think it's fine if debaters are somewhat sketchy in CX because you should try to avoid exposing your own case's flaws (note: this does not mean lie or not explain things if you get asked to explain a warrant) but I guess this is an unpopular opinion

-I'm fine with debating evidence ethics issues out in round unless both debaters agree to ending the round

-You can ask questions after the round or send me a fb message/email about my RFD, but if you or your 100 coaches grill me aggressively, I will change your speaks to a 0 and walk out of the room

Specifics:

K’s: I’ve realized that I have a higher threshold and more preferences for K’s than other arguments, so don’t just read one in front of me because I used to read them. I really enjoy judging good K debates. I read everything from identity politics to high theory throughout my career, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to explain your K in simple terms. I also want K debates to be more tech.

-Please know your K lit. If you botch it I will be sad :(, and you will also be sad about your speaks.

-I evaluate the ROB similarly to a normative FW debate. You need to be winning your specific ROB+offense linking back to it for me to grant you the K. This does not mean engage in Oppression Olympics — rather, tell me why combatting colonialism controls the internal link to liberating womxn, why analyzing media is key to the res, etc. Also, please don’t read a performance without justifying why that’s important in the ROB/somewhere in the method because I?? Don’t?? Know?? Why?? You’re?? Reading it?????? And will probably ignore it. If there are 2 competing ROB’s and both debaters pretend that that debate’s a wash, I will be frustrated.

-I think methods debate is low key dying. I’m very willing to pull the trigger on presumption. AFF’s need to do something (this can be as vague as utopian politics or be hyper-specific to the topic — just don’t rant about how the world is horrible for 6 minutes.)

-Please have specific dis-ads to the perms (preferably ones that aren’t just generated off the links), and respond to each perm individually.

-I like brief overviews on the K if you’re running one, especially if your lit is really dense

-I've voted on the Cap K multiple times but think the cap good turn is underrated (but it doesn't work in every scenario depending on what you're running so pls don't impact turn cap just because I said this lol)

-I love nuanced K v K debates and don't think they're done enough!!!

Performance: totally cool with it. I read these and I like unique methods. Again, just warrant why it's important in the ROB. Trigger warnings are good.

Non-T AFF’s: go for them. Please have reasons as to why we should reject the res/interpret it differently. More thoughts on these in the “non-T AFF’s/K’s vs T/theory” section.

Theory: I really couldn’t care less about how frivolous the shell is, just slow down on interps and weigh standards

-I won't default any voters; you should be reading them. If you don't, I probably won't vote on the shell.

-Semantic I meet’s are, of course, cool :) but they don't trigger RVI's

-I tend to think disclosure theory is true, and will like you more if you disclose. That being said, if you win why disclosure is bad, I will vote for you. If you’re running disclosure theory, please have a screenshot in the speech doc/ready if I call for it.

T: I like T, I suppose, especially against non-T AFF's that don't do anything/arbitrarily say fuck the topic.

Non-T AFF’s/K’s vs. Theory/T:

-I don’t have a preference/bias as to which comes first; you should be doing this weighing.

-I really dislike generic fairness bad/theory and T are oppressive dumps. I would much prefer you interact with the standards or articulate why that specific shell is oppressive. That being said, if you do win an impact turn on theory/T, I will vote on it.

-The more specific your interp is to the AFF/K, the happier I will be, and the higher your speaks will be. I would also be much happier if you linked some parts of the shell back as offense under the ROB instead of excluding the entire K.

Tricks:

-I like these! I tend to find these to be pretty funny. (Update: I've noticed a trend of debaters throwing random tricks in there because they think I'll like it but they can't explain it or clearly had no intention of going for it. I really dislike that.)

-I don't care if you're sketchy about them in CX.

-Please number your analytics

-I like creative/trolly a priori’s

-I will not be amused if you read these against a K AFF and go “haha! Oppression doesn’t exist!!!” I will give you a L0 (to clarify, I don’t care if you read these against K AFF’s, just don’t be a dick.)

Phil/FW: I’m familiar with the common LD frameworks, but don’t assume that I know your lingo !

-I’m extremely skeptical of epistemic modesty (and honestly not even sure how it really works ngl)

LARP: please please please weigh!!

-I like unique plans/CP's/PIC's/etc.

-I've realized I'm kind of bad at understanding what CP's do (esp. if it's some other policy), so err on the side of more explanation

-Bonus points if your util fw isn’t just Bostrom/Goodin/Woller/Sunstein/Paterson/Sinnott-Armstrong/Bryant/Coverstone/Sinhababu/Yudkowsky

-I like plan flaw

Joshua Lim Timothy Christian 6 rounds

Jesse Lin Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 2, 2020 at 4:40 AM EDT

Personal/Background

I debated for 4 years with Lincoln East High School in Lincoln, NE, consisting of 2 years of LD and 2 years of Policy. In LD I was a state quarterfinalist and in Policy I was state champion in addition to clearing at NSDA. I also debated on the national circuit, mainly at Midwestern bid tournaments, with middling success—I am more familiar with how nat circuit policy operates than nat circuit LD nowadays. Currently I am an undergrad at Princeton studying physics. My greatest debate accomplishment is taking a selfie with Slavoj Zizek.

This paradigm probably sucks right now, because I am too lazy to update it. For the most part you should consider me open to any sort of argumentation.

Policy

General Notes

Clash and warrant/internal link comparison is what makes policy great. I see value in policy as both a game and an educational activity, but I think the latter is more important. Depth over breadth. Policy rounds are long enough that I should not have to intervene and do any work for you—2ARs/2NRs are the best speeches in debate for this reason.

I don't take prep for flashing/emailing.

Tag-team CX is fine.

Speed is awesome—PLEASE delineate between cards as well as tag/author name/card body either explicitly (I liked saying an over-inflected "and" between cards as well as "This is AUTHOR in YEAR") or with very obvious vocal pauses.

I personally was a critical debater in high school.

You should I assume I have no topic knowledge, especially in regards with abbreviations that may be common in this year's literature. Explain them to me at least once, then go wild.

Case

I'm much more persuaded by case defense and case argumentation in general than most. Terminal defense is legit and is a reason why affirmatives must extend and explain their impact scenarios and how the plan uniquely resolves them.

I default competing interpretations, but in-round abuse stories are much more persuasive.

Slow down when you read procedurals.

Interpretation debates are important and having bad credentials on your T advocate probably means your model of debate is flawed.

Enumerate exactly what ground you lose with case lists.

Theory

I generally like theory and find it fairly compelling against certain PICs, agent CPs, and the like.

I default to drop the arg and that the neg gets "one conditional advocacy or the squo".

DA/CPs

I'm pretty uninformed and inexperienced with this type of debate because of my high school background. Very technical politics scenarios or niche CP strategies will probably need to be explained more in-depth to me. Explain your buzzwords here, especially. That being said, I have no particular bias against this negative strategy and I enjoyed running it the times where I did.

Great! In high school I ran Cap, Psychoanalysis, Wilderson, Postcolonialism, and some Baudrillard.

I generally evaluate these technically as a variant of DA + CP, which means I'm open to kicking the alt on a K if you have convincing ethical framing that overcomes the link uniqueness question.

You should explain how the K interacts with the other layers of the debate, such as if the links are pre-fiat and if the alternative/framing operates similarly.

Roles of the ballot aren't auto-wins and they should actually mean something—define the thresholds for "performatively and methodologically" and justify why you meet them and why they're important for debate.

I'm quite receptive to performative contradiction arguments if the K is ran alongside other offs, but the argument needs to be developed. T doesn't perf con with a Cap K for example, but it might with Deleuze & Guattari.

K affs

They're cool and were what I mostly ran in high school. However, near the end of my debating career I've found that K affs are often extremely poorly constructed and vague. Advocacy texts are important for this reason, but if your literature excludes that possibility than so be it. At the very least, it's important that the affirmative ought to do something (or otherwise justify why doing nothing is aff ground...) and defend some sort of thesis proving why voting affirmative uniquely accomplishes something.

Framing is the most important part of a K aff. Remember that every assumption I have about how to evaluate policy rounds more or less goes out the window in light of a K aff—please tell me the new calculus I should adopt, and please make sure that role of the ballot/equivalent framing is not egregiously circular.

I like performance affs, but please have a more offensive reason to affirm than simply having an unorthodox strategy.

K affs need to do MUCH MUCH more work explaining how permutations function and what the "world of the perm" looks like than a traditional policy aff would. Absent detailed analysis, "perm do both" means nothing to me because K affs have likely eschewed plan texts and thus the normal rules of plan-CP competition theory. Perms often just become assertions that both aff and neg strategies could exist concurrently as abstract ideas, which might be true but is not an offensive reason to vote aff. Competing methodologies is one way to resolve this problem, but that framework for evaluating rounds is even more nebulous, but I think is much better when used and explained than simply misapplying perm theory. In K vs K debates, neg can get perm if they justify it, but generally I will presume that perms flow aff.

Framework/Clash of Civilizations

I have lots of experience with this type of debate, and although I was mostly on the K side of the clash of civs, in hindsight I am moved by either.

Like procedurals in general, K aff vs Framework is about which model of debate is better. As such, I am open to impact turns on why narrow policy focused debate is bad, but likewise am open to how K affs often start confusing and vague debates.

I think fairness-based strategies are much better than RP/policy education-based strategies for your framework (i.e., T-USFG > Plans Good FWK).

I think framework: weigh the aff is pretty much true, but is not an acceptable substitute for actually weighing the aff. Winning that framework interp just means you get to "bridge" the post-fiat/pre-fiat gap between aff plan and the K, but you still have to justify why your utilitarian/extinction first calculus of impacts is better than whatever ethical framing the K offers. In short, theory doesn't replace impact calculus.

I find blippy extensions particularly unconvincing on this flow. Because unlike cards that make factual claims, cards that make claims to a particular impact calculus/framing arguments are always implicitly "answered" by the K's framing, so please actually explain and debate these arguments.

General Notes

Do whatever you want! Debating on the Nebraska circuit and nat circuit has acquainted me with the gamut of debating styles: lay, trad, progressive, etc. For your information, though, I primarily ran Ks in high school. Tech > truth, but I think the burden of rejoinder is very low against blatant untruths. I will generally evaluate rounds through epistemic modesty absent any framing argument that explicitly contradicts that (a prioris, certain role of the ballots, etc.).

Also, I don't want to be on the email chain. I still have some naive ideals about how debate is a communication event and that I should presumably be able to hear and understand your arguments without having to read them off my laptop.

Speed

Spreading is fine. Please be clear. I will say "clear" or "slow" if necessary. Do not spread analytics the same speed as cards, and especially do not spread interps or advocacy texts. Also, please pause when you transition between flows.

Please verbally distinguish in an obvious way the boundaries between two different cards, cards and analytics, tags/authors/card bodies—not doing so is my biggest pet peeve with spreading in debate, otherwise I think speed is cool. Because it seems like no LDer does this, I will reward +0.1 speaks if you do, and moreover you stand a higher chance to win the round b/c then I will be able to flow everything.

Theory/T

If your style of debating involves strategic use of theory/T, I will probably not be the best judge to evaluate it. I no longer know what the norms are for theory/T are in LD debate—please debate with that in mind.

Please slow down on theory/T. There is a 0% chance I will catch all your spikes if you spread them at the same speed as the case proper.

Also, I do not particularly like disclosure theory, and in general I don't think 1AR theory is strategic unless the 1NC is egregiously abusive.

In-round abuse is key.

I have no predisposition on RVIs good/bad, but I default drop the argument (i.e., no RVI) and competing interpretations.

I think which side gets presumption depends on the wording of the resolution, but most of the time I presume neg.

I default to comparative worlds.

Policy arguments

LARP is fine, but please make sure to clarify how your impact calculus works if there is framework contestation over issues like util or comparative worlds. I am more persuaded by policy strategies on the negative (CPs/DAs) than aff plans because I personally am not entirely convinced that plans are acceptable aff ground in LD.

Phil/Ethics

I love these arguments, but please slow down if you have a complex chain of premises and justifications to go through. I do not have the fancy practical reason justifications memorized, so please explain them briefly and relatively slowly. Most of my affirmatives in high school were Levinasian ethics args.

The argument I went for most in high school. Please try and avoid impact-justified frameworks if possible.

Links are best if specific to the affirmative, but links to the resolution in general are ok.

Make sure to explain the world of the alternative. It does not need to be particularly concrete, but I should have some sort of idea.

Reza Lotfi Montville 6 rounds

Jonathan Matthew Timothy Christian 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 24, 2020 at 5:49 PM EDT

Experience:

I debated from 2012-2016 on the regional and national level for Timothy Christian School. I competed mostly in LD but did do some PF late senior year for fun. That being said, I have not been very involved in debate for a while and thus am not fresh with high-level argumentation.

Argumentation:

I will definitely be able to able to understand generic framework contention level debate.

WARNING: Again, I haven't been involved much with debate since graduating and norms/common arguments change. Therefore, if you decide to run T's, DA's, any kind of critical argument etc. make sure you are explaining yourself clearly and outlining what level of the debate comes first, second, etc. You may have do a little extra work explaining how I should view the round. That said I'll be a little lenient on extensions if you are spending that other time with some round overview/crystallization. Make sure again to do a good job of breaking down under what framework I am evaluating the round and where specifically I am voting.

Sorry if you disagree with my decision.

Spreading:

Please don't spread. I am cool with quicker than normal speaking, but I have not been involved in debate much really since graduating.

I am not going to vote for an argument I don't understand whether it be because of its complexity of said argument/lack of proper explanation or whether it be because it was read/said too fast for me to understand, so let that be a warning.

I would recommend not trying to do anything too "fancy" to avoid all of us being uncomfortable at the end of the round if I give my RFD. If you are used to a specific type of argument I am not saying you cannot run said argument, just understand where I am coming from and explain everything, specifically what I am voting off of very, very clearly.

Argumentation:

I think PF breaks down more simply with a util/consequence based framework. If you disagree make the argument and if it makes sense and is extended ill buy it no problem. I do not think I'll have any issue with any type of argumentation so that should be good. Just make sure you are being clear where on the flow I am voting for you and please please please weigh so its not just both teams extending arguments across the flow with no clear/given relative impact.

Speed:

Fast PF speed is totally ok for me

Melinda McCormack Half Hollow Hills HS East 6 rounds

Bro. John McGrory Chaminade HS 6 rounds

Casey Meyer McDowell HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 11, 2023 at 3:34 AM EDT

Hi, I'm Casey! Did both speech + debate events as a youngin'. I now work in special education and disability care.

"Strike me and I'll give you 30 speaks" -a judge much funnier than me.

I'm a big believer that debate is a place where anybody from anywhere can come, view the debate, and understand a decent chunk of what is being said. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but have outlined circumstances in this paradigm where that goes to the wayside.

If you give me something to judge, and don't tell me why and/or how to judge it, chances are I'm gonna put that point/contention/whatever way at the bottom of my 'things to care about in this debate' list.

♥ A TL;DR of this Paradigm ♥

Don't spread. Quality of arguments over quantity- this goes for any day, any round, any tournament. Run whatever argument you want as long as you link it to your case (yes, this means be topical (on the resolution)). I'm not the best judge by any stretch of the word- SO, please don't use super dense lingo and expect me to understand it.

I don't care about email chains/documents... unless you're running an extremely """progressive""" case. No harm in asking, though.

Tricks debate bad. Unique points good. Being a jerk bad. Positive vibes good. Being condescending big bad. Weighing points good. Roadmaps fine. Extending points good. Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo. Have fun + drink water.

♥ ALL BELOW POINTS MOSTLY CONCERN LD/POLICY ♥

Don't spread- it's straight up unnecessary + cheapens debate to quantity > quality. (Woohoo, strike me!)

That being said, I'm fine with people speaking faster than 'normal'. You know what the difference is. If I have to call for clarity/speed more than 3 times in a round then I'm going to really be harsh on your speaker points.

♥ That's that ish I don't like ♥

You're gonna find it very hard to run some form of Disability Pessimism with me and win- this is one of the only biases that I can't ever seen to get past- I am biased towards cases that do work to make a "positive" outcome the most attainable scenario. This doesn't mean don't run arguments that say the world isn't gonna end- if you can prove the world is gonna end, then seriously, do it.

Nihilistic/depressing for the sake of being depressing arguments make me fall asleep and fall into the ever expanding void of Lovecraftian horrors that no doubt live in the Hudson Bay (or so I've been told).

♥ Uhh idk what to call this section, maybe like 'stuff you probably should and shouldn't do' ♥

I don't care how you access your criterion, I just care that you actually access your criterion. Run any K, plan, CP, or what have you and I'll happily flow it as long as you've linked to the resolution and framework (dead serious- that's it!). If you're running a K, make sure it's topical (like, seriously, I'm a big stickler with this) and assume I don't know what you're talking about in the slightest and go from there- I'll go out of the way to say that traditional K's are an easier way to win. If you're using a K, I need to understand the link and the terms you use! It is not my burden as a judge to flow a point in LD that doesn't link back to your criterion/value/philosophy.

If you're running a plan or counterplan, the more unique the better IMO. Obscure ≠ Unique (Policy debaters are quivering at me saying that- I know, I'm scary- fear me).

I'm not the biggest big fan of how LARP-y LD has become in the past few years. I'm not opposed to it, per se, but strongly believe moral/ framework arguments should always come first in LD. If you're going to run a LARP-y case, have at, but show me why we shouldn't look to a moral system (or whatever way you want to conceptualize it as) to achieve the end result of the round.

Role of the Ballot arguments usually make me cringe. "Education" based arguments also make my brain explode- running these with me unless heavily contextualized will usually go nowhere.

'Debate Space' arguments are bad.

Disclosure (or even time skew, for that matter) theory is usually not good to run with me, unless you really, really feel like the case is abusive and whacky.

I usually see right through trick debate and hate it with a passion. This stuff cheapens debate. Sophistry and my bias against it won't be overcome by you running heavy theory for it, trust me. Same thing with frivolous theory.

Weigh your points (give me them sweet sweet voters), especially in your final speech. I won't vote a point down because you don't extend it, but I'll be a lot more skeptical that you just gave up on the point somewhere along the way.

Truth > Tech, but Tech isn't a bad thing. If there's no base for you to ground your argument in truth, you can't access technical arguments. Extend tech off of truth.

♥ In Closing ♥

I don't like it when people are haughty, pretentious, or talk over others. Don't simply assume your argument is the best because your coach said so. If you sound like a jerk who's simply trying to destroy or demoralize your opponent, I'm a lot more likely to give you less speaker points. That being said, you should still try to destroy your opponent... but like, ~metaphorically, my dude~. This is high school debate. Save the attitude for real-life stuff, like people who think that water isn't wet, people who think Chipotle is better than Moe's (you're literally just lying to yourself, stop smh smh), and people who don't think pineapple belongs on pizza.

Finally, have fun. Bring a sense of humor. Bring some sarcasm. Bring some water. Water is good. Always.

Have a fantastic day, and keep growing and thriving in your Speech and Debate adventure!

Sajiwan Naicker Freehold Township 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 18, 2018 at 5:20 PM EDT

I am a novice in the world of judging, but I have partaken in debate before. While I judge, these are some of the key points I keep in mind:

1. Speed: I expect the speed of your speaking to be moderated throughout the debate so that it fits the matter of the items being presented. Therefore, please articulate and slow down whilst presenting evidence and feel free to go at your own pace during the fiery parts of the debate. Just keep in mind that fast speech may not allow me to record all the points you wish me to.

Furthermore, I expect filler terms to be nonexistent or kept to the absolute minimum; and slurred speech (especially from fast speaking) will be looked at in a negative light.

2. Evidence: I will not infer anything for you nor will I tolerate the presentation of evidence for the sake of having evidence. Each piece of evidence must tie in to the topic at hand and a proper analysis or explanation of each evidence must be presented. Any and all pieces of evidence that is not explained or that seems extraneous will count against you.

3. Art: I treat speaking as an art form, and, therefore, pauses, inflections, tonal changes, volume changes, and body language will all be evaluated. Remember: you convince with more than just words. All that you do while you are speaking will be considered so please refrain from fidgeting or any unnecessary distractions. Finally, if you aren't exhibiting signs of confidence, it will be difficult for me to be confident in your argument.

4. Violations: I am not omniscient nor omnipresent, and, thus, do not rely on me to catch all violations of debate rules. If your opposition has violated a major rule, please mention it in a respectful manner within the next minute if I haven't mentioned it already. Furthermore, any more than three violations of a major rule will result in automatic disqualification (unless it conflicts with tournament rules). Ad hominem will never be tolerated, and it will result in an automatic loss.

There are many other points which I could state, but they will merely complicate the matters further. The aforementioned are those that are most important to me, and these points should be kept in mind by all competitors that I may judge.

Danielle Newton Hire 6 rounds

Binu Pathrose Acton-Boxborough Regional HS 4 rounds

Andrew Polli CR North HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 2, 2019 at 3:18 AM EDT

*** CX ***

I need to be able to understand you—don’t talk so fast that no one follows.

I value good delivery—good eye contact, clear speech, calm demeanor—in your speeches and that will go a long way to convince me your augments should be believed.

You should show clear organization of arguments and manage refutation well.

I value the demonstration of your skills in analysis of the debate as it is evolving.

I take the use of jargon to mean you don’t really want me to understand what you are explaining.

I need to see evidence, but use it to make an argument.

*** LD ***

I need to be able to understand you—don’t talk so fast that no one follows.

Speak clearly.

Be confident, but don’t be rude or interruptive. Don’t shout.

Citing evidence is nice (and necessary), but it’s your argument that will convince me; the fact is you can find a reference that says anything you want, so it’s more what you do with the evidence that counts. Also, make sure the source is well-qualified and be ready to defend his/her/its authority on the subject, if challenged.

Address each of your opponents arguments—no drops!

Show me that you took some advantage from your cross-examination.

Careful not to introduce new arguments in your rebuttals.

I need a framework, but you will probably get my vote from the quality and logic of your contention level arguments, assuming they do indeed support the framework.

*** PFD ***

I need to be able to understand you—don’t talk so fast that no one follows.

I value good delivery—good eye contact, clear speech, calm demeanor—in your speeches and that will go a long way to convince me your augments should be believed.

Be confident, but don’t be rude or interruptive. Don’t yell.

I take the use of jargon to mean you don’t really want me to understand what you are explaining.

Convince me through the clarity of your ideas, simple logic, and analysis.

I’m persuaded when you’re arguments are supported by credible evidence and impactful warrants.

Show me that you took some advantage from crossfire, but do it without having to dominate or being disrespectful.

Respect the intended purpose of the summary (support/attack existing arguments and summarize) and final focus (why you won) speeches.

Careful not introduce new information summary and final focus speeches.

No plans or kritiks—stick to practical solutions.

Tracy Pridgen Stuyvesant HS 6 rounds

Olivia Qiu Montville 6 rounds

Christian Quiroz Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 1:07 PM EDT

Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.

These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at cfquiroz@gmail.com

UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

Alyssa Reinhardt Catonsville HS 2 rounds

Tibor Rohacs Princeton 3 rounds

Nicky Schmeller Medina Senior HS 6 rounds

Marie-Rose Sheinerman Hunter College 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 12, 2018 at 4:13 PM EDT

Hey guys! I debated national circuit LD for 4 years at Hunter College High School. I'm currently a first-year at Princeton.

General: I'll evaluate anything you give me, as I think any judge should. Please, please, PLEASE finish the 2nr or 2ar with 20 seconds of really slowly telling me in plain English why I should vote for you. In an ideal world, your words are the exact ones I'll write in the RFD. Weighing is important. Framing is important. Don't assume I know what my "role as the judge" is. Also please keep in mind I'm a first year out who isn't coaching, so I'll be adjusting to judging. 75% of your fastest speed. Please.

3 key things:

1) If you're a nat circuit beastly senior hitting a scared lay sophomore, please calm down and read your lay case. Otherwise your speaks will be bombed and you'll be sad.

2) Don't be rude. During the 2ar, don't be on your phone or aggressively doodling. Well, maybe a little doodling is fine.

3) If you concede a dumb trick and they extend it successfully I will probably vote on it but I'll be really pained doing it. Pretty lenient with "new responses to a one-line, repurposed argument in next speech" type of stuff.

Specifics:

Theory: If it's a good theory debate, paradigmatic issues will be articulated by the debaters, but absent that I default competing interps, drop the debater, no RVIs. Be creative! I don't want to hear a shell from a decade old backfile.

Ks: High theory will cause me to roll my eyes a lot -- if you can explain it to me like I'm a third grader, I'll be very pleased. Odds are you can't though. Make nuanced responses to T, don't just read the dump. In my experience Ks can be both the best and worst parts of debate so...

LARP: Cool. Extinction is unlikely -- make low probability arguments. Perms are a test of competition, sorry, they just are.

Framework: Slooooow on analytics. Comparative arguments with warrants in opponent's framework, not just the front-line dump against the overall variety of their framework. C'mon. Also, epistemic modesty args are pretty smart.

Speaks: 28.5 means I think you should break, 29 and above means you are very impressive and will go really far this season, 30 means the Earth turned on its axis and my worldview will never be the same. Make a Friends joke for .5 higher speaks! Talk to me before or after the round! I’m actually a pretty nice person, even if I do say so myself.

A final thought: If you don't signpost --> I can't flow your arguments --> I judge based on the flow --> I don't have your arguments --> You lose --> You're sad.

Aleksandar Shipetich Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 1, 2018 at 6:30 AM EDT

I debated for four years for Stuyvesant High School (graduated in 2017) in Lincoln Douglas and I have recently decided to step back into the debate community as a judge. My senior year I bid to the TOCs at Scarsdale Invitational and made it to bid round at Yale, along with out rounds at a few other tournaments.

Short Summary:

Tabula Rasa

I don't want my judging philosophy to interfere at all with the round, please do whatever you are comfortable with, at whatever speed you would like. I did debate recently (relatively) so I can understand spreading. I have a good understanding of most types of argumentation and most of the common arguments in the circuit, but no knowledge of this topic whatsoever. The line is drawn at being offensive or being rude to your opponent. Being offensive will result in my signing the ballot, being rude will dramatically affect your speaker points.

Logistics:

Please email me both cases and anything you will be reading off of your laptop, my email is aleksandar.shipetich18@my.stjohns.edu. Feel free to go full speed on this I will flow off your speech doc if I miss anything, but you really should put verbal emphasis on important arguments and warrants in cards.

All the technicalities and stuff like T = Theory and etc.. don't really matter to me if you explain your arguments and understand how they function, since labeling stuff really shouldn't affect how it interacts in the round

Show up on time for your rounds, I know everyone is prepping and desperately bugging their coaches, however this is not an excuse to delay the tournament. I will penalize your speaker points for showing up late. Lets say one point for every five minutes to be extremely clear (unless there is some ridiculous circumstance which you may explain to me) It really screws everyone over to still be debating really late at night so I do feel this is justified.

All dropped arguments still need to be extended and impacted to be evaluated, and every single argument in the round must be impacted for me to evaluate it. Failing to do this will just make it difficult to resolve the round. This is obvious but whatever. Weigh stuff too or the slightest bit of weighing from the other side will win the round no matter how bad

Also please label your cases clearly, having things like Part One is the Link is super helpful to everyone in the round including me. Even if you are reading something super performative and kritiky, the only way this is going to work out for me is if you do a ridiculously good job explaining and impacting in the later speeches but having structure is really helpful for me in general

If you have any questions before the round you need urgently, please email me. I will be on my phone so a fast response can be expected.

Also, just saying, there's a line between being aggressive and asserting yourself and being rude. If you aren't sure where that line is, maybe err on the side of caution and don't be aggressive. I really have no tolerance for people being asshats during debate rounds and it just gets in the way of what could otherwise have been a good debate

Some advice on appealing to me as a judge:

I did debate recently but speed is not my forte. This doesn't mean don't spread, this means don't shoot through the 1AR/2NR and assume I caught everything. I can remember and understand the last few sentences you said if you clearly signpost and leave a little pause before moving to the next argument, so speed should not be a limiting factor. I would prefer that you go down the flow and don't jump around a lot, but it is your decision as a debater as to how you organize your speeches. In general, speaking clearly and making sure all your points are heard, in addition to not being messy will result in a better speech and ultimately a greater chance at winning, no matter the judge.

Finally, my personal bias: as a debater in high school I read all types of arguments, Theory, Topicality, Kritiks, Policy and thats pretty much all of the categories. Towards the end of my career I was kritik heavy; specifically anthropocentrism.

I AM NOT AN ANTHRO HACK I SWEAR. I will evaluate it like any other argument on the flow. plus if you a crappy job reading it I will tank your speaks 4 being fake. That being said, if you do enjoy reading anthro though please pref me a 1, I will have a great time (no speaks boost tho) (ok this may be a lie).Speaker points scale:

Jae-Kyung Sim Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 6, 2019 at 6:36 AM CDT

Hi! I debated LD for 4 years at Seven Lakes in Houston, TX, and currently am a sophomore at Princeton. I attended UTNIF for camp, one summer for LD, and another summer for policy; I was the 2A/1N, if that's relevant. I am also on the parliamentary debate team here, and do mostly APDA.

I have almost completely phased out of high school debate, so I don't really know anything about the topic either; don't assume I know the "stock arguments," because they won't feel stock to me. It would also be great if you slow down when you speak in the mornings/first few rounds of the tournament.

The gist of my paradigm is that I think I am generally willing to vote on most arguments as long as they are not explicitly offensive, although my ability to follow different types of arguments may vary. The following are some specifics that may be of help:

LARP

I love these debates. I mostly larped throughout my career, especially my senior year. That also means I'm completely fine with slightly non-traditional larp-y strategies against K affs as well. For instance, reading a counterplan with a government actor against a performance, as long as some kind of framework justifies/weighs that offense.

Performances / Critical Affs / Ks and Framework

The fact that I loved larping doesn't mean I hate performances/k affs--I would actually love to learn about them. I just don't know much about most k lit because I'm unwoke (exceptions: areas I do know well are afropess, cap, biopower, anthro, and in that order), so assume I'm much dumber than average.

It is probably true though that when it comes to T vs. K debates, I do lean a little in favor of T. Also means I generally assume theory before K. I don't think this is because of inherent bias, it's mostly because when I listen to these kinds of debates, it's generally explained very poorly what the exact impacts/implications would be to voting on a K aff versus a more intuitive impact of engagement coming from T. So explain and weigh them clearly; it would be particularly persuasive if that is coupled with some defense on the link to engagement.

This would also mean that I generally prefer affs to have plan texts, or at least some kind of an advocacy text. I realized throughout my career that I have a difficult time weighing stuff / evaluating clash if there is no explicit advocacy text.

Neg Ks are completely fine. Even if I don't know the lit, just flesh out links/impacts in a way I could at least articulate in the RFD. Alternatives should be tangible or clear to me how they solve the aff/solve some bigger external impact.

Theory / Topicality / Tricks

I was never that good at theory, and have downed more rounds than I've won in these debates. That probably signals that I am also not the best theory judge, but I am personally fine with you reading theory, even if some of them may be "frivolous" theory, as long as there's some kind of clash and engagement from both sides. Just be reasonable about them against novices.

I assume reasonability, cx checks (as in I think it's a compelling argument, not that you always need to check in cx), drop the debater, fairness is a voter, and no rvis. It's easy to persuade me otherwise, however.

I don't like spec shells very much, unless it's clear to me where the abuse is. Generally, I feel like the less spec there is, the easier engagement is--feel free, though, to persuade me otherwise in the debate.

I have a slightly high bar for "T version of the aff." People spend 5 seconds saying the phrase in the 1NC and use it as a reason to nullify all offense in the NR. You should at least spend a solid time giving me a T version that I could visualize in my head in the initial speech, contextual to the exact arguments the aff is making.

I think SOME tricks are funny, especially if they are original and make logical sense in a really weird kind of way. But it's probably also true that there are more important discussions to be had when they are initiated, so please stride away from them when someone reads a k aff or something.

I have never seen or hit an a priori in my entire debate career. I think they are before my time, so I don't even know how these really work. So probably don't read them?

Phil / High Theory

I am not as fine with phil or high theory (Kant is okay, I think...). Especially high theory. As in I don't hate them or will down you for reading them, I'm just completely unequipped to judge these debates--I never debated them a lot. If you explain them well/make it possible for me to give an RFD without confusion though, I will definitely give you very high speaks.

Miscellaneous

I like email chains (email: j.sim@princeton.edu)

I'll be pretty standard with speaks. As in 27.5 is the starting point, and you'll usually go up from there depending on how good you are. If you can make funny jokes, that's a plus.

Disclosing is good. I don't like hearing disclosure theory debates, because it generally involves some assumptions about the debate community and I don't really know much about the community. I honestly don't even really know what the disclosure norms are like nowadays, so I just want y'all to be happy with what has been disclosed / what has not been disclosed prior to the round.

And mostly importantly, have fun!!! FB message me if you have any questions (Jaekyung Sim).

Bala Sundar Thomas Jefferson HSST 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 13, 2019 at 12:58 PM EDT

In general, I prefer the standard debate methodology, Other styles of arguments are fine, but if they aren't run well or detract from the overall debate experience, I am far less likely to pick them up.

Please do not sacrifice clarity for the sake of speed, if I can't figure out what you are saying I cannot flow, should this be the case I will verbally request for clarity, if it persists beyond that point my ability to flow will be impacted. That said, I am generally fine with a moderate amount of speed when clear.

I will maintain a timer, but I am perfectly fine should you wish to use a cellular device for a timer or a laptop or tablet as a document reader / note taker.

I appreciate brief roadmaps prior to giving a speech, which I will not time.

Over the course of the debate I expect interaction between debaters, without back and forth the overall quality of the debate is diminished and it becomes harder to judge.

Value and Criterion: Value and Criterion matters and I will hold the debater to the value that is expressed as the criterion need to relate to the value at all times.

Evidence matters a lot. I am open minded, and I do come prepared with a lot of evidence on the topic before I judge but I am not constrained by my views.

Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the other team's evidence. Truth = evidence quality + technical proficiency. Author qualifications matter with authenticity and not some random reference

The aff. should be topical. The aff. needs an offensive justification for their vision of the topic. Reasonability is meaningless and ultimately begs the question of the impact.

Conditionality is good. I am far more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one.

Clarity. Be clear. Keep the tempo reasonable at all times. Keep your enthusiasm at all times and work through the end of the debate. After several rounds of debate, it gets tiring and I get it but you cannot lose hope and give up. If your enthusiasm and involvement suffers, your points will suffer. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping.

Crystalization of Points: You can crystallize but I will judge independent of your crystallization

Speaker Points: As far as Speaker Points, professionalism is highly encouraged, try to stay organized and track your own time, I will be doing so as well but having good tempo and structure to arguments vastly improves a speeches cogency. Additionally, if you come across as disrespectful or rude you take away from the debate experience and I am inclined to take away speaker points.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round starts once both the debaters are in the room.

Pasha Temkin Bergen County Academies 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 30, 2018 at 3:09 PM EDT

Updated for Princeton 2018

Email: paveldtemkin@gmail.com

Debated for:

PF: Princeton HS, NJ (2012-14)
APDA: Rutgers University, NJ (2015-2018)

Coached for:

PF: Stuyvesant HS, NY (2014-15)
PF: Bergen County Debate Club, NJ (2018-present)
APDA: Johns Hopkins University, MD (2018-present)

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

I'll be as non-interventionist as I physically can be, sometimes to the point of mind-boggling obstinacy. If you explain every step in the link-chain I will be happy, if you don't you won't be happy.

Speed: Moderate. May ask you to CC me on the email chain.

Framework/Theory/Kritiks/T/DAs: Fine. Please be clear, especially in the very first links and the very last impacts.

Philosophy: I studied analytic philosophy, so I'll be very familiar with that literature, in particular metaethics and epistemology. I have read some continental/critical stuff, but have less familiarity.

Literally do not care what you do in a round.

Public Forum paradigm

A few remarks:

If it's important to my RFD, it needs to be in both summary and final focus, especially if it's offense. A few exceptions to this rule:

Rebuttal responses are "sticky". If there's a rebuttal response that was unaddressed, even if it wasn't in your opponents' summary or FF, I will still consider it against you.
If a central idea is seemingly conceded by both teams, it is true in the round. For example, if most of the debate is on the warrant level, and the impacts are conceded, I will extend the impacts for you even if you don't explicitly, because this allows you time to more adequately analyze the clash of the debate.

Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
Warrants are extremely important; you don't get access to your evidence unless you give me warrants.
If you are non-responsive, I am fine with your opponents "extending through ink" -- in order to get defense, you need to be responsive.
Feel free to make whatever arguments you want.

I can be interventionist when it comes to evidence; I will call for it in three scenarios:

You read evidence that I have also read, and I think you misrepresented the evidence.
Your evidence is called into question/indicted.
You read evidence that sounds really sketchy.

In all cases, I will call for the evidence and decide for myself. I will sometimes call for evidence in round, after a team asks to see it during prep; do not be alarmed, I'm doing it to discourage abusive misquoting.

Speaker Points

I tend to be fairly low-speaking. What matters, in rough order of importance:

Ethical treatment of evidence, both yours and your opponents'. (I have given 20s to teams misusing evidence in the past, and I'll gladly do so again--don't tempt me.)
The presence of weighing/narrative.
Nuanced, well-warranted analytical argumentation.
Well-organized speeches. (Road maps optional; Signposting non-optional)
Appealing rhetorical style.
In-round courtesy and professionalism.

Andrew Torrez Catonsville HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 19, 2022 at 8:45 AM EDT

Contact
Email is andrew.torrez@gmail.com for the email chain.

NEW for TOCs (4/19/2022)

I did not judge much during 2021-22; I have 10 rounds on the Jan/Feb topic and three are from outrounds. In those rounds, I voted Aff 5 times (50%), and in out-rounds I voted Aff once (33%). I sat once (Octos @ Golden Desert). I've been through this paradigm recently and it reflects my current judging preferences.

2020-2021 Summary

I judged 60 rounds at last year at 13 different TOC bid-distributing tournaments. In prelims, I voted Aff 24 of 53 rounds (45.2%). In out-rounds I voted Aff 1/7 (14%) (Oof.) I did not sit out on a panel last year (Stanford, Emory, Big Lex, College Prep, Glenbrooks, Grapevine outrounds).

How To Pref Me:

LARP 1 - I'm a LARP hack. I want good, specific topic lit. Longer cards >>>>> more cards.

Ks - 2/3 - treat me like a college policy judge on these; I want a thorough explanation of what the world of the neg looks like in the 1N. You're solid running Cap, Fem, Set Col, Securitization, most post-fiat stuff. Specific links to the 1AC are key. Update: If you want me to vote pre-fiat, the K needs an alt; I will buy a floating PIK as essentially a DA but I'm highly likely to allow new 2AR weighing.

Theory - 2/3 - My threshold for voting is genuine abuse, and I'd prefer to see that in terms of models of debate. I will listen to even frivolous theory arguments but my threshold for answers is very, very low. I vote on RVIs more than most judges. I will vote on Nebel T.

Phil - 2/3 - Happy to evaluate your NCs. The status of most LD phil debate right now is not great - it tends to be a lot of blippy spikes, and I'm definitely on team "give me new 2AR responses on anything extended into the 2N," see tricks below.

Performance/Non-T Affs: 3 - I'm open, and I've enjoyed some of these cases but you probably don't want to pref me high if this is your jam. If you run T/Framework on the neg, I'm likely a very good judge for you.

Lay - 4 - I really love lay debate and can appreciate when it's done well, but I'm tab enough that you're almost certainly better off taking some random parent judge. Note: if you're a circuit debater hitting a lay debater and you adapt to them (i.e., no spreading, no theory args, just run your larp case) and win, I will reward you with a 30. Note: if you're an insecure circuit debater worried you're going to lose to a lay debater and you don't adapt to them, I'll just judge the round normally. If you're the lay debater, be smart in the round.

Tricks - 5 - The most I can say is that I will listen. I voted for Nate Krueger all the time, but he was kind of amazing at trix. My threshold for answers here is very, very low.

Stuff I don't like

Tricks and blippy one-line extensions that foreclose on your opponent's offense.

I'm sticking with 2020's "don't be squirrelly." That means: don't pretend you don't know what an a priori is in CX, don't hide spikes, don't lie about stuff you didn't extend, don't "explain" your crazy-ass Baudrilliard K with 3 minutes of nonsense in CX and then all of a sudden tell a straightforward story in the 2N, don't lie about your super-vague "I'm whole rez!" methods to exclude all clash in the 1AR, etc. Don't be squirrelly!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Longer stuff if you've got time:

Speed

UPDATED - Particularly online, I can no longer handle your top, top speed; it just becomes a kind of hazy whine in my headphones. Call me a 6 or 7 out of 10. Slow WAY down for tags and analyticals, particularly in rebuttals and especially if it's not on your speech doc. If you're spreading prewritten analyticals, send those with your speech doc to me and to your opponent. I'll clear you if I have to.

Evidence

Like I said, long cards >>>> more cards. Don't power-tag. I love love love when debaters re-cut their opponent's evidence in the next speech to show that it was power/mistagged - that has to be read, not inserted.

Nebel T

I think Nebel is correct, but this winds up being a lot more nuanced in the context of an LD round. Yes, semantics outweigh pragmatics on interpretation, but pragmatics control when we're talking voters/remedy. Here's a real-world example of how that played out. So, I agree with Nebel in the abstract that it's kind of silly that on a topic like "RT: States ought to ban their nuclear arsenals," the most common 1AC was Indo-Pak because that's literally not at all what the topic committee wanted you to debate. That being said, I don't think I ever voted for T on the nukes topic against spec affs because the 1AR answer of "come on, there are only 7 nuclear nations, if you're not prepared for Indo-Pak, you haven't done enough research" was probably sufficient. On the other hand, if your plan was to ban landmines in Myanmar as a spec for "states ought to ban lethal autonomous weapons," then yes I voted for Nebel T every time. The Niemi "indict" is crap and we all know it.

On Embedded Clash

I find that I'm evaluating a lot of embedded clash, especially in late outrounds. Here are my thoughts on that: (a) the best thing you can do is give me a real OV that explains the layers; (b) in the absence of strong ink on the flow, I'm open to applying arguments from one sheet to another, even if the overall sheet is a kick; (c) I'm not likely to credit a single-line blip extension as decisive when there are 130 lines on my flow; (d) you can weigh new in the 2N, but don't make new substantive arguments; and (e) I'm strongly disinclined against 1AR theory that basically forces new 2N/2AR responses unless you have a very strong abuse story.

1AR Theory

I'm open, but from a practical perspective, I think you really need to be winning your abuse story since 1AR theory pretty much requires judge intervention since the 2N CIs will be new and the 2AR will be asking me subjectively to evaluate whether they're "good enough." IOW, my threshold for 2N answers is pretty low.

In terms of my familiarity and preferences: give me post-fiat, topic-specific Ks like cap and set col over incomprehensible generics like Weheliye, Baudrilliard, D&G, etc.. That being said, you do you -- for example, I think the fem killjoy K is 100% true.

Also: chances are virtually 100% that I'm not at all familiar with your literature, and it seems (to me, anyway) that a lot of judges are giving K debaters waaaaaay too much credit for warrants in the underlying lit that are not read/explained in round. I'm not going to do that. This means that if you're exclusively a K-debater, you probably want to pref me lower, to be honest. Be explicit about whether your K is pre- or post-fiat. K vs. K rounds need to be clear about uplayering and internal links if on the same layer.

Disclosure Theory

Update - particularly at TOCs, I think it is important to have good disclosure practices; you all are the debaters that the rest of the community is trying to emulate. Open-sourcing with highlighted cards is the minimum of what I consider "good." I am not a fan of running friv disclo theory against a debater whose practices are, at minimum, "good." I will happily pull the trigger on an RVI on disclo if you've run something appallingly stupid like "must disclose the precise tournament name" against a debater with "good" disclosure practices.

"Don't be shady" applies here, too - don't misdisclose, don't waste your opponent's time before the round and then drop a doc 4 minutes before the round begins, etc.

I will listen to "new 1ACs bad" theory.

Defaults

I will never use a default if an argument is made on the issue, but in the absence of argumentation:

T > K
T and Theory are on the same layer; Metatheory uplayers
Reasonability over competing interps if not specified
No RVIs (my threshold for warranting this is low, 'I get RVIs' suffices)
Drop the arg on theory, drop the debater on topicality
Presume NEG
Affirming is harder because duh, 1AR
Neg gets 1 Condo advocacy
PICs must be uncondo
Weigh case against K

Speaks

I default to a 28.7-ish. I give 30s whenever the debater a) doesn't make any obvious technical or analytical mistakes and b) does at least one really cool/clever analytical thing, so, you know, reasonably often. Oh, I also give 30s when a tech-heavy debater adapts out of courtesy to a lay opponent. The only thing that will get me to tank your speaks is if you're bullying/obnoxious/abusive in the round.

IF YOU STILL DON'T KNOW, ASK! I'm happy to answer any questions about my paradigm before the round. I love LD, and I try to make it so that debaters enjoy debating in front of me.

Varun Venkatesh Hunter College 4 rounds

Regina Walker Ft Lauderdale HS 6 rounds

Michael Wang Hire 3 rounds

Brian Wiora Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 7, 2020 at 6:27 PM EDT

****MUST READ: I do not evaluate fairness as a voter. If you run it in front of me, I will not vote on it. You have been warned.

Background

I am an assistant coach for Harrison High School. I debated for four years in LD at Greenhill from 2009-2013. I was a philosophy major in college and now teach Poetry at Columbia University. I judged semis at the TOC in 2019.

General

Debate is fun! I enjoy judging good debates full of a lot of nuanced clash and weighing. The best debaters, in my opinion, are clear, well versed on the topic and, above all, persuasive. I think unwarranted arguments, tricks/spikes, and unnecessary/multiple theory shells are bad for debate and an unpersuasive strategy. Above all, I am more likely to drop a claim, no matter how many times it is dropped/extended, than I am add a warrant or impact.

Things I like

-A philosophical framework debate (with standards as opposed to ROB).

-Plans/Counterplans/PICs/Disads

-A good topicality debate

Things I don't like and won't vote for

-Fairness as a voting issue. Fairness is not a voter because A) Debate is an inherently unfair activity B) Fairness is not an intrinsic reason why we do debate and C) If fairness were a voter, I would flip a coin to decide the round. If you are interested in running a fairness voter in front of me, I would suggest playing a game of Chutes and Ladders or Tic-Tac-Toe instead.

-Independent voters, as in those arguments that appeal to something outside of an explicit weighing mechanism (value criterion, ROB, or justified voter)

-Unwarranted arguments. Again, I am more likely to drop a claim than add a warrant

-Any argument appealing to the Role of the Ballot/Role of the Judge as an A priori. In general, I do not think any argument in debate is an A priori, but especially not arguments that rely on my status as a judge or educator.

-If a card has been "cut" by a debater (as in, the debater stops reading the card mid way through and then moves on to another card), I will not vote on warrants that were cut.

My Default Assumptions (unless proven otherwise in the round)

-I operate under an offense/defense paradigm.

-The Role of the Ballot is to decide which debater better justified their side of the resolution.

-Debate is good. Philosophy is good for debate. Policymaking is good for debate too.

-Education is a voter, but less persuasive to me than Advocacy Skills, Critical Thinking, etc.

-No RVIs on T.

-Performance debate is fine, but the best performances link back to the topic.

Any other issue should be resolved by the debaters

Raymond Xu Hire 4 rounds

Yan Yuan Needham HS 6 rounds

Sarah Zingaro CR North HS 4 rounds

Login to Tabroom

The Princeton Classic

2018 — Princeton, NJ/US

Varsity LD Paradigm List

Judges