Lexington Winter Invitational

2019 — Lexington, MA/US

Rayhan Ahmed Paradigm

Hello, my name is Rayhan, I am a senior at Lexington high school. Email: rayhanfahmed@gmail.com, If you debate on paper then don't worry about sending it to me.

Novices: Debate should be fun! In that vain if you are rude, mean, etc. that will be reflected in your points.

Here are some of the things I think about debate:

- I have no specific preferences in the novice division, I will flow and evaluate anything that you say and make a decision accordingly.

- While I will not vote you down for reading a k aff, I will be slightly grumpy and your points will max at a 28, if you believe you have mastered debate to the point where you can transgress its norms please move to a higher division.

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

Ash Ahmed Paradigm

Not Submitted

Femi Akindele Paradigm

I am formally a policy judge however I love all arguments I am well versed with K debate CP and all formalities of debate my paradigm is simple convince me why your argument is valid and makes sense and should be weighed above the other team and I will vote for you you be it policy, kritik, E.T.C. I mostly look at the rebuttals, this is where you should be able to sell your point, bring everything together and convince me that your arguments outweighed the other team's.


More details, take notice.

Flashing- not very picky with the flashing cards or whatever, but just try to not waste too much time flashing or I will start running prep.

Line by line - I do pay close attention to specific arguments being made on the flow, that being said I hate judge intervention and will not draw any lines for you. I advice that you specify which arguments you want me to weigh in particular and its importance in the round

Topicality - I think that topicality is a strategic argument and will look at it as a disad, and pay particular attention to the 'impact" of the affirmative to both the fairness and education of the round. If you plan to go for topicality I want to see you prove abuse in the round without purposely opting out of potential arguments. Highly doubt that anyone will ever persuade me that it is a reverse voter or it's not a voting issue. *Love a great T debate*

Kritiks -- I think the best teams tend to look for more specific links outside of the generics read in the 1NC, if you can extract really good links from the evidence the aff presents, or the words that they use, it makes the K more powerful and decreases the chance of the aff swindling their way out. Also, having a pretty SOLID alternative really helps proves that their is a different non problematic approach, and gives neg some credibility. I think affirmative should always have a framework asking to weigh their case impacts against the Kritik, makes your case "matter" when it comes decision making.

Theory - not a huge fan, but I am against using this as a strategy for whatever... using theory alone to get the ballot is ill advised. I mostly likely will vote down the argument, unless you can prove that somehow they skewed your education or ability to debate failrly.

Case - self explanatory. for the aff team - Take good care of your aff throughout the round. Weigh it against everything, its your best defense mechanism.

Counter Plan - try to make it topic specific, and have a counter plan text

Framework - totally open to new ways of thinking/voting in rounds, I think its important that we question how we debate. I will go with whatever framework is presented and warranted the best in the round. If no framework is established in the round I will traditionally go with aff having to meet the burden of proof, and neg defending the status quo or a competitive policy action. Tips for running Framework - prove why your framework is best not only for you, but for the opposing team and for any other potential debate. The more inclusive and fair your framework to higher the chance I go with it.

Any further questions, ask away when you see me.

Ria Bhandarkar Paradigm

Lexington HS '20 (Policy debate)

UC Berkeley '24

Tl;dr: Tech > Truth. Line by line is always good. If you don't explain why you win the debate or weigh your arguments against your opponents, then I may have to do some of that work for you and that's not fun for anyone. I qualified to the NSDA as a sophomore and the TOC as a junior and senior so I have experience with both lay and technical debate. During my senior year, I went from being a 2N who went for politics DAs and process CPs to being a 2A who ran a planless aff so I like to think I'm pretty middle of the road.

For LD: Most of what I have below should apply but keep in mind that I'm not very familiar with all of the theory and tricks arguments that are exclusive to LD.

For PF: Speak confidently, be organized, show your research, and clash with your opponent.

Put me on the email chain: rsb0117@gmail.com

Case Debate

  • Make sure your aff's internal links make sense. A lot of affs get torn apart due to low-quality i/l evidence.
  • Good case debate is underrated and can be the difference between a win and a loss if you minimize the aff's offense. 1NCs that recut the 1AC are powerful.

Policy Strategies

  • I love politics DAs but if you have a good topic-specific DA on this topic, I'll be impressed because that's hard these days. I like it when people put emphasis on the outweighs/turns debate but in my experience, the link and internal link are the weakest parts of the DA so that's what both teams should focus on.
  • I don’t think any CPs are cheating unless the aff wins that they are on the flow. If you have a blippy one line arg on theory, it's an uphill battle to win it since you're kind of destroying its purpose. For what it's worth, I think neg ground has gotten progressively worse every year. Perm shields the link arguments are severely underrated.
  • I like generic CPs that are argued well with clear reasoning and aff specific CPs that are well thought out with good evidence. Judge kick isn't a default unless the aff drops it after the 2NR brings it up.
  • I don’t care what the T violation is, as long as you win it. T is about what you justify and want for the best model of debate. I also don't care about in-round abuse.

K Strategies

  • It looks so bad when people read Ks without knowing what they're talking about and it becomes really obvious in CX.
  • I am most familiar with literature bases about anti-blackness, settlerism, capitalism, gender, security, and biopower but I'm fine with anything.
  • I like a good alt explanation but I'm not one of those people who thinks that an alt needs to resolve everything- I'm even okay if you kick the alt as long as you can explain how you get offense off of the links or framework.
  • K v K debates tend to come down to who explains their method and theory of power better. My favorite ones will actually find problematic aspects in each others' scholarship.
  • I understand the point of long overviews but if you drop the line by line, you're letting the aff get away with murder.


  • I like FW debates and believe they should be about which model of debate does the most good.
  • The best FW 2NCs have shorter overviews and do most of the impact/TVA work on the line by line.
  • I think affs should be tied to the resolution in some way but what that means is debatable. If your aff interacts with the debate space more than the resolution, I'll still vote for you if you explain why the ballot is key.
  • Debate about how to approach the resolution but please follow speech times and don't ask for 30s.


I’ll start at 28.0 and move up and down. I usually only break 29 when I judge people who I think should make it to elims.

I will lower speaks if:

  • You’re sexist or racist. Debate should be civil.
  • You read an aff with trauma impacts that goes into very graphic detail (there's usually one about gender violence or human trafficking every year) and don't give a trigger warning to make sure your opponents are okay with it.
  • You say warming is good/doesn't exist. I think that's bad scholarship.
  • You're unclear.

I won’t be mad if:

  • You ask questions/postround- it's important for learning as long as you're being genuine.
  • You use flex prep AKA ask CX questions during your prep.

Devanshi Bhangle Paradigm

*** for pf: please note i have 0 experience judging or debating pf, but i do have a generally solid basic understanding of healthcare policy / public health policy (as it's tied almost directly to my major).

hi! my name is devanshi, i'm a current sophomore at mcgill university (it's in montreal) and i went to lexington hs before that. if you're reading this, i'm probably your judge.

if the round's about to start:

- be organized - subpoints, good line by line, etc.

- p l e a s e be clear. if you don't think you can be clear, slow down a little: you're better off going at 80% speed where i can understand everything you're saying as opposed to 100% where i can understand maybe half. i'm not shy about yelling clear but tbh it's not a good experience for any of us so please let it not come to that.

- tech > truth - if you win the flow, you win the round.

- on that ^ note, any of my thoughts below are loose interpretations of my current vision of the activity. in other words, you can read them if you'd like, but you don't have to (and in fact should not) change your arguments to "suit me".

- please don't make arguments or engage in behavior that threatens the safety and wellbeing of the people in the room or marginalized folks writ large. this includes: being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. i will not tolerate it, and doing so will result in an automatic loss, laughably low speaker points, and a word with your coaches.

- if your opponents are making you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, please let me know! i believe every video conferencing system has a function where you can privately send people messages. you can also email me. similarly, if there's anything i can do to make your experiences better (including using correct pronouns, avoiding certain topics, etc.) please let me know in whatever way is comfortable for you.

other stuff / if you have more time:

- an aff has to do two things: 1) create change; 2) be tied to the resolution in some way. beyond that, i don't really care whether it's a k aff or not. either ways, you should be able to defend your model of debate. (i happen to find k affs that challenge the structures of debate in round to be extremely interesting and make for interesting framework debates).

- i won't meticulously comb through your evidence for you. if there's a specific card that's really good for you or damning for your opponents, point it out to me in round.

- kritiks --> i'm fairly familiar with antiblackness, cap, and feminist literature, but beyond that, assume i have a very basic understanding (except for pomo, in which case, i know literally nothing). either ways, i find jargon confusing + unnecessary - in my experiences, the best k debaters have also been the ones who could most clearly explain what their theories are and how they link to the aff

- i really appreciate impact calc and think it's quite underrated.

- i like when counterplans have a solvency advocate that's specific to what the text mandates.

- note a huge fan of dodgy politics disads but if they're extended well and supported by your evidence they can be fun.

- there's a difference between being aggressive to make a point and being aggressive to intimidate your opponents. (can one even come across as aggressive over zoom?) either ways, err on the side of civility.

- tell me how to vote in the 2nr/ar!

- please include me in your email chain! i won't put my email here bc the last time i nearly got doxxed (if you're interested in the article that got boomers mad lmk; it's a cool lil piece about the us bombing laos + giving pennies as 'international aid') but i'll be sure to let y'all know what it is before the round starts :)

good luck, be nice, have fun! <3

Talia Blatt Paradigm

I do not have topic knowledge this year. Proceed accordingly.

You have < 10 seconds before the round:

a.) Tech > “truth” or ideological predispositions – although some level of judge intervention is inevitable, I will do my best to ensure that if you win the flow, you win the debate

b.) I will vote for both framework and k affs (see subpoint a)

c.) Rebuttals should frame why you win the debate

d.) In terms of qualifications, I did the whole TOC/speaker awards/late elims thing and I qualled to the NDT as a Harvard first-year, but I am a second year out – make of all of that what you will

e.) I love subpoints

Email Chain: yes


You have time:

As I debater, I am most frustrated by decisions in which I feel the judge voted in a way that doesn’t reflect the reality of the debate they judged. This could be because:

a.) The judge voted based on predetermined personal beliefs

b.) The judge heavily and somewhat arbitrarily intervened for one side

c.) The judge read all of the evidence at the end of the debate and reconstructed what could have happened, but didn’t

d.) The judge gave weight to new 1AR/2NR/2AR arguments

e.) The judge did other “work” for the debaters, making cross-applications or other analysis that the debaters themselves did not make in the debate

As a judge, I will attempt to NOT do these things, and to base my decision as much on the flow as I can.

Yes, I have biases. For example, I will generally assume that death and suffering are bad unless told otherwise. However, I will insist that debaters create clear metrics for evaluating impacts. My favorite thought experiment for this is the following:

If the 1AC presents all the ways their plan or advocacy CAUSES extinction, and the negative team makes purely “defensive” arguments about how the aff doesn’t cause extinction, and the aff wins in the 2AR that they do cause extinction, I will vote aff: Both teams implicitly agreed that extinction is a good we should try to reach. Obviously speaker points in this debate would be quite low, and I’d be frustrated with the decision, but I will do my best to work within the evaluative system the debaters have either explicitly or implicitly created.

Do I have thoughts about the way arguments should be deployed? Yes, and I will delineate them below, but they can almost always be reversed by good debating. What do I mean by good debating? Line-by-line, warranted analysis that clashes with the other team’s analysis, strategic use of evidence, organizational clarity, and impact and ballot framing are the most important things to me.

Framework and K Affs:

This is where all of the stuff I said about tech > truth and voting on the flow comes in – whoever does the best line-by-line and impact/ballot framing will win the debate. I debated and judge in the northeast. I would estimate that maybe 75% of my neg debates in high school were k aff v. framework rounds, so I like to think that I am familiar with how these debates go down, and I enjoy them.

If you are going for framework:

a.) Go for whatever impact you like going for – procedural fairness, clash, switch-side debate, et cetera. I disliked it when judges “liked T” but “didn’t believe” that fairness or clash was an impact. Tell me what I should think are impacts and why, and I’ll listen.

b.) Answer case or at the very least explain why you don’t have to answer case.

c.) Close doors in the 2NR. You know the 2AR will expand on case or a disad – try to cut that off.

d.) Line by line. Please. Messy and late-breaking clash rounds favor the aff.

e.) The TVA is your friend. The combination of the argument that deficits to the TVA are negative ground and the argument that reading stuff on the neg is good is very persuasive to me.

f.) Don’t be afraid to extend stuff on case in the 2NR, particularly presumption level claims that question their advocacy’s ability to solve stuff.

If you are going for a k aff:

a.) Please defend something. I love it when k affs defend some form of material action, but please advocate for something.

b.) A couple smart, powerful disads > laundry list of similar, poorly explained/differentiated disads to T

c.) Compare models of debate – what does your model of debate do? Why does it resolve the harms you say their model creates, and why does it limit their offense?

d.) Line by line, especially in the 1AR, is so important – don’t force your 2A to make new arguments

e.) Impact framing

f.) If you do cool non-traditional stuff, bring it back up after the 1AC. I am always a little disappointed when the 1AC includes some song or performance but it disappears immediately.


I LOVE the politics disad. As such if you extend it well, I will be happy, and if you extend it poorly, I will be sad. Extending a politics disad well means reading a ton of uniqueness cards and subpointing multiple answers to every 2AC argument. If this is done in the 1NR, and extended in the 2NR, speaks will be bueno.

Topic or process disads are also cool. Impact calc and turns case arguments are the move, especially link turns case arguments.

I don't have fixed ideological positions on the more nitty-gritty stuff -- it's up to the debaters to prove whether uniqueness controls the direction of the link, or vice versa, for instance.


EXPLAIN WHAT IT DOES! I don’t have a ton of experience judging on this topic; I won’t immediately know the agency or mechanism you are talking about.

Multi-actor fiat, delay, conditions, and some + process and consult = sketch; international fiat on an international topic I will probably be okay with if you have the evidence. Solvency advocates can basically make any counterplan legitimate to me, but I will listen to any theory debate, and the 2A in me may or may not pop out. Not to feed a fed horse, but all of these leanings can be reversed by good (read: clear) theory debating.

I probably won't judgekick unless I am explicitly instructed to.

Policy T:

EXPLAIN YOUR INTERP! I don’t have the topic knowledge to know if there is “consensus” about what certain terms in the resolution mean.

I may be more willing to listen to reasonability than other judges,


Most of my aff debates in high school were soft left aff versus the k. I like it when there are links to the plan, not to the status quo. I also like turns case analysis and when the alt does stuff.

Please don't assume that I am wholly unfamiliar with all k stuff because I ran mostly policy affs. I am pretty familiar with a lot of the anti-blackness and cap literature and I am very up for those throw-downs.

I have a medium level understanding of a lot of the other literature, but unless it's something super new or Frankensteined together, I will probably be able to follow you.

Do I have any judging quirks?

a.) I will care significantly less about evidence than a lot of judges you might have. If a piece of evidence is contested in a way that is irresolvable absent a post-round reading, I will call for that evidence. But unless evidence is contested or called attention to, I will not read it – I care far more about how it is used and the analysis that surrounds it. “The Jones card is better than their Adams card” matters far less to me than “They are misconstruing the Adams evidence – she concludes that China is a defensive realist for xyz reasons; we read red.” In general, a logical analytic matters just as much if not more to me than a card that is “fire.”

b.) I have some but not a lot of topic knowledge. Please err on the side of explanation.

c.) Most of my debates in high school were against k teams, but I went to Michigan and helped at the Dartmouth debate camp. I like to think that means I have some amount of both policy and critical experience.

d.) I was a 2A for most of high school but I 2Ned or double two-ed for a few years. That means I may lean aff on theory surrounding questionable counterplans but I lean negative when it comes to holding a high bar for the 2AR.

e.) I am passionate about climate change. If you like going for warming good, I am the wrong judge for you. I will look for any way to vote for the other team and your speaks will suffer. I honestly have no idea why the debate community continues to treat this as a legitimate argument. (If this seems at odds with my tech>truth beliefs, I agree that I am not being wholly consistent, but the notion of breeding apathy among youth about climate change is frankly abhorrent to me. Just as tech over truth does not extend to arguments like racism is good, climate change is something I feel obligated to hold the line on.)

f.) I care a lot about the participation of women, especially WOC, in debate. I will be extremely sensitive to the way non cis white men are treated in the debate space.

g.) I want to help debaters who don't receive a lot of formal coaching. I remember feeling intimidated and isolated in high school debate rounds when the other team had 3+ professional coaches in the room while my partner and I sat alone, desperately trying to figure out what we could do. A lot of my coaching in high school came from incredibly kind strangers in the debate community who were willing to help (take pity on) a panicked kid who didn't have the cards to answer a disad. If you ever have questions, whether they're about my decision or just arguments in general, email me: blatttaliaaspel@gmail.com or find me in the hallway, and I will do my best to help you out.

h.) Subpoints!

i.) I love, love, love topic education arguments, whether they're on framework/T or when you are aff going against a K or when you are going for a k and making arguments about what topic education SHOULD look like. As a policy 2A I loved making arguments about the way grassroots organizing can amalgamate careful policy research with novel or radical forms of praxis and pedagogy. Teams that do this will make me happy.

j.) References to Magi Ortiz, Debayan Sen, Rayhan Ahmed, Sydney Young, Samar Ahmad, or Ishan Bhatt = +0.2 speaks; references to any Lex debater / Lexington debate in general, including Sheryl Kaczmarek = +0.1 speaks

If either of my cats are present during the round and a debater compliments them, makes a reference to them in any way, or shows me their pet(s): +0.2 speaks

Novice paradigm

Hello novices!



-line by line

-impact calc

-using evidence

-using warrants

-splitting the block (if you don't know what this means, ask!)

-picking up on dropped arguments

-being assertive

-referencing Debayan Sen, Magi Ortiz, or Rayhan Ahmed (if you don't know who these scrubs are, no worries)

-frame my ballot (why do I vote for you? what impacts does voting for you ameliorate, and why do those impacts matter/matter more than the other team's impacts?)

-show me your flows after the round (+.1 speaks)

-asking questions!! email me ( blatttaliaaspel@gmail.com ) with any questions about my decision/debate in general


-extending claims without warrants + impacts

-bullying your partner or the other team

-block repetition (see above)

-switching flows without telling me when you are switching (signposting)

-reading arguments/blocks you don't understand

Daryl Burch Paradigm

Daryl Burch

currently the director of high school debate for the baltimore urban debate league (2007-present), also assist and aid in the development of argumentation for Towson University.

formerly coached at the University of Louisville, duPont Manual High School (3X TOC qualifiers; Octofinalist team 2002) have taught summer institutes at the University of Michigan, Michigan State, Emory, Iowa, Catholic University, and Towson University as a lab leader.

I debated three years in high school on the kentucky and national circuit and debated five years at the University of Louisville.

I gave that little tidbit to say that I have been around debate for a while and have debated and coached at the most competitive levels with ample success. I pride myself in being committed to the activity and feel that everyone should have a voice and choice in their argument selection so I am pretty much open to everything that is in good taste as long as YOU are committed and passionate about the argument. The worst thing you can do in the back of the room is assume that you know what I want to hear and switch up your argument selection and style for me and give a substandard debate. Debate you and do it well and you will be find.

True things to know about me:
Did not flow debates while coaching at the University of Louisville for two years but am flowing again

Was a HUGE Topicality HACK in college and still feel that i am up on the argument. I consider this more than a time suck but a legitimate issue in the activity to discuss the merit of the debate at hand and future debates. I have come to evolve my thoughts on topicality as seeing a difference between a discussion of the topic and a topical discussion (the later representing traditional views of debate- division of ground, limits, predictability etc.) A discussion of the topic can be metaphorical, can be interpretive through performance or narratives and while a topical discussion needs a plan text, a discussion of the topic does not. Both I think can be defended and can be persuasive if debated out well. Again stick to what you do best. Critiquing topicality is legitimate to me if a reverse voting issue is truly an ISSUE and not just stated with unwarranted little As through little Gs. i.e. framework best arguments about reduction of language choices or criticism of language limitations in academic discussion can become ISSUES, voting issues in fact. The negative's charge that the Affirmative is not topical can easily be developed into an argument of exclusion begat from predictable limitations that should be rejected in debate.

It is difficult to label me traditional or non traditional but safer to assume that i can go either way and am partial to traditional performative debate which is the permutation of both genres. Teams that run cases with well developed advantages backed by a few quality pieces of evidence are just as powerful as teams that speak from their social location and incorporate aesthetics such as poetry and music. in other words if you just want to read cards, read them poetically and know your argument not just debate simply line by line to win cheap shots on the flow. "They dropped our simon evidence" is not enough of an argument for me to win a debate in front of me. If i am reading your evidence at the end of the debate that is not necessairly a good thing for you. I should know what a good piece of evidence is because you have articulated how good it was to me (relied on it, repeated it, used it to answer all the other arguments, related to it, revealed the author to me) this is a good strategic ploy for me in the back of the room.

Technique is all about you. I must understand what you are saying and that is it. I have judged at some of the highest levels in debate (late elims at the NDT and CEDA) and feel pretty confident in keeping up if you are clear.

Not a big fan of Malthus and Racism Good so run them at your own risk. Malthus is a legitimate theory but not to say that we should allow systematic targeted genocide of Black people because it limits the global population. I think i would be more persuaded by the argument that that is not a NATURAL death check but an IMMORAL act of genocide and is argumentatively irresponsible within the context of competitive debate. Also i am not inclined to believe you that Nietzsche would say that we should target Black people and exterminate them because death is good. Could be wrong but even if i am, that is not a persuasive argument to run with me in the back of the room. In case you didn't know, I AM A BLACK PERSON.

Bottom line, I can stomach almost any argument as long as you are willing to defend the argument in a passionate but respectful way. I believe that debate is inherently and unavoidable SUBJECTIVE so i will not pretend to judge the round OBJECTIVELY but i will promise to be as honest and consistent as possible in my ajudication. Any questions you have specifically I am more than happy to answer.

Open Cross X, weird use of prep time (before cross x, as a prolonging of cross x) all that stuff that formal judges don't like, i am probably ok with.


Sachiv Chakrvarti Paradigm

Lexington High School 2020

Add me to the chain: sachiv.chakravarti@gmail.com

I have gone for hard right, soft left and high theory K affs (Baudrillard) - check below for specifics

disads - do impact calc in the rebuttals, don't double turn yourself, link probably determines uniqueness, make sure you contextualize the link to the aff - even if you don't have cards, you should be able to explain the da in the context of what the aff does - zero risk is a thing

counterplans - the cp should solve the entirety of the aff with a net benefit (assuming you're not going for pics or adv cps) - counterplan text matters so i'm persuaded by aff arguments that point out plan flaws in the cp text - solvency advocates are nice

theory - 2 condo is probably fine, 3+ is questionable - i'll probably lean aff on process/consult cp theory but that shouldn't stop you from reading one as long as you have a good defense of it - slow down on theory and t - if you go for theory in the 2ar you should spend all 5 minutes on it

topicality - i default to competing interpretations - prove that your model of debate is better and you will win - flesh out standards and weigh your own standards against your opponents - if youre going for t in the 2nr spend 5 min on it

kritiks - Go for it! You should be able to articulate your theory of power or thesis and how that interacts with the specifics of the 1ac - Make sure you frame the round through the links

k affs/fw - not a fan of k affs in the novice division given that your opponents are beginners who are still struggling to navigate the basics of debate - it won't affect win/loss but i will probably dock your speaks - if you think you've mastered the fundamentals of debate enough to transgress its norms, do yourself and your opponents a favor and challenge yourself in a more advanced division

case - case debate is underrated - I'll vote on presumption - try to debate the aff no matter what it may be

dropped arguments - an argument is a claim, warrant, and impact - if you don't have all three, then you haven't made an argument - a dropped claim is not the same as a dropped argument - your rebuttals should not consist of tagline extensions and you should explain your warrants and how it interacts with the rest of the flow

cross-ex - fine with open cx just don't be excessive - cx is binding but arguments made in cx should be extended in an actual speech or its unlikely to make it on my flow

speaker points - i start at 28.0 and move up and down depending on what happens in the round

misc -

tech determines truth

if you're unclear i'll say clear twice but after that i'm not flowing

time your own speeches and prep because i won't be doing it for you

don't steal prep

feel free to ask me anything before or after the round about this paradigm or about the round in general

have fun, be nice and respectful

Victor Chen Paradigm

Lexington High School 2020/UC Berkeley 2024

Before the round starts, please put me on email chains: victor45678@berkeley.edu (no pocket box and flashing is ok with no wifi)

Scroll down for PF paradigm


TLDR: tech over the truth but to a degree. (no sexist, racist, other offensive arguments) You do you, and I'll try to be as objective as possible. Aff should relate to the topic and debate is a game. Just make sure in the final rebuttal speech you impact out arguments, explain to me why those arguments you are winning implicate the whole round.

2020 season: I have absolutely no topic knowledge on this year's topic so expect me to know nothing and make sure you explain the stuff in a very detailed yet not convoluted manner. Yale will be my first tournament this year, but I will probably get better as the tournament goes on. I also never debated/judged online before, so pls excuse if I have tech issues or don't know some stuff.

The long paragraphs below are my general ideas about the debate

Top Level Stuff

1. Evidence -- I believe debate is a communicative activity, thus I put more emphasis on your analytical arguments than your cards. That being said, I do love good evidence and enjoy reading them. I think one good warranted card is better than three mediocre ones. I am cool with teams reading new cards in all the rebuttal speeches. A good 1AR should read more than 3 cards and don't be afraid to read cards in the 2NR. I believe that at least one speech in the block should be pretty card heavy, otherwise it makes the 1AR a lot easier. I will read the tags during rounds for the most part and read the text usually after rounds, but I won't do the extensive analysis for you because you should have already done that in the round.

2. Cross X is incredibly important for me and I flow them---I find it extremely frustrating when the 2N gets somewhere in 1ac cx, and then the 1N doesn't bring it up in the 1NC. Winning CX changes entire debate both from a perceptual level and substance level. Use the 3 minutes wisely, and don't ask too many clarification questions. You can do that during prep.

3. Be nice -- Obviously be assertive and control the narrative of the debate round, but there's no reason to make the other team hate the activity or you in the process. I am cool with open cross x but you should try to let your partner answer the questions unless they are going to mess up.

4. Tech over truth, but to a degree- If an argument is truly bad, then beat it. Otherwise, I have to intervene a ton, and I prefer to leave the debating to the debaters. However, I'm extremely lenient when one team reads a ton of blippy, unwarranted, and unclear args( quality over quantity). The only real intervention is when I draw the line on new args, but you should still make them and somehow convince they aren't new.

5. Pay attention to how I react in-round --I will make my opinion of an argument obvious

6. Make 1AR as difficult as possible. I know a lot of 2Ns want to win the round by the end of the block. However, that doesn't mean you should just extend a bunch offs terribly. In response, the 1AR should make the 2NR difficult- reading cards and turning arguments.

7. Please please have debates on case. I understand neg teams like to get invested in the offs, but case debate is precious. A lot of the aff i have seen are terribly put together, especially at the Internal Link level. Even if you don't have evidences, making some analytical arguments on why the plan doesn't solve goes a long way for you. I vote on zero probability of aff's ability to solve so even when you go for a CP, you should still go to case so I would have to vote you all down twice to vote aff.

8. Impact/Link Turns-- love them; i don't care how stupid the impact is(wipeout, malthus, bees etc), as long as you read ev and the other side doesn't argue it well, I will vote for you. As for link turn, I don't really need a carded ev for that, just nuanced analytic is sufficient for me to buy them.

9. Be funny-debate is stressful and try to light up the mood. Love a few jokes here and there, but since I am someone not invested in pop culture too much, some of the references I probably wouldn't get. If you do it well, your speaker point will reflect it.

10. Speaks- I am very lenient on speaks. I just ask you to slow down on the tags and author name and any analytical args but feel free to spread through the text of the card. I love any patho moments in the final rebuttal speeches on both sides. Here are how I give speaks

29.7-30: A debate worth getting recorded and be shared with my novices.

29.3-29.6: You are an excellent debater and executed everything right

28.7-29.2: You are giving pretty good speeches and smart analytics

28.5-28.6: You are an average debater and going through the process. I begin the round with that number and either go up or down.

28.0-28.4: You are making a few of the fundamental mistakes in your speeches or speaking unclearly.

27.0-27.9: You are making a lot of fundamental mistakes and you are speaking very unclearly

<27.0: You are rude ie being mean to your partner, opponents, or me (hope not).

Clipping card results in automatic 0 speaks and a loss, but I won't intervene the round for you, you have to call out your opponents yourself. If one team accuses the other team for clipping, I will stop the round and ask the team if they are willing to stake the round on that. If the team says yes I will walk out with the recording provided by that team and decide if the cheating has happened or not. A false accusation results in an automatic loss of the team that got it wrong. Spakes will be given accordingly.

Now on arguments


Yes, love them(Idk if there is anyone who doesn't like a good DA debate) -- go through their ev in the rebuttals; this is where i would like a team to read A LOT of evidence on the important stuff. You can blow off their dumb args, especially the links.

Zero Risk is very much a thing and I will vote on it.

If the 1ar or 2ar does a bad job answering turns case and the 2nr is great on it, it makes the DA way more persuasive -- and a good case debate would greatly benefit you as well.

Politics is OK -- fiat solves link, da non-intrinsic are arguments that I will evaluate only if the other team doesn't respond to them at all. However, I do want to see good ev on why the plan trades off with the DA.

I think it's best to have a CP and DAs together because there are just a lot more options at that point. If you really wanna just go for the DA, you need to have a heavy case debate up to that point for me to really evaluate the status quo since most of the aff are built to mitigate the status quo.

CPs and theory

I dislike process CPs-- I really don't like these debates -- I've been a 2n as well as a 2a, but I will side with the aff - this goes for domestic process like commissions as well as intermediary and conditional that lurk in your team's backfile. However, I have a soft spot for consult CP (my first neg argument). Just make sure you do a great job on the DA.

States, international, multi-plank, multi-actor, pics, CPs without solvency advocates are all good -- i'll be tech over my predispositions, but if left to my own devices, I would probably side with aff also

Condo -- all depends on the debating -- I think there could be as many condo as possible. but I also believe zero condo could be won. Still, my general opinion is that conditionality is good and aff teams should only go for them as a last resort.

I will read the solvency evidence on both sides. Solvency deficits should be well explained, why the solvency deficit impact outweighs the DA.

I don't like big multi-plank CPs, but run it as you like and kicking planks is fine

Judge kick unless the 2AR tells me otherwise.


I have some decent knowledge with a lot of the high theory Ks, but I am probably most well versed in psychoanalysis. That being said, I do want you to explain to me the story of the k and how it the contextualizes with the aff well in the block. Don't just spill out jargons and assume i will do the work for you. A good flow is important. What happens with alot of K debates is that at some point the negative team just give up on with ordering and it's harder for me to know where to put things. Any overview longer than 3 minutes is probably not a good idea but if that's your style, go for it, just make sure you organize them in an easy to flow manner. I probably will do the work for you when u said you have answered the args somewhere up top, but i would prefer the line by line and your speaker point will reflect how well you did on that.

FW should be a big investment of time and I think it's strategic to do so. That being said, you have to clearly explain why the aff's pedagogy is problematic and the impacts of that.

I am fine with generic links, just make sure you articulate them well. That being said, most of these links probably get shielded by the permutation.

Alt debate is not that important to me. I don't believe a K has to have an alt by the 2nr. I go for linear DA a lot, but make sure you do impact calc in the 2nr that explains why the K impact outweighs the aff. For the alt, I would like the aff to read more than just their cede the political block, make better-nuanced args.

Planless affs

I am probably not the best the judge for these kinds of aff but I will evaluate them as objectively as possible


The aff should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan. At the very least, the aff has to have some relationship to the topic. I want the offense to be articulated well because many times I get confused with the offenses of these affs. I think fairness is absolutely an impact as well as an I/L. I default to debate is a game and it's gonna be hard to convince me otherwise.

I think the ballot ultimately just decides a win and a loss, but I can be convinced that there are extra significances and values to it. That being said, I have seen a lot of k aff with impacts that the ballot clearly can not address.


Not a big fan of these debates and never have been good at it.

From Seth Gannon's paradigm:

"Ironically, many of the arguments that promise a simpler route to victory — theory, T — pay lip service to “specific, substantive clash” and ask me to disqualify the other team for avoiding it. Yet when you go for theory or T, you have cancelled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debate and are asking me to validate your decision. That carries a burden of proof unlike debating the merits. As Justice Jackson might put it, this is when my authority to intervene against you is at its maximum."

On this topic specifically, I dislike effect Ts

These debates are boring to me and I will side with the aff if they are anyway close to being Topical

Reasonability = yes


I am a flow judge. Any speed is fine in the PF world, but don't try to spread when you never have spreaded before. I have come to realize that PFers power-tagged cards to an extreme, which means I will most likely ask for cards at the end of the round. Please provide me with the portion of the card you have read and the entire article. That being said, I don't believe every argument needs a card to absolutely support it-smart analytics and logics will earn you speaker points. Also, I abs love for you to try new unique arguments. I think public forum is way too restrictive, and if you are daring enough to run arguments from other forms of debate or just unorthodox arguments, I WILL ABSOLUTELY VOTE FOR YOU. Argument innovation is ALWAYS welcomed.

Also, you don't have to ask me to do anything. You just do you, and I will let you all do whatever you want as long as it's not rude/offensive(and even then which I won't interfere, but it will impact ur speaker point). How I assign speaks are above.

Jakhi Dean Paradigm

I am a student at Umass Amherst studying political science. I debated for 3 years at New Mission High School out of Boston. In a round, I look for confidence. Don't be disrespectful or arrogant and we'll be good. If you have a K AFF, just make sure there is a method to getting to your solution. I'm cool with any type of argument. I tend to vote on the flow. Please make sure your explanations are clear. Give me an impact calc!!

I tend to give high speaker points unless you drop too many arguments or make any major errors. As a tabula rasa judge, I look for you to show me why I should vote on certain arguments. Again, any type of argument is fine with me. Topicality, kritiks, Da's, and theory are all fine with me and I understand them when ran. If you spread, make sure you at least go over your tag-lines slowly so that I can mark that down on the flow. That's all. Let's all have a good time. Any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Jinhee Heo Paradigm

Lexington 2020

Add me to the email chain: 0417jinhee@gmail.com


Tech > truth, policy-friendly, if you do line by line and impact calc you'll probably win and get high speaks.


Make smart analytics and read good evidence. I'm pretty expressive; if I'm not flowing or making weird faces, it's probably best to move on. Just have fun!


<27.0 - if you're saying something blatantly racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. rip your speaks. Depending on the round, I could give the lowest speaks possible at a tournament/drop you.

27.0-27.9 - You're stealing prep, rude, etc.

28.0-28.4 - Probably not going to break.

28.5-28.9 - You're pretty good. Probably going to break.

29.0-29.9 - You're going to make it to late elims, possibly going to final/win.

30 - You're Q of Lex HQ

Things to help your speaks:

- be funny (but not cringy)

- line by line

- impact calc

- good cross ex (seriously)

- timing yourself

- being polite

- being time-efficient

- making a vine reference

- making fun of Emily Qiu

Things to deck your speaks:

- being rude (including towards your partner!!)

- not flowing

- stealing prep

- just reading blocks

- calling me judge. pls no.

- shaking my hand. pls no pt 2.


Reading down blocks < proper line by line. Having actual links and internal links to specific impacts need to be well articulated and impacts must be explained. This means that you can't get away with just saying "they cheated!" That said, sassy T debates are fun. Call the other team dirty cheaters and expect your speaks to go up.


Remember to explain the internal link chain thoroughly and do impact calc. If you're aff and have never seen a certain DA before, don't get psyched out: ask smart cx questions and call them out because all DAs are super sketchy.


Generics are fine, but you can always contextualize them to specific affs. Aff-specific CPs and advantage CPs are always fun to watch. Process CPs are probably bad, so I'll be more sympathetic to the aff on theory.


I evaluate them like any other argument—explain the impacts and alt, but the link is where you should do the most work. Find lines in the 1AC and ask specific cx questions—you can find them, even if you don't have a card. This is a little unconventional but I don't think that framework on the K is super important—chances are the neg has a specific epistemological orientation and the way the aff usually impact turns their epistemology or falls under their interp. Either way, the aff will likely use their impacts to do so, so the aff should get to access their impacts—your framework probably allows it.


Seriously underrated. If you just go for 8 minutes of case in the block I'll be super impressed. Really good teams beat teams on their own aff. Aff—even if you don't have answers to a specific argument, you always have your aff to weigh it against. I will vote neg on presumption but only if the neg makes the argument.

K Affs

If you're a novice, I would be cautious about reading a K aff. Chances are you don't really understand it which means that you won't be able to explain it well either. I'm admittedly not familiar with a lot of k lit, but as always, explain your arguments well. Especially since y'all are novices I am more sympathetic to the neg on framework, but will definitely vote up a k aff if you out tech the neg.


Debate is a game and fairness is an impact. That doesn't mean it can't be educational (although education is not my favorite impact) Going for framework is always fun. That being said, don't expect to just run it and win. I will definitely vote for a k aff if fw isn't run well.


Condo - For interps, I think you should just go for no conditional advocacies but am down for whatever. Remember to explain in round abuse but you can still win on a generic violation if you're on top of the line by line.

Other - reject the arg > reject the team. However, you can still use them in other ways—ie if they drop vague alts bad on the k, instead of rejecting the k you could use it to get new arguments on another flow. Get creative!

Misc - Process CPs are probably bad. Formal clothing,,,stop.


If you're down here then you've read my paradigm! Show me this and get some extra speaks.

Justin Hsu Paradigm

I debated for four years at Lexington High School, and am currently not debating in college. I have little to no topic knowledge.

Please add me to the email chain: justinh4033@gmail.com


- Disclosure is extremely important.

- Debate whatever style you are comfortable with. I'm experienced with speed but do what you are comfortable with. Seriously. I just want a good debate.

Top Level

I'm a firm believer in the strategic aspect of debate. My favorite part of judging a debate is watching what kinds of unique strategies you can have come up with, the research you have done to support it, and how you execute it. I'm pretty open-minded and enjoy pretty much any type of debate, so run whatever you want. I would much rather you run what you're comfortable with, rather than trying to over-adapt to me.

I will not accept any discriminatory behavior (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc). I generally believe that you are good human beings and will be respectful to each other, so don't prove me wrong.

Tech over truth. How well something is debated determines how much truth I assign to it. While the truth level can lower or higher the threshold of tech required to persuade me, I will judge by the flow. A dropped argument is a true argument. That means it must have a claim, warrant, and impact.

Draw comparisons. Explain why your impacts are important outweigh those of your opponent. This also goes for every part of an argument, like uniqueness, the link, etc. Compare evidence and warrants. Draw a distinction between the alt and the perm. Explain how each argument implicates your opponent's arguments and the rest of the debate. The best rebuttals will break down the core issues of the debate and write my ballot for me. Debates that lack comparison make it difficult for me to write a decision, which will probably make one side unhappy every time.

Evidence quality. Evidence is incredibly important, but it can also be trumped by sound, logical arguments. I value good spin of your evidence. That being said, I strongly dislike when people highlight words out of context or jumble together random words to form an argument. So many teams get away with reading bad evidence, but if you don't mention it, it will continue.


I default to competing interpretations over reasonability, but this is totally up for debate. Reasonability can definitely be persuasive in the right circumstances. Lots of impact calc needs to be done on both sides, and the internal links to your offense should be clearly explained.


Have good turns case analysis at each level of the disad (link, internal link, impact). Make sure to have good, recent evidence because these debates often come down to evidence quality. I don't have any strong opposition to the politics disad – the internal links may be silly, but it's probably a necessity on this topic and I will evaluate it like a normal disad.


While it is very helpful to have them, CPs do not need carded solvency advocates, especially if they are based on some of the aff's internal links. All CPs need to have a clear net benefit and must be competitive. I would like an explanation of the perm and how it shields the link to the net benefit, and this explanation should be happening early on in the debate. PICs are awesome, especially ones that are specific to the aff.


I enjoy a good K debate, as long as there is good analysis and explanation. I will typically allow the aff to weigh their impacts. That being said, what does it really mean to weigh a fiated extinction impact against your epistemology? I believe affs should have a stronger framework push than just "weigh the aff" because most neg framework arguments will implicate this very process of impact calculus. Specificity to the aff is extremely important, but not necessary. However, generic link arguments without sufficient analysis will make me much more receptive to the perm. Don't read super long overviews - put the explanation of the K's thesis there, maybe an impact explanation, but the rest can go on the line-by-line.

Planless Affs

I think fairness is an impact, and probably the most convincing one. However, you still need to explain to me why that matters. Impacts that rely on some spillover to institutions (i.e. Lundberg 10) are unconvincing to me. If you are going for T, you should answer relevant arguments on the case page. I think TVAs are strategic and don't have to be perfect.

The aff should have a mix of offense and defense to defeat framework. Most of the time, the impact turn approach is a lot more convincing than trying to win a counter-interpretation, but this depends on the aff. Leverage your aff against framework – impact turn the aff's model of debate or read disads to it based on the thesis of the aff. Defensive arguments can also mitigate a lot of the risk of the neg accessing their impacts.


If you're going for theory, in-round abuse is extremely important. I think the only the thing that can rise to the level of a voting issue is conditionality. 3 condo is fine with me; 4+ is pushing it. Counterplan theory objections are much less convincing if you have a good solvency advocate. I will lean neg on agent cps and 50 state fiat because of the lack of great neg ground on this topic. I lean aff on consult cps, word pics, and certain process cps. Unless there is a 2NR argument for it, I will not kick the CP for you.

Jonathan Hsu Paradigm

Jonathan Hsu (he/him)

Lexington High School 2020, CWRU 2024

Not currently debating, qualified to the TOC in my senior year.

add me to the email chain: Jonathan4033@gmail.com

**Note:** This is Rishi Mukherjee's paradigm, as I share the same ideological underpinnings as he does. If you have any specific questions on my judging philosophy, feel free to reach out before round :) I also know nothing about this year's topic, so don't expect me to know the nuances of CJR in a policy slamdown.

Top Level:

- I try to minimize intervention and as a debater I always despised judges I believed inserted bias into the decision. I understand that bias is inevitable but I will do my best to minimize it. I think tech determines and influences truth in debate. Everything I will say later on are solely ideological leanings that are easily swayed by good debating.

- Judge instruction is paramount. Telling me what the consequence of winning a particular argument is on the debate will be formative in determining how I evaluate the debate. Argument resolution wins debates, explaining the interaction between your and your opponent's arguments and why it favors you will win you close rounds. Absent any instruction from debaters I'll make my own judgement on how to evaluate competing arguments.

- Online debate changes a lot. You cannot pull up to a debate tournament without understanding what you have to change. I consider myself a very adept flower, yet I guarantee I will not be able to get everything down if you go at top speed. Note that I will NOT say "slow" or "clear" in the middle of a speech. I am not saying I will be lazy, rather that it is in your best interest to have me understand everything you say and I don't want to incentivize debaters spamming argus until a judge interrupts. I would rather incentivize teams to over-compensate and debate carefully. You should also record your speeches; I have had many instances occur where a debater disconnects in the middle of a speech, and recording prevents issues that arise from this. Recording your speeches also helps you with redos and getting better so it's a win-win you should do it. Look even if you don't believe your coach who's a boomer and is ranting about this, you should believe me, I think I'm qualified to speak on this because I've personally debated at 3 online tournaments as of New Trier and judged at 2 online tournaments so far which excludes multiple online practice debates.


- I believe there's no one right way to run FW on the neg. It's strategic to be able to debate multiple styles of FW. I think that categorizing certain impacts as wholesale strategic or not viable is wrong. When you're debating you should go for whatever standards give you the best strategic orientation to the aff's arguments.

Ks v Policy Affs

- I'm familiar with various literature bases. However, even if I know the thesis of your theory of power that's not an excuse to substitute out explanation. I won't vote on arguments that aren't explained and developed.

- I find it easier to vote for K's that disprove the aff and/or have specific links.

- I think that the aff should get to "weigh" the aff, but what that means is up for debate.

- I think aff theory vs the K is underutilized.

Policy T

- Impact comparison is super important. Telling me why your impacts access your opponent's and come first is highly influential in my ballot. Debates are hard to resolve when there's no concrete impact or just independent assertions on each side without comparison so I'll have to end up resolving it on my own.

- Interpreting and indicting definitions is important most of the time and you should clarify legal jargon as much as possible to make a clear interp. I find it more difficult to vote for a team that hasn't developed a specific violation; I think of the violation like a link to DA, you can have all the impact calc in the world but if the link to the aff is sketch it's harder to vote neg.

- I've done research on T for the CJR topic in terms of Enact, each of the topic areas, and substantial, but I haven't judged in the year yet so I'm only somewhat familiar with community norms


- Links are pretty much the heart and soul of a DA. I need a good link story or I'm not voting for you. If you have good ev. point it out. Your speeches should tell me what cards to read.

- Comparison of any form including Turns case or Impact Calc wins debates.

- Having a good impact scenario and good risk comparison helps the neg out tremendously.


- I don't judge kick unless explicitly instructed to do so.

- I lean neg on condo. Regardless, I think condo, despite its notoriety, is quite underutilized and strategic. Even though I've gotten condo'd a fair bit and feel the 2N pain of being ahead and mishandling condo I'll still take condo seriously if properly extended.

- I lean neg on most CP theory, but I think that aff teams are just letting the neg get away with too much because they're too scared to take them up on answering the barrage of subpoints.

- I will judge most process CPs that compete off of arbitrary things or should not certain/immediate as well as consult CPs, delay CPs or literally any other abusive CP, but that doesn't mean I won't vote you down if the aff has a good push on theory.

- I think definitions are given too much importance in these debates, for me it usually comes down to not who reads the best definitions but the offense/defense about which interp is better. I think both sides are best served when they treat competition debates like a T-Subs debate where the interp ev is trash on both sides and teams are just trying to access the best model of debate. Spamming definitions isn't as strategic in my opinion.

Rev v Rev

- The Role of the Ballot and/or the Role of the Judge must be very explicit and debated out.

- Presumption can be very persuasive especially by calling out double turns.

- Scholarship consistency tends to be good, but amalgamating strategies can be interesting

- Explanation is critical, application and examples win rounds not buzzwords.

Amol Khanna Paradigm

Policy Aff:

I like policy affs and look forward to learning about current political events in each debate round.

K Aff:

I do not like kritikal arguments. I strongly believe they will be the downfall of policy debate.


I like DAs and look forward to hearing about any disadvantages to plans I hear in debate rounds.


I like CPs and am open to hearing alternative plans to what was proposed by the 1AC.


I do not like kritikal arguments. I strongly believe they will be the downfall of policy debate.


I strongly believe T is just a time-suck and unless an aff is clearly untopical, I will vote on reasonability for the affirmative in most debates.


I love to hear framework run against both kritiks and kritikal affs since I do believe that they are abusive to the opposing team.


I am not very well-versed in theory so ensure that you explain any theory vocab well during the round. I do not have any aversions to a well-run theory argument.

Caroline Li Paradigm


Add me to the email chain: caroline.li.debate@gmail.com


I'm a policy debater, which means that LDers should probably larp or do k debate. Theory, tricks, phil, I will not understand too much about.


I'm a current freshman at Penn, and I use she/her pronouns. I did high school circuit debate for 4 years at Lexington High School. I ran mostly policy arguments on the neg, Cap and Security, but my partner ran some identity K affs so I have an idea of the topic. High theory, probably not. I don't have any topic knowledge on CJR right now.

Top 4 things you need to do to win in front of me:

1. Do impact calc.

2. Have numbered warrants.

3. Prioritize what you want me to vote on in your last speeches.

4. Be civil to your opponents!


also - CLARITY

K v Policy

K affs


- buckle down on a few pieces of offense in your last speeches

- name your DAs


- Fairness is an impact, but obviously you need to do enough work to convince me it is


- Do impact calc

Ks on the neg


- Make specific perms and explain them

- Utilize your aff's offense!


- Win good impact stories to your links

- Overview < 2 mins

Other thoughts

Yes judge kick

Neg strats responsive to their specific aff rewarded

Read your re-highlighting out loud

1-3 off in neg block >>>> 4+ off in neg block


1-3 condo ok, 4 condo no

Most types of CPs ok, feel free to call out cheaty process CPs


Do the case debate. I tend to start on case when evaluating rounds, and that being light for your side doesn't look great


I do think it's possible for there to be 0% risk of the DA

Please have at least one high probability scenario, it's better than having multiple weak scenarios


Creative perms allowed

NBs weighed against solvency deficits


I wasn't good at this debate, but I admire the people who are! Debate it like a DA, have a clear impact scenario and comparison on both sides.

Speaks scale:

28.0 needs some improvement

28.5 good

29.0 impressive

Novice speaks scale:

28.0 Missing some basics (lbl, impact calc, understanding of args)

28.5 Executes the basics

29.0 Can out-debate a second-year

Taking risks, debating slow and well, and intelligent argumentation generally rewarded

+.1 for sending me a cat picture with your first speech doc, valid once per round per team

Jacon Mayer Paradigm

Important: I'm completely deaf in my left ear. This makes it hard to hear you, and it also makes it extra hard to distinguish background noises from voices. The clearer and louder team will often have a significant advantage debating in front of me. Speed: I don't mind speed, but I find it pretty rare that high schoolers are both clear and fast. Which would you prefer, saying 1000 things I can't understand, or saying 100 I can?

Overview: I am open to any compelling and well-articulated argument as to why the game should be played a certain way.

Novices: if you don't roadmap, I will flow straight down and then do my best / flip a coin at the end.

C-X: I don't flow it, but I will pay close attention for speaker-points purposes. Likewise, I think it can be binding if you articulate why it should be.

Style: In my youth I liked full K debates, in my old age I prefer policy. But it's not because I dislike Ks—I just enjoy a techy, hyper-specific policy round most of all. Keep in mind that my knowledge of K literature is well out-of-date with what is fashionable, and even if it weren't, I'm not going to do the work for you by filling arguments that I understand even though you are not explaining them correctly or at all.

Davian McLeod Paradigm

6 rounds

I don’t have any expectations on what will happen in the round, so I tend to vote directly on the flow. Also, I recommend that you assume that I don't know anything about any of your case so explain it well or don't argue when I vote you down. I am fine with both policy and K's so it doesn't matter to me. I did debate for 6 years, varsity for three years.

Do you and you will be fine, as will I.

Don't go for Racism or Anti-blackness Good, FYI.

Email:davmac98@gmail.com. Do put me on the email chain and email me any questions, concerns o complaints.

Yesha Patel Paradigm

Speed is fine but don't let it compromise your clarity, be clear on the tags and PLEASE signpost.

Feel free to run whatever you want, I would rather you debate what you’re good at and do it well, rather than adapting to what I want and giving me a poor debate.

That being said I debate policy affs, however I am open to K Affs, as long as the alt is clearly explained. Similarly, I am comfortable with K’s as long as the world of the alt is made clear and well extended. I will not vote for a K in which the world of the alt is unclear. I am not very well-versed in high theory so jargon needs to be explained throughout the round. If you go for a K, I expect you to interact with the case, it’s the best version of direct clash in a round. Framework is perfectly fine against both as long as it is reasonable, I won’t vote framework on something like neolib.

DA’s and CP’s are welcome, CPs need solvency advocates and should have a clearly articulated net benefit, and DA’s should link to the aff.

I enjoy a well crafted and strategic T argument, but I will vote on T for reasonability over competing interpretations in most debates. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical, I will vote neg on T if it is extended thoroughly throughout the round.

Tech over truth, but within limit, I will judge by the flow. A dropped argument is a true argument.

Line by Line is very helpful, I like a clean flow.


I will not count an argument as extended if you just read me the tag, I expect analytics to go along with it.

Overall, be polite to me and the other team, be confident, and just have fun

I am pretty easy on speaks, I welcome jokes so if you make me laugh or smile I will most definitely give you extra speaks.

Vy Phan Paradigm

Personal background: Tufts University Class of 2021 in Quantitative Economics and International Relations. I consider myself pretty informed on current international affairs and econ policies but don't assume that I know everything.

I debated LD in middle school, policy throughout high school and I am doing Parliamentary now. I am fine with speed as long as you are clear. Like any other judge, I prefer clear order because that makes flowing so much easier and prevents me from losing track of your arguments.

Have to admit that I am more comfortable with Policy Aff then K aff but I am down to hear/would vote on any argument as long as I believe that you won on it. I would not vote on personal preferences. Dropping arguments can be critical especially if the other team calls you out and decides to extend on dropped arguments. If you get called out by the other team for quoting evidence out of context, we would pull up the entire article to make sure it's fair.

Again, I am not limited to any specific arguments but here are some of my specific thoughts:

*The phrase "meaningless to life" does not really carry a lot of weight to me

*DAs: Love impact calculus that includes smart analytical arguments

*Ks: links are critical

*K Affs: Would really prefer to hear you explain the educational values of debating outside of the limited resolution besides just "Fuck the resolution"

*T: Would love to see a well put together T debate. The block could really take the 1AR down if well executed.

Emily Qiu Paradigm

Please add me to the email chain- emilyqiu16@gmail.com

Previous debate history:

I was on the Lexington debate team for 4 years and graduated in 2020. I know nothing about the current topic and have only judged novice so... do with that what you will.



Please be nice to each other.

I don't like or understand the k. Unless it's cap. I like judging policy rounds.

Everything below the TL;DR applies mostly to novices, but feel free to give it a read if you're varsity too.


I'll probably give you all decent speaks unless you were extremely rude/act like you don't care about the round that is going on.

Things that will raise your speaks:

1. Having a road map and signposting during your speech

2. Looking at me during crossex

3. Being a partnership that reminds me of Lex HQ (aka partner goals)

Things that will DECK your speaks:

1. Acting like you're better than your partner

2. Reading the same blocks in every speech and not engaging the other team

3. Not flowing

4. Being ableist/sexist/homophobic/racist - unacceptable


I like a good topicality debate. Make sure you impact out T on both sides and go in depth with it. A blippy "it's too hard to be neg" argument or "aff is topical enough" will not suffice. Make sure the aff actually violates the T violation you choose though! Aff- if you don't violate, don't spend too much time on it! I'm willing to vote on wild T violations if you give me a good reason to.


Love them- make sure to do impact calc and explain the internal link chain clearly. Try to do specific link analysis too- another thing that will raise your speaks. Aff should try to attack the internal link chains, don't just read impact defense.


Like them- with generic CPs, try to have a solvency advocate specific to the aff. Advantage CPs are cool too- make sure you explain them well. Cheaty CPs are fun, but be prepared for theory because I'll give a lower threshold for the aff on theory if I think the CP is really cheaty.


They're fine- make sure you explain the thesis of the K well, how the aff makes what you're kritiking worse, and what the world of the alt looks like. Your links should be to the aff and not the squo. Try to find lines in the aff's evidence that link to your K and point them out! Alts- I tend to prefer alts that take action rather than "say no" or "reject the 1AC", but I will still vote on them. Framework- make sure you interact with the other team's framework (if they read one), don't just read the same block in every speech.


Case debate!!!! Do it!! Aff- Explain your aff and how you solve! Don't forget about your aff- it is your CHILD! If you don't know what to do- weigh your aff against everything! I will vote neg on presumption, but only if the neg makes that argument.

K Affs

Defend something. I don't mind listening to kaffs, but you need to explain what you do to actually solve for your impacts. I usually read policy affs and am more policy leaning, but I'm down for a good k debate and will vote on one if it's debated well. Be confident and have nuanced answers to framework and cap!


Debate is a game. Framework has a special place in my heart <3. Fairness is an impact. BUT that being said, you have to impact it out- don't disgrace framework PLEASE. I'm more than willing to vote on framework, but only if it's run well. Make sure you attack the case too.


Condo- 4+ conditional advocacies is probably abusive, but if you can convince me that it's justified, then it's fine. Aff should always try to have condo in the 2AC as a fallback if there's 2+ condo.

Other theory- I'm probably not going to vote on it, unless something seems extremely abusive or is dropped.


1. If you drop something, pretend/trick me into thinking you didn't.

2. Don't get scared of other teams, act like you can win until after the 2AR- don't give up!

3. Bring what you said in crossex into your speeches! Crossex is a strategic time to set up/make arguments.

4. Frame your speeches at the beginning of the 2NR/2AR! Tell my why you win and what I'm voting on. Make the judge do less work.

5. Do what you do best- don't let this/me be a reason to completely change your debating style!

Eric Ronning Paradigm

Parent/Lay judge for Brooklyn Tech

My experience is not extensive - I have very limited experience judging policy debate, I will do my best to ajudicate the round but assume I do not know your authors, acronyms, theories of the world, or much about the topic.

Slow down and make my ballot incredibly clear.

Have fun and enjoy debating!

Debayan Sen Paradigm

Lexington High School Class of 2019 – debated for four years - if it matters, I did do the whole TOC thing my senior year.

I am not debating in college, and have little to zero topic knowledge. I have judged a little bit in the past year, but I have mostly been away from the activity for the past year.

Updated for Ohio Valley 2020 (updates to general and framework sections)

I want to be on the chain: dsen050@gmail.com


Tech>truth, but to a certain extent. For example, just because the 2AC says “vague alts are a voter” with no warrant or impact and the block drops it, this does not mean I immediately vote aff. I am very hesitant in general to vote on blippy one-shot theory arguments.

I will not vote on suffering good, racism good, sexism good, and anything just egregious.

My flow is decent, but it's far from the best. I am fine with speed, but signaling where you are on the flow and clarity is really key for me to follow on. I am also not really into “flowing straight down”.

I tend to think about rounds through an “offensive-defensive” paradigm.

Yes, I will read evidence if needed, but how I read that evidence is dependent on how each team explains their ev and does comparison. I will try to avoid intervening as much as I can, but that depends on you, more comparison and analysis means I will do less work.

In the camp of “read rehighlightings”.

If the 1AR makes a new argument, it must be justified.

I will NOT evaluate arguments about situations that have happened outside the round with other debaters or coaches. Anything that happens inside a debate round is fair game.

Being aggressive is fine, but there is a line.

I’m not the best at maintaining a poker face. If I am confused I will most likely show it, and if I think you are making smart arguments, I will show it.

Online debate note: Given the current condition of debate, flexibility and clarity are very important to me. If anything, go slower than you normally would, and make doubly sure you are clear. Given internet difficulties/feedback/other problems that can come with online debate, debaters should always feel free to ask clarifying questions to the other side about arguments made. As a judge, if I miss an argument due to online difficulty, I will ask for clarification.

I do not think any judge is purely “tabula-rasa” so below are my general thoughts about arguments. They are not absolute and can be changed through good debating, but are general biases.

FW/K affs:

Against kritikal affs I went for framework 65% of the time and the Cap K the other 35%.

These types of debates are the ones that tend to evolve the fastest in terms of what offense and defense teams deploy. As such, I will do my best to be open to new innovative arguments from both the framework/K side.

Yes, I am open to voting for framework, and I am open to voting for kritikal affs. Personally I believe there should be some role for the negative, but what that role looks like is up for debate.

The winner of these debates, in my opinion, is the team that does the superior technical debating.

In these debates, I always start with evaluating the case page first and then move to the framework page.

If debated 100% equally on both sides, I would most likely vote negative.

I really liked to think about these debates a lot in high school.

a) FW:

I am good for fairness (this was the impact I went for most in HS), but I think the most interesting framework debates are when the negative goes for a nuanced clash or topic education argument that interacts with the affirmatives offense in some way. I do not think I am super receptive to framework impacts that claim to resolve some existential crisis, however, I do think that in-depth clash over the course of a season is good.

Even if TVA’s do not need to solve the aff, it would be cool if the negative attempts an explanation for why it does.

Switch side debate is severely under-rated.

“You should presume the aff is false because we could not test it” is a silly argument in my opinion and I will most likely not give too much credence to this argument unless completely dropped.

b) K-affs:

I do not think affs need to have a relation to the topic, but the further the aff deviates from the topic, the more “justification” there has to be in my opinion.

I think counter defining words in the resolution and going for developed DA’s against framework is the best strategy, but if you want impact turn everything, I am fine with that too, just justify why that is good.

I think kritikal aff’s that defend something material rather than something completely abstract is more persuasive and is less susceptible to presumption type arguments. Aff’s that are eight minutes of straight-up pre-emption to framework will have a harder time beating presumption.

The best pieces of offense for me are ones that are interlaced with the affirmative thesis level claim about why the assumption around framework as “being mutually advantageous and agreed upon” are wrong. I think kritikal affs can have benefits and that the imposition of a more limiting topic can be violent and exclude important types of scholarship.

Just saying “rev v. rev solves” is not an argument to me, but descriptions of alternative models of debate that are not just policy centered can be persuasive.

“The wiki solves” is a cringe argument.

Terminal defense to framework is under-rated.

Questions such as “Is debate just a game?” or “Does debate shape our subjectivity, and in what way?” are important to me. I do not think the aff needs to necessarily win that debate isn't a game, but they should have arguments about how they grapple with the inevitable competitive nature of debate.

Topicality (policy):

Go slower when explaining what your interpretation is and what the topic looks like because I do not have topic knowledge.

Usually a more precise interpretation of the topic is better than an arbitrary interpretation that limits the topic.

In order to win reasonability, you must win why your counter-interpretation is reasonable, not the aff.

Actually do impact calculus, why is aff ground more important than preserving limits and vice versa?


I was mostly on the policy side of this debate, but I am not totally unfamiliar with kritikal concepts given the prevalence in which I debated them. I will be more familiar with anti-blackness, cap, and security type arguments than high theory arguments.

Going to explain your theory of power and WHY it is true will go a long way for me. Throwing around buzzwords assuming I know what they mean will only leave me confused. It would also be helpful if there is a clear explanation for what your theory of power implies for the debate.

Framework is important to me as it influences how I view arguments such as the links and especially the alternative. I do think the negative can win that I should not weigh the aff in the typical sense of just evaluating the plan versus the K. In these debates, teams tend to use vacuous terms such as “scholarship” or “epistemology” without actually telling me what that means in the context of the affirmative. Final rebuttals should not tell me not just why they are winning framework but why that matters in the context of the debate. If the framework debate ends up being a “wash” I will most likely default to weighing the affirmative.

The best links to me are when teams use a thesis level claim of power to create links that show how the aff actually plays out with an impact.

The alternative doesn’t necessarily need to solve the aff, but it has to do something that is not just “reject the aff”.

Having an overview is not an excuse to not do line by line. If the overview is too long, I will be visibly frustrated. If you are going to jump from argument to argument, tell me where you are and instruct me as much as possible. For example, if the permutation is going to be completely covered in the 1NR, tell me that before you start the 2NC so I can organize my flow.

Aff’s should attempt to have some defense of their representations. For example, if the negative forwards a link about why extinction rhetoric is bad, the aff should ideally have evidence that says why extinction rhetoric is good. Just because you get to “weigh” your aff does not always mean you win the aff is a good idea.


I am open to creative advantage CP’s that do not have solvency advocates, but be prepared to answer theory.

Counterplan’s with specific evidence that is tailored to the affirmative are bueno.

I think there needs to be a solvency deficit in order for the permutation to make sense or very strong links to the net benefit argument.

I default to kicking the counter plan unless told otherwise.

I really do not think process or consult counterplan’s are competitive. Stop being scared of a 2NC’s 8 blippy sub pointed answer to “permutation do the CP”.

DA/Risk Assessment:

Impact calc is super important, I am fine with short 2NR overviews, tell me whether to prefer magnitude, timeframe, or probability, and why your impact outweighs.

Link turns case>>>impact turns case

2AC analytics are good only if they are not blippy and actually point out logical flaws in the DA.

Contrary to most people, I actually love the politics DA.

Framing contentions are meant to supplement your answers to a DA, they should not be your only answers.


I usually default to rejecting the argument except on conditionality.

Process/agent/other CP’s that literally result in the aff – Aff leaning

Condo – neg leaning

2NC CP’s – neg leaning

substantive PIC’s – neg leaning

State CP’s – neg leaning

Object fiat – ridiculously aff leaning

Perf con – neg leaning


Speaks: Breaking is hard, and I understand that. For me, if you do line by line and have strategic argumentative vision, your speaks will be pretty decent.

I love bold strategies that are well executed.

My favorite judges to get during high school were Kevin Hirn, Shree Awsare, Kristen Lowe, James Allan, Roberto Montero, and Tyler Thur. They always gave decisions that were based on the flow, thoughtful, and helpful for argument development.

Good jokes about Talia Blatt, Rayhan Ahmed, or Matthew Berhe are always welcome.

Eric Tang Paradigm


I debated policy for four years at Lexington High School and qualified to the TOC my senior year. I no longer debate in college.

Please add me to the email chain: ektang20 at gmail

TL;DR: Read whatever. I would much rather watch a good clash-filled debate between well-prepared opponents in any argumentative style than teams trying to (over-)adapt and running arguments poorly.

Online Tournaments: Slow down. Record your speeches.

Tech over truth. Claims without warrants are not arguments.


DA: The more case specific your disad or link analysis is, the more likely I am to vote on it. I don't love politics DAs but I know neg ground is getting worse every year so if that's your strat go for it. Impact calc and/or framing is super important in case/DA debates. The link and impact debate on the DA should be used to implicate case whenever possible. Zero risk does exist and affs should actively call out really weak DA link or impact analysis. I really enjoy creative case and/or impact turns and I'm down to evaluate pretty much anything (warming good, spark, etc.).

CP: Nuanced case-specific counterplans are very persuasive. I will judge kick if the 2NR tells me to and the 2AR doesn't give me a good reason not to. Any counterplan with a case-specific solvency advocate is probably reasonably legitimate. I'm not an expert on super technical textual counterplan competition debates so please over-explain in these debates.

T: My lack of topic knowledge will probably reflect most in T debates. Don't expect me to be informed about topic norms and please clearly explain your interps and standards. Precision matters. I default to competing interps. I do not find reasonability to be particularly persuasive.

Theory: I default to rejecting the argument (except in the case of condo) and competing interpretations. One or two conditional advocacies is probably fine; three is questionable. See CP section for more on counterplan legitimacy. In-round abuse is typically not necessary but can be persuasive if you have clear examples. Don't hide theory shells.

K Affs: K affs vary tremendously in the way that they're run so I'll try not to make too many generalizing claims. However, internal consistency among scholarship is almost always a good thing, and you should have a clear explanation of why I should vote aff as well as your solvency mechanism (or why you don't need one) beginning from the 1AC. Presumption can be very persuasive against K affs with a weak explanation of their solvency mechanism. See FW and K v K sections.

FW: I read a K aff for the majority of my senior year and went for framework a fair amount as well, so I'm relatively familiar with how these rounds typically play out. Despite my argumentative preferences when I debated, I probably lean 51/49 in favor of framework, and in a perfectly evenly matched round, I'm inclined to believe that the resolution should delineate aff and neg ground and that the wording of the resolution suggests that the aff ought to defend policy action. However, the arguments made within the round obviously come first and this is unlikely to end up mattering 99% of the time. As terminal and independent impacts, clash/limits is marginally more persuasive to me than fairness, and both are substantially more persuasive than skills/education. It's difficult (but not impossible) to convince me to vote on offense against topical debate without a clear counter-interpretation or alternative model of debate.

K v Policy: Having a clear framework or role of the ballot is crucial for me in evaluating any K debate. Having a clear and well articulated thesis for your K will also make the rest of the flow much easier to evaluate. In K v policy rounds, I think winning framework is typically (but not always) a precondition to winning the K. Link specificity is also incredibly important, and using thesis or link arguments on the K to implicate the aff's impacts and/or solvency or (on the aff) using case arguments to implicate the K is substantially more persuasive than just directly comparing impacts. The most persuasive alts are those that are contextualized in some way to the framework debate.

K v K: The best rev v rev debates really flesh out the nuances between competing critical literature and scholarship. I will default to K affs getting perms, but when explained and debated well, 'no perms in a method debate' can be incredibly persuasive, especially when attached to a broader framework or T argument. Having a clear framework or role of the ballot is crucial for me in evaluating K v K debates. Having a clear and well articulated thesis for your K will also make the rest of the round much easier to evaluate.

Evidence: I think I'm generally less inclined than most judges to sort through piles of evidence at the end of a round. Evidence quality does matter a lot to me, but I think this should be done more through evidence comparison during speeches rather than by judges reading evidence after the round. If you want me to look at or compare specific cards you or your opponent have read, please tell me to do so explicitly in the 2NR/2AR.


Quick Prefs: Policy [1], K [1], Phil [1-3], Topicality [2], Tricks [2-3], Theory [3-4]

I debated pretty much exclusively policy in high school so I'm not super informed about the most recent argumentative or competitive norms in LD and most of my understandings of arguments will be carried over from policy. If you're unsure about anything or want clarification on any part of this paradigm feel free to ask me questions before the round (or email me).

LARP: Evaluating policy/LARP arguments is probably most intuitive to me, and I'm pretty much down for anything (disads, counterplans, case turns, etc.). There's not much to say here but please do weighing and impact calc in your final rebuttal. Zero risk does exist and I will vote on presumption if you get called out on really weak link or impact analysis or evidence. In cases where framing/framework is a big part of the debate you should absolutely be connecting your impacts back to the framing flow, otherwise I will have no clue how to weigh any of your impacts (even if you win your framework). Presumption probably goes neg in these debates unless you tell me otherwise. Plan debates are cool but I'm also sympathetic to whole res framework/T arguments given the nature of LD resolutions.

K: I read all sorts of kritiks when I debated and I'm fine with pretty much everything from high theory to identity. I'm most familiar with Wilderson, Warren, Baudrillard, and Lacan, but even then you shouldn't assume I have any previous knowledge about your arguments, and always err towards more in-depth and well developed analysis and explanation. Having a clear framework or role of the ballot is crucial for me in evaluating any K debate. Having a clear and well articulated thesis for your K will also make the rest of the flow much easier to evaluate. I default to theory and T being evaluated before the K unless you tell me otherwise. (Some explicit reps Ks probably do come before T or theory, but you still need to make the argument in round.) Please don't run a kritik you're unfamiliar with; bad K debates are very hard to sit through and nothing will annoy me more than running a K it's clear you don't understand.

T: I heavily default to competing interpretations on topicality. I genuinely have no idea what it means for an aff to be "reasonable" without defining the terms of the resolution but I'll still vote on reasonability if you articulate it well enough. This also means in T-Framework debates, it's difficult (but not impossible) for me to vote on offense against topical debate without a counter-interpretation or alternative model of debate. Weigh your standards in the final rebuttal. Precision matters and don't read asinine definitions. Topicality probably comes before theory unless you tell me otherwise.

Theory: Please slow down on theory analytics; if I can't catch your arguments as you're making them I'll be very reluctant to vote on them at the end of the round. Make complete arguments, weigh your standards, and don't hide shells. I will (weakly) default to competing interpretations but reasonability can be very persuasive especially against frivolous theory. I default to rejecting the argument. RVIs are fine but they have the meet the same standards (i.e. make complete arguments). Theory needs to be well-articulated beginning from the speech it's introduced in. Since so many theory debates are incredibly late breaking I will spend a lot of time looking at the AC, NC, or 1AR to see what arguments were actually made earlier in the debate.

Tricks: I have no theoretical objection to tricks, but they need to be articulated as complete and warranted arguments if you want me to evaluate them. The threshold for answering blippy tricks is very low. Good tricks debates are cool and easy to evaluate but bad ones are incredibly annoying.

Phil: I don't have a ton of experience reading or debating phil, so please slow down err on the side of over-explanation if you can. I have a basic understanding of common phil arguments but I am very unlikely to have any previous knowledge of or be able to understand particularly dense phil at 350 wpm. That being said, most of the phil debates that I've seen so far haven't been too hard to follow so you certainly shouldn't be scared off from reading it, just please slow down and have a clear explanation of your thesis.


I debated public forum at two tournaments my senior year and got a gold bid to the TOC. Even though most of my experience is in policy, I do have a general sense of what PF debate and judging look like. I understand most tournaments don't really have prefs so I'll try my best to judge as predictably as possible in relation to the judging pool (while still maintaining some sort of technical integrity with the flow) and won't be as strict with some of the things on this paradigm as with other events. I'm comfortable with evaluating pretty much any sort of traditional or stock debate. You probably can't go wrong treating me like a standard tab judge.

Some general things: Keep your speeches clear and organized. Crossfire is closed. I won't read evidence unless its accuracy or validity is challenged in round. Asking for cards or evidence is not prep time. I would prefer if you read actual cards and don't paraphrase evidence, but if that's an unrealistic expectation then just stick with what you're used to and at the very least don't grossly misrepresent authors. Weigh arguments in the summary and final focus. I'll disclose.

I can evaluate spreading and most progressive arguments in PF if necessary, but I would really prefer it if you don't read Ks, theory, plans, counterplans, etc. simply as a cheap shot against teams reading traditional or stock cases. Try your best to adapt your style and speed to your opponent, and if you really do want to spread or have a progressive debate, you should make sure your opponents are okay with it before the round for the sake of reciprocity. I think it's an incredibly unfair research burden for teams reading primarily traditional cases to have to prepare answers for Ks, theory, etc. when the majority of the judging pool precludes those arguments from being run and pref sheets are pretty much nonexistent. If you choose to read progressive arguments anyways against teams reading traditional cases, I won't automatically vote you down but I'll hold your arguments to a much higher standard and/or dock your speaks. I lean heavily towards reasonability for teams reading traditional/stock cases on disclosure or any other theory arguments in PF.


I will listen to cross-ex but I (probably) won't flow. Arguments made in cross must be referenced in a speech for me to evaluate them. Flex prep is fine if your opponent agrees to it.

Time yourself. Have the email chain set up before the round start time.

Don't clip evidence or cheat. Generally I think these things should be debated in round but if you want to end the round early on an ethics violation tell me and I'll ask to confirm. Accusations require a recording or some other form of proof. Speaks will be discretionary.

Reference your (or your opponent's) evidence in your speech if you want me to read it or take a look after the round. Read (don't just insert) rehighlighted evidence.

I try to start at 28.0 for speaker points and move up or down based on what happens in the round. I generally average around 28.6 to 28.7. I'll do my best to reward creativity and argumentative risk-taking.

Mohammad Umar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bill Wu Paradigm

lexington high school '19


in short:

- put me on the email chain

- i judge and debate so im familiar with the topic

- ok with speed

- tech>truth

- i'm most familiar with policy arguments but i can understand k

- i try my best not to intervene

- speaks are based on delivery and strategic choices but also decency and competency in round

- be appropriate and respectful in round

Mennal Zafar Paradigm

I'm familiar with both policy and critical argumentation as I debated for about three years in high school and attended debate camp at Wake Forest University the summer before my senior year.

- Make sure you have a claim, warrant and impact to every argument that you make.

- Don't go for everything in the 2NR/2AR! Explain to me why you should win based on the argument that you are strongest on according to the flow.

- I am okay with spreading!

- Properly explain your positions! I'm new to this resolution, so don't make assumptions that I'm familiar with the case that you could be running!

Diana Zlotea Paradigm

8 rounds

Background: Debated in Eastern Europe for seven years, been judging PF and Policy in Boston for three.


- pretty standard flow judge

- can follow spreading/jargon/whatever as long as the round remains accessible for everyone else

- don't make me intervene

- please weigh i beg you

kristen tyszkowski Paradigm

6 rounds

Judge for Brooklyn Tech

My experience is not extensive - I have very limited experience judging policy debate, I will do my best to adjudicate the round but assume I do not know your authors, acronyms, theories of the world, or much about the topic.

Slow down on tags and make my ballot incredibly clear through framing and impact calc.

Racism/Sexism will not be tolerated.

Have fun and enjoy debating!