New York City Invitational Debate and Speech Tournament

2019 — Bronx, New York, NY/US

Ronak Ahuja Paradigm

3 rounds

Email -

Futures Academy 19 (Previously Chaminade) / Binghamton 23

Respect people's pronouns. Similarly - do not be racist, sexist, transphobic, etc.

I competed on the Policy/LD national circuit for most of my time in high school. I'm currently reading primarily semiocap and disability arguments in college, but I'm down to listen to anything.

Yes, I will vote for framework. I went for it a bunch my senior year.

K - be interesting!! a lack of enthusiasm or obvious disregard for the theory you are reading from is always really upsetting. I prefer if you have links to the plan action, but don't let that deter you from doing what you do best. Using the same language the other team uses to make link arguments is crucial in these debates.

DA's and CP's - The more specific, the better. Well researched pics and advantage counter-plans are some of the best debates. Im open to cheaty counterplans, just be good at the theory debate.

T - I like these debates. I think about it similarly to a cp/da debate. Win that the da's to their model of debate, outweighs the benefit. I'll evaluate these debates by first resolving the competing interpretations/reasonability debate.

Unwarranted arguments even if dropped, are still not arguments. Tech>Truth but I'll likely be tired and if the debate is irresolvable, i'm more likely to do work for the team making more logical arguments.

I'm very susceptible to good humor and will probably give you high speaks if you make laugh.


I don't default judge kick - but can be convinced either way.

1nc contradictions are usually okay, double turns are not.

The side advocating for less change gets presumption.

David Asafu-Adjaye Paradigm

5 rounds

Hey y’all. I’m David and I debated at Newark Science for 4 years on the state, regional, and national level.

My email for speech docs is

My influences in debate have been Chris Randall, Jonathan Alston, Aaron Timmons, Christian Quiroz, and Carlos Astacio in addition to a few others.



-Monta Vista RB, Monta Vista RR

-Newark Science

-DebateDrills Content Coach (conflict policy and roster available here)

Two primary beliefs:

1. Debate is a communicative activity and the power in debate is because the students take control of the discourse. I am an adjudicator but the debate is yours to have.

2. I am not tabula rasa. Anyone that claims that they have no biases or have the ability to put ALL biases away is probably wrong. I will try to put certain biases away but I will always hold on to some of them. For example, don’t make racist, sexist, transphobic, etc arguments in front of me. Use your judgment on that. Also don’t read skep. JUst because.


These are my favorite arguments to hear and were the arguments that I read most of my junior and senior year. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. I do not want to see K’s messed up so I have a pretty high threshold for K’s. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as antiblackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. Explain it or you will lose to the kid going for US heg good. K Lit is diverse. I do not know your high theory K’s. I only cared enough to read just enough to prove them wrong or find inconsistencies. Please explain things like Deleuze, Nietzsche, Derrida, and Heidegger to me in a less esoteric manner than usual.


CP’s are cool. I love a variety of CP’s but in order to win a CP in my head you need to either solve the entirety of the aff with some net benefit or prove that the net benefit to the CP outweighs the aff. Competition is a thing. I do believe certain counterplans can be egregious but that’s for y’all to debate about.


Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Just like people think that I love K’s because I came from Newark, people think I hate theory which is far from true. I’m actually a fan of well-constructed shells and actually really enjoyed reading theory myself. I’m not a fan of tricky shells and also don’t really like disclosure theory but I’ll vote on it. Just have an actual abuse story. I won’t even list my defaults because I am so susceptible to having them changed if you make an argument as to why. The one thing I will say is that theory is a procedural. Do with that information what you may.


Their fine. I feel like people love to read these crazy scenarios in order to magnify the impact. More power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense.


YAY. Read you nice plans. Be ready to defend them.


I would rather not vote on presumption but have my own views on it. I think it’s a great tool if you realize the 1AR was 4 minutes of terminal defense against the off case and even though they don’t have any offense neither do you. I don’t like presumption triggers.

Speaker points

I’ll start at a 28 and move up or down from there. I like funny rounds. Debates can be so boring sometimes. Use CX effectively and make strategic decisions in order to increase your speaks. I’m tired and probably hungry so make the debate more tolerable.

Sumit Banerjee Paradigm

7 rounds

LD Paradigm:

I am a parent judge with about a year of experience in judging LD.

Traditional debate - I'm very comfortable with the traditional style of debate at all levels. If you're a JV debater and/or it's a lay tournament, I prefer not to hear spreading or progressive arguments.

Progressive debate - I am learning progressive debate. So don't run anything too advanced unless you explain it in simpler terms. I know I don't like tricks. Assuming you're going to spread, please put me on the email chain since I'm not the best at flowing progressives. Also, if you're reading new evidence in subsequent speeches, send that out as well.

Regardless of your arguments, explain your warrants and impacts well. Do a good amount of weighing at the end and make it clear why your arguments are better than your opponent's arguments.

Crystallize your points at the end of your rebuttals and ask strategic questions during CX. Speaking clearly and making good use of CX time will help you get better speaker points.

Good luck!

Niko Battle Paradigm

7 rounds


Kamiak (all teams), Brooklyn Tech SP, Impact Debate

quick prefs:

performance/id pol k - 1
structural k - 1
theory - 2
larp/policy - 2
(LD) phil - 3
(LD) trix - 4


I debated for Kamiak HS in Mukilteo, WA and currently debate for Wake Forest. I started debate in middle school, and throughout my career, I have earned 17 total TOC bids, qualifying in both LD (3 times) and Policy (1 time). I have experience in both policy and LD debate on both the local and national circuit. I primarily read kritikal arguments, but trust and believe I can follow you and have experience in policy, phil, and theory stuff.


pre round:

yes put me on the chain (

Pronouns: black/black or they/them


[Voices Update] - In round robins speaks matter more, so I will give actual speaks. None of the extras apply, but the minuses certainly do.

Speaks are wack and arbitrary and I don't think they are a good tiebreaker. I wish tournaments would use opp wins as the first tiebreaker instead and I will die on that hill. With that being said, I'm a bit of a speaks fairy unless you do something blatantly offensive in which case speaks will go down down down down down faster than Jay Sean can sing it. And, if you don't get that reference then strike me ;)

+2 speaks if you bring me iced coffee w/ sugar and lots of cream because judging is wayyyy more tiring than competing

+1 speaker point for 2 well executed West Wing references throughout the debate - tell me what they were after your speech so I can keep track or in case I miss it.

+.5 speaker points if youre in LD and you say "we meet" just because I think its wack that some judges care enough to take away speaks, and as someone who did both events it really annoyed me.

-1 speaker point if you misgender your opponent and they don't call it out. Repeated violations especially if its called out will lead to larger "punishments" or whatever.

-5 speaker points for saying "I'm not racist but..." or any variation.

random musings:

tech > truth, but tech without some truth is rarely enough

(LD only) good tricks debate makes judging easy bad tricks debate makes judging hell // [post camp update] and I will not vote on shoes theory or any other theoretical violation about your opponents clothing and/or appearance (identity args exempt). Arguments like shoes theory and etc. are antithetical to the purpose of this activity and I guarantee you will not like your speaks or the decision should you try to read them in front of me.

if you're gonna larp (straight up policy) please for the love of God weigh impacts

A dropped argument is a dropped argument, but it's up to you to tell me the implications of it.

sass and shade are fun...apparently people think I'm a rude debater, but who cares. If sassy/"rude"/shade is your thing then feel free to do you when I'm in the back.

actual stuff:

tl;dr - do you. I like to think I'm pretty tab and can evaluate any type of debate. Tech and the flow are probably more important to me than others who debated like I did in HS. I'm a pretty simple judge so if you weigh your impacts and tell a story in the 2nr/2ar you'll be fine.

TOPIC KNOWLEDGE: After debating this as basically the LD TOC topic my senior year and coaching a PF team on a similar topic, I would put myself at about an 8.5/9 out of 10 on the current topic

*Current LD topic - 7/10

k debate:


we love that. If this is your thing then go for it, but if it isn't please don't make me sit through 2 hours of a bad k debate. I don't think that the negative (for most Ks) needs to win an alternative if they can prove that the aff sucks or that their structural analysis of the world is both preferable and incompatible with the 1ac. Also, chances are I understand and am familiar with your buzz words, but that doesn't mean you should rely on them to win the round. If I can't explain to the other team why their aff, performance, or implicit assumptions in the 1AC/resolution are problematic then it will almost always be an aff ballot. For the aff, I never understood why debaters don't go for the impact turn strat against certain K's. Obviously, I don't condone teams standing up and saying things like racism/sexism/etc. good, but going for cap good, fem IR bad, etc. is fine. Lastly, sometimes I feel as if 2as get so focused on answering the K that they forget to win that their aff is in some way a good departure from the status quo, which is to say please extend your offense in the 2ar.

Clash Rounds

For K aff teams, if you are losing my ballot to cap you are probably doing a lot of things wrong. I think most fwk/cap teams I've seen and most of those rounds I've been in has been underdeveloped on the cap side. The 2ac, if done correctly, should pretty much shut down the cap route. There's should be almost no way the 2n knows more about your theory and it's interactions with cap than the 2a does, which should make those debates pretty easy for you to get my ballot. Framework on the other hand...I feel like k aff teams need to do a significantly better job defending a model of debate, winning debate is bad, winning the aff is a prior question to the resolution, or etc. I tend to vote for framework in clash rounds (not because I enjoy or ideologically agree with it), but because the ^ things are often not executed well. Framework teams, please make sure the arguments the 2nr goes for are somewhere in the block and not just the same tired canned 2nr that somebody stole from Hemanth. Carded TVAs with proper extensions are pretty damning for the aff and your good research/engagement will likely be rewarded (either with speaks or the ballot). I think procedural fairness is an impact, and it will be somewhat of a hard sell to convince me otherwise absent the aff team putting in some work; this doesn't mean I won't vote on structural fairness ow or impact turns, but rather that you actually need to warrant, explain and extend those arguments. I'd much rather see a framework 2nr on limits/truth testing/procedural fairness than skills and policy education, but hey that's just me. I also think that framework teams need to engage in case significantly better than what most teams currently do. Tbh probably slightly better for policy teams in k aff v. fwk rounds and slightly better for k teams in policy aff v. k rounds.

k v. k rounds

I got your theory of power, framing and relevant offense.

policy(LD - LARP):

weigh weigh weigh weigh! I think more than any other stylistic approach to debate, policy teams NEED to do more comparative weighing. You will likely be unhappy with my decision if I can't point to specific points on my flow to weigh between your competing nuke war/extinction/etc. scenarios. I love watching policy teams who have nuanced, fun and creative impact scenarios. Some personal preferences for policy rounds are below -

Judge kick/choice is just not a thing. I'm still baffled how teams win arguments on this; it always seemed like lazy debating to me, and you are probably better off investing that time on other parts of the flow. Obviously if its conceded I won't hack against it, but I can't promise it won't be reflected in your speaks. I think strategic 2nrs will know when to go for the CP and when to kick it and defend the squo, so I'm not inclined to do that work for you.

Live by the flow, die by the flow...I think I'm a pretty well-informed person when it comes to politics/IR, but I probably won't know enough to fill in the gaps of actual nuanced scenario analysis which means you need to weigh and make the arguments you want to hear in the RFD.

I'd much rather watch an engaging 3 off policy strat then sit through watching some poor 1nr try to kick 12 of the 14 off read.

T: I fucking love T. Go for it in front of me. Go for it often in front of me. Go for it well in front of me. Biggest mistakes I see teams going for T in front of me do if forget to extend internal links to their impacts and that's the tea (pun intended). If youre a "K team" and you beat a policy team on T let's just say you'll like your speaks. I think one of the reasons I find framework ideologically ridiculous is because I've seen some really non-T policy affs and I always get indignant - like the conditions aff on this topic or the Saudi aff on last years J/F LD topic.

(LD Only) Phil:

Usually pretty simple debates imho, but make sure you respond to your opponents fw justifications as well as extend your own. After judging almost nothing but phill working at NSD all summer, I feel like these rounds are nearly impossible to resolve absent actual responses/weighing. Also, I'd much rather watch a substantive framework debate between Kant and Hobbes than see someone use Hobbes to trigger linguistic skep and have to watch a six minute 2nr on it.


down for anything - weigh standards and win an abuse story. Here are some defaults (obv up for debate) See my note at the top about certain types of LD friv theory. I should clarify that my threshold in theory is slightly higher in policy than in LD and I'm not as open to friv theory in policy. I think policy is a more educational activity, and I don't want to see it go down a similar path vis-a-vis theory.


Text over spirit

meta theory = theory

theory = K

competing interps

drop the arg

fairness = edu; both a voter

Saied Beckford Paradigm

7 rounds

About Me

I attend and debate for Rutgers University-Newark. I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjae (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the winner based on what I can remember.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth!

You can run theory/ T/ Framework. I think they are great pocket arguments to have especially when an in round abuse has been committed, but if you plan on making this your full neg strat at a super advanced level, I am probably not the judge for you.

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

Anthony Berryhill Paradigm

4 rounds

Anthony Berryhill Judge Paradigm (NEW FOR 2019-2020 so read):

E-mail for case sharing, etc.:

Current Experience:

  • Assistant LD Coach for Isidore Newman (my alma mater); Currently Managing Director for Victory Briefs
  • Stanford BA Political Science 2004; Previous PhD Candidate (MA/MPhil) at Yale in Contemporary Political Theory (2004-2011)
  • Important for Sept-Oct: I am an admissions counselor who is paid by 2 consultancies to guide students through the admissions process and have done this work freelance for the last 19 years. Assume I am a well informed audience who will discount obvious lies and give greater weight to arguments that are accurate in the literature and actual practice of college admissions.

Past Experience:

  • Debated at Newman 2000-2004 in LD, Extemp, Congress; Former Coach (and team starter) for: Harker (last involved 2006), MSJ (last involved 2001)
  • Conflict: Isidore Newman

Table of contents of paradigm:

  • My preferences/what I usually vote for
  • Behavioral Requirements I will hold you accountable to/arguments I am actively biased against (or reserve the right not to vote for even if dropped)
  • Speaker point paradigm

My philosophy:

I am a judge that debated in the South with conservative expectations for in round behavior but very open re: how you handle applied philosophy (w/ the qualifiers below). You should feel comfortable with a range of argumentation about the topic. I've taught the Traditional, K and standard circuit labs at VBI over the years.

I prefer:

  1. Any argument that is well explained, clearly written, delivered, impacted to a standard (in any form), is topic relevant, has a strong link story, and is consistent with the literature. Assume that I will vote on whoever proves that "In the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions." Assume I am strongly biased against non-topical, pre-fiat, micropolitics, etc. arguments if they aren't directed at proving or disproving the Sept-Oct topic you agreed to debate.
  2. Signposting is mandatory. If you are impossible to flow, you are impossible to vote for. The more specific your signposting the better.
  3. On-case argumentation: NCs must directly answer the AC. Affs should be aggressive with extensions and have a clear story with offensive arguments to a standard/decision rule. Negs who go 2-7 off, spread through bad policy files and assume that "embedded clash" is an excuse for failure to signpost and poor execution tend to do poorly when I judge. Dumping arguments on a contention or spreading off cases w/o appropriate line-by-line debating = dropping the AC. Arrows are good. Sloppiness and laziness in tech is bad.


Note: I reserve the right to vote against debaters, ignore arguments and deduct speaker points if any of the following is violated (even in elimination rounds):

  1. Slow way down on the speed: I cannot flow the popular style of unclear, fast monotone and poor delivery on the circuit. Specifically: I can flow NDT not circuit LD. This means: A. Stick to fast conversational and don't speed through tags and author names. B. Arguments which are explained in a confusing way may be ignored even if dropped. If you can't explain your argument clearly and simply, you can't get my ballot. If you can't explain what your opponent must do/establish to meet your burden/K, etc. I'll discount your position severely. Hint: I wouldn't run Baudrillard, Deleuze/Guattari, etc. in front of me or any argument that doesn't clearly specify clear, fair burdens for both sides.
  2. Professional Conduct is required: Behavior and language must be appropriate for a high school educational setting. The norms of college policy debate do not apply. Doing any of the following may trigger an automatic loss: SWEARING (why do some national circuit LDers think its cool to drop the F bomb- it's NOT), use of inappropriate language/explicit material of a racial or sexual nature (even in performances), post-round grilling of the judge, use of the N word or any of its derivatives (even by African American speakers), insulting/intimidating your opponent just to sound cool (in college policy), etc.
    Rule: If you can't say it in front of your parents, on YouTube, or on a PhD comprehensive exam, don't say it in front of me. This is high school, not college policy debate.
  3. Electronic disclosure- don't waste time: Don't steal prep and do not hold up the round. If your computer is messing up, or you can't use your e-mail quickly/efficiently, or you can't get your speech doc up and running, I will start your prep and/or speech time. You should have paper copies as backups.
  4. Theory arguments must be relevant and reasonable. Theory is a call for intervention, so I have the right to intervene. I have no bias against RVIs and am happy to vote on them. I will prefer and give much the most weight to paragraph theory. I am not interested in the parts of a theory shell, I'll vote on the big ideas, not theory blips that are often rehashes of F level writing in English class. i.e. I'm not voting on "People won't fund the activity if its unfair" or similar throwaway claims without evidence.
  5. Arguments I won't vote for:
    • Skepticism - stay home if you think someone can prove morality, justice, etc. exists within 45 minutes
    • Arguments I evaluate are below the belt or racist/sexist/homophobic arguments. Bullying, microaggressions, intimidation, etc. will not be tolerated.
    • Arguments focused on or targeting your opponent's identity/assumptions of that identity (as is done by some afropessimist strands). Your opponent's identity is none of your business.
    • Grossly powertagged cards - I reserve the right to check your evidence and tags, even better if your opponent calls this out.
    • Disclosure theory - I despise disclosure and how it has hurt the academic and debate quality of LD but will respect the norm. But disclosure politics aren't my concern.
    • Arguments about misgendering/use of gendered pronouns. Parents and principals have a reasonable expectations that college level discussions of sexual identity and such will not be discussed in high school. I will not penalize underage children who may not be allowed by their schools/parents to understand, discuss or be exposed such issues. No attempts to disrupt or hijack a round on this issue will be permitted. NOTE: As someone who has been socially punished many times by the debate community for advocating for marginalized groups on race, gender and sexuality of all types (before LD circuit debaters "got woke") --this rule is an enforcement of age appropriateness, not politics.
    • Trigger warnings are unnecessary and I do not require or listen to them. Debaters should default to appropriate behavior at all times.

Speaker Point Paradigm

30 – The performance does one or more things exceptionally well and/or you have given a near perfect performance. Think “A+”

29.5-29.9 – Top notch performance, few if any critiques. Think “A” level.” 29-29.4 – Above average performance “A-“

28-28.9 - Standard circuit level performance (B/B+) Under 28: Below par or includes deductions for inappropriate behavior

Cecilia Birge Paradigm

Update 11/25/2018

I have judged extensively in both LD and PF in the past year, and have grown to dislike the lack of civility in some rounds. Remember - speech and debate is about having fun! If you are the only person in the room having run, then you just lost a round.

Please note the following:

1. Fair warning - If you use language that doesn't belong to the classroom, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.

2. If you ask a question in rebuttal, please allow your opponents to answer your questions. I need to hear two sides - it wouldn't be a debate otherwise.

3. LD - No spreading. Debate, in any form, is about making a point. To me, that point has to be made with common sense. Please do not try to convince me you are smarter than everybody in the room by speaking too fast. If a smarter-than-average person cannot get your point, you lost the round. Period. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge. You will get a 25. If you have two "tech" judges and me in the elimination rounds, and if you CHOOSE to spread "strategically", you will get a 25 as well. Again, it wouldn't be a debate if a judge cannot understand you.


I am a math and special education teacher in Princeton High School. This is my third year as the Head Coach of the PHS Speech and Debate Team. I didn't have a lot of experiences with high school debates prior to taking on this position. However, I made enough presentations as a bond analyst on Wall Street for a number of years to know the difference between substance and hot air. I also served as mayor in Central New Jersey for some years, and have been actively involved with political campaigns at all levels. Therefore, I fully understand the practical impact of (political) speeches and debates.


I do my best to follow and adapt to any style. However, I have a strong preference for convincing arguments over speed or other stylistic elements of debates; I prefer strength and confidence over aggression without substance. I want to clear warrant to your claim, clear impacts and clear weighing. Simply put, convince me with common sense and logical reasoning.

Don't forget - this is about you having fun!

Good luck!

Cassandra Branson Paradigm

5 rounds

Email for questions/clarifications and chains:

Debate background: I debated for Walt Whitman for 4 years, 2.5 on the nat circuit. I ran mostly tricks, soft left stuff and non T Ks in my senior year. I’m in my freshman year at University of Toronto and I’m not doing debate lol they don’t have it.

My prefs are theory/tricks, identity Ks, policy, high theory, and framework in that order.

**updated for Bronx: I don’t know the topic. Use that info however you want.


PLEASE INCLUDE TRIGGER WARNINGS AND ASK IF PEOPLE ARE OKAY WITH THE CONTENT OF YOUR CASE BEFORE YOU START SPEAKING. i.e. “my case has graphic depictions of sexual assault if anyone in the room is uncomfortable with that, I have an alternative case I can read”.

If for any reason you feel unable to continue the round, please feel free to stop time and let me know. Debate is supposed to be a fun learning experience for EVERYONE. If you ever during the round feel uncomfortable or unsafe please feel free to stop the round.

PLEASE ASK FOR PRONOUNS BEFORE THE ROUND STARTS, additionally, please do not misgender your opponent. I WILL dock speaks after the first time. If it becomes egregious, I will drop you.

I can’t flow spreading please send your speech docs (if you don’t spread, send them anyway). I will yell clear up to two times. After that, I’m docking speaks.

**please give me a “here’s how the round breaks down” in your 2AR/2NR (I will love it even more if you literally say that). Please weigh your arguments, you’ll get high speaks if you do.

please slow down for tags or author names


I enjoy good theory debates (whatever that means), but please don’t just run theory to run it. Please omg. If you’re going to run theory, make it specific and fun and strategic. My threshold for actual theory debates is pretty high. That being said, if a theory debate is frivolous or abusive, my threshold for responses is pretty low.

I default to competing interps, and RVIs for the aff.

Also, if your opponent is unfamiliar or uncomfortable with theory (and makes it known) please don’t run theory anyway!

I enjoy tricks. I ran them. I do have a higher threshold for them though. Make them fun!


I don’t care if you debate the topic, do or don’t it’s your prerogative. I’m really fine with anything, as long as you know/understand what you’re reading and I really enjoy listening to them. That being said, please do explain, weigh and justify your arguments it’ll make it so much easier to vote for you.

Grant Brown Paradigm

3 rounds

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

Millard North ’17, Swarthmore College ’21 (Studying Philosophy)

Instructor at the National Symposium for Debate and the Texas Debate Collective

Assistant Lincoln-Douglas Coach at Lake Highland Prep


Conflicts: Millard North, Lake Highland Preparatory

A spreadsheet, for your reference, with my decisions can be found here.

Last Updates: 2019 Bronx

The Short Version

As a student when I considered a judge I usually looked for a few specific things, I will answer those here:

1. What are their qualifications?

I qualified three times to the TOC, cleared twice, and reached semifinals my senior year. I have taught seven weeks of camp for three summers and am in my third year as an assistant coach at Lake Highland.

2. What will they listen to?

Anything - excluding discourses and practices which exclude other participants.

3. What are they experienced in?

I coach a wide variety of arguments and am fairly comfortable adjudicating any style of debate. I am most familiar with kritik based arguments, particularly those which are invested in critical-theory and continental philosophy. I find myself to generally be the least certain of my decisions in debates involving dense amounts of theory and tricks.

4. What do they like?

I don’t have any predetermined notion of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like and I greatly enjoy when debaters experiment within the space of the activity. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate I will enjoy whatever you have to present.

5. How do they adjudicate debates?

I generally have a fairly systematic way of adjudicating debates. I begin by attempting to discern the priority of the various layers of arguments presented, examples include frameworks or weighing arguments which specify which types of impacts matter, a theory argument which contests the fairness or education of a position, a kritik which indicts the performance of the affirmative, etc. Once I have determined the priority of layers, I proceed to evaluating the different arguments on each layer, looking for an offensive reason to vote, accounting for defense, bringing in other necessary layers, and whatever else is necessary to find an adequate resolution to the debate.

Longer Version

General things to note:

I flow on a computer in an excel document.

Speed is great so long as you’re clear – I will call “clear” or “slow” a reasonable amount of times – I have a very high threshold for clarity.

I’ll do my best to be tabula rasa and be “tech over truth” but these concepts are vague at best. Smart technically work can make up for weaker truths and pinpointed truths can overwhelm technicalities.

I find the evaluation of embedded clash to be inevitable. This isn't to say I ignore the line-by-line of the flow, but that what I determine to be relevant parts of the flow for a particular portion of the debate - the pieces that make up the arguments I'm evaluating - tends to be based on a fairly holistic and interconnected view. This is not something I prefer, I'd rather not have to do any embedded evaluation, but I find it to be a necessity in many debates which have lackluster weighing and explanation by debaters.

There must be an explained and impacted warrant to an argument in order for me to vote on it. I have a high threshold for explanation. If they entirely concede a theory argument and you extend it with no warrants, I will happily refuse to vote on it. It is impossible to resolve a set of competing claims and I refuse to do that work for you – warrants are an unmovable threshold. I don’t care if the warrant is a misunderstanding or perhaps even false, for example: “Dogs can fly because they have legs which enable movement that could allow them to ascend vertically.” That is sufficient if it is conceded, but there must be some potential justification/reasoning for your claim.

I prefer not to have to use defaults to make important judgements about a debate, as hopefully they’ve been explained by the debaters, but in the cases where they are required, I’ve listed my general views here. I default to a comparative worlds paradigm in which I weigh the desirability of the affirmative versus the negative based on provided impact framing. I default to presuming negative, unless there is an alternative advocacy (counterplan, kritik) in the 2NR without the choice of the status-quo, in which case I presume affirmative. Furthermore, I presume that the status-quo is always an option for the negative, but I will only evaluate it as such if the 2NR explicitly does work on this question. Lastly, I default that layers can be weighed against each other on the same level (theory, topicality, kritiks).

I’ve decided that absent thorough explanation of what arguments such as “evaluate the theory debate after the 1AR/2NR” mean I am not going to evaluate them. If you can explain which layers and arguments in the debate this applies to when you extend it, feel free to go for it, but otherwise I’d recommend against it.

As my time in the activity steadily increases, I find myself more frequently compelled by arguments which are positionally defended, well researched, and grounded in educational content and less frequently compelled by arguments which are frivolous, poorly justified, and used entirely for technical advantage. This stands as a general rule of thumb, but in practice has led to a real distaste for cheap-shots, tricks, and frivolous theory arguments, as I find the ones that I frequently judge to be at least intuitively pointless, unnecessary, and unoffensive. After these types of debates, I almost always find myself asking “Why couldn’t they have just responded to the substance of their opponent’s argument?” Though I imagine I will still vote for those positions, this certainly effects my distribution of speaker points and threshold for responses to certain positions and is something to keep in mind. Practically, this just means that I’d prefer to see, regardless of your preferred style of debate, a few well-developed and defended positions, be it a theory interpretation, kritik, counterplan, or otherwise, rather than a random smattering of underdeveloped and unjustified ones.


I’m most familiar with this style of debating, usually from the poststructuralist and continental philosophy angle, and they are my favorite debates to judge when done well.

I really value clarity of explanation, especially in the context of dense philosophy. The most common concern I find myself raising to debaters is a lack of through development of a worldview. Working through the way that your understanding of the world operates, be it through the alternative resolving the links, your theory of violence explaining a root-cause, or otherwise is crucial to convey what I should be voting for at the end of the debate.

I find that a large number of alternatives are either not competitive or are poorly explained but the affirmative fails to articulate a solid permutation. Similarly, explain your permutations - one sentence in the 1AR and 3 minutes in the 2AR won't cut it.

"Kritikal" Affirmatives

I'm a fairly receptive judge to these positions. I don't really care if you defend the topic entirely, a little bit, or not at all. You should just advocate what you can justify and defend. It generally holds true that the further the affirmative is from the topic the more topicality’s concern for fairness becomes persuasive, but well developed arguments on either side can shift this greatly.

You should forefront an explanation of what you defend, be it a methodology, implementation of a plan, theory of approach or analysis, or otherwise. It is usually shiftiness in conjunction with a lack of clear story from the affirmative that results in sympathy for procedurals such as topicality and other negative objections in these debates in front of me.

I generally find negative tricks against these positions (switch-side debate, topical version, truth-testing, fairness first) to be fairly weak but I end up voting on them quite frequently due to lack of a forwarding of a different vision for the debate from affirmatives.


I am least comfortable adjudging intricate theory debates; however I enjoy these debates when there is a lot of clash and weighing on one or two shells. I do not enjoy these debates as much when there are multiple shells, meta-theory, or a lack of clash and weighing. A majority of my decisions on theory come down to either dropped arguments or weighing in an otherwise extremely messy debate.

I default to no RVI, drop the argument, and competing interpretations. I default to a pretty modest understanding of competing interpretations in which a risk of offense isn't "game over" - if you disagree you ought to explain your version.

I am profoundly unpersuaded by any claims that appeal to a constitutive nature of the activity/judge and jurisdiction claims. So unpersuaded that if it is anything less than dropped I'm unsure if I would vote for it. It seems logically incoherent.

The later in the round the shell is read the less likely I am going to feel comfortable voting on it. That's not to say I won't vote on 2NR or even 2AR theory, but I'd really prefer that I didn't have to, plus you're basically putting the debate in my hands in that point - it's a big risk.

I will vote on disclosure theory and brackets theory, though using either, especially increasingly specified interpretations, for purely technical gain is yucky.

I have a voting record that is fairly favorable towards theory, however I have become increasingly aware of my bias against theory "tricks". This includes things such as "must read a counter-interpretation," arbitrary independent voters (e.g. strategy skew, I'm fine with things such as resolvability), etc. These are usually extended without a warrant and are dependent on either intuition/prior interpretative beliefs about the nature of theory or a purely technical evaluation that will vote on mere claims - in these instances I am likely to refuse to vote on these arguments. I will however vote on these arguments when they actually have a warrant.


You should have a clear interpretation and violation that explains your vision of the topic. The affirmative should either defend the violation or have a counter-definition or competitive counter-interpretation.

You should isolate the ground that you lose, the limits that are broken - reference case-lists and be specific.

I enjoy T debates that include carded topic-lit evidence to support their impacts and interpretation.

Everything in the theory section applies here as well.

Policy Arguments

I enjoy these greatly and wish I judged them more.

Good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence - I'm a good judge for strong "spin" and extrapolation outside of the evidence itself.

Explain your scenarios in later speeches - advantage/disadvantage overviews are great.

I'm mostly neutral on multiple condo, though I suppose I slightly lean affirmative if its more than two or three.

Ethical Frameworks

I've gotten significantly better at judging these debates and I spend pretty much all my time in college reading, studying, and discussing philosophy.

I'd implore you to give overviews and slow down to explain the main points of clash in later speeches. These debates can get very messy with a variety of preclusion claims, hijacks, etc. and a clear explanation of the implications of your extensions and arguments can sway the debate in your favor.

I'm a fan of frameworks interacting with kritiks, theory, and otherwise.


I have voted on these arguments frequently when they are well explained in the context of the rest of the debate in terms of both their content (the claim and warrant) and function (their impact). You should therefore explain how your trick interacts with other layers and arguments in the debate if you want to go for it.

Being honest with your sketchiness is in your best interest - for both strategic reasons and for my own comprehension. I'm okay with voting for an argument I didn't see coming, but if I can't logically put together from the pieces you explain in the later speeches how the argument functions i.e. why it affirms, takes out theory, etc, I'm probably not going to vote on it.

Ethics Questions

If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused.

If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C.

Questions of misrepresentation/miscutting should be addressed in the round - in whatever form you determine to be best.


I disclose speaks. I believe it helps students learn what they can do better and helps discourage bad practices.

A thirty requires an affective component – passion and exceptionality – that is what distinguishes it from a very high 29.

Here is a rough framework I will attempt to follow – I assign speaks relative to the pool so a 29.5 at a local tournament is different than a 29.5 at the TOC:

<25-26: Unethical; offensive, clipping of cards.

27-28: Significantly below average, unlikely to clear.

28-29: Slightly below, at, or slightly above average, potential to clear but won't make it far (I try to average a 28.5)

29-30: Significantly above average, most likely to clear and will be competitive in late elims.

Kristiana Báez Paradigm

6 rounds

Debated: Norman High School (2005- 2009), University of Oklahoma (2009-2014)
Coached: University of Texas at San Antonio (2014-2015)
Caddo Magnet High School (2014-2015)
Baylor University (2015-2017)

University of Iowa (2017-present)


I am not too biased against any particular argument, it's your round so do what you do, but do it well.
I did however primarily read kritiks, but I have also done strictly policy debate in my career, so I have been exposed to a wide variety of arguments and I am not someone who will always vote for the k or for FW. I like to think that I am a favorable judge for either.

Kritiks: Although, I am familiar with some kritiks, I do not pretend to be an expert on all. There are still many kritiks that I have trouble understanding. That being said, I think that case specific links are the best. Generic links are not as compelling especially if you are flagging certain cards for me to call for at the end of the round. It seems that many times debaters don't take the time to really explain what the alternative is like, whether it solves part of the aff, is purely rejection, etc. If for some reason the alternative isn't extended or explained in the 2nr, I won't just apply it as a case turn for you. An impact level debate is also still important even if the K excludes the evaluation of specific impacts. It is really helpful to articulate how the K turns the case as well. On a framing level, do not just assume that I will believe that the truth claims of the affirmative are false, there needs to be in-depth analysis for why I should dismiss parts of the aff preferably with evidence to back it up.

Performance/Methodology debates- Since I debated for OU and I debated in the D3, I am not unfamiliar with these debates. I am in no way biased in one way or another. I think that arguments need to be competitive. The things you may talk about in your performance/methodology may be true, but there needs to be a clear link articulated to the argument that you are debating. Many times competing methodologies start to sound really similar to each other, so teams need to establish a clear difference between the arguments.

Clash of Civ. debates- I think that these debates can be really great because clash is kind of important. However, these debates tend to get really muddled, so you need to work extra hard to make things clear for me rather than just assuming I will lean one way or another. When it comes to K Affs v. FW, I think that you need to do a lot of work and don't just go for generic arguments like switch side without giving specific examples of things like in round abuse, etc. or interesting impact arguments. Ex: just saying roleplaying good/bad without a really good explanation is not going to be compelling.

CPs- I really like counterplans especially if they are specific to the aff, which shows that you have done your research. Although PIKs are annoying to deal with if you are aff, I enjoy a witty PIK. However, make it clear that it is a PIK and explain why it solves the aff. Generic cps with generic solvency cards aren't really going to do it for me. However, if the evidence is good then I am more likely to believe you when you claim aff solvency. There needs to be a good articulation for why the aff links to the net benefit and good answers to cp solvency deficits, assuming there are any. Permutation debate needs to be hashed out on both sides, with Da/net benefits to the permutations made clear.

DAs- I find it pretty easy to follow DAs. However, if you go for it I am most likely going to be reading ev after the round, so it better be good. If your link cards are generic and outdated and the aff is better in that department, then you need to have a good reason why your evidence is more qualified, etc. Make your scenario clear, DAs are great but some teams tend to go for a terminal impact without explanation of the scenario or the internal link args. Comparative analysis is important so I know how to evaluate the evidence that I am reading. Tell me why the link o/w the link turn etc. Impact analysis is very important, timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc., so I can know why the Da impacts are more important than the affs impacts. A good articulation of why the Da turns each advantage is extremely helpful because the 2ar will most likely be going for those impacts in the 2ar.

Theory- I generally err neg on theory unless there is a really good debate over it. Your generic blocks aren't going to be very compelling. If you articulate why condo causes a double turn, etc. specific to the round is a better way to go with it. I think that arguments such as vague alternatives especially when an alternative morphs during the round are good. However, minor theory concerns such as multiple perms bad aren't as legitimate in my opinion.

Topicality- Generic T shells are not something that hold my attention, however, a specific definition or a T in tandem with another position to get a link, is strategic. If you are going to go for T, then go for it starting in the block and make it a legitimate option and I will evaluate it.

Other notes: If you are unclear, I can't flow you and I don't get the evidence as you read it, so clarity over speed is always preferable.
Don't be rude, your points will suffer. There is a difference between being aggressive and being a jerk.
Impact calc please, don't make me call for everyones impacts and force me to evaluate it myself. I don't want to do the work for you.
The last two rebuttals should be writing my ballot, tell me how I vote and why. Don't get too bogged down to give a big picture evaluation.

Accomplish something in your cross-x time, keep me interested, have an agenda during your cx and use the answers you get in cx and incorporate them into your speeches. Cx is wasted if you pick apart the DA but don't talk about it in your speech.

Ian Chen Paradigm

5 rounds

Hey I'm Ian, I debated for 4 years at San Marino High in LD. I go to NYU now and don't debate anymore(including senior year) so I am a bit rusty(i havent had to process anyone scream incoherently at 500 wpm for a good min so chill please). TLDR- don't read things like baudrillard, bataille or d&g(i think theyre bad for debate), otherwise I'm okay with most things.

Ks- Read these a bit in HS, mainly cap, agamben, security and the like. I've come to appreciate a concrete alt rather than some thought experiment, so the threshold for the later type is a bit higher, though I'll still vote on it. I read asian identity a bit my junior year so i'm a fan of that. I think you should relate to the topic in some way as aff.

Theory- pretty simple here, if you're extemping shells PLEASE slow for important things or send it out on a doc. Friv theory is dumb but entertaining so feel free to go for that. I default to RVIs, drop the debater, and competing interps, but i'm flexible there. If you have some massive dump on someone who reads a disad and one uncondo cp i will prob have a very low threshold for answering your shells.

Larp- Read a lot of plan affs of soft left affs around here so pretty comfortable here, always a safe bet. I think multiple condo is fine, but if you aren't ready with a dump on condo theory i'll prob ding you there.

Phil- I read a lot of Levinas so i'm more than comfortable with him, but that also means i'll know if you butcher what he says. Okay with other things like kant etc, but please dont ignore framing after the ac/nc, using them as takeouts to other layers is something i enjoyed and liked to see. Probably not the best at understanding some fringe philosopher with convoluted abstract theories

Tricks- I think they're also kinda bad for debate and a cheap shot, theyre not particularly my favorite and I'd try and defer to a different layer when possible. If its the first or last round of the day I will probably be dead and hate you for reading a nailbomb.

I honestly think debate is a game, so sputtering that my ballot is going to change the world isnt entirely too convincing, but i'll still vote there. I think around a 28.5 is fair for average debaters, and a 28.5-29 if I think you might break but not make it super far. Jokes and snarky comments are fun, but know where the line is and don't cross it.

If you have questions ask me in the room before the round starts.

Create an email chain and add me

Andrew Choi Paradigm

7 rounds

1. Tech v. Truth

- varies on a case-by-case basis but will mainly default to tech

- always assume I don't know shit about the topic/literature surrounding the topic cuz I probably don't

- not an interventionist judge

2. Positions

Disads - cool

Counterplans - cool except in PF

Kritiks - cool

Theory - cool, but run it for a legitimate reason and not as a time-suck or abusing someone who doesnt know how to respond (@ novice)

Topicality - cool but will rarely vote on it

3. Speed + Evidence

- anything's fine with me, but I do pref the argumentation in a well-run speed theory :)

- I probably won't call cards or anything like that but who knows

4. Speaks

- auto 30s for anyone who sings at some point during their speech

- not actually tho, generally will give high speaks if y'all chill

George Clemens Paradigm

3 rounds

Dear All: As you can tell from judging history, I judge LD sparingly if at all over the last few years. My role in the activity is mostly yelling at people to start their rounds. Take your chances with my abilities to follow what is taking place. I don’t have predispositions to vote for anything in particular. My views that “bait theory” incline me to not want to vote for you if that is your primary strategy is still as true now as it was five years ago. Outside of that, I am open to whatever you can do well and justify that is interesting.

Jennifer Condron Paradigm

Yes, I want to be on the email chain:


Full disclosure, I am a parent judge with limited debate experience. That being said, I have learned to love LD debate and realize the responsibility that accompanies the role of judge. I have taken the necessary steps to educate myself in preparation so that I may competently judge and critique an LD debate round.


I received my Bachelor’s degree from the University of Connecticut and my Master’s degree from Yale University 100 or so years ago, give or take about 80 years.


I am open to all styles of argument if you are committed to doing it well. In short, be clear, explain yourself, share your knowledge and evidence, persuade me. It’s been a while since I shared tea with Nietzsche so explain your jargon.

I believe that being open-minded as a judge and evaluating embedded clash (making intuitive connections for you) are mutually exclusive.

I prefer clarity and persuasive inflection to monotone spreading but if you can accomplish both at a moderately fast pace, I am fine with speed. I’ll yell “clear” or “slow” three times before I stop flowing and lower speaks. Reading as much information to me as fast as possible is not likely to convince me that you have given much thought to the topic at hand. I prefer that you demonstrate that you fully understand your argument and convince me that you believe what you are saying, whether you do or not. This is a skill learned in debate, is it not?


<26: Offensive, clipping cards, or generally being an ass.

26-27: Novice level, needs significant improvement

27-28: Below average, probably won’t break.

28-29: Around average, might break but won’t be competitive in later elimination rounds.

29-29.7: Above average, likely to get a bid.

30: Either an amazing performance K or you should win all rounds in all tournaments always.

In extraordinary circumstances, such as a lay tournament with weird norms, these may change.

Note from her daughter (Stanford OHS Independent EC): Jen’s a smart cookie, but she’s not very receptive to generic non T (she really likes performances, though) or tricks. Explain your ballot story well; she doesn’t want to do any work for you. Please, for the love of all that is holy, do NOT run presumption triggers. Unless you explain very clearly why presumption is necessary, save it. Don’t think that just because she’s a parent judge, you can slip new args into the NR/AR and she won’t notice. She will. Just explain your positions and you’ll be fine. Any questions for me?

Martin Csongradi Paradigm

7 rounds

About Me

I debated LD 9th through 12th grade and competed in extemp senior year. I did mostly local circuit freshman/sophomore year and a lot more nat circuit junior/senior year.

My general thoughts on debate: I ran traditional and progressive cases when I debated, but I definitely like progressive rounds much more than traditional.

How you should pref me: If you're a circuit debater, I'm a LARP judge who listens to theory fine and has no qualms voting for it. If you're traditional at a large tournament, I'll give you a fair shake and won't be mad that I'm judging you.

Short version

Speed: ok. Theory: ok. Ks: ok, but please explain them well. Weigh your impacts. Don't be rude. Debate is a game, but not a game worth making your opponent having a breakdown. If you have any specific questions, plz ask before round.

Long version


I'm fine with whatever speed you'll want to go. Slow down for taglines, authors, and analytics. If you're spreading, I'd like the doc please.

Framework (like, Framing)

For framework, I personally tend to default to util but that doesn't mean I will if you don't say it. I'm open to any framework, as long as its reasoned and well supported. If the neg doesn't provide a framework, that's fine by me as long as they justify their case under the aff's framework. I won't care if there's no framework debate, but I do enjoy a good framework debate when it's in there.


Please have structure to any theory args. It'll be hard for me to vote off of it if you don't have it in the usual shell structure.

I'll listen to/vote on almost anything, but there are a few things I refuse to listen to/won't vote for:

- Nebel T

- "1AR Theory bad"


- "This is LD, and X isn't allowed in LD"

- permissibility

Things I'm less inclined towards:

- saying that fairness isn't a voter

- disclosure

- most things in an underview. I think underviews are garbage, but I recognize that they do have a role in LD rn.


I didn't run Ks much as a debater, but I'll gladly vote off them. I like specific alts that you can actually explain and know what they do. Make sure your link is, y'know, there, and you're not jamming the K in there just cuz you want to.


Performances are interesting and I think definitely have a place in debate. Being topical is nice, though. 1AR shifts to be topical are not cool. Obviously don't break rules while you're doing it, too.


Tech over truth, generally.

Minus .25 speaks every time I hear "I/we don't take stance on that." You're in Debate. Take a stance.

I don't care if you sit or stand.

I don't really listen to cross, but I do hear what's generally goin on. If something happens that matters in CX, please tell me that it happened in your speech.

Flex prep is cool.

As mentioned earlier, debate is a game. It's not war. If you clearly outmatch your opponent, be reasonable.

Oh, also, if you say anything clearly racist/homophobic/sexist/etc., I will likely vote you down on the spot and give 0 speaks. That doesn't have any place in the educational space of speech and debate. Outside of being xenophobic, hateful, or spouting hate speech, say whatever you want, I guess.

If you have any further questions, feel free to reach me at

- MC

Henry Curtis Paradigm

7 rounds

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

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

General info/Speaker points stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Email chains are cool, include me on them:


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

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

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

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

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

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

DA/Counterplan/LARPy Stuff

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Other miscellaneous stuff

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

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

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

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

Abhilash Datti Paradigm

7 rounds

Bronx '19 Note: Haven't judged since the NSD Camp Tournament in July, so do not go top speed, at least starting out. I always sucked at flowing, so if you want me to get your arguments down, 75-80% of top speed is probably a good place to be.

Read whatever, have fun!

Speaks: I don't inflate speaks. To get high speaks, make good strategic decisions and be funny. To get low speaks, make poor strategic decisions and be mean.

Notes: Random thoughts I have about debate.

- Be efficient about flashing/emailing/etc. It's super obvious when people are stealing prep and I'll lower speaks for it

- I think you should flash/email/etc. pre-written analytics, if you don't I'll lower speaks

- For disclosure violations, make sure all the screenshots have time-stamps and are on one document

- Prep stops when the doc has been compiled, it should be flashed/emailed/etc. shortly after

Jackson DeConcini Paradigm

3 rounds

I debated 4 years in LD for Brentwood. I got 4 bids to the TOC my senior year and was the runner up at the 2018 NSDA National Tournament. I debate Policy for Dartmouth now as a sophomore as a 2A.

My email is Please add me to email chains.

I will evaluate almost all arguments. I'll yell clear if I can't understand you. I won't flow what I can't hear so it's in your best interest to slow down.

You should extend your arguments because I won't evaluate anything that isn't in your final speech. I have a low threshold for extending conceded arguments, but you still have to do it.

It's your burden to explain arguments, I won't vote for positions that you haven't explained to me.

Don't cheat. If I or your opponent catches you, I'll end the round and vote for your opponent. If you accuse your opponent of cheating and are incorrect, I'll vote for your opponent.

My judging vision is very similar to that of Whit Jackson, so you might want to check out his paradigm.

Eric Deng Paradigm

7 rounds

Last Update: Bronx 2019

San Marino High School 18

NYU 22

getting a new doc is prep, otherwise you should learn to flow

General --

I debated LD and got 5 bids to the TOC and reached octas my senior year. I read arguments mostly on the policy/k spectrum. I did policy in college for a year as a 2A.

I could care less about what the 1AC/1NC was. I care more about how the arguments are explained and impacted out in later speeches. That's not to say I don't care about the technical aspects of the debate, but one liners are not complete arguments. I get frustrated when this doesn't happen which may mean a more frustrating decision for you.

Clarity >>>>> speed (especially on theory/phil/spikes). Debate is still a communicative activity and that requires that you go at a speed that is understandable and flowable. I'm far from a flowbot and its something you should be aware of.

I thought I would be more ideological, but I've slowly stopped caring as I judged. Chances are I'm tired and only want you to make the debate easy. Bad arguments (mostly theory) are annoyances.

Some particularly bad arguments I've heard so far (this is a working list) :

"neg limits"

"neg may not [insert 1nc here]"

"neg may not read dispo counterplans"

"only have to affirm under one indexical"

"vote for me because I am [x identity category]"

"must disclose round reports"

"if i win i get rvis then i should win off an rvi because its an implicit counter interp"

Outside of your usual gutcheck of "bad" arguments, below are just some thoughts on how I view certain aspects of debate.

For some more background surrounding my thoughts on debate, it might be beneficial to reference some of my debate influences: Raffi Piliero, Jong Hak Won, Li-Ren Chang, Kamiran Dadah, Devane Murphy.

My peers that I agree mostly with: Danielle Dosch, Whit Jackson, Sean Fahey, Julian Kuffour, Ronak Ahuja.

Non-negotiable: I will not vote on arguments that require me to make a referendum on any debater as a person outside of debate.

Philosophy/Traditional Frameworks

I'm less familiar with philosophy so you should slow down and explain things rather than blitz out your preclusion blocks. That being said, I think I would be a find judge for you if you know your theory and attempt to explain it relative to their's as opposed to a mish mosh of "hijacks" and "pre-reqs". Its more about quality over quantity. Tricks are fine, but the worse the argument is the less I care about it.


Theory is also something that you shouldn't be going full speed on. I suck at flowing and if I miss something than its on you. I find the answer to most theory arguments are that it is the role of negative to make the debate hard for the aff and vice versa. I recognize that this is a slippery slope and arbitrary, but common sense should tell you what this applies to more. Refer to the list for a general idea. I'm not very amenable to plans bad a la nebel, t-plural is a much better argument in front of me.

Counterplan theory is the only theory that people should really be reading (outside of variants of tricks bad). My leanings are condo good, advantage cps good, agent cps good (states, courts, congress, etc.), and the rest are determined by solvency advocates. If you have a solvency advocate, it's most likely legitimate and you should be prepared to debate it.

Disclosure is usually a good thing, but I'm receptive to arguments otherwise.

FW v K Aff/Plan v K

I think my ideological tendencies regarding framework versus k affs is slightly neg. This is not to say I'm 80-20 FW, but more like 55-45 FW. Smart debating should overcome any of my ideological biases. Fairness is an impact, but it might not necessarily be the best one to go for depending on the debate. Both going for framework and debating against it should involve a checklist: TVA, truth-testing, skills, fairness first, etc. are all things that need to be answered. The same goes for being aff against the k.

I give what many would consider to be low speaks, but that's mostly because nobody has really impressed me and there's egregious speaks inflation in the northeast.

Danielle Dosch Paradigm

4 rounds

***Below are the preferences I had while debating. They do not have a significant impact on the way I evaluate debates. I’m just going to vote for whoever wins.

Update: There is no "flow clarification" time slot in a debate. If you want to ask your opponent what was read/not read, you must do it in CX or prep -- better yet, flow!



Cross ex is a speech, not extra prep — treat it as such.

Labeling an argument a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

Clipping cards is cheating, and you will receive a loss 25 if you do it.

Prep ends when the email has been sent. Don’t steal prep - you’re not sneaky.

Don’t be annoying, treat your opponents with respect, and if you appear to have a lot of background knowledge on the subject that is being discussed I will improve speaks.

Speaks range generally: 27-29.5 — 30s are unattainable — there’s no ceiling on excellence.


K vs. aff —

Your kritik should disagree with and disprove the aff. You should include a link wall that pulls lines from the aff, and you should answer the case. The Kritik should outweigh and turn the case and incorporate other K tricks as well. The 2NR should explain the thesis of the position and an explanation of the above.

Aff vs. K —

The case probably outweighs, and don’t be afraid of staking the 2ar on that. Unless your aff is set up for the link turn, impact turn everything you can – security, heg, neolib – excluding that which would be morally repugnant. Most importantly though, make the debate about your aff. So often the aff seems to forget that the onus is on the negative to disagree with the aff, not the other way around. 


My favorite neg strategies include these. It should solve the aff and avoid a tangible disadvantage. Answer the perm by isolating a DA or explaining why it is severance or intrinsic – “perm is illogical” isn’t an argument and “CP solves better” isn’t a DA to the perm. 1-2 condo is good, 3+ is pushing it. I am pretty neutral on cheaty CPs – generally, I think you should just defend your aff, but I am not predisposed towards voting against theory arguments. Judge kick only if you tell me to, so tell me to!


My favorite neg strategies also include these. 2NR should be fore fronted with impact calculus. Explain why the DA turns and outweighs the case before the case turns the DA, and rather than explaining why probability or magnitude should be prioritized categorically, explain it in terms of strength of link.


**You must do it.** Do it well and you’ll see a boost to speaks. Your evidence should be recent and of high quality, and don’t undervalue the utility of smart analytics!


T vs. Non-topical Affs —

Don’t be afraid to go one off framework in front of me, but you should definitely answer the case (as always!). I think fairness is best articulated as an internal link, but procedural fairness definitely matters to some degree in itself. Include a robust topical version of the aff.

Non-topical Affs vs. T —

It’s helpful to extend a counter-interp that mitigates some of their fairness offense and isolate offense as to why the exclusion of your aff and the like would be more detrimental than a world with slightly less predictability and increased prep burden.

Non-topical Affs vs. K —

Not a very good judge for these debates -- exception to this is probably cap.


If your argument is frivolous, the threshold for your opponent’s responses drops pretty significantly. If you are debating a frivolous argument, use reasonability to your favor. Other than that, the way you debate theory/topicality shouldn’t differ drastically from the way you’d conduct a plan/CP debate.


I honestly enjoy these debates when executed well. I am partial towards epistemic modesty, but that can be changed with in-round arguments. I will be most pleased if you explain your philosophical framework as reason why your offense matters and not a preclusive impact filter. If your strategy is to concede the case and just answer framework, I am not the best judge for you, but if you mitigate the probability of the case (notice a trend?) through defense or an advantage CP, I will be thrilled. Please don’t extend your framework card by card — begin with an overview that includes the thesis of your position and a summary of your offense.

David Dosch Paradigm

3 rounds

I debated for four years at John Marshall High School in Los Angeles, California. I qualified to the TOC my junior and senior years, attaining a career total of 8 bids. I am the Co-Director of the The Debate Intensive. I am a conflict for any competitors on this list:

Speed is fine. I don't care if you sit or stand, feel free to lay down if that’s how you're most comfortable. I come into the round with very few rigid preconceptions about what arguments should be read. Nearly all of the defaults outlined below can be changed by explicit arguments to the contrary. I will not blatantly intervene against any position (save for those which are morally repugnant).

As a competitor I ran primarily policy style arguments, so I feel very comfortable evaluating these types of debates. Robust evidence comparison is a tool that I feel is very underutilized. Identifying power-tagged evidence and pointing out intuitive logical gaps in an advantage can be just as effective as reading a hefty carded prep-out. I would say that I am fine with more conditionality than most judges. Feel free to read condo bad theory, just know that it’s a slight uphill battle.

The bulk of the K debate should not be centered around arbitrary assertions about the "role of the ballot." I absolutely loathe the state of K debate in contemporary LD. I will reward competitors who can make it through the round without using the phrase ROB or relying on the contrived pre/post-fiat metaphor, with extra speaker points. Rather than relying on Trifonas 03 as your ace in the hole, you should make arguments which actually explain why your criticism is a prior question to the hypothetical consequences of the 1AC. Many kritiks suffer from links which are overly generic and alternatives which are horribly convoluted. Remedy this by pulling specific lines from the Affirmative and by being able to provide an intelligible explanation of your alternative in CX. I'll vote on your silly K tricks (floating PIK, VTL > Extinction, Alt solves the case) just be prepared to defend them theoretically.

Performance/K Affs
I gave this topic a separate heading because it presents unique challenges that may raise more nuanced questions. I am fine with performances and non-topical positions; often they introduce very interesting discussions and literature bases into the round which might otherwise be over looked. I would prefer that your position be at least in the direction of the topic, but that’s no mandate. Please defend something tangible. By tangible I do not mean realistic (feel free to burn it down, just please do tell us what that means!), rather I ask that you defend a consistent position so your opponent can formulate a coherent strategy. I will vote on T. I think topical version of the Aff arguments are pretty close to being silver bullets, so be sure you are winning impact turns to topicality or some other offensive reason why the topical version of your position is bad.

I default to viewing theory as an issue of competing interpretations. To me this means that you need offense on theory to either beat it back, or, assuming you've justified it, gain access to an RVI. Offense on the theory flow can come in the form of turns to your opponent's standards or a counter interpretation with standards of its own. I do not believe that competing interpretations necessitates an explicit counter-interp. If you want to justify an alternate understanding of competing interpretations, go for it, just explain the effect it has on the theory debate. To me reasonability means that winning sufficient defense on your opponent's abuse story is enough to beat back theory. Again, if your understanding of reasonability differs from the above explanation, warrant it and impact it. I default to drop the debater and no RVIs. As mentioned above, you must have offense in order to access an RVI. I will not vote on the RVI + I meet double whammy or any similarly preposterous shenanigans.

I'll touch on the issue of "spikes" here because it fits more neatly under the theory heading than any other. I strongly dislike spike-heavy strategies that rely on deception and trickery to snag a few easy ballots. Please slow down for short spikes. Though not mandatory, it would be greatly appreciated if you numbered your spikes. If your 1AR is four minutes of extending 1AC blips, expect very poor speaks. I am extremely receptive to the argument that spikes needn't be answered until they are extended. I will not tolerate CX evasiveness about the implication of spikes. Answer your opponent's questions honestly or face the wrath of the loss 25.

Ethical Frameworks
I default to a paradigm of epistemic modesty where I assign offense credence to the extent that the framework it links back to is won. I do not view frameworks as being entirely preclusive impact filters. I find framework heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing contention to be unpersuasive. I find framework heavy strategies to be more effective when coupled with case turns/case defense. If you are going to read a generic NC against a plan, please read a link specific to the plan just as you would for a DA or a Kritik.

Be comparative with warrants for your framework. Don't just insist that your framework justifications "come first", instead address the differences between your frameworks at the warrant level. I enjoy good framework clash and appreciate the strategic value of contesting framework.


My range is 25-30. An average performance will earn a 27. Good disclosure practices will earn you extra speaks (like a .5 boost or something).

Raymond Evans Paradigm

2 rounds

I am a parent judge. I have watched my son's circuit LD rounds but do not understand most jargon, nor should you spread. If you have me as a judge, go slow, use lots of examples, and paint a picture for me. I do not understand kritiks or most philosophy arguments so you should stick to cost-benefit analysis or generic rights frameworks.

Sean Fahey Paradigm

3 rounds

2019-2020 Conflicts: Brentwood School, Cypress Falls RK


I debated for four years at Benjamin Franklin High School in New Orleans, LA. I primarily debated in LD and competed locally all four years and nationally my junior and senior year.

I mostly study English and some other stuff at Tulane University. I now coach the Brentwood School in Los Angeles and the occasional independent.

A Note:

I will and have voted on //practically// anything (within reason - clarification follows). I think I vote very mechanistically based off of what I flowed. I find that I can only logically flow arguments that have a warrant; this sounds common sense, but many people seem to expect you to evaluate any claim from the speech if it's functionally conceded - I think this is ridiculous and don't consider it to be intervention to draw the line there. Want to win? Being halfway reasonable helps. Being a good person helps too. Don't try and appeal to what you think my sentiments about debate are unless you know me well enough to truly capitalize on it. I've voted down a lot of pomo Ks and find myself voting on case outweighs more times than not, so pls don't think Baudrillard is an insta-win in front of me. I primarily want to decide speaks and wins off of clear display of content knowledge, whether this be topical or not; I don't like blippy, bureaucratic styles of debate.

!!! Because I feel like this has less to do with debate and more about the integrity of the event/community, I'm putting this before my nerdy debate views. PLEASE do not use the debate space as an open season to maliciously verbally abuse your opponent. To clarify, please refrain from a form of argumentation that embodies and/or justifies heinous things, like racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and other form of arbitrarily violent cultural hierarchies. I think this is a pretty reasonable thing to ask considering I'm sure your schools ask the same thing of you and make you sign a handbook of rules agreeing to similar conduct. If you have to ask, "how far does this extend?" you're pushing it. Just be a chill person. Check your opponents pronouns and watch the integrity of your language. If you're going to fast to not be cautious about your language, slow down.

My Opinions About Things:

A few assumptions about debate that I have that have not changed in a long, long time (and they won't unless you argue otherwise):

- Send me the speech docs, compile the doc in prep and be ready to attach it to an email and send it once you end prep with relative immediacy. I'm going to start docking speaks for what I feel to be stolen prep time and you'll know if I feel that way because I'll tell you to start prep again if you take too long. Attaching a document and pressing 'reply all' should take no longer than a handful of seconds. I'm more lenient for earlier rounds as people figure out the wifi situation at a tournament, but ppl be prep stealing.

- Please slow down and a r t i c u l a t e theory interpretations and advocacy texts.

- CP shit: Presuming the aff has been broken and disclosed, I've come to think that topic lit is a reasonable standard by which counterplans become legitimate (aside from like advantage cps). I think PICs should have solvency advocates (that explicitly say to do all of the plan except what the PIC specs). I think process CPs should have solvency advocates. IF IT'S A NEW AFF, I'm more receptive to analytic CPs and/or multiple condo.

- I will judge kick both Ks and CPs unless told otherwise.

- I default to epistemic confidence. Please make args for epistemic modesty and explain what weighing means in the context of the round under this paradigm.

- I think I'm an educator, so role of the educator arguments hold framing value to me. Role of the ballot arguments seem very silly to me 99% of the time and should usually be made as role of the educator or epistemology args. To me, the ballot is a webpage that indicates who I voted for to tab, but this function of the ballot can serve as a tool for the judge to deter certain arguments for being not good arguments.

- I'm probably flowing cx. If you really emphasize something, I'll definitely get it down.

- Absent offense for either side, I presume neg, unless the 1nc reads an advocacy other than the squo (this is only true of fiated advocacies; methodological debates generally require the neg to present a method to compete, hence, the squo is not an option, so I still presume neg in this case).

- I default to truth-testing with the caveat that any consequentialist framework defines truth about ought statements as a de facto comparative worlds form of debate (absent the necessity for an explicit plan advocacy). I think implementation and truth-testing are not necessarily incompatible absent philosophic objections as to why not. That said, don't take this as "oh sean likes tricks then!" - no, I just think the topical burden in a debate is for the aff to affirm the truth of the rez and the negative to prove the rez false, which I think LARP debate also does. Please weigh between comparative worlds and more expansive interpretations of truth testing as a matter of which model incentivizes the best model of affirming or negating the resolution in debate. I think the ability for a paradigm to produce a truth-testing model of the resolution is a burden for a good, topic-centered (presuming the topic is good) model of debate, I would rather hear why the list of args your model uniquely justifies (your case list, if you will) is comparatively more worth reading than the args their model justifies.

- I default to drop the arg; reasonability with a bright-line of in-round structural abuse (meaning, I determine an abuse of fairness based on if a practice creates a skew in the number of burdens a debater needs to fulfill to win. By extension, I default to thinking the aff can be substantively abusive because the neg can up-layer and has a time advantage to answer any substantive unfairness in the 1AC -- ergo, you probably don't want me to presume here); no RVIs on T; fairness/education are voters (in no particular order, really depends on the type of fairness and education at stake - weigh for me). If no paradigm issues are warranted or brought up when one reads theory, I think it is a perfectly valid (and good) response to say "no warranted paradigm issues means there's no impact to the shell and you can't vote on it" (especially against theory read in the 1NC when no paradigm issues were introduced by the 1AC), however you need to say this or I will fill in the gap and evaluate the shell under my default assumptions, which might suck for you.

- T-Framework is cool. I like this argument. I debated against it a lot.

- I will autonomously/responsively adjudicate card clipping violations. My definition for clipping is the repeated skipping of words in tags or the highlighted section of cards. If I think a debater is clipping consistently and maliciously, I will verify it with the speech doc and, if you are clipping, I will stop the round myself as long as that is kosher with the tournament's head tab staff. However, I may not notice clipping and if you do you should record the violation, be certain of the abuse (you shouldn't stop a round for one or two accidentally clipped words), and verbally stop the round no matter what is happening (I don't care if it's mid-speech, but prep time is probably the ideal time to verify a clipping violation). Evidence ethics violations in round should be absolute and entirely certain. Be ready to stake the round on it. When you call for the round to stop and produce the evidence of the ethics violation, I will adjudicate it as I see fit. I take these claims seriously. No shell format needed for clipping specifically; some other issues of evidence ethics (like disclosure theory) ought to be debated in shell form and the round will not be stopped prematurely for these arguments even though I may be inclined to vote on them more than other positions if the violation is true.

- Disclosure is a pretty true arg in most instances. I won't say I'll hack for it anymore because I think some of these rounds are worth resolving and hearing out, but I err HEAVILY towards any true violation under the moderate interp (posted an hour before, first 3 last 3 words of cards, their full citations, on proper student/school wiki, all broken case positions disclosed) of disclosure. I will also happily adjudicate more demanding disclosure interps (full text, open source, etc.), but I feel that the 'moderate interp' is a safe baseline with me. It is hard to convince me that that is not the case. That said, I've had to judge rounds where I do think disclosure is situationally silly (against novices who really, clearly don't know better) or I think the interp is so poorly written that it doesn't solve the offense of the shell. I will evaluate these rounds like any other theory round, by the flow, and even if I agree with the spirit of the shell, I am sympathetic to semantic or textual arguments in theory debates. I have also voted on poorly handled impact turns to fairness/education in disclosure debates, even under the moderate interp, so don't think my personal opinions will translate as a W. *edit: 10/19/19 Bronx Tournament update* can't believe I feel like I need to say this, but if the wiki is down/the tournament's wifi is massively not working then I will laugh at your shell. Get real.

- I'm more lenient about the depth of extensions in the 1AR, but I do expect you to articulate what arguments you are advancing in the debate. For conceded arguments, a concise extension of the implications is sufficient. I like it when people use author names, it makes it easier for me to flow.

- Non-T K affs should probably do something. I have a hard time not voting neg on presumption/voting on framework in these debates. By 'do something' - I mean that in the loosest sense of the term, do what you will with that. That said, there is a significant difference behind defending a positivist methodology of optimism and saying vote aff and defending a negativist method of pessimism and saying vote aff.

- Idk how speaker points work and I won't disclose them. I've been told I'm a point fairy and I believe this. Bringing me coffee (iced latte is always safe) or Top Dog at the Berkeley tournament will get you half a speaker point ayyy lmao. If your opponent concedes a game over argument that you are certain wins you the round without a reasonable doubt, do not take extra prep or speech time to seem polite. I think it's a waste of time and given that I give thorough feedback after the round, I don't need you to drag things longer than necessary when the error of the round was exuberantly clear. If you give such a justifiably short speech, I will reward you with dank speaker points.

- I really really like argument innovation when done well - I will reward this with speaks. I judge so many rounds, please show me something new and cool. Will raise speaks for this.

- I'm usually rather expressive while judging and accurately appealing to my facial gestures will probably help you immensely!

- I'm always happy to talk about rounds afterwards and offer advice and criticism! I usually look grumpy, but I just have resting bitch face and I'm happy to chat :)

Hope this has been useful for you. If you have any questions, feel free to email me or come talk to me in person!

Aly Fiebrantz Paradigm

1 rounds

Current Director of Speech and Debate at NSU University School in Davie, FL.

Former Director of Forensics and Full time policy debate coach at Cypress Bay High School in Weston, FL (7 years).


General: First judging philosophies are silly. Read whatever arguments you would like to read that you think are best appropriate for that round. I will not wholesale discount or credit arguments at face value. I think people should be nice to each other. I believe in tech over truth within reason, a shitty argument is a shitty argument regardless if it's conceded but, if an argument is dropped it's probably true and my threshold for extension/impact calc is much lower. I will also add .5 to your speaker points (guidelines below) if you engage in GOOD LBL Debate that include numbers in the 2AC. I miss organization. I prefer to have the least amount of judge intervention this means saying things like "extend" are necessary for me. Most importantly I believe the debate round isn't about me it's about the debaters. You do you and you'll be fine (mostly).

Pet Peeves that may result in lower speaker points

1) Longer than 20 second overviews on ANYTHING ever.

2) Claiming you'll go LBL and then failing miserably

3) Responding to a CX question with "we don't take a stance on that"

4) Being generally rude/mean to others. Making people feel unsafe, forcing disclosure of identities etc.

5) I'll do X debate here. This is inefficient but more importantly it normally means you're answering arguments that are in fact not on that place on the flow.

Framework Debates: I don't think you need to defend a plan or the state but I do think you need to defend your interpretation of debate if pressed. Fairness/Predictability are probably good impacts but I can be persuaded otherwise. I think "fair for whom?" Is also an appropriate question when asked in a persuasive manner. I find when I do end up voting on FW it's entirely frustrating if all of the arguments from one side are in a long narrative overview and the other is extending specific arguments on a flow. I am not inclined to take arguments from one piece of a flow and apply them elsewhere without being told.

Planless Debates: I think these debates can be awesome and really enjoyable to watch, however I think you need to defend your interpretation of debate. If that means you don't have to talk about the resolution then tell me why. If that means you don't have to have a plan text that's fine just explain/defend yourself. I sometimes find Framework arguments responsive, and reasons to reject the affirmative it quite honestly just depends on the debate round.

Topicality: I think a lot of the affirmatives on this year's topic are not topical. I'll default to competing interpretations if not told otherwise. I find arguments that Fairness/predictability are good and pretty persuasive. Topicality is never a reverse voting issue, but some K's of T might be persuasive. I think if you go for T in the 2NR you need to extend your Interp, Violation & Impacts clearly.

K's: IF you read high theory stuff (Baudrillard mainly) I might not be the judge for you and/or you need further explanation. Psychoanalysis is bunk science is a believable arg for me. And Presumption is never a winning strategy. Something like Hostage taking really shouldn't be read in front of me, I find myself thinking "who cares" I think rejection is enough of an alternative almost all of the time. Reading FW against K's I don't really ever think is a round winning argument. I'm most likely going to default that the aff gets !!s and the K gets to exist.

CPs/DAs: I don't see these debates very often, but few things. I don't think counter-plans need to be textually competitive. I think if you don't have offense on the disad I'm not likely to vote aff, I don't think terminal defense is almost ever a thing. And I am not willing to judge kick arguments. I AM NOT AN ECONOMIST do not assume I understand anything about the economy at all. It's for everyone's benefit I promise.

Speaker points ... I've done a lot of thinking about this and have decided that my speaker points did not reflect the current inflation and probably unfairly punish teams from breaking when speaker points matter. I will try to follow to the following guidelines:

medicore (you probably aren't breaking): 28.3-28.8,

I'm almost impressed. Perhaps you'll break": 28.8-29.3

I'm impressed, you even were organized and did LBL: 29.4-29.7

Best speech I've ever seen. 29.8-30

E-mail me if you have any questions and include me on email chains please :)


1) I primarily judge policy so most of my reasoning etc will default to policy norms instead of PF norms.

2) BE NICE!!! This includes using offensive/racist/sexist/rhetoric. If this is done you will receive 20 speaker points.

3) I think the 2nd rebuttal needs to answer the speech that has preceded it, and extend theirs.

4) I judge/evaluate arguments as they are presented on the flow. Arguments should be answered in the order they are presented.

5) You should flash speeches or use email chains. Prep is continuously running once speeches end.

6) Terminalize your impacts. There are 3 ways and only 3 ways to evaluate impacts: magnitude, timeframe and probability. Nothing else. Use those. Anything else (like scope) will result in a loss of speaker points.

7) You must read dates. I highly recommend you do not paraphrase evidence. I will evaluate paraphrased evidence as analytics not as real evidence.

8) Disclosure is your friend. You must disclose before the debate to myself/and the other team. Doing so will result in higher speaks. If someone discloses and either a) you do not and they read disclosure theory OR b) you LIE about what you've disclosed, I consider this a TKO. This means if disclosure theory is read in the round then it is basically over. Not disclosing or lying is indefensible.

9) You can only extend things in a subsequent speech if it was in the previous speech. This means defense in summaries, impacts in all speeches, evidence extended etc.

10) Defense does not win debate rounds, you need to extend/evaluate/weigh OFFENSE. A failure to do so will result in a mental coin flip on my part because it's impossible to evaluate competing/unwarranted defensive claims.

Eddie Fitzgerald Paradigm

3 rounds

I graduated from Liberty University in the spring of 2011 after debating for 5 years. Before that I debated 1 year of LD in high school. Since then I worked as a debate coach for Timothy Christian High School in New Jersey for 6 years, traveling nationally on both the high school and college circuit. Currently I am the Associate Director of Poly Prep.

Last updated 1/18/2019

I view debate as a forum to critically test and challenge approaches to change the world for the better. I prefer in depth debate with developed material that you look like you have a grasp of. I will always work hard to evaluate correctly and with little intervention, especially if you are putting in hard work debating.

Learning debadste from within the Liberty tradition I began by running conventional policy arguments with a proclivity to go for whatever K was in the round. However, during my final 3 years my partner and I did not defend the resolution and our 1nc looked very similar to our 1ac. Personally, I’m a believer and coach for advocating liberatory and conscious debate practices. However, there will certainly be a gap at times between my personal preferences and practices and what I vote on. I’m not going to judge from a biased perspective against policy arguments, and although tabula rasa is impossible I will try to evaluate the arguments presented with limited interference.

Ultimately, do not let any of this sway you from debating how you prefer. Doing what you think you are best at will probably be your greatest option. If any of this is unclear or you have questions that I have not address below please feel free to ask me before a round. Have fun, debate confidently, and be genuine.


A quick overview statement: It seem that circuit PF is going through a growing period where it is solidifying some norms and practices. As a result of this, I will default to the understanding of the debaters in the round. I am also open to different interpretations as long as they are defended.

Concerning defense in summary: As indicated above, this is something that I am going to let the debaters determine / debate for themselves. However, if at any point the defense has been front-lined / responded to (either in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary), then these arguments need to be answered and the defense needs to be extended for it to be available in final focus.

PAPERLESS and prep time (LD and Policy specific):

Prep time ends approximately when the speech doc is saved and you remove the jump drive. An overall goal (for both paperless and traditional teams) is to be prepared to begin your speech when you say end prep.

Speaking mostly to HIGH SCHOOL students:

Everyone involved in the round should be able to have access to any read piece of evidence once it has been presented. This means that if you are reading off of a computer you are responsible for providing your opponents with either a jump of what you are going to read or a physical copy before you start your speech. We shouldn’t be unreasonably fearful of people ‘stealing’ ‘our’ evidence, as source information should always be provided, and also because it’s certainly not really ‘ours’. You may, however, respectfully require your opponents to delete anything you provided them with during the round.

SPEAKING STYLES and speaker points:

I’m certainly open to (for lack of a better word) alternative and non-traditional approaches to your speech time. Passion, ethos, and emphasis are things that are usually underutilized by most speaking styles and debaters, and should be present in both constructives and rebuttals. After all, debate is at its core a communication activity. Cross-ex is a great time to exhibit this as well as advance your arguments. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech. Being a jerk, unnecessarily rude, offensive, stealing prep, and not being helpful to the other team during cx or prep time are all things that will negatively effect your speaker points outside of the quality and delivery of your arguments.


Yes, I am fine with speed, but that does not give you an excuse to be unclear. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech.

I have experience to evaluate theory, but certainly prefer substantive theory (topicality, NIBs, parameterizing are all examples) as opposed to frivolous theory. You should probably slow down when reading your shells if you want me to be able to write down the nuances of your argument. Due to my background in college policy there may be a few preconceptions that I have that you should be aware of. Theory is not automatically an RVI, and I probably take a little more convincing on the flow than most judges in this area. You need to explain to me why a violation has resulted in abuse that warrants either voting down the other team or rejecting a specific argument. Simply claiming one to be true is not enough work here. When answering theory, showing how the abuse can be solved by rejecting a particular argument can make the violation go away.

Conceded and dropped arguments are considered true on my flow, unless they are morally repugnant or blatantly false. An example of the latter is even if your opponent drops a theory shell, if the team clearly does not link to the violation your accusation does not make that true. Conceded arguments must still be extended, warranted, and argued, but you should focus more on their implications.

Please read the paperless / prep time and the speaking style / speaker points sections of my philosophy located above.

The rest of my philosophy is not specific towards ld or policy, high school or college, and it may do you benefit to read it as well, especially if some of your arguments tend to look like policy arguments.

FRAMEWORK (when run by the neg):

I think that negatives have the ability to and should engage with affirmatives that don’t defend a normative implementation of a plan. Even if the aff doesn’t defend the resolution there are still many substantive things that they will defend that provide ample ground. Although this ground might not be as predictable as your interpretation on FW calls for, it is still predictable enough to meet the threshold that you should be prepared for it.

Having said that, I think I’m one of those few sick individuals that will actually enjoy listening to framework debates as long as they are well developed on both sides. Granted, I will most likely be a harder sell than most, but I don’t think this should dissuade you from going for it if you think it is your best option. You will need to make inroads to the aff’s arguments by articulating ways traditional debate solves for their impacts. If you lose the impact turn to politics you will not win FW debates. You need to make arguments to the effect of traditional policy debate being key to a better form of politics and articulate net benefits to your interpretation from this. I think that the type of education we foster in debate far outweighs the preservation of the game in the strictest sense. That is to say that fairness claims alone are not the way to persuade me on FW. You should instead use claims of fairness to hedge against the impacts from the aff.

However, the main substance of FW debates (for both sides) should be about the competing benefits to the type of education and scholarship different traditions lead to.

For affirmatives concerning framework strategies, your greatest offense will be specific to your particular argument. I will be more easily persuaded if your aff is connected to the topic. I don’t appreciate aff’s that are written that hide their purpose or are exclusively constructed to impact turn FW. While I prefer some kind of relationship to the topic, I don’t think it is necessary. However, you do lose the ability to make an important strategic argument that other plan-less aff’s should employ, which is that your aff is important to topic education. More developed, this argument should be that your aff is necessary to topic education and that without it the debate ground that is left leads to bad forms of scholarship. That is to say that you aff is essentially topical. This argument is both inherently offensive and also provides the ability to make defensive claims against the neg’s offense.


This is the type of debate that I am most familiar with and have the largest literature base with (I was a philosophy major). However, messy and poor K debates are probably the worst. The key to winning this kind of debate is making the general link and alternative cards as specific as possible to the aff. I am not saying that the key is reading the most specific evidence (although this would be nice, however most of our authors here don’t write in the context of every affirmative), but that you need to find ways to apply the generic concepts to the specifics of the aff. Without this it is easier to be persuaded by the perm.

Teams are responsible for the discourse and performances in which then engage in given the context of the world we are situated in as well as the argument style the team engages in.

Aff’s have a wide range of arguments they can deploy, and are probably best sticking with the ones they are most comfortable with while doing a good job showing how they relate to the critique.

Concerning the perm, it is usually not enough work to simply show how the two different advocacies could work together. At this point it becomes easy to vote on the alternative as a purer form of advocacy without the risk of links. Aff’s should articulate net benefits to the perm to hedge against residual links and different DA’s to the perm itself. Case should be one of these net benefits, but aff’s need to watch out for indicts to foundational assumptions (concerning methodology, epistemology, ontology etc.) behind your impact claims.

Concerning framework: when was the last time a relatively moderate judge decided that the neg shouldn’t be able to run their K? The answer is probably a long time ago. The majority of these debates are compromised in the 1ar by allowing the K given that the aff gets to weigh their impacts after a lot of wasted time by both teams. I can hardly think of a situation where I would be persuaded to only evaluate the plan verses the status quo or a competitive policy option that excluded the alternative. However, I can envision certain ways that this debate goes down that convinces me to discount the impacts of the aff. In general, however, most of debate is illusory (somewhat unfortunately) and these framework questions are about what type of education is more important. If you chose to run framework with you aff you should keep these things in mind concerning your interpretation for debate.

PERFORMANCE or project verses a similar style:

These debates are some of the most important and essential ones for our community, particularly as more and more teams are participating in this form of advocacy. We need to debate and judge in light of this fact. These are also some of the most difficult debates to have. There are several reasons for this, one of the most poignant being the personal nature of these debates combined with the close relationships that most people amongst this insular community have with one another. We need to realize the value in these opportunities and the importance of preserving the pureness of our goals for the debate community. That might mean in some situations that conceding and having a conversation might be the best use of a particular debate space, and in others debating between different competing methodologies is a correct rout to go. In either case we need to realize and cherish common goals. In light of this it isn’t a bad thing to agree with large portions of your opponent’s speeches or even advocacy. Instead of reproducing the gaming paradigm of traditional debate, where competition is valued over advocacy and winning over ethics, we should instead choose to celebrate the areas of alignment we find. Conceding every round where this happens, however, is not a good idea either. This would send a message to the debate community that debate dies under this framework. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a possible time and place for it though.

When both teams largely agree on certain foundational framework questions efficacious debate can still happen. While making distinctions between advocacies and methodologies is essential for this kind of a debate, you should probably not manipulate and create links that are artificial. Distinctions that are made out of an in depth knowledge of the issues are far more beneficial and consistent. Traditional debate might look at these kinds of rounds as two ships passing in the night, but I think there can be a different metaphor – one where the teams are two ships starting at the recognition that the resolution and the debate community is flawed and that the round can be decided upon which team provides a better methodology and performance to get their ship further in the direction of what we should be as a community and culturally aware individuals.

I am undecided as to whether the aff should be allowed a perm and this should probably be debated out. However, I think that the aff should always have the ability to point out when a negative advocacy is the same as theirs.


Any bias I have towards theory will probably result in placing a burden on the team that reads the violation to prove that it should result in a voting issue. However, I don’t like shady stuff done only to be obnoxiously strategic. Don’t do it.

One thing that I definitely do not like is when teams read multiple conditional strategies that contradict each other. This will usually call into question the solvency of the critique if the aff takes advantage of this.

I don’t think that I have a bias concerning reasonability or competing interpretations, but I will probably default to competing interpretations until the aff is shown to be reasonable and from there it is up for debate.


I am probably liberal concerning counter plan theory, and aside from the question over conditionality most other theory arguments are probably reasons to reject the cp. Aside from traditional theory answers, showing why a certain CP is justified given the specific aff is a good response.

PICS that are specific to the aff are great, however word pics should probably just be articulated as links to the K.

Uniqueness controls the link only if a particular side definitively wins it.

I generally evaluate from an offense / defense standpoint, but it doesn’t mean anything if the CP links less than the plan does to a DA if the CP still meets the threshold for triggering the link. In that world there isn’t greater offense to the CP.

Jayanne Forrest Paradigm

My name is pronounced “Jay” (like pay, hay, say) “anne” ... if you can’t pronounce it, call me Jay

My email is

**I should note here, that I get triggered by graphic depictions of anti-black violence (e.g. those very graphic examples of police brutality used to support afro pessimism).

Hello! I debated for Fort Lauderdale High School in Florida for 4 years in LD and Policy. I graduated in 2018 and I go to Columbia University if anyone is looking to hire judges in NY!

Anyways, I view debate as an educational and fun activity that has changed me for the better. I loved bringing my activism and philosophy I loved into debate. If you read a unique position well that will benefit your speaker points. Also if you bring food that I like that will boost speaks a few tenths of a point.

I won’t tell you what to debate or what to run in front of me. However, I’ll note that I am not the judge for any complex theory debates because I find them boring, messy, often poorly ran and hard to resolve. Any position being run should be explained well, and as long as your spreading is clear, I will 9/10 understand and flow and be good.

Last few things: if you say anything blatantly anti-black, xenophobic, racist, misogynistic, anti-queer, ableist, etc. and your opponent calls you out for the attack on them, I will drop you. Debate should be a home space for everyone and you are responsible for the things you say because it is a speaking activity.

I love performance (e.g. music, dance, art) and identity politics that are not just about Blackness (especially if you’re not black ;) ) and I encourage you to do whatever you are passionate about.

Have fun and be great!

Update, after Blue Key:

If you plan to read afro-pessimism, please read a trigger warning or simply take out those horrific examples of modern day gratuitous violence. Black violence as a spectacle should not be normalized in debate or ANYWHERE.

I also don’t think that non-black and ESPECIALLY white debaters should be reading radical black authors (e.g. afropessimism, Black Nationalism, etc.). Read your social and racial justice positions sure, but please leave the voices of our radical black authors/groups (e.g. the Black Panthers) out of your advocacies.

This "strategic" practice of reading Black narratives and fake-woke alliances really needs to stop... so if you're not Black and you read aforementioned positions I will drop you. If you say any racial slur written by the author (or just on your own whim) I will drop you and give you zero speaker points.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

J Fu Paradigm

5 rounds

I’m a student at NYU. I did a lil debate in high school. I don’t care what you run but please go 60-70% speed if it’s super technical. PLEASE IMPACT OUT YOUR ARGS.

I like coffee.

my email:

Sunil Gaglani Paradigm

Hi, I'm a parent judge. Please no spreading, be clear and coherent. I look at the substance of your argument and not the quality of your delivery. A good counter argument especially when derived from current affairs will be a plus. In your last speeches, you should be writing the ballot for me on why you win.

Andrew Garber Paradigm

4 rounds

I debated national circuit LD for Cambridge Rindge and Latin, qualifying to the TOC twice. My email is andrewg4000@gmail -- feel free to email me before or after a round if you need help or have questions, and I'll be happy to help!

I aim to be as tab as possible as long as the round remains safe for the debaters. I'll try to assume whatever the debaters assume so that I minimize intervention. If both debaters assume fairness is a voter, then I'll assume that it's a voter, even if it's not explicitly justified. Nevertheless, I will probably be biased due to my debate experience. As a debater, I ran philosophical frameworks, theory, and some policy positions. I sucked at the K. Therefore, I will be better when evaluating framework and theory than I will when evaluating postmodernism and identity politics. That said, I will try my best to understand your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

Please speak relatively slowly and place emphasis on your words! I do not flow off speech docs. I am terrible at flowing and listening, and I will likely miss a lot of your arguments if you're too fast, unclear, monotonous, or quiet. Moreover, I think that slowing down massively improves people's efficiency, so there's little tradeoff between speed and number of arguments. If you slow to a fast conversational pace, I will be grateful and reward you with higher speaks.

I will try to average 28 speaks, but who knows if that'll happen -- I bet I'll inflate. You can get higher speaks by being persuasive, clear, efficient, creative, and strategic. You can get lower speaks by doing the opposite, or by being an asshole. Also, you lose 0.1 or 0.2 speaks if you use "we"/"our" instead of "I"/"my". Very few exceptions.

That concludes the important part of my paradigm. Here are some random paradigmatic thoughts (although this list is tentative and incomplete):

- I don't need voters on a theory shell to be extended unless contested

- I default truth testing

- I default epistemic/ethical confidence rather than epistemic/ethical modesty

- On theory, I default drop the arg, reasonability (sufficient defense is enough to reject the shell), and no RVIs

- I will not judge kick positions

- I don't evaluate arguments that tell me to change speaks (e.g., "give me a 30")

- I think that debaters should justify something like drop the debater if they want to make an independent voter. I am unlikely to vote on independent voters unless such a warrant is present (see above: I default drop the arg). If it's the 2NR or 2AR and you're answering an independent voter without a drop the debater warrant, quickly pointing out that the voter lacks drop the debater and providing a quick reason to drop the argument instead of the debater should be more than enough.

- I am still a bit confused about how I should evaluate 2AR weighing. Right now, I tend to think that if 1ARs have impacts to weigh against NC impacts, then they should weigh in the 1AR rather than in the 2AR. I have so far erred neg on debates where the aff could have weighed in the 1AR but waited until the 2AR to do so. I think that the same should apply to NCs against impacts from the AC. But this is probably the least certain part of my paradigm.

Alan George Paradigm

3 rounds

I want to be on the email chain:

Conflicts: Klein Oak, Montgomery Blair, McMillen NG, Garland KP, Lovejoy CM, Hayes PF, Cambridge AG


I did LD for four years (2014-2018) in Houston, and qualled to TOC my senior year. If you need something before/after (pls not during) the round, I’m most active on Facebook. I was fairly flexible as a debater—I mostly LARPed, but also read some Kant, Levinas, Marx, Mestiza Consciousness, Deleuze, and Weheliye.

Five min before round:

HOW you go about articulating your arguments is way more important than WHAT you chose to read. I could care less what you go for (as long as it's not overtly repugnant), as long as it's explained and implicated well.

· WARRANT TO WARRANT COMPARISON WINS ROUNDS. If their DA says X and your link turn says Y, explain to me why I should prefer your link turn. Make clash explicit and do the work on the flow for yourself. Otherwise, be prepared to receive a decision with which you’re unhappy

· I’m willing to vote on anything, as long as it has a claim, warrant, and an impact. Just explain the argument to me and why it should be in my RFD. This means you need to be doing clear layering and weighing

· Tech > Truth

· Please pop tags and author names


· Your extensions need to have warrants—even in the 1AR/2AR. That being said, all it needs to be is an overview of the advantage—just tell me what the aff does, what it solves, and how it does so. The more a warrant in your aff is contested, the more thorough your extension of that part of the aff should be.

· I’d prefer not to have to call for cards as that forces intervention. However, if you think your opponent’s ev is sketch and you point it out, I’ll look at the card.

· This should go without saying, but….you need to win uniqueness for a link turn to be offense


· Good theory debates are fun. Bad theory debates are sad.

· Defaults (theory): drop the arg, competing interps, no RVIs. DTD on T is the default. These are all very soft defaults—PLEASE present actual paradigm issues

· If you read brackets theory and the bracketing is not egregious, the highest you can expect your speaks to be is 28.

· Slow down for interps. Having them prewritten would be very nice.

· If you blitz through blips I won’t catch everything, so slow down where it counts.

· The more you number/label, the easier it is to flow you

· PLEASE do weighing between theory standards. Tell me why ground outweighs limits or whatever other arguments are in play


· Please do clear framework weighing. Tell me why one framework justification matters more than another and so forth...if both sides have “my framework precludes”-type claims, tell me why yours matters more than your opponent’s!

· Phil can be very hard to flow—make it easy for me. Flashing analytic dumps would be cool, but if you don't want to do that, then please make sure you're being clear and are delineating one arg from the next

· Make sure I understand the framework—my facial expression should be indicative enough


· I’ll probably have a basic understanding of whatever K you read, but I will not vote for you unless YOU explain your theory to me.

· Your 2NR better be easy to flow. I don’t want to sit through a ridiculously long overview that then requires me to sift through my flow after the round to determine what responds to what. Your speaks WILL not be amazing

· Shorter tags are easier to flow

· The most important thing for you to do is to explain the interaction between the K and the aff. Explain why it outweighs/turns the case/why the perm fails/why the K is a prior question

Robby Gillespie Paradigm

3 rounds


Hi! I'm Robby and I debated at American Heritage in Plantation, FL for four years. I broke at the TOC and received eight career bids.

There are a few things you should know for your prefs and before round:

1. I'm comfortable evaluating all kinds of debate, but I'm most comfortable with framework (philosophy), theory/topicality, and LARP. Despite not reading K's often as a debater, I can evaluate them if the position is warranted and explained well. Non-T affs are cool and fun to judge, but if you can't explain to me why I should vote aff then it makes your life significantly harder.

2. The only arguments I will not evaluate are exclusionary ones and claims without warrants. The "schmagency objection" and "chilling effect" are not complete arguments unless you explain to me their warrants.

3. I will evaluate tricks, but please show some class. If someone asks you where your a prioris are, please tell them. Good tricks debaters aren't good because they load the AC with a bunch of hidden blips that the NC will inevitably concede. Good tricks debaters say, "here is an argument that might seem silly, but I'm prepared to justify it and beat you on it."

4. I'm decent at flowing but if you're too fast or unclear I'll let you know because I won't flow off of the doc. I'll say "clear" or "loud" as many times as you need. Slowing down on tags, author names, and interps makes judging easier for me and inflection can make you more persuasive.

5. I give speaker points mostly based on in-round performance and strategy. Being tech/efficient (that means do weighing) and making clever strategic choices is the best way to get high speaks from me. Reading interesting positions and making the round entertaining can also earn you better speaks. Also, I'll index speaker points to the quality of the pool.

6. I don't have a high threshold for extensions, especially for conceded arguments and or any arguments in the 1AR.

7. I don't think it's interventionist to not vote on an argument that doesn't have a warrant even if your opponent doesn't call it out. I will take the path of least resistance when evaluating rounds because I don't want to intervene, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't warrant your arguments or that you can warrant them incorrectly. Similarly, I don't default to any paradigm issues. If nobody has justified drop the debater or drop the argument, for example, I will not vote on the shell. This can easily be avoided by impacting all of your arguments.

The most important things are to read what you want instead of trying to adapt to me and be nice to your opponent. If you do those two things everybody will be happy.

Elijah Glenn Paradigm

7 rounds

I am an educator and assistant coach at Science Park high school. I have judged LD and policy debate locally. I do public speaking and am a motivational speaker. Be very clear. Do not spread. Creating a big picture is really important. You must clash with what the other person says. Crystallizing the debate at the end of the round is extremely important. Tell me why I should prefer your understanding of the debate over your opponents.

Sinan Govaria Paradigm

7 rounds


Quick summary

Do your thing. As long as you aren't being offensive in the round and are having fun, you should be fine. Speed is fine, but if you know you are fast, please slow down for your sake and mine. Tech is fine just don't expect me to know everything in detail, lay is fine, and I default TT. My general outlook is that you and your opponent should entirely be driving the debate. This means that I do not want to nor will intervene when it comes to the ballot unless you do not provide me a legitimate obligation to work with. Slow down on interps and tags. I'll say clear three times, and if I still find you unintelligible, I'll put my pen down.

Pref Shortcut (ranked)

K: 1

T/Theory: 1/2


High theory:3

Tricks: 3

My Background

I debated for Pembroke Pines Charter High school on the local and national circuits for all four years of high school. I debated pretty extensively and now attend NYU studying politics.

Mahen Gundecha Paradigm

7 rounds

Hi, parent judge here (super lay). First time doing LD, I usually judge local circuit PF. I am unfamiliar with progressive/off case args, but that doesn’t mean I won’t vote on them. Don’t spread.

Ryan Hemnarine Paradigm

5 rounds

My name is Ryan and I currently attend and debate for Rutgers University-Newark. I debated for University High School in Newark for 2 years where I received 3 bids in LD. I also made it to semifinals of the Tournament of Champions and was top speaker. I was mostly a K/Performance debater, but I have also ran policy affs and T. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and will not vote on spikes, skep, or meta-theory.

My email is:

K's/Performances: I mostly run Ks and performances on both the aff and neg. On the aff make sure there is a coherent story that I can follow from the 1AC to the 2AR. On the neg make sure there are specific links and examples that prove the aff is a bad idea.

CP's: Go for it, just prove why the cp is net better.

DA's: Please do impact calc

FW v K affs: Although I am a performance debater and love the K, I WILL VOTE FOR T. It comes down to the debate that was had. Make sure there are isolated terminal impacts I can vote on at the end of the round.

Theory: There must be a warranted violation. I will NOT vote on frivolous theory (i.e. can't read with two different highlights, spikes, etc).

Chetan Hertzig Paradigm

7 rounds

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

If you're in high school, please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain:


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


- Starting speeches slowly and building speed as you go (rather than starting at top speed)
- Speaking slower than average circuit speed
- Providing an explicit decision-calculus/voting issues
- Explicitly linking to a standard or ROB in speeches, especially rebuttals
- Telling a clear and coherent ballot story
- Weighing between your extensions and your opponent's (not just giving me two non-clashing sets of extensions)
- Reading a whole res aff that defends the topic as a principle
- Having a layered NC and responsive/specific turns off the aff
- Making topical critical arguments/reading Ks that are grounded in the topic lit
- Comparing evidence and weighing
- Giving structured speeches
- Using good word economy


- Using profanity in the round. I don't care what your purpose is; it's not necessary.
- Using ad homs of any kind against your opponent (e.g., commenting on their race, clothing, or practices as a debater). Find a non-personal way of making the argument.
- Reacting non-verbally when your opponent is speaking (e.g., violently shaking your head, making faces, waving your arms, etc.). It's rude, unpersuasive, and unnecessary.
- Indicting or insulting an opponent's team or coach in round (e.g., "It's no surprise [team name] is going for T this round")
- Sitting during CX and/or speeches unless you're physically unable to stand


For the most part, I want to see a substantive round about the topic. My conception of what counts as topical argumentation is based on what's in the topic literature.

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

Speed: Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary. I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds.

Theory: I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will intervene against theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on theory. I will vote on theory that is actually justified (as in, you couldn't have answered the position without it, or there was something about the opponent's strategy that made it impossible for you to win without theory). Is that subjective? You bet. Is there a brightline? Probably not. Don't like this view? Don't pref me.

Framework: If you and your opponent agree on a FW, great. If not, make the FW debate relatively short (i.e., not 4 minutes of a 7 minute speech). Also, please explain the philosophical concepts you're using instead of assuming that I know them. I probably don't.

Policy Arguments: I dislike generic politics DAs and extinction impacts on topics that clearly don't link to them. If you want to run those impacts on a topic about nuclear weapons, go for it. If the topic's about compulsory voting, I'll be very receptive to good defensive answers from the aff.

Ks and Non-T Arguments: I generally prefer TOPICAL critical arguments, but I'm okay with non-topical affs if you make it super-clear why you had to be non-topical to read them. Otherwise, I tend to think a TVA will solve.

Disclosure Theory: I'll vote for this if I think it's won on the flow, but I'm not a huge fan of rounds that come down to this.

Tricks: Shut the front door! Who are you?! (In other words, "no.")

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

"Flex Prep": Different people use these words to mean different things. I am fine with you asking clarification questions of your opponent during prep time. I am not okay with you ending CX early and taking the rest of the time as prep time.

Other Stuff: Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. Be nice. And stand up.

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

Sally Ho Paradigm

6 rounds

Hi! I'm Sally and I debated for Scarsdale High School in LD for 4 years, graduating in 2019. Email me docs at, and feel free to message me if you have any questions before round!

TLDR (Longer Paradigm to come):

I read pretty much everything from performance to burdens and tricks, so I don't really have a preference for a certain style of debate. That being said, I have a higher threshold for explanations and weighing in dense K or LARP debates, as these were the ones I engaged with the least. In general, I won't vote on an argument I don't understand from your speeches.

In the absence of any argument made on either side, I will default truth testing, competing interpretations, no RVIs, drop the arg on theory, and drop the debater on T.

To me, debate is a game, something that can be educational but that can also be pretty toxic. This has two completely separate implications. One, don't assume the judge is an educator and call on me to do whatever - I need a warrant for that. Two, be nice! I'm not saying I don't want to see a good CX or a crushingly good strategy, but people are stressed enough as it is and you should know where the line is.

I haven't engaged with debate for a couple months, so honestly take all of my 'techy stances' with a grain of salt. That also means I'm not going to understand you if you stand up and start spreading at your max speed. Start slow and then speed up, and make sure you're clear on standards, advocacy texts, etc. I don't know exactly how fast would be good with me, but if I'm not following and spaced out you'll be able to tell.

I honestly have no idea what I'm going to average in speaks.

Robey Holland Paradigm

5 rounds

I am the head coach at Plano West. I was previously the coach at LC Anderson. I was a 4-year debater in high school, 3-years LD and 1-year CX. My students have competed in elimination rounds at several national tournaments, including Glenbrooks, Greenhill, Berkeley, Harvard, Emory, St. Marks, etc. I’ve also had debaters win NSDA Nationals and the Texas State Championship (both TFA and UIL.)

Email chain:

PF Paradigm

· You can debate quickly if that’s your thing, I can keep up. Please stop short of spreading, I’ll flow your arguments but tank your speaks. If something doesn’t make it onto my flow because of delivery issues or unclear signposting that’s on you.

· Do the things you do best. In exchange, I’ll make a concerted effort to adapt to the debaters in front of me. However, my inclinations on speeches are as follows:

o Rebuttal- Do whatever is strategic for the round you’re in. Spend all 4 minutes on case, or split your time between sheets, I’m content either way. If 2nd rebuttal does rebuild then 1st summary should not flow across ink.

o Summary- I prefer that both teams make some extension of turns or terminal defense in this speech. I believe this helps funnel the debate and force strategic decisions heading into final focus. If the If 1st summary extends case defense and 2nd summary collapses to a different piece of offense on their flow, then it’s fair for 1st final focus to leverage their rebuttal A2’s that weren’t extended in summary.

o Final Focus- Do whatever you feel is strategic in the context of the debate you’re having. While I’m pretty tech through the first 3 sets of speeches, I do enjoy big picture final focuses as they often make for cleaner voting rationale on my end.

· Weighing, comparative analysis, and contextualization are important. If neither team does the work here I’ll do my own assessment, and one of the teams will be frustrated by my conclusions. Lessen my intervention by doing the work for me. Also, it’s never too early to start weighing. If zero weighing is done by the 2nd team until final focus I won’t consider the impact calc, as the 1st team should have the opportunity to engage with opposing comparative analysis.

· I’m naturally credulous about the place of theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD/CX, I default reasonability over competing interps and am inclined to award the RVI if a team chooses to pursue it. Don’t be surprised if I make theory a wash and vote on substance. Good post fiat substance debates are my favorite part of this event, and while I acknowledge that there is a necessity for teams to be able to pursue the uplayer to check abusive positions, I am opposed to this event being overtaken by theory hacks and tricks debate.

· I’m happy to evaluate framework in the debate. I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default Cost-Benefit Analysis.

· Don’t flow across ink, I’ll likely know that you did. Clash and argument engagement is a great way to get ahead on my flow.

· Prioritize clear sign posting, especially in rebuttal and summary. I’ve judged too many rounds this season between competent teams in which the flow was irresolvably muddied by card dumps without a clear reference as to where these responses should be flowed. This makes my job more difficult, often results in claims of dropped arguments by debaters on both sides due to lack of clarity and risks the potential of me not evaluating an argument that ends up being critical because I didn’t know where to flow it/ didn’t flow it/ placed it somewhere on the flow you didn’t intend for me to.

· After the round I am happy to disclose, walk teams through my voting rationale, and answer any questions that any debaters in the round may have. Pedagogically speaking I think disclosure is critical to a debater’s education as it provides valuable insight on the process used to make decisions and provides an opportunity for debaters to understand how they could have better persuaded an impartial judge of the validity of their position. These learning opportunities require dialogue between debaters and judges. On a more pragmatic level, I think disclosure is good to increase the transparency and accountability of judge’s decisions. My expectation of debaters and coaches is that you stay civil and constructive when asking questions after the round. I’m sure there will be teams that will be frustrated or disagree with how I see the round, but I have never dropped a team out of malice. I hope that the teams I judge will utilize our back and forth dialogue as the educational opportunity I believe it’s intended to be. If a team (or their coaches) become hostile or use the disclosure period as an opportunity to be intellectually domineering it will not elicit the reaction you’re likely seeking, but it will conclude our conversation. My final thought on disclosure is that as debaters you should avoid 3ARing/post-rounding any judge that discloses, as this behavior has a chilling effect on disclosure, encouraging judges who aren’t as secure in their decisions to stop disclosing altogether to avoid confrontation.

· Please feel free to ask any clarifying questions you may have before we begin the round, or email me after the round if you have additional questions.

LD/CX Paradigm

Big picture:

· You should do what you do best and in return I will make an earnest effort to adapt to you and render the best decision I can at the end of the debate. In this paradigm I'll provide ample analysis of my predispositions towards particular arguments and preferences for debate rounds. Despite that, reading your preferred arguments in the way that you prefer to read them will likely result in a better outcome than abandoning what you do well in an effort to meet a paradigm.

· You may speak as fast as you’d like, but I’d prefer that you give me additional pen time on tags/authors/dates. If I can’t flow you it’s a clarity issue, and I’ll say clear once before I stop flowing you.

· I like policy arguments. It’s probably what I understand best because it’s what I spent the bulk of my time reading as a competitor. I also like the K. I have a degree in philosophy and feel comfortable in these rounds.

· I have a high threshold on theory. I’m not saying don’t read it if it’s necessary, but I am suggesting is that you always layer the debate to give yourself a case option to win. I tend to make theory a wash unless you are persuasive on the issue, and your opponent mishandles the issue.

· Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you.

· I’m voting on substantive offense at the end of the debate unless you convince me to vote off of something else.

· You should strive to do an exceptional job of weighing in the round. This makes your ballot story far more persuasive, increasing the likelihood that you'll pick up and get high speaks.

· Disclosure is good for debate rounds. I’m not holding debaters accountable for being on the wiki, particularly if the debater is not from a circuit team, but I think that, at minimum, disclosing before the round is important for educational debates. If you don’t disclose before the round and your opponent calls you on it your speaks will suffer. If you're breaking a new strat in the round I won't hold you to that standard.


· Speaker points start at a 28 and go up or down from their depending on what happens in the round including quality of argumentation, how well you signpost, quality of extensions, and the respect you give to your opponent. I also consider how well the performance of the debater measures up to their specific style of debate. For example, a stock debater will be held to the standard of how well they're doing stock debate, a policy debater/policy debate, etc.

· I would estimate that my average speaker point is something like a 28.7, with the winner of the debate earning somewhere in the 29 range and the loser earning somewhere in the 28 range.

Trigger Warnings:

Debaters that elect to read positions about traumatic issues should provide trigger warnings before the round begins. I understand that there is an inherent difficulty in determining a bright line for when an argument would necessitate a trigger warning, if you believe it is reasonably possible that another debater or audience member could be triggered by your performance in the round then you should provide the warning. Err on the side of caution if you feel like this may be an issue. I believe these warnings are a necessary step to ensure that our community is a positive space for all people involved in it.

The penalty for not providing a trigger warning is straightforward: if the trigger warning is not given before the round and someone is triggered by the content of your position then you will receive 25 speaker points for the debate. If you do provide a trigger warning and your opponent discloses that they are likely to be triggered and you do nothing to adjust your strategy for the round you will receive 25 speaker points. I would prefer not to hear theory arguments with interps of always reading trigger warnings, nor do I believe that trigger warnings should be commodified by either debater. Penalties will not be assessed based on the potential of triggering. At the risk of redundancy, penalties will be assessed if and only if triggering occurs in round, and the penalty for knowingly triggering another debater is docked speaks.

If for any reason you feel like this might cause an issue in the debate let’s discuss it before the round, otherwise the preceding analysis is binding.


· I enjoy a good framework debate, and don’t care if you want to read a traditional V/C, ROB, or burdens.

· You should do a good job of explaining your framework. It's well worth your time spent making sure I understand the position than me being lost the entire round and having to make decisions based on a limited understanding of your fw.


· I’m more down for a topicality debate than a theory debate, but you should run your own race. I default competing interps over reasonability but can be convinced otherwise if you do the work on the reasonability flow. If you’re going for T you should be technically sound on the standards and voters debate.

· You should read theory if you really want to and if you believe you have a strong theory story, just don’t be surprised if I end up voting somewhere else on the flow.

· It's important enough to reiterate: Spreading through blocks of analytics with no pauses is not the most strategic way to win rounds in front of me. In terms of theory dumps you should be giving me some pen time. I'm not going to call for analytics except for the wording of interps-- so if I miss out on some of your theory blips that's on you. Also, if you do not heed that advice there's a 100% chance I will miss some of your theory blips.


· I’m a fan of the K. Be sure to clearly articulate what the alt looks like and be ready to do some good work on the link story; I’m not very convinced by generic links.

· Don’t assume my familiarity with your literature base.

· For the neg good Kritiks are the ones in which the premise of the Kritik functions as an indict to the truth value of the Aff. If the K only gains relevance via relying on framework I am less persuaded by the argument; good K debates engage the Aff, not sidestep it.


· If you give good justifications and explanations of your performance I'm happy to hear it.


· These are good neg strats to read in front of me.

· Both the aff and neg should be technical in their engagement with the component parts of these arguments.

· Neg, you should make sure that your shells have all the right parts, IE don’t read a DA with no uniqueness evidence in front of me.

· Aff should engage with more than one part of these arguments if possible and be sure to signpost where I should be flowing your answers to these off case positions.

· I think I evaluate these arguments in a pretty similar fashion as most people. Perhaps the only caveat is that I don't necessarily think the Aff is required to win uniqueness in order for a link turn to function as offense. If uniqueness shields the link it probably overwhelms the link as well.

· I think perm debates are important for the Aff (on the CP of course, I WILL laugh if you perm a DA.) I am apt to vote on the perm debate, but only if you are technical in your engagement with the perm I.E. just saying "perm do both" isn't going to cut it.


· I'm not very familiar with it, and I'm probably not the judge you want to pref.

Feel free to ask me questions after the round if you have them, provided you’re respectful about it. If you attempt to 3AR me or become rude the conversation will end at that point.

Whit Jackson Paradigm

1 rounds - chain plz

conflicts: debatedrills (roster here), brentwood (class of 2018)


"I primarily want to decide speaks and wins off of clear display of content knowledge, whether this be topical or not; I don't like blippy, bureaucratic styles of debate."

-- Sean Fahey



1) used to have a super long paradigm but realized the almost all of my rounds decided by one side out-debating the other rather than personal argumentative preferences. decided to simplify my paradigm but you can find the old one here.

2) you're going too fast on analytics and tags. this is a problem is 70% of my debates and most people i've talked to have the same problem. i won’t backflow or read from the doc. i have voted against people because they went for an argument i couldn't understand in their first speech. i will clear you but will give up if you don't slow down after a number of times.

3) i hold debaters to a high standard of tech. truth makes tech debating far easier. arguments must be warranted and are only as strong as the warrant[s] supporting them. the last sentence makes me fairly unlikely to vote for tricks.

4) disclosure is good and the more disclosure there is the more good it is. if you don't at least disclose first three/last three + cites + tags in good faith you should strike me (you can still win full text/open source in front of me but i can't see myself ever voting for disclosure bad).

5) if you cheat you lose (miscutting ev, clipping, reading ahead, outside communication, etc). accusations without proof mean you lose. i'd rather these arguments be made via staking the round rather than theory shell format. bad evidence ≠ miscut evidence.

6) the only thing the flow decides is W/L. the only way to get high speaks is good debating. if you ask for high speaks you will not get them.

7) don't be a jerk - treat your opponent (newcomers especially) with respect or expect your speaks to suffer

8) death good gets you a L20



1) don't read too much into my argumentative choices in high school. i'm agnostic on argument content and my views on debate are very fluid. i know every judge says this but you're far more likely to have success doing what you do best than what you think i'll like.

2) defaults: judge kick (2nrs should flag it, i'll inevitably forget and use this as a cop out when you don't), epistemic confidence (easily reversible)

3) fairness is probably a terminal impact, but certainly not the only one. planless affs should explain what their model of debate looks like (even if that's just destroying debate) rather than just critiquing the act of reading T.

4) ld has an epidemic of highlighting evidence down to the point where it lacks any warrant. i'm willing to hold the line on this if evidence doesn't have a highlighted warrant in specific instances you point out (you can't just say "their ev is all bad" and expect me to read it all). similarly, far too many debaters spend significant portions of their 2ARs on arguments that were new in the 2nr. point it out and move on.

5) Most theory arguments are excuses for not doing prep

6) i hold a very strong presumption that unnecessary suffering is bad. This does not mean I won't vote for phil (I actually love philosophy and am a bit saddened by its recent demise in LD), but I don't find arguments that say probable, massive suffering are irrelevant very compelling. The best way to counteract this is to win case defense and engage the aff rather than avoiding clash with normatively implausible claims.

7) Not good for plan affs that try to generate discursive offense against neg arguments in the 1AR - you will have a very hard time winning "case = no disads" or "case impact turns T". I don't dislike the content of these arguments, but I don't think T is a referendum on what discussions are important and almost all of the impact turns seem like security ks without impact defense.

8) I have literally no idea what "not defending implementation" means. If your aff says something is good I expect you to defend that it would be good.

Josh Johnwell Paradigm

3 rounds

Joshua F. Johnwell (they/them/queer/whatever you want)
NYU Debate - open (Junior)
Houston, TX / Nat HS Circuit (4 Years)
GDI (Gonzaga) Alum - 4WK, 5WK Scholars, 2WK

Email questions to
or just ask before round, preferably. oh & YAS, EMAIL CHAIN ME

**Updated 4/27/19 for ToC: I expect so much from y'all -- please slow down on theory and your shells for me -- or at least spread through card and go slow for tag. Please read a TVA if you're going for T/FW; just do you -- please don't authenticity check me or make me relive trauma, thanks.

**Updated 10/10/18 for Bronx: hi so idk much about the LD topic whatsoever this semester, so please default to fleshing out the warrants for me, etc. also, please be wholesome; there's a lot going on in my life lately. For those who have me in policy, cool, I debated on the Latinx America topic so I'm sort of familiar, but still you be you.

**Updated 3/3/18 for Lakeland LD/CX: My paradigm was written with policy debate in mind. I'm not too huge on "theory" hacks (just, no, please), I don't like RVIs, I don't like huge underviews, IF THEY READ A CASE WITH A PLAN/ADVOCACY/WHATEVER -- ANSWER IT (Idk why I have to say this). I like T more now than my paradigm suggests (idk why). Also my lit base on the multitudes of LD frameworks are limited af -- i'm a policy debater. Make reference to Beyoncé and queer stuff and I MIGHT boost speakers if you're funny.

Idk why I have to say this either but: yes, I am Black.

If you are not Black (white and non black poc) do not read anti-blackness/Afrofuturism/pessimism/optimism arguments in front of me (aff/neg) if the other team calls you out at ALL you will lose the debate.... same for other PoC arguments that the authors say are for PoC. If it is not your position you don't get to use other peoples bodies to get a ballot.
******* - Jalisa Jackson

Most of this wiki is just a copy-and-paste of sarah lundeen's

This is basically just a TL;DR:

I'm reliant on my flow to dictate where the direction of our debate is going and i'm voting for the team that does the better debating. i desire the community aspect of debate and the friendliness that comes along with that. i dig rounds, and a community, where everyone is comfortable and getting what they want out of the activity, and i will try to accomodate that however means necessary. i live for the sass and clash in a debate, but there's a line to be drawn. also, i'm pigeonholed as asian a majority of the time, even though i'm black, and that annoys me and my psyche, so please don't assume anything -- also feel free to come up and conversate / have a discussion with me; i'm a southerner who loves branching out. i hate stealing prep.

If it's not in my job description, i ain't doing it. Now, i will listen to whatever type of debate you want to have (K, policy, performance, other), just do you boo. i'm not here to make a changes or to impose rules on this sphere. if you're good, great; just stick to what you're good at (i'm a very blank slate judge). i will not call for cards/ev after a round unless there's a fact check claim or just a large issue about the ev. with that being said tho, i'm not calling for ev if the debater is simply like "this evidence is on fire" or "call for this card after the round" - explain the warrants and flesh it out for me as a judge. I will not do the work for y'all, and i reward those who make my life easier.

Timing/Paperless - Speed: fine (idk why people go slow af on tags and an unclear sprint through the cite/card tho...?). Your prep time runs until you are finished prepping your speech - i.e. it is ready to email, saved to the jumpdrive, viewing computer, in the dropbox, whatever your method is. if you do not know how to functionally do these things or how to work your laptop, we're all going to have a bad time. Specifically, I hate people who steal prep (this can be in a multiude of fashions) and will call out against it - i.e. when the prep timer stops, you stop, all parties stop; just chill.

CP – I love a good CP neagative strategy and will give the neg more leverage on theory, but i will still evaluate aff theory (it just needs to be developed) and the neg still needs to defend their world. Conditional planks and multiple cp's is where things are gross for me, however. your cp should have a net benefit and you need to impact it out for me buy it especially if it's in the 2nr. i like "shady cp's" (Richard Min™) if done right– i.e. consult, process, delay, courts lol, but with that said they're probably bad for debate and i will most likely err aff theory. if you can explain the competitiveness in a topic-specific way, textually or functionally, i would live for this. Perms: do them, love them; they are a test of competition. PICS: i'm a fan, personally, but needs to be super specific and not a "throw-away" cp; embed that ish into your strat.

K – slay. me. i love the K; debate the k; live the k. I'm not familiar with the whole lot of dead french guys. Alternatives need to articulate what their world looks like, how it resolves the links, etc. i hold a high threshold for a k debate. my 2nrs in HS were baudrillard (i know, i'm sorry), cap, queer theory, etc. so i'm familiar with some literature, just not super specific. K affs need to be able to explain their framework/warrant to vote aff in a way which provides negative ground and debatability. I love k debate/performance and i think it has a lot of value to bring to the debate community –i prefer judging methodology debates too. pls don't just read blocks done by coaches/backfiles if you're reading these args, i love to see clash with links, da's to different methods/alts, etc.

Topicality – I'm not the biggest T fan, but i will vote on it! i say i'm not the biggest fan because i largely look at plans in a vaccum and reasonability sits well with me. that being said, this usually pertains to topics i'm debating on, and i have no knowledge of china besides helping out former HS teammates this year. a good t debate gives me a case list of examples under their interpretation. i evaluate t debates in a defense-offense type of way especially in competing interpretations debate. give me impact analysis, please.

DA – yaaas. you really can't go wrong with this. i love a good politics debate. give me a link story please for any type of scenario. i love the "traditional" craft and things you can do with a simple disad (turns, outweighs, etc.). most disads now-a-days have become let me just read the weirdest scenario and hope they don't have cards on it-- that's fine, i just want specifics and more specific links/story/argument will buy me more. do the werk.

Theory/Framework – i'm not a big fan of huge theoritical debates, but i can dig framework. FW has been read a bunch of times to my cases and i enjoy the substantive part of these debates. your framework needs to rise above the influence of "we could've done more" or "you need to be [XYZ]" because i feel like those debates are shallow and don't really engage with one another. if it's "impossible for you to debate" at this point, c'mon... if you have some good arguments about why they make debater better/worse in that it makes us better informes/more ignorant, better or worse people, etc I am all ears. Also, condo is okay until it becomes a mess i.e. condtradicting advocacies, taking it all into the block and not specificying your strat, always going for it in the 2ar, etc.

Underview – I would rather vote on how y'all debated, instead of intervening in anyway so i don't get post-rounded. Impact assessment and evaluation of the debate in the last rebuttals are important. a helpful tip is to write the ballot for me in the rebuttals, and most of the time mine will reflect that if you're winning. Speaks are a thing.

I don't enjoy listening to debates in which gendered/racist/ableist/homophobic/exclusionary language is used. At the very least your speaker points will be effected.

Joe Karaganis Paradigm

7 rounds

Parent judge, Very lay, might flow a little. HATES RAPID SPEECH (DO NOT SPREAD) Do not run Bostrom! He will not vote on it, or most Nuke war scenarios tbh. Knows very little about the topic. Does know some about other topics.

Saianurag Karavadi Paradigm

7 rounds

NYU 23

Quarry Lane 19

They/Them pronouns


Yes, put me on the email chain —

I was mostly a kritikal and performance leaning debater, but you do you and I'll do my best — I’d much rather you read your tricks aff than try to please me with a horrid k round (especially because I don't give a shit what you read as long as you win it and you're not actively violent). I'll aim to be as tab as I can, except if anything repugnant happens in the round -- that's gonna be a big L for you.

Go to the bottom for stuff about speaks and some random shit I care about (also influences speaks tho)


Do not tell me to read your evidence lool -- you already read it to me and now, I need you to explain it -- I will not do work for you

Extend warrants and collapse more, but do good impact work and weighing + comparisons between warrants/evidence -- I feel myself more convinced by a 2AR that wins 1 perm than one that tries to go for 6 different things


My approach to rounds has always been who do I need to do the least work for. That means you’re always better off with more judge instruction, clear weighing, impact comparison, and strong line by line as well as overview analysis. That’s obviously a lot and LD rounds are short af, so prioritize issues and collapse in later speeches. I am more than willing to vote on a priori’s, impact turns, independent voting issues, etc. — just make them clear, warrant them, and don’t leave me with a ton of questions at the end of the round. I also think that, because of my background and how I’ve thought about debate, that I default comparative worlds. Given that, I will err tech > truth — I think I probably have a relatively high threshold for warrants, which means quality > quantity. I don’t see myself really reading through evidence or revisiting your docs to find args — it’s your job to do that work for me.

Also, I don’t know why I have to say this, but please have some way to filter impacts or frame the round — this can be anything from a starting point, a ROTB, a standard, a value criterion, or whatever you wanna call it — just tell me how to evaluate the round and/or do lots of weighing.

Specific Stuff:


I don’t think there’s much of an issue here since this is my initial foundation, I defended plan aff's and DA's throughout my career, and I was a west coast debater. However, I admittedly am not as experienced with this style of debate, but debate as you do and I doubt there’s gonna be a problem for me. I'm a sucker for weighing and warrant comparison tho.

Don't be afraid to defend a policy aff against k's or phil -- I don't mind voting aff on Zanotti 14, but I'd rather you have a coherent justification for the aff being a good idea and a developed link turn strategy. Compare between the aff and the alt. Do framework comparisons if there's an NC and don't pretend Bostrom is enough.

DA's and CP's are fine and I have no problem here. I think 2 condo CP's might be starting to push it, but that just means you should be ready to defend that you get them.


I'm a Phil major at NYU, but I’m mostly familiar with Kantian Ethics, and a little with Virtue Ethics, Pragmatism, Particularism, Agonism, and Social Contract Theories. I've read and/or defended all of these, but am still not the most well read or experienced with them since I didn't have to deal with them as much in my career -- do your best and you should be fine though.

I find Phil vs. K interactions really interesting, but both sides could benefit from specific warranting when it comes to this rather than just winning your own framework or theory of power, but I am just as willing to vote on Kant as I am to vote on a k.

I am not very persuaded by author indicts of philosophers. For example, I won't vote on Kant is racist, unless someone proves that his theory is and does the work of proving the aff is as well. And if you're defending a framework against these objections, stand your ground and defend your aff without being repugnant.


Meh. I guess… so I am ambivalent about these for now. I think I will probably still have a pretty high threshold for warrants, but I am definitely willing to vote on truth-testing, a priori’s, permissibility, etc. However, I’m not very familiar with these arguments so please give me judge instruction and err on over-explaining. Although I will admit that when this is done well and in a manner that leans more substantive, it’s pretty dope.


Go for it. I read everything from solvency advocate theory to disclosure to body politics, so I don’t care how frivolous it is, as long as it’s not actively violent — look above for more on that.

My defaults: competing interps, drop the debater, no RVI’s — these are of course up for debate as well


I read topicality against most k aff’s that I hit my senior year, both just defend the topic and framework itself, and I read spec bad against like every larp aff my last topic too. However, I have no biases here and can be persuaded to vote either way.

I have no issues with you going for 1-off T-FW against K aff’s and I’m more than willing to vote on it, but I do think there are ways to win my ballot easier. Having a clear TVA is always persuasive, but what I mean by this is not just like a literal plan text that mentions the identity group the aff talks about — take it further and explicitly explain to me why that TVA is a much better model for debate than the version of the aff that was the 1AC.

I think having either offense on the case page or doing clear interactions between the aff offense and the T flow is persuasive and useful when I write my ballot. I’d prefer you tell me a story in the 2NR and really sell your model of debate to me. In other words, it is not sufficient to win that debate is solely a competitive game for me, I want you to really explain the implications of that to me because that’s a pretty bold claim considering all that this activity has been for a ton of people.

When debating T — have a clear counter-interp and defend your model of debate. I am more than willing to vote on an impact turn, but I find that there is a lot of validity to the claim that your aff should have something to do with the topic. This is not to say that you can’t read your dope performance aff, but that you should have some connection to the topic, even tangentially. Limits is pretty persuasive when you justify literally any k aff, sorry. However, that doesn’t mean you have to defend the topic of course. Either way, have a strong and robust defense of whatever you choose to defend. I have been on both sides of this issue, predominantly affirming against T-FW, and find these to be some of the best and worst rounds.


Yes. This is what I’m most comfortable evaluating. I’m most comfortable with identity politics, especially Black Studies, Queer Theory, Queer of Color Studies, Asian Studies, and Performance Studies. If there’s a high theory k or some other area of literature that you enjoy reading or want to try out — go for it. However, I will hold you to really knowing your lit.

Also, please be aware of your own privilege -- have a strong and robust defense of why you should be able to read the k, what your relationship is to the literature, and how I should evaluate the round given all that.

Leverage the K against other flows and put offense on different layers — if you’re winning a case turn, implicate it both through the thesis of the K and independently.

Engage the thesis claims and answer the links in the 1AR.

Perms should probably have a text, but I'm open to the 2AR having leeway to explain them. But if you just yell "perm -- do the aff and graffiti the alt" -- I'm not gonna be very inclined to vote aff if I have no explanation of why that does anything. Have a relatively clear warrant and explanation of the perm that you can develop in the 2AR if you collapse to it.

Kicking the alt is fine — win the links and warrant presumption. I’m also fine with all your k tricks, but I’m not gonna stake the round on the 2AR dropping that fiat is illusory absent some clear warranting and judge instruction with it, as well as some comparison between your claim and a 1AR/2AR arg about the value of simulating policymaking or whatnot.

K aff’s:

Yes. These are my favorite aff’s and I find them super interesting. I don’t care if you defend the topic or not — be prepared to defend your aff and all the choices you made in it.

Presumption is fine, but I’m probably not gonna be persuaded by the classic arg that the aff does not affect how I view the world, feel, etc. I did read and go for presumption against a lot of these aff’s, but I prefer these to be reasons for why the performance of the aff is inconsistent with the method or other parts of the 1AC somehow, lack of solvency, vagueness, etc.

Something I loved doing was impact turning presumption args though — 1AR’s and 2AR’s that can effectively do this and collapse to it are dope and I’m here for it.

Be creative. Have fun. Express yourself. The best kritikal and performative aff’s that I have seen are a result of how they are presented, written, and defended — I think these can be some of the best or some of the worst rounds, but the only thing I’ll hold you to is defending something clear, whether a method, advocacy statement, praxis, or whatnot. Just be clear and tell me how to evaluate the round, considering most of these aff’s ask for a shift in how to evaluate and view debate itself.

Do NOT read these in front of me just because it’s what I did. I will definitely hold you to a higher threshold. Also, feel free to ask me any questions — I’d be more than happy to help you figure out some aspects of how you wanna explore reading this and I know I definitely benefitted from judges who did that for me, so I got u.


I loved getting speaker awards, so just do you and I got you, but here's some incentives + random things LOL

    1. +0.2 speaks for everyone if you have the email chain set up before I walk into the room
    2. Clarity and enunciation > speed please
    3. Passion and ethos are dope — I don’t care what form this is in, but really sell whatever you read to me
    4. I will try to average a 28.5, but to be continued

Some qualms of mine:

  1. Please please slow down on tags and give me something to differentiate between args (i.e., “and”)
  2. I like tags — not just for evidence, but for links and overviews, etc. (i.e., “Liberalism Link”)
  3. Judge instruction please — write my ballot for me, I’m lazy
  4. There’s a difference between asking questions and post-rounding — I’m all for telling you how to win my ballot next time and to discuss things you might disagree with, but I’m not about to sit here while you talk down to me — not saying you can’t be loud about it or anything, but there’s a respectful way to do this
  5. Respect one another — sass and petty are dope, I live for it, but there’s a line and if you don’t know how to draw it, don’t try to push it
  6. Pronouns are important — egregious misgendering is not cool w me, but try your best and I understand — I recommend defaulting to “they”
  7. Trigger and content warnings are important to me as an educator in the activity, but also as a participant in the round — if you’re going to be talking about sensitive topics, please give me (and everyone in the room) a heads up
  8. I will not vote on anything that polices what clothing other debaters are wearing — this is not negotiable sorry and yes, that means I will not vote on shoes theory or formal clothing theory — you can @ me if you want

Louis Kollar Paradigm

3 rounds

@bsci r2 flight 2, I'm starving if you bring me something I'll probably be better able to adjudicate the round. Please don't pay for it. Potential reward in speaks.

Email for the chain (Required unless it's a lay/paper, set it up early please):


-Debated for NT from 2012-2016 went to the TOC once, I go to Indiana now and coach NT every now and then. Assume that the number of rounds I've judged at the tournament is also the total number of rounds I've judged on the entire topic.

-Read whatever you're best at no matter what it is; good debates are better than bad ones no matter the content.


-The distinction between true/false arguments and good/bad arguments are two different things. If your argument is false (e.g. global warming not real), I don't care and I'll vote for it if you win it (excluding blatantly offensive arguments, obviously). If your argument is just bad (e.g. global warming is not real b/c it snowed last weekend) it takes a lot more technical skill in order to win with it.

-Zero-risk is absolutely thing

-Strategy, prep, creativity>>>

-Debated LARP in HS so it's what I'm most familiar with and like best. Most of my paradigmatic defaults are the same as the general consensus in policy debate but feel free to ask.

-Don't care about running theory for purely the strategic reason, obviously bad interps are harder to win with (see zero risk/bad arguements)

-Tricks are fine just please actually be creative with them

-Ks are fine, I've read the basics of the common Ks but if you're reading Baudrillard or something you should overexplain it. If you do a bad job explaining your stuff and I don't understand it I'm perfectly willing to vote against you and start the RFD with "Yeah I don't get it".

-In terms of non-T affs I'm not a complete framework hack but if it's not in the 1nc you're doing yourself a serious disservice. Also if you read a plan text, I'm going to hold you to defending/solving that plan text. Again though, debate what you're best at.

-Your pre-round prep/strat development is probably the best way to get good speaks.

-Debate is supposed to be fun, make jokes, be sarcastic, don't be an asshole, don't take yourself too seriously etc.

-I'm very pro-disclosure but generally anti-disclosure theory. I get that sometimes you'll have to read it and I'll treat it like I treat any other theory argument, but if you have a decent case neg put together or only want to quibble over the way that someone discloses then your 1NC is better served by just reading something else. (If you read and go for disclosure theory against someone who is obviously not familiar with the circuit I will not vote for it and your speaks will suck). In case anyone cares I think the true interp is disclosure for debaters with a career bid and in all elim rounds; if you want to card me for your counter interp or run a blog and want an article hmu

-I have a very low threshold for extensions

-I will answer clarifying questions about my paradigm during prep as long as they're things like "what's your default on RVIs?" or "Do you default to Condo means judge kick?" or anything else that you could've asked before the debate but didn't because you can never know which of my potential defaults will be relevant. Stuff that you'd need the context of the debate to ask like "Do you think there's a winning 2NR on the disad or should I go for T?" I will not answer. The former gives you the information you'd need to make strategic decisions, the latter makes some of the decisions for you.

-I really appreciate creativity. Lately, I've been feeling like I've heard every interp/framework/impact scenario before so if you can produce one that's completely unique that'll make me enjoy the round more.

-If you can tell a joke that makes me laugh about the 2015-2016 debate season or the New Trier debate team speaks go up (they go up further for the 2015-2016 season because with the age of current debates that's tougher)

-Why on earth do so many people take prep for the 1nc?

Daniel Kruger Paradigm

4 rounds

Hi -- I'm a parent and a lay judge. I did not debate in high school, nor in college. I've been judging for a few years. Two years of MS parli, one year of HS PF and one year of HS LD. In PF, I'm looking for the most persuasive argument you can make.

In all formats, I am partial to empirical arguments. While LD is about morals and ethics, and while PF is about topicality, I am helped in both cases by seeing how an idea or an argument is applied in the real world.

In LD, I can understand about 90% of the words you say if you spread, but I have trouble processing your cases at that speed - it's just a bunch of words I mostly recognize. You can talk fast, though, and being a New Yorker I will understand that, at least.

Good luck!

Beckett Larcher Paradigm

6 rounds

Lake Travis High School '19

Reed College ‘23


I debated for 3 years, receiving seven bids and breaking at the TOC. This past summer, I taught at the National Symposium for Debate for 4 weeks.

Top Level:
You do you. My thoughts on debate have changed a lot since my time in high school. I no longer have strong preferences about the content of argumentation but now I focus on argumentative quality. In other words, I don’t really care what you do (That being said, don't be exclusionary) or what side of the clash debate you are on, make good arguments.

Raul Larsen Paradigm

6 rounds

Email chains are a tangible improvement to debate. RLarsen at desidancenetwork dot org. You can read my entire paradigm for bolded passages, as you would a card. Pronouns are he/him/”Judge”. Flow paper is always appreciated and often needed; Affirmative should have speech doc ready to be emailed by round start time. LD - this paradigm is updated for you

Policy - this paradigm is mostly updated, pending adjustments post-Long Beach






(Pre-round Prep/Deadline Preffing):

Debate is a group of people engaging in performances. The nature of those debate performances (including my role as a judge) is settled by the competitors in the round with arguments. My default as a policy judge is to believe that those performances regard policymaking and that plans (/counterplans/alts/advocacies) create worlds with real impacts I should calculate via fiat as the plan is executed. As an LD judge, I think the round is about pursuing philosophical reasons to affirm or negate the resolution, and impacting through the lens of the criterial structure. Any successful movement away from the default paradigm typically entails explaining why I, the judge, should interpret your speech time differently. Many/most people succeed in shifting my defaults, and would consider me a “tabula rasa” judge. Most of my LD rounds look like solo Policy these days. I’m expressive while judging, and you should take advantage of that, and look for cues.

Framework debaters: if you think the debate space should be predictable and fair, you should articulate what education/fairness/pick-your-voter means to the activity and why the ballot of this particular round matters.

K debaters: if you think rhetoric and its shaping matters more than the policy impacts of the 1AC, you should articulate your world of the alt/advocacy/pick-your-impact in a way that allows me to sign the ballot for you.

Performance debaters: if you think the debate space is for social movements/resistance/pick-your-story, you should explain why your performance relates to the ballot and is something I should vote for. Ideal performance cases explain topic links or provide reasons they actively choose not to be topical.

Everybody else: you get the idea. Clash happens through the lens of the ballot. The nature of how the ballot is to be considered is the framework flow, and that means that arguments like Kritiks might engage with T/Theory in some rounds and not others. This means I will vote for your take on burning down civil society in one round and vote you down on T in the next.

Perms: I give the benefit of the doubt to the intuitive status of the permutation. I’m happy to vote against my intuition, but you need to lead me there (more below).

Tricks: If you go for this, impact it out, as you would a dropped card

Topical Version of the Aff (TVA): Gotta read them, gotta answer them

Independent Voters: explain to me why this voter stands apart from the flow and comes first

No Risk: I do vote on no risk of the aff/plan doesn't solve. Terminal defense is still a thing

Updated 9/30 Average Speaker Points '19 - '20 Season: 28.68






Long Version (Procrastinating Other Work/Season Preffing):

The world is unfair. Fairness is still probably a good thing. We get education from winning, and from losing. Some topics are poorly written and ground issues might not be the fault of your opponent. For debaters pursuing excellence, traditional voters aren’t the end of the conversation. Argument context can be everything. Tech speak, fairness is an internal link more than it is an impact.

“Two ships passing in the night” is something we hear in approximately 143% of RFDs, and it’s almost always the most efficient way to sad faces, frustration, and post rounding. RESOLVE this by finding points of clash, demonstrating that your claims engage with the claims of your opponent in a way that is beneficial for you. Clash shows that you are aware that your opponent has ground, and your following that with an explanation of why that ground couldn’t possibly earn my ballot is very persuasive. A round without clash is a round left to the judge, and you don’t want to leave any argument, big or small, up to the discretion of the judge.

The preventable argument issue that most often shows up on my ballot is how the permutation functions. I give the benefit of the doubt to the intuitive status of the permutation. For example, I think it’s very easy to imagine a world where two separate policy actions are taken. I think it’s very hard to imagine a world in which Civil Society is ended and the 1AC still solves its harms through implementation. The former gets preference for the permutation making sense. The latter gets preference for exclusivity making sense. I’m happy to vote against my intuition, but you need to lead me there.

I flow on paper, because as a wise teacher (Paul Johnson) once (/often) told me: “Paper doesn’t crash.” This means I will NOT:

Flow your overview verbatim

Flow your underview verbatim

Flow your tags verbatim


Follow the speech doc for author name spelling

Have no issues jumping around sheets as long as you signpost as you go
Still always appreciate another run through the order (if you don’t have the order, or you change it up, that’s O.K. Again, just sign post clearly)

Write in multiple colors (for individual speakers and notes)

Typically respond to body language/speech patterns and give you cues to what should be happening more or what should be happening less (furrowed brow + no writing usually means bad news bears. No writing, in general, means bad news bears)

I will keep the speech doc open on my computer, because it seems like a good idea to live the round as closely to the competitors’ experience as possible. However, it is YOUR job as a debater to COMMUNICATE to me the most important parts of your speech. 9 times out of 10 this means:

SLOW DOWN to emphasize big picture ideas that you use to contextualize multiple parts of the round. Let me know that you know it’s important. That level of awareness is persuasive.

TELL A STORY of the debate round. Are you winning? (the answer is almost always “yes”) Why are you winning? What are your winning arguments? Why do they demolish your opponent’s arguments into a thousand pieces of rubble that couldn’t win a ballot if you were unable to deliver any additional arguments?

WEIGH IMPACTS. Time frame/magnitude/probability. These are all great words that win debate rounds. There are other great words that also win rounds.
PRIORITIZE (TRIAGE) arguments. You don’t need to win all the arguments to win the debate. If you go for all the arguments, you will often lose a debate you could have won.

I’m still hearing this debated occasionally, but cross ex is binding. I flow it/take notes.

Flex Prep is alive and well in my rounds. You have an opportunity to ask further questions, but not a clear obligation to answer them. I also think it’s pretty fair that prep time can be used to just… prep.

If you ask me to call for evidence, you probably didn’t do a sufficient job presenting your cards during the round.

Rhetorical questions seem very clever as they’re conceived, but are rarely persuasive. Your opponent will not provide a damning answer, and your time would have been better spent working to make positive claims.

I tend to like policy arguments and performance more than philosophy-heavy kritiks because Ks often lose their grounding to the real world (and, it follows, the ballot). Policy arguments are claiming the real world is happening in the speeches of the round, and performance debate has had to justify its own existence for as long as it has existed, which makes it more practiced at role of the ballot. If you love your K and you think it’s the winning move, go for it! Just make sure to still find clash. Related: “reject” alts almost always feel like they’re missing something. Almost like a team without a quarterback, a musical without leads, a stage without performers.

Good links >>> more links

Good evidence >>>>> more evidence

Many definition interpretations are bad. Good definitions win [T] rounds.

Many framework card interpretations are bad. Every debater is better off reading the cards in the entirety at some point during their infinite prep, in order to better understand author intent.

My threshold for accepting politics disads as persuasive feels higher than the community average. I think it’s because probability is underrated in most politics disads.

Anything I believe is open to negotiation within the context of debate, but general truths have a much lower standard of proof (i.e. Debater 1 says “we are currently in Mexico.” Debater 2 counters “Pero estamos en Estados Unidos.” I consider the truth contest over at this point). The more specialized the knowledge, the higher the standard of proof.

Technical parts of the flow (T & Theory come to mind) can be really fast. I mentioned above that I’m writing by hand. You are always better off with -50% the number of arguments with +50% presentation and explanation to the remaining claims. Yes, I have your speech doc. No, I’m not doing your job for you. Communicate the arguments to me.

Debaters are made better by knowing how arguments evolve. There’s a reason a permutation is a “test of competition” (see: plan plus). Knowing the roots and growth of arguments will make you better at clash will make you better at debate will make you better at winning real, actual ballots.

My default is always to give an RFD, and to start that RFD with my decision. This will typically be followed by the winning argument(s). Ideally, the RFD should look suspiciously like the final rebuttal speech of the winning team.

I apologize for this paradigm becoming unreasonable in length.



Advice I give frequently enough to consume space on this infinitely long page that is now my paradigm:

Ships passing in the night/Clash wins rounds (see above)

Thanksgiving standard: if you can't explain why this argument is important to your Grandma during Thanksgiving dinner conversation, you probably need to keep reading the literature until you can contextualize to the real world. There's also a really good chance it won't win you the round.

At least try to live the advocacy you endorse. If you think coalition-building is the move, you shouldn’t be exclusionary without clear justification, and possibly not even then. The debate space is better for inclusion efforts.

It’s always to your advantage to use cross ex/prep to understand opposing arguments. Don’t realize after a rebuttal speech that your strategy was based on an incomplete understanding of your opponent(s) and their case.

It’s almost always worth your time to take a small amount of prep to sit back, breathe, and consider how you’re going to explain this round to your coach, debate-knowledgeable legal guardian, or friend-who-doesn’t-like-debate-but-supports-you-in-your-endeavors-because-they’re-a-good-friend. It’s an exercise that will tell you what’s important and help clear the clutter of speed, terminology, and tech.

This is also a good test for seeing if you can explain all the arguments using small words. I think the fanciest words I use in this paradigm are “verbatim” and “temporal proximity”. If you can’t explain your arguments in a simple, efficient manner, you need to keep reading.

It’s also almost always worth your time to take a moment, a sip of water, and a breath to collect yourself before a speech. Do this without excess and every judge you compete in front of will appreciate the generated composure and confidence in your ensuing speech.

Don’t start that speech with a million words a minute. Build to it. Double plus ungood habit if you forgot to check that everyone was ready for you to begin speaking.

I have never, not even once, in a decade+ of debate, heard a judge complain that author names were spoken too slowly.

Don’t take 5 minutes to flash a speech or to sort together a speech doc after you’re “done” prepping.

Your speech and prep time is yours to do with as you wish. Play music, talk loudly, play spades.

Opponent prep time is theirs to do with as they wish. That means you don’t get to play music intrusively (read: use headphones), talk intrusively, play spades intrusively, you get where this is going. This is one of the areas I think speaker points is very much at judge discretion.

If it’s not a speech and it’s not cross ex and neither team is running prep, you should not be prepping. Stealing prep is another area that I think leaves speaker points very much to judge discretion.

Don’t set sound alarms to the time you keep for your opponent’s speeches. Nobody ever, ever wants to hear the timer of the opponent go off before the speaker’s. I will keep time in 99% of debates, and if you’re wrong and cutting into their speech time, you’re losing speaker points.

I’m friendly.

I’m almost always down to give notes between rounds/after tournaments/via email on your performance in debate. Temporal proximity works in your favor (read: my memory has never been A1).

There are few things I love in this good life more than hearing a constructive speech that takes a new interpretation of an old idea and expands how I see the world. Writing your own arguments makes the time you invest in debate more worthwhile.

Spend some time teaching debate to others. Most things worth learning are worth teaching, and the act of teaching will give you an excellent perspective to arguments that have staying power in the community.

Lincoln-Douglas Debaters: A priori arguments can win rounds, but I’d rather see a debate where you win on substance than on a single line that your opponent dropped/misunderstood. If you’re going for a dropped analytic, impact it out in the 2R, as you would any other dropped card.

I feel like the rounds that end up being primarily the criterial debate typically indicate that the debaters could have done more to apply their arguments to the lens of their opponent’s criterion.



This space is for you. We don’t hold debate tournaments so that judges can sign ballots. You don’t spend hours/years preparing arguments and developing this skill because you just really want Tab Staffers to have something to do on the weekends. Mountains of money aren’t shifted so that we can enjoy the sweet, sweet pizza at the lunch hour. We’re here so that you can debate. Performance is about communicated intent, and debate is no exception. You can take anything out of that experience, but articulating your purpose walking into the round, even if only to yourself, will make you more persuasive.

Closing note: I typically think dialogue is the best way to educate, and that my role (at a bare minimum) is to educate the competitors following the round, through the lens of my decision and its reasoning. I will typically write a short Tabroom ballot and give as extensive a verbal RFD as scheduling permits/the students have asked all the questions they desire. The short version of this paradigm caused me physical pain, so that should indicate my willingness to engage in decision-making/pedagogical practices.

4 years high school LD/Extemp/PF

3 years college policy/parli/public

Coaching/teaching debate since 2009-ish

Writing Arguments by Allegory since 2013

Mina Lee Paradigm

6 rounds


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

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

addendum #2: if you can win a ~compelling abuse story on theory then sURE i'll vote for it i guess

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

-disclosing is good

-email chains are good (

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

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

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

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

-be nice

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

-please don’t shake my hand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8) Fairness is not a voter lol it is an internal link to education I don’t care about your fairness voters I don't care about your fairness voters

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

10) disclose lol.

Jennifer Li Paradigm

7 rounds

I am new to the Speech & Debate world. I am most definitely a lay judge - I am a mathematics teacher at Princeton High School. This will be my second year as an assistant coach for our Speech & Debate Team. I attended the 2019 NSDA Conference to learn more about Speech & Debate. I have judged in Speech during our (Princeton High School’s) tournament last February - The Princeton HS Invitational. I will mostly be judging in LD and PF this year. Yale Invitational was the first tournament where I judged for PF. The NYC Invitational will by my first time judging LD.

Remember - Speech & Debate is about having fun! If you’re the only person in the room having fun, then you just lost a round.

Please note the following:

1. Fair warning - If you use language that doesn't belong to the classroom, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.

2. If you ask a question in rebuttal, please allow your opponents to answer your questions. I need to hear two sides - it wouldn't be a debate otherwise.

3. LD - No spreading. Debate, in any form, is about making a point. To me, that point has to be made with common sense. Please do not try to convince me you are smarter than everybody in the room by speaking too fast. If a smarter-than-average person cannot get your point, you lost the round. Period. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge. You will get a 25. If you have two "tech" judges and me in the elimination rounds, and if you CHOOSE to spread "strategically", you will get a 25 as well. Again, it wouldn't be a debate if a judge cannot understand you.

Don't forget - this is about you having fun!

Good luck!

Kevin Li Paradigm

7 rounds

Hi I’m Kevin! I debated LD for Stuyvesant High School from 2014-2018. I primarily debated on the national circuit, qualifying to the TOC my junior and senior year. I was coached by Paul Zhou, Ananth Panchanadam, and Dino De La O.

Conflicts: Stuyvesant, Mission San Jose, William Enloe AC, Poly Prep DB, Bergen County Academies MS, Westlake AL

*pleaseplease try not to have a full out larp v larp debate in front of me-- I'm not gonna be great at judging it. If that's what you do it's fine, but I don't feel super confident at resolving those debates when they are close.

*Note for more traditional debaters: do your thing, just wanna make a note that I am receptive to arguments about why progressive debate is bad and why traditional debate is better, and will vote for them if you win them.

To give a little context, as a debater I read a lot of nonT/K/Performance Asian American affs, Wilderson, Weheliye, Barber, and a lot of frivolous theory. I was probably least familiar with phil debate.

Tech > Truth. I don’t think there is such a thing as a tabula rasa judge because experience in debate affects how I view and interpret certain arguments, but I will listen to anything (with the exception of arguments that directly make debate unsafe and alienating.) The most important thing is impacting and explicit implication work. Especially if the content is something I'm less familiar with, I will be pretty dependent on you doing the work to tell me what I should do with what argument.

If you need me to make note of something that was said or conceded in CX please explicitly get my attention even if it looks like I'm listening because I space out a lot.

If it is clear that your opponent is debating at a significantly lower level than you are, you should be able to win in a way that allows them to still understand what's going on and engage with you. I think that indicates familiarity and flexibility with your style of debate, which is an important skill debaters should have, and that will be reflected in speaks.

Defaults (these 100% change when arguments are made in the round):

Truth Testing




If I need to presume and no argument has been made either way I will do a fancy coin flip

Literally anything is fine as long as whatever you extend has a claim warrant and impact

Have fun and read arguments that are important and interesting to you!

Speaks Boosts:

Creative Strategy

Making debate fun and enjoyable

Being really knowledgeable about your content

High Uber Ratings

30s are for pleasant and wholesome surprises

These are my views on debate as of now. If you wholly disagree with my paradigm I am open to criticism and I'd be willing to have a conversation about I should change it.

Alan Liu Paradigm

4 rounds

Ridge ‘19

NYU ‘23

I debated for Ridge HS in LD for 4 years and CX for a couple tournaments. Now I’m a member of the debate team at NYU.

I am pretty familiar with most tech arguments and I am willing to vote on anything as long as it’s not racist/sexist/oppressive in any way.

My email is and you can contact me on Facebook (Alan Liu).

I read a bunch of policy and critical arguments as my go-to strategies throughout my debate career but I’m also willing to vote on other positions like T/Theory. I was never really a tricks or phil debater so make sure you explain those arguments to me very clearly.

Kathy Liu Paradigm

7 rounds

I've competed in Policy, British and American Parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, and Public Forum for all four years of high school. In addition, I have participated in events such as Extemp and Impromptu speaking. Throughout high school, I was the Debate Club president, and participated in judging at school and regional tournaments. I went to high school in China, so I debated at NHSDLC regionals and nationals, as well as APAC and China Cup tournaments.



As long as you are able to clearly and effectively communicate your point to both the judge and opposition, I don't have a preference on speed. That being said, if the debater is so focused on speed and "cramming information in" that it becomes hard to understand/follow, I prefer that the speaker slow down and omit subsidiary points. An argument that is not delivered clearly will not be counted. I dislike spreading - chances are if your opponent can't make it out or write it down, neither can I.

Theory Debates:

While I believe that theory debates (when done well in an applicable situation) can be extremely insightful and interesting, the majority of theory debates that I have judged and watched have become a "my interpretation of this is better than your interpretation of this" back and forth. This wastes precious time that could be used to build more contentions.

Evidence and Statistics:

I don't have a strong preference - use however many statistics and examples you need to build a case. However, often, I encounter students who "number dump" instead of developing their points and expanding upon them. To me, presenting a myriads of statistics, when compared to using only one or two statistics and taking time to clearly explain and expand upon an argument, is not as effective. Use only as many statistics as you need - it can be 5 or 15, as long as the message is delivered.

Pre-fiat kritik:

When well fleshed out, pre-fiat kritiks can be effective arguments, but I am slightly more hesitant to judge and accept them as the only or one of the only contentions given. While they are effective, I dislike them being the only form of argument/rebuttal offered.

Post-fiat kritk:

I am very receptive to post-fiat kritiks, and I think that they are a powerful tool (if fleshed out properly) against the opposition. However, I do not accept "alternatives" (alternate solutions to the problem in the resolution) as proper evidence that the world after the motion is enacted would be worse than not doing so. The burden of proof is on the opposition to disprove the current resolution, not suggest policies that would work better.

Nuance (Detail in the small things):

While I don't like explanations taking up a majority of the speaking time (simply because the time could be used to make other arguments or develop existing ones), and technical or political language that isn't considered "common knowledge" should be quickly explained. I cannot judge a concept or evidence that I don't understand.


I view the framework as the structure that an entire team's arguments should be based around. Every contention, every piece of evidence should be there to support and build upon the framework. As such, I tend to mark points off when a team negates or contradicts their own framework - either on purpose or by accident. However, if their arguments are valid - even if they conflict or stray from the the framework - I will award them. I view being able to support your own framework to be just as important as knocking down your opponent's. Tearing holes in the other team's frameworks while being unable to defend your own will not earn you full points from me. That being said, I don't think that having a framework is absolutely integral to winning. If you are able to structure and organize speeches without having a central framework, while also being able to tear down your opponent's points, I will award you the appropriate points even without framework.


I don't have a strong preference, both more "laid-back" and aggressive styles of debating and crossfire are okay with me, as long as neither party is rude towards the other. My pet peeves include interruptions and interjections during crossfire, as well as speaking past your allotted time (not including the time it takes to finish the sentence you're on), and non-stop spreading. Just MAKE SURE TO WEIGH at the end - I will try to take notes as best I can, but when the speaker reaches maximum speed I may miss some nuances so weighing all your arguments at the end will help me make sure I didn't omit anything.


Angela Lytle Paradigm

7 rounds

Experience: I debated for four years at Cinco Ranch High School in Houston, TX. I now work with the NYC Urban Debate League and volunteer with Columbia Youth For Debate. I'm currently a sophomore at Barnard College, majoring in philosophy. She/they pronouns. Don't be afraid to mention yours at the beginning of the round :-) Call me Angie!

If anything about this paradigm is unclear or if you have questions, email me!

TLDR; Extend your arguments and give me a framework so that I can best evaluate them. You should do the weighing for me or at least give me a mechanism so that you don’t leave the round confused by my decision. In all styles of debate, I reward good speakers who sound like they care about what they're debating.

Don't be annoying during CX. Don't say "ladies first". You will be downed if you or your arguments are antiblack/racist/misogynistic/homophobic/etc. I WILL drop you for this if your opponent calls you out. This is a speaking activity: you are responsible for your words!

Speed/Jargon: I can keep up with speed though I prefer efficiency and believe that jargon should only be used when necessary. I’m reasonably flow and voting issues are very important to me. Also, time yourself, preferably with sound on.


Email chain:

This is your space, use it however you want. I look for the clearest path to the ballot and default tech > truth. Link chains are important!!!

Feel free to run theory, just note that I'm not as well versed as other judges. If t is your entire neg strat then I might not be your ideal judge.

I like kritikal debates.

IMO debate is about education: don't treat the round like a game and at least try to be nice lol.

I appreciate speakers who are attentive, signpost, and care about what they're debating. Speaks are a combo of good debating and style: 28 is avg for me.

P.S. I'm very into post-structuralism and postmodern philosophy right with that what you will. I also love performance and greatly appreciate any effort to make the debate space more radical and less elite :-)


I prefer a slow constructive and see the rebuttal as the most important speech of the round, followed by final focus.

Weighing/impacts will win you the round. ~Clean~ extensions in summary/ff please.

I will probably ask to see your evidence (the full source, not the card) if it's contentious. I will drop a team with severely miscut cards; it may be easy to fabricate your evidence, but don't do it.

Have fun! :-)

Adejoke Mason Paradigm

7 rounds

Hey y'all, I'm Adejoke. I did LD debate for four years in High school at two different schools (Bettendorf & North Atlanta) and currently do College Policy at NYU.

email -

Short version (I know some of yall are reading this seconds before round. good luck b)

Speed: go as fast as you want but be clear. i'll say clear twice before i stop

Run what you want and what you're best at, that'll probably be the best way to get my ballot. Know your literature base and make sure you can explain it, don't assume I already know what you're talking about or that i'll fill in gaps for you even if I do.

Don't be racist because i'll drop you

Long Version: This is mostly my paradigm for LD but lots of it extends to policy as well

Policy/CPs/DAs etc.: Go for it, make sure the link stories actually make sense, fully explain, but otherwise you're golden

K's: On high theory K's, I'm totally fine with them but I will say I'm not as familiar with some of the literature so definitely be prepared to explain. That being said, I do enjoy them and am willing to listen and vote on them, just don't assume I know more than I do. When it comes to more identity politics based K's, I'm also very much fine with those. I am pretty familiar with some of that literature, but once again that doesn't mean i'll do your work for you. When these are well articulated though, I adore them. Don't pull out your Race K's just because I'm here though, run what you like

Philosophy: Long philosophy frameworks are also something I'm less familiar with depending on the author, but there are quite a few I also know pretty well. So the same goes for all the others, explain this clearly especially if there is a long link chain and be able to answer questions and you should be fine.

Theory/Topicality: I wasn't the biggest fan of Theory in high school, which means that I tend not to side with theory that I view as frivolous. What I mean by that is, I may be easier than most to convince of a no abuse or no impact story in a round. This, however, doesn't mean I dont think there is valid abuse nor does it mean that I won't vote on theory. It's not like I have never won a theory round and thought it legitimate, it just means if your go to strategy is running a theory shell regardless of genuine abuse in round, you may have an uphill battle. Same goes for topicality. But if you defend your shell well and can show me the abuse then I'm more than willing to vote for it.

Performance/Non T affs: I think these are a really great way to introduce creativity and fun into debate and I adore them. I think they also can be very success in impacting the debate space. However, I do need to see a justification as to why the performance and non t nature of the aff is important/has an impact. If no one challenges it then of course there is no need to continue to explain, but if someone presents another way to structure debate I want to see a justification as to why yours beats theirs. I think there are countless legitimate justifications for this so this should be easy to accomplish: i just want to see a good debate about why we should structure debate in either way

a few more notes:

I love when debaters do what they love. Don't read something you don't know much about or hate because you think it'll make me happy or because I did something similar in high school - do what fits you. I'm pretty much willing to vote on anything as long as its well defended. Don't assume i err towards the way you view debate but show me why I should especially if its challenged. Know your literature base and show me that.

Please weigh. Like, please. Give me a clear reason why your world is superior, why your impacts are bigger, etc. so that i can have a coherent rfd instead of a clash-less debate im supposed to decipher

I love when arguments are specifically tailored to whatever they're attacking, so the more specific and less generic you can be, the better. I'm definitely a bigger fan of more quality arguments than a generic dump

I really enjoy creativity particularly in solutions. I like for rounds to be fun and comfortable and not aggressively formal.

Being blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc. won't go well in front of me, so be aware of that.

Ethan Massa Paradigm

7 rounds


Hey! I'm Ethan and I debated for West Broward in Florida for 4 years. I received 9 bids and broke at the TOC.

There are a couple of things that generally contextualize my views on debate and how you should probably debate in front of me.

1. I am definitely Tech > Truth. This means I will not hesitate to vote on any argument with a warrant and an implication, insofar as it isn't repugnant and justifiably makes debate unsafe. I think that if an argument is actually nonsensical, then it probably wouldn't have a warrant and should be easily answered. Additionally, merely claiming an argument is nonsense and assuming I won't flow its extension is not the best way to debate in front of me - you need to tell me why an argument doesn't make sense. Naturally, if your arguments are both technical and true, that makes you a better debater in my eyes and I'll definitely give you solid speaks if all of your arguments are equally as convincing.

2. I will try my best to evaluate any debate you want to have in front of me because I think debate should be an open forum for a diverse set of arguments. Obviously, I will be much better at evaluating certain types of debates but I will try to the best of my ability to be tab. Please don't just try to read positions you don't feel comfortable with because you think it'll pick up my ballot - I would much rather you do what you're good at because I can appreciate skills in different areas of debate and your speaks will resemble how well you executed your specialty.

Theory: These can be really interesting debates and probably one of the things I feel most comfortable evaluating. Coming up with a smart combo shell or making cool strategic decisions are awesome and make judging a lot more fun. I'm perfectly fine with theory as a strategic tool so if this is what you like to do, I'm all for it. I kinda get really annoyed when people say they won't evaluate "frivolous theory" mainly because I think in order to know what counts as "frivolous" absent intervention, debaters would logically have to debate the shell. Obviously if the theory debater wins an abuse story, then the shell isn't frivolous.

Defaults - I don't have any defaults on theory besides norm setting > IRA since I think that if you don't read voters, it would be the same as reading an argument without an impact and I shouldn't evaluate them as if they did. If the debate becomes solely a theory debate and no one extends a warrant for presumption or substantive offense, I will probably use who won the impact-less theory debate as presumption. To clarify, voters include fairness/education/independent voters, drop the debater/argument, RVIs/No RVIs, competing interpretations/reasonability.

Framework: I really like a good framework debate, even standard Kant vs Util debates have pretty much become non-existent so I'd love to be in the back of one of these rounds. Weird NIBs and other philosophy-based positions are awesome and I will be impressed if you execute it well. I think an important part of LD is not only being able to win impacts, but also justify why the paradigm which those impacts operate under is ethically relevant. This means if you like to LARP, please justify consequentialism. It doesn't really make sense to read positions without frameworks since there isn't a way to evaluate the offense you read. I get that this isn't a thing in policy because util is presupposed, but you wouldn't want an LDer reading tricks and frivolous theory in policy because that's not how it works, so please adapt to LD in the same way you'd expect an LDer to adapt to policy.

Defaults - Epistemic Confidence > Epistemic Modesty, Truth Testing > Comparative Worlds. These are just if no other paradigm is read but both sides of these debates can be easily won in front of me.

LARP: I never debated this way but I'll evaluate these debates the way you tell me to. The jargon is not exactly vernacular to me so I'd probably err on the side of explaining the implication of something for like 2 seconds if you think I wouldn't get it. Odds are, I've heard the phrase before but obviously there are some LARP things I don't know so use your intuition. These debates don't really distinguish themselves from debates I used to have (aside from their content) so I don't think I'd botch a decision because I'll probably just vote on something conceded and weighed, just like anything else. Don't worry though, if I really don't think I'm certain of what's on the flow, I'll read evidence and compare what you tell me to so I try and make the best decision possible.

Tricks: This is really fun to judge if done well and was even more enjoyable to debate, however, can also be high risk. Yea, I'll vote on a conceded a priori if truth testing is won but that doesn't give you an excuse to make the debate messy as hell because you're debating in front of me. I love a good strategic conjunction of spikes and framework triggers, but don't throw arguments at me without warrants because I'm "tab." Creative implications of tricks are really impressive and will probably get you really high speaks if you go for them correctly. Further, a caveat I have about reading these positions is you need to be able to defend them in CX and actually know what they say. It's not enough to just re-read the tagline of a piece of SEP evidence to justify condo logic, please explain the warrant to me because I'm not gonna evaluate debates based on background knowledge since that would mean people who read arguments I used to read would have an advantage.

Defaults - Presumption affirms, permissibility negates

Ks: I found myself to not be the greatest at evaluating K v K debates just because I was never super well-versed on the nuances of K debate; however, I totally respect the skill it takes to be good at it. I feel as if you can still have these debates at a high level in front of me, just make sure to do a couple things. First, please clearly warrant your arguments and what they mean in terms of the ballot as opposed to just re-articulating thesis claims. This will help me understand how to evaluate offense under your ROB and the methods debate. Second, err on the side of the line by line rather than reading hefty overviews and assuming I know how they interact with everything that else on the flow. I've found that this is the part I struggle with the most just because I'm not coming into the debate with a ton of background knowledge on the literature. On the contrary, I am definitely comfortable evaluating K vs other types of debate (Theory/Fwk/Counter ROBs). My problem is comparing thesis claims and methods under a ROB, yet when the debate is more about the relevance of the ROB, my understanding greatly improves and I'll feel confident in my ability to make an objective decision. I usually read critical DAs throughout my senior year as a cool strategic option to interact with affs on multiple layers, which means I totally get their appeal and am open to judging them.

David McGinnis Paradigm

7 rounds

I spent a bunch of time before New Trier 19 writing a policy paradigm and in the one round I got the aff read "queer eroticism" so I am done trying to explain to policy teams how to adapt to me. Those of you who would strike or otherwise depref me because I am an LD coach: good call. Those of you who would refrain from striking me and then read "queer eroticism": please reconsider.


I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

I'm most familiar with philosophical framework debating, but you can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing.


Yasmeen Metellus Paradigm

3 rounds

I am a former Lincoln Douglas debater, so I am pretty familiar with the event and with the debate style. LD is also the event that I've judged the most.

- I am okay with plans and Ks. I do not have a preference for an argument.

- I will not read full cases, but I will fact check if necessary.

- Although I am a former debater, I am not the great at understanding "spreading" anymore. I can handle a little bit of speed, but I would still be careful with making sure that you maintain clarity at all times. It would probably be best if you slow down when explaining complex parts of your case.

Nick Mirza Paradigm

5 rounds

Coach at American Heritage Boca/Delray

Debated Policy at Fresno State

Put me on the chain at


LARP: I've only ran a plan text in my career, so this is my cup of tea. Strong internal links need to be defended well because I'll pull the trigger on high quality analytical arguments made by the negative disproving weak link chains. You are just as likely to win with your soft left 1AC as you are with an extinction impact. I've voted on plenty of soft left aff's against heavy impact policy teams.

K: I'll attempt to determine the winner based on the merits of the round, but I think debate is best when the affirmative defends topical government action. It will be hard to persuade me that a model of debate where the affirmative does not have any limit, the negative will have a role in the debate. I'm pretty sympathetic to teams that argue it can be ran on the neg, so my threshold is high when answering switch-side.


T: Default to competing interpretations. Evidence quality is important and there should be intent to define. If not, explain to me the applicability of the evidence. I have a high threshold against plans. If you are running 5 off with links to the aff, I'll probably be thinking this is a waste of time. I much rather see a debate about whether the plan is good or bad than have to vote on some theoretical argument.

DA: My favorite strategy. Politics is my bread and butter. I won't vote on your theory blocks as to why it is not legitimate. Uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact should be in the 1NC. I place a high value on the link debate, so make sure it is covered.

CP: Should be ran with a disad and have a net benefit. I do lean aff on the perm when the negative doesn't prove mutual exclusivity. Condo is good but PICs are bad for debate except when the word is in the plan text. I will find it difficult to ignore the fact that the negative stole the entire aff except one minor thing. I dislike advantage counterplans but they should answered with something other than theory

K: My least favorite part of debate. The link needs to be specific to the aff and the alternative should solve. I don't think philosophical underpinnings of policies should be ignored, but zero interaction with the aff will be more than likely be a ballot for the affirmative.

Case: Please read impact defense at a minimum, but there should be lots of offense on the flow. I will pull the trigger on case.

Theory: Unless it's a serious theoretical contention, I'm probably going to vote for the most topically educated team. LD theory is something else. But yes, I understand the jargon, just a question of whether I'm willing to encourage the boredom associated with this type of debate.

Ashley Murphy Paradigm

5 rounds

Head coach at Unionville High School. I mostly judge policy but spend a significant amount of time in PF and some in LD.


· Don’t be sketchy (as debaters or as people)

The Long Version:

1. Framework/Narrative: If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume a cost/benefit analysis. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, warrant it (with cards). I appreciate debaters who are able to make clear strategic choices in the second half of the round. You’d do better to use the back half of the round to present a cohesive story with a few key answers on your opponents’ case rather than to fly through a blippy line by line.

2. Argumentation: Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate that I need to vote for you.

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink. Don’t try to oversimplify your response by telling me how your opponent literally didn’t respond to anything you said (unless that is actually true… then you should probably bring it up). I'll listen to cross but I don't flow it; if it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Weighing is key and the earlier you set it up, the better. Terminalize your impacts and spend your time on the analysis, not card dumping. Also, for the love of all that is holy, give a roadmap before you start/tell me where to place arguments as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

For PF: I don't require 1st summary to extend defense, but link/impact extensions should be in summary for me to evaluate them in final focus.

3. Evidence (PF): Having evidence ethics is a thing. I see debate as an educational activity and using sketch evidence/miscutting cards to prove an argument that is inherently untrue isn’t great for you or for the activity at large. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Rounds where someone calls for a card and you spend 15 minutes trying to find it only to realize it doesn’t say what you said it said hurt my soul.

4. Why yes, I would like to be added to the email chain (CX/LD): (Side note: As Gen Zers, I have faith in you to successfully hit "reply all" when continuing an email chain. Don't let me down.)

5. A Final Note: This is a debate round not a divorce court and your tone should match accordingly. Additionally, I appreciate wit and you will probably earn higher speaks on average if you are able to use humor effectively.

Michael Ning Paradigm

email: michaelning902 [at]

Michael Ning

Hunter '19 / Yale '23


I debated for four years at Hunter in New York, clearing twice at the TOC and reaching quarterfinals my senior year. I taught for three weeks this summer at NSD Flagship.


You do you! I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of most debate things, and very genuinely have no real predispositions or beliefs about argumentation (just don’t be offensive or exclusionary.) Most of these are not hard and fast rules, and honestly affect speaks more than anything else – I will vote for who I thought won the flow with least intervention.

general things:

1. Tech>truth: this means I have a very low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments, err towards protecting the 1AR and 2NR, and am loathe to reconstruct arguments or resolve issues on my own/without any form of debater instruction/comparison to go off of – weigh, and weigh early.

2. Absent any argument on the issue, I presume neg if there is literally zero offense in the round (which I don’t expect will happen often). For basically everything else I think it makes more sense to go off of what it seems debaters have implicitly agreed to in the round rather than my own defaults – for example, in an interp/counterinterp theory debate, I’ll probably default competing interps if a paradigm isn’t explicitly justified

3. I am generally uncomfortable considering out-of-round actions or violations and err against them if verifiability is questionable (disclosure w/ screenshots is ok)

4. I don’t flow off speech docs – this means I won’t miss stuff you extemp, but you have to be clear. I’ll look at them after the round if I need to

5. Sit or stand, use all of your cross-x, compiling a doc is prep – flashing isn’t

6. Don’t cheat obv

7. Care about your arguments, don’t be a bad person, and your speaks will be good

policy args:

I did policy debate my first two years of high school, so I’m very familiar with the ins and outs

Evidence quality and spin matter equally, and smart analytics can take out gaps in logic or bad cards

I think counterplan competition is cool and creative approaches will make me happy

Tend to think that risks of things exist (low risk is still non-zero)


I love philosophy and study a lot of it outside of debate, pretty familiar with most things

+1 to interesting, robust syllogisms and nuanced weighing and interaction, :/ to blips and preclusion spamming


sure! Will probably be at least tangentially familiar with your K, but that’s not an excuse to shortcut clear explanation

These can be the best debates or worst debates to judge – if you know your literature inside out (actually KNOW what it says and are able to explain it without just repeating buzzwords), contextualize your link arguments to the aff, and don’t abandon the line-by-line, you’ll be closer to the former

K affs need a good defense of what the aff does and how it solves

50/50 on K/K affs vs T/FW/theory and fiat/policymaking good


I get the strategic value (and sometimes necessity against abusive strategies). I enjoy topicality debates

These debates can get muddled very easily so weigh everywhere – between standards, internal links, voters, etc.

You gotta have warrants – “drop the debater bc a) deterrence b) skew” is not a full argument


No when they are 1) used as reasons oppression doesn’t matter, etc. 2) used against novice debaters who clearly don’t know what an “a priori” is, but otherwise sure

The more up-front you are about them the happier I’ll be

I appreciate debaters who can efficiently dispatch bad arguments – I tend to have a low bar for responses to things like the resolved apriori, but you still have to actually respond to them

Nelson Okunlola Paradigm

7 rounds

I still know nothing about the topic.

Earl Warren '17

Northwestern '21

Email: [Add me to the chain]

I did LD and Policy in high school and was a 2N at Northwestern

I haven't read the topic lit. Don't assume I know the acronyms or that I know what's "common sense" in the literature

I generally evaluate LD and Policy the same, correcting for obvious activity discrepancies. If something is specific to one event, ill label it as such.

Do what YOU want and do it well. If something isn't clear here, contact me or ask before the round


- Tech > Truth

- Add me to the chain. Prep time ends when the doc has been saved and is ready to be sent. If you "cease prep" and aren't ready to give your speech within 30 seconds, I'm starting the time again. Get better at compiling docs.

- Ill vote on pretty much anything that's warranted and impacted both generally and to my ballot. I don't give credence to one lit base over another. Reading something just because you think i'd like it is probably not the way to go but do you I guess.

- Debate can be whatever you want it to be, whether that's a game, a liberation strategy, or an activity you do just cause.

- Decision Calculus = "who's winning framing" "who's winning offense under that framing"

- Absent framing I'll presume util=trutil

- Don't assume I've read your lit

- I'll call for evidence judiciously

[LD] Decision calculus: Whats the highest "layer"? I'll default theoretical positions unless otherwise contested (it should be). What's the winning framework, whether its a theory voter, ROB/ROJ, standard and then its pretty much offense defense from there. Of course as is everything, this isn't set in stone. If your strategy is contingent upon a different evaluative mechanism then make that clear.

Evidence Ethics

- Don't do it, if you do its an L0

- If you make a false accusation, its an L0

- I think brackets are only germane for questionable language, given that the word or phrase you change is not omitted from the text.


- Speed is chill but keep in mind I've never been the best at flowing

- Do not start at full speed, 8/10 times I'll miss the first 3 words

- ******Slow down considerably on tags/texts/analytics. You can speed through anything else

- Some speeds are just incomprehensible for me to flow so I will yell slow and/or clear. I won't dock speaks if you're too fast for me because that's not your fault, but if you are unclear it is my jurisdiction to dock speaks.

- The longer you take to adapt the angrier I get and that affects speaks

[LD] Pref shortcuts

K: 1

"LARP": 1

Theory: 2-3

Framework/Phil: 3

Tricks: 4

[LD] Framework

- Tell me how to evaluate the round. Absent framing, I'll assume util is true and adjudicate accordingly. You don't want me to do that.

- I'm not an analytic/dense phil guy. If this is what you do thats fine just please don't assume I've read your lit.


- CP theory is fair game

- Competition should be clear


- Impact framing and weighing is important and the lack thereof make these debates hard to evaluate


- I need to know what your alt and my ballot means/does

- Don't assume I've read your lit

- Make framing arguments, I don't like intervening

- Go all out, but warrant your arguments/practices

Kritikal Affs/Performance/Micropolitical/T - Resolution

- Warrant and defend your practice/speech act/performance

- Been on both sides of this debate, enjoy both sides of this debate. I'm just as willing to vote on T as I am to vote aff in these debates

- The negative could usually benefit from saying something about the case proper in these debates


- Do it well

- I need to hear your interpretation

- Slow down on the standard/impact names (Limits, Ground etc)

- Ngl I enjoy a good topicality debate

[LD] this isn't policy and there are no stock issues. T is probably not an intrinsic affirmative burden. You probably need a voter.


- I would much rather evaluate substance but theory is fair game. However, just like every other argument, the more bullshit it is, the lower my threshold for responses are but at the same time I won't make those responses for you

- Slow down on the interpretation and the standard/impact names (Predictability, Time Skew etc)

- Reasonability is very underutilized and can be compelling but deploy it effectively

[LD] If theory is your pre-meditated A strat, don't pref me. No one likes frivolous theory, it will make me sad and you'll be sad when you see your speaks

[LD] I shouldn't have to default on any theory paradigms, it's your job to have that debate but without contestation, I'll default competing interpretations and no RVI's. All this means is that if these aren't contested in the round, that's how i'm evaluating theory.

[LD] Theory does not have to be in "shell" format

[LD] Skep

- It's an argument. It can be worthwhile if read well, therefore if you plan on reading this do it well and defend your practice.

- 1 off skep probably won't get you too far but I'll evaluate it I guess

[LD] Tricks

- If your A-strat are tricks then I'm not the judge for you. I honestly don't really know how most of the shits function so you probably dont want me judging you anyways

- Ill still evaluate it, just err on the side of explanation of the utility of your argument.

Speaker points

- This changes depending on the caliber of the tournament

- I see speaks as a tiebreaker for seeding and I evaluate it accordingly

- General criteria: should you clear? strategy, in round persona, "are you good or bad at debate"

- Speech impediments won't factor into my evaluation of speaks

- I'll reward innovation by giving more speaks to debaters that teach me something new

- 29.6-30: You can win this tournament or be in late elims

- 29-29.5: Better than the majority of the pool

- 28-29: You'll probably clear

- 27-28: You'll probably not clear

- 26-27: Lots of room for improvement

- < 26: .........


- Content warnings are valuable

- Lay debate is chill, but I prefer faster debates over slower ones.

PF Paradigms Update 3/27 for TOC

- Everything in the Policy/LD section generally apply, I suggest reading that especially the TLDR/General section

- I prefer faster debates over slower ones

- The only hard and fast/objective rules that constrain me are those of the tournaments/whatever rule guidelines said the tournament is following. Everything else is up for debate (i.e theoretical arguments)

- I don't care what you read/how you read it (see note above)

- Don't assume I've read the topic lit

- I'm fine with "progressive" style arguments but if your opponents ask for clarification you better do some explaining.

Vasavi Pasumarti Paradigm

4 rounds

Lay parent judge.

Kalina Pierga Paradigm

5 rounds

Email for questions/clarifications and chains:

Debate background: I debated for Barrington for 3 years, 2 on the nat circuit. I ran mostly fem/queer theory and other similar K stuff. I'm super familiar with traditional LD-- that's what my school did most. I'm currently starting my freshman year at NYU, and am debating on the policy team.

My prefs are identity Ks, policy, high theory, framework, and theory/tricks, in that order.


If for any reason you feel unable to continue the round, feel free to stop time and let me know. This is ~supposed~ to be a fun learning experience for every debater–– I understand how bad it can get. In the case that you feel unsafe, uncomfortable, or otherwise unable to continue, don't hesitate to stop round. No pressure.

Trigger warnings please! Also, do not misgender your opponent. If this continues past one clarification, I'm docking speaks and we're having a serious discussion after round. See more info below on bigotry in round.

Be nice. Don't be an asshole.

Don't shake my hand.

This applies to everything I'm about to elaborate on, so if you read nothing else, read this: I really think the most valuable skill you can learn from debate is the art of synthesis. Being able to explain, extrapolate, and impact your arguments is the most important thing to me as a judge for LD rounds. If you do nothing else in round, make an effort to give me good analysis and weighing of your args.

Please no frivolous theory !! I find it to be a frustrating strategy and ultimately a dilution of the discussion. My threshold for adequate responses to theory is extremely low, especially in the context of argument weighing/analysis of topical-layer arg dynamics. That said, I'm quickest to vote off reasonability. Tricks are even worse. Employ both of those in front of me at your own risk.

If there is abuse going on in round, don't hesitate to run theory. As long as it fulfills its original intended function in round, I'm cool with it. (Key word: abuse. As in something other than "idk how to answer this.")

Feel free to run any and all Ks, as long as you actually understand with you're reading. These are probably my favorite arguments to listen to. (That being said, I remain neutral in what swings my ballot––in other words, just because you read a K doesn't mean my ballot is signed.) When wading through K territory, be sure you're ready to explain, analyze, and justify the args you make. Also, make it clear to me exactly how my ballot functions with respect to your position.

Send all speech docs in the email chain, but esp your high theory or framework-heavy stuff. For the latter, additionally, be ready to actually give good warrants on the nuances of your framework. I'm not well-versed in it, so spell it out.

Policy args are always fun in LD. The above stuff on good argumentation still applies.

High theory stuff: explain in simple terms. Make sure it makes sense, particularly in the context of the dynamics of the round. Weighing and explanation, again, are key on this.

I won't write down new-in-the-2 args. Don't waste your time.

Understanding spreading without a speech doc is difficult for me. Keep that in mind as you go through rebuttals and read the constructive. I'll yell clear if it's really bad.

Misgendering and slurs are voting issues and will tank your speaks. No bigoted args and discourse.

"Decorum" standards low––swear, perform, get passionate about what you're talking about.

Asking questions during the RFD is a great idea, but continuing the debate after time stops is not.

If you have any questions regarding any of the above, let me know before round. I'm happy to answer any other questions/concerns after round as well :)

Raffi Piliero Paradigm

1 rounds

Harrison High School 2017
Georgetown University 2021

Head coach of Debatedrills (Conflict policy + roster here

I'm a junior currently debating at Georgetown - I've always been a 2N.

You do you, debate however you want and I'll try my best to evaluate it -- my strongest individual preference is to decide debates technically/on the line by line, and the rest of this is just intended to illustrate what will matter at the margins. With a few exceptions I outline below, I'm totally willing to vote for you even if you think your argument is something I might think is "bad" or dissimilar to how I debate(d).

The "rules":

--I'll evaluate and vote for any argument, except if that argument is death good, or about someone's personal life/judge preferences

--A two team debate will take place, speech times are set, I'll flow one person per speech, and audience participation is forbidden

--Clipping/ethics challenges end the debate

General proclivities:

--I can flow any speed, but you need to be comprehensible - I should be able to understand every word you say, including card texts. I won't vote on arguments if I don't understand them, and I won't follow along/flow the doc. I'm probably likelier than some to hold the line and refuse to vote on something that I just didn't have flowed in the first speech.

--Both spin and evidence quality matter, (and I'll read a lot of evidence after the debate)

--You cannot "insert" rehiglighting

--Judge instruction is under-utilized -- the final rebuttals need to set up how I should evaluate arguments

--If my own debate experience means anything for prefs, I've always been more "policy"/read a plan, but frequently went for the K in high school/still do on occasion and have enjoyed researching/coaching K arguments, so you should feel fine doing whatever you want

Short Pref Guide:

--I think about/research policy stuff very extensively, and I'm more willing than most to happily sort through a stack of cards in a techy CP/DA debate

--I'll have average to above average topic knowledge and will be in the weeds with you on most acronyms/core positions

--I do a fair amount of (identity) K work and my familiarity with your literature will likely be above average, so I won't need hand-holding on basic terminology, but I will need an explanation of what your theory of power is/what the alt looks like, and comparative explanations of those in the context of the Aff

--I do very little research on anything post-modernism/weird - I will need plenty of hand-holding if the debate is about the dead French guys

Specific Arguments:

1] Ks: Links ideally are about the plan, but if not, you should invest heavily in FW and make clear why I should care about the Aff's assumptions/scholarship. Both sides typically should spend more time outlining an ethical frame for what impacts I should prioritize (i.e., svio>util) -- this sort of substantive framework debating on both sides is more persuasive than sweeping theoretical arguments that say the Aff can't be weighed/the neg doesn't get their K. Most of my decisions come down to FW/impact calculus -- I start by asking a) Whether the Aff's assumptions come prior and b) What impacts I should prioritize. Links should be to the Aff itself, not FYIs about the status quo or "the state". I vote for the K a lot, either due to technical drops or because the Aff read a bunch of generic arguments instead of answering the neg's theory or defending the Aff

Also, don't be afraid to impact turn everything if the Aff was build to go right instead of trying to put a square peg into a round hole with a perm 2AR.

2] K Affs: I have a pretty even voting record here. The neg should probably just go for T, but you can feel very comfortable that I'll hold the line for you if the Aff doesn't spike a DA/K in the 2AC and tries to after. I'd prefer to hear impacts like fairness/clash/idea-testing, and think those are more strategic ways to insulate T from 1AC offense/impact turns, but I'm down for legal engagement/movements-esque stuff if the neg is willing to robustly defend the efficacy of those and their implications as political strategies. The Aff should have a counterinterp that defends + counter defines words in the resolutions and impact turns/play defenses to the other parts rather than just impact turning everything

3] Theory: I'll evaluate it very technically -- I'm a 2N at heart and lean neg on most theory, but like everything else, form > content and I'll vote on theory if it's won. Numerical limits on conditionality seem arbitrary -- if conditionality is good, it's probably infinite. Winning conditionality bad/other Aff theory arguments in LD is much easier than in policy because of how skewed the 1AR already is -- that being said, I really don't want to judge absurd LD theory arguments like font size theory/can't make more than 1 argument/etc.

4] CPs: I'm gonna kick it for the neg if left to my own devices. Huge, huge fan of advantage counterplans/rehighlighting Aff cards/fiatting the Aff's internal links. CPs that compete off of anything in the plan are fair game -- less convinced about competition based on immediacy/certainty, or positional competition. I'm fairly neg on the legitimacy of pretty much all CPs -- I prefer to exclude questionable CPs through competition questions, not theory. Intrinsicness is interesting and I'm beginning to think limited uses can be legitimate and would be down to hear a debate on this.

5] DAs: Not much to say here -- I care more about the link than uniqueness, turns case arguments are nice, and do plenty of impact calculus. As much as I love politics, it lately has been terrible and I won't pretend your cards are better than they are just because we all miss the golden days of the Midterms DA

6] Case Debate: It's awesome. Smart analytics, logical presses, and recutting 1AC evidence is preferable to just spamming cards on every portion of the advantage but if you can do both I won't complain. Impact defense is overrated/usually a waste of time, especially when it's one of those advantages that shotguns 10 impacts but has just 1 terrible internal link to them all. I love impact turn debates too. If you give a block that's pretty much just the case and do it competently I cannot imagine giving you less than a 29

7] Philosophy (in LD): It's cool, but I often dislike the way it's deployed in debate -- I'll be happier if you read evidence (as opposed to just making tons of unwarranted analytic assertions) and don't bastardize philosophy -- if you debate framework substantively, I'm fine for you. I view ethical frameworks as weighing arguments, and not entirely preclusive -- "freedom violations are absolute" and "extinction first" aren't silver bullets to avoid answering the other team's positions in entirety.

Pet Peeves:

--Decision times are short, and I don't want to have to rush through evaluating your debate - I love small talk as much as anyone, but extensive dead time between speeches for bathroom breaks, setting stuff up, chit-chat, and more need to end

--Relatedly, please take your bathroom breaks before the round, and you certainly cannot take one right before your final rebuttal

--Evidence quality usually sucks - please don't read abysmally unqualified sources/cards from debate coaches/etc. - these will be treated as analytics

--I do want a card doc after the round ends, but please only include stuff that was actually extended/debated in final rebuttals


--They'll be higher if you sound good, make good arguments and strategic choices, are flexible as opposed to being path dependent, and generally debate impressively

--I average around a 28.5 and speaks cluster around the 28-29 range -- above a 29.5 or below a 27.5 are far less common. You won't get below a 27 unless you said something offensive or didn't give speeches

Feel free to email me with any questions. And have fun too -- debate's fun!

Bill Prater Paradigm

5 rounds

I have been a coach for 20 years and I have judged it all so I am pretty open to any time of arguments. To me there are simply a couple of do not do's when it comes to LD.

1. This is a philosophical debate. I don't want this to be a clash of evidence. There should be evidence to back up your claim but it should not be intensive.

2. Don't be condescending in your cross ex. Acting like you don't care about the answer the other person gave or interrupting them before they get the answer out is not okay. If you want them to give shorter answers then ask a more succinct question.

3. Progressive debate has its limits. There is nothing to solve here. The AFF shouldn't have a plan, etc. I don't want to watch 1-person policy. Just because you have a VP and a VC doesn't mean you are doing LD debate.

4. Finally this is debate so there needs to be clash and analysis the whole way out. Listen to what your opponent is arguing and debate them!

Also, I am creating this paradigm for you so don't ask me about other items before the round. Everything else is fair game as long as it is done well! I don't care if you debate classic or progressive. Address the resolution and give me a philosophical reason for your claims. Also, I do not disclose.

Good luck!

Tracy Pridgen Paradigm

6 rounds

I'm a lay judge, so I prefer lay cases, no spreading, and a clear articulation of all arguments. Don't assume I have background knowledge on what you're running, I'd rather you explain arguments in-round. If I can't understand you I'll say 'clear' and expect you to slow down. Please read topical cases. Put me on the email chain:

Lee Quinn Paradigm

5 rounds

Assistant Director of Debate at Samford University (AL).

Head Coach at Altamont (AL). Please contact me about debate questions or interest in college debate at

I’m not the smartest human. You’re maybe smarter than me. Please do not assume I know anything you are talking about. And I would honestly love to learn some new things in a debate. Please teach me with evidence from world renowned experts.


American Policy Debate is the pinnacle of global education. I love watching the nerdiest nerds duke it out in an intense policy debate. Policy debate is inherently privileged and elitist. As a result, I expect elite. I want to listen to the biggest nerds in the world.

Debate is a game we play on the weekend with friends. Please be kind and respectful. And smile!

Debate is the key to success in life. If you can be good at debate, you can be successful in your career.

Please put me on the email thread. Debaters are guilty until proven innocent of clipping cards. I follow along in speech docs. I believe it is judges job to police clipping and it is unfair to make debaters alone check it.

Evidence and research skills are the foundation of debate. Debaters are pretty stupid. No personal offense, but I really don’t care what someone without a Bachelor Degree thinks, more or less a High School Diploma. The team that makes the most arguments backed by the Brookings Institute likely will win my ballot.

Debate is a public speaking activity. Please be loud, clear, make eye contact, have good posture, and do not speak with your hands. I can give great speaker points to debaters that follow these rules. Debate is not yelling at a laptop.

Truth over tech. You win a debate round before it starts. Good execution with informed arguments is the defintion of debate. If the card are really spicy, you’ll get above a 29 easy.

Process/ Conditions CPs are the devil. I don’t know when these became ok, but I’m persuaded that a generic/predictable aff posted on the wiki can win a theory debate against process/ conditions CPs. You just need an interpretation about a world of debate that excludes these CP’s. This is especially true with any Con Con CP. The 18th Century called and want their CP back. Con Con is trash.

New Affs. I think at most 4 conditional worlds with process/conditions CP’s are permissive. Anymore and I think you risk losing on theory.

Did I mention I love the Brookings Institute? (Shout out Grandma Yellen).

K debate is a little stupid. Krtikal literature is incredible and very important to being ethical. But they are bastardized in debate for polemic positions. Saying universal healthcare or a carbon tax is a bad idea because [inset K] is problematic to me and makes perfect the enemy of the good. And “Burn it Down” alts sounds like Steven Bannons and the Tea Party’s dream. I’m sure Exxon Mobile would love to burn down the EPA.

PS- Please do not read global warming good. Global warming is real and will kill us all. And I am particularly persuaded by the argument that introducing these arguments in debate is unethical for spreading propaganda and should be deterred by rejecting the team.


LD/PF Paradigm

I am largely engaged with college policy debate levels of debate. I will flow every word you say. Speed is a weapon in debate. LD is often one big K debate but I err towards util/consequentialism FW's. I can be persuaded pre-fiat impacts are extra-topical and can be rejected as such (likely not a reason to reject the team).

PF. I will reward teams that prioritize evidence and tech in PF debates. PF is currently in an existential crisis regarding paraphrasing and the extent evidence is used. I would love for a PF team to step-up to the plate and read/execute on high quality evidence.

Samita Rahaman Paradigm

6 rounds

Hi! I debated LD for 4 years at Bronx Science and graduated in 2018; however, I am very out of the loop with debate and you should rank me with caution since I was never an expert at debate.

2019 Edit: It's been an even longer time since I've been in debate. I don't really care about what you want to run as long as it's topical, not offensive/immature/exclusive to others. Everything below pretty much still applies though.

Kritiks: I enjoyed running these the most when I debated varsity, but don’t expect me to understand any heavy lit or high theory without a proper explanation. I have a tendency to misunderstand arguments so if I am your judge please make sure you’ve saved some time just to provide a brief but proper explanation of your case. I’m fine with nontopical ACs, but try to have some form of engagement with the other debater. I’d prefer any nontopical cases to be disclosed before the round so that both debaters can actually have a discussion in round.

LARP: I’m cool with them, it would be nice to see plans without util frameworks but anything works tbh. I’d prefer to see actual impact scenarios that are more likely to happen rather than extinction, but I’ll still evaluate impacts with the same weight given the other debater does not respond to them.

Framework: I don’t know if people still engage in framework debate, but I think these can get really interesting at times, so go for it if you want to.

Theory/T: I never really liked these when I was a debater, but if you have a funny shell that you want to run, or you have good reason to run a shell, go ahead. I default to competing interps, drop the argument on theory and drop the debater on T. I won’t like it if you chose to run this stuff in hopes to prevent or exclude other arguments.


1. I couldn’t care less if you sit or stand

2. I don’t think flashing counts as prep time...just don't take too long

3. Disclosure would be nice...disclosure theory would not be nice. Don't be that person.

4. Yes, I’ll yell clear if neccessary don't worry

5. Please clearly extend your stuff, if it's not explicit I won't catch it.

6. I have hearing issues so please be loud

7. Spreading - I’m fine with you doing so, but if you will then please start off slow and SLOWLY build up the pace.

If you have any questions you can email me at or just ask me before the round begins.

Kiran Ramineni Paradigm

7 rounds

Lay traditional parent judge: I'm not familiar with progressive debate at all, so I would prefer no spreading, theory, K, etc.

Christopher Randall Paradigm

7 rounds

Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.

Argument specifics

T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen. I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.

DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly

CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit

K- I am familiar with most of the k literature

CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at

In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).

First let me explain how to get a Hot L:

So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L


Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation is dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean

Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples

I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc

I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating

Shannon Rodgers Paradigm

7 rounds

Hi! my name is Shannon Rodgers and I was an LD debater for 3 years at Oakland Catholic in Pittsburgh, which was a relatively traditional circuit so I typically tend to favor rounds that lean more traditional. Having said that, I am ok with a progressive round if it is keeping with the "theme" of the rest of the tournament and you and your opponent both agree to a progressive round. Additionally I will permit you to spread however you must share your constructive/cards/etc. with me via email, flash, or shared document prior to the start of the round if you choose to spread.

Another little side note: I coached novices all of last year so my feedback tends to be less of my opinions on the round and more technical and strategical stuff I notice throughout the round.

How to win in my rounds:

~Make the round easy for me to follow--if you and your partner create a sloppy round it is impossible for me to come up with a clear verdict because I will be confused as to what I just witnessed.
Avoid a sloppy round by providing a road map, signposting, working thru the flow in order, and in general making it clear
to me which of your opponents arguments you are addressing.

~I love a good value debate and I will weigh all arguments from both sides under the winning value structure so make sure you don't disregard the value structure. Additionally, if you don't understand your opponents value structure, use cross-ex to figure it out; if I am telling you a value debate is important in this round do not spend 3 minutes trying to trap your opponent during cross instead of figuring out their understanding and usage of their value structure!
I prefer value structures that are more exciting than morality/justice however I will not drop you for using
morality/justice; but if you do have an obscure value structure that you have been dying to try out, I'd love to hear it.

~If you gain substantial offense in cross-ex and you want me to weigh it in the round, you must bring it up in the speech immediately following cross because I will not be flowing cross

~Dropped arguments will only effect the decision if your opponent brings up the dropped argument and makes it evident to me why that argument was important both as a claim and as an impact

~I care about voting issues (voters)--be confident and tell me why you won, especially if you think you won on a point that was not heavily debated throughout the round

~I will be voting off of the flow. Make this easy for me--if you're extending an argument tell me, I will not do this work for you. Also, do not respond to an opponent's argument saying that your argument is simply better because this says to me as a judge "crap, my opponent is right and I have nothing to say in response to this point"

~I reserve the right to call for any evidence during the round or at the end if their is a disagreement over the validity of a card. If this happens, I will pause time and review the evidence, however I would really prefer if you did not make me do this!

Ways to lose in my rounds:

~Being a jerk--this pretty much goes without saying but if in anyway you are purposefully a jerk in a round (examples: spreading and running a K on a novice, intentionally misgendering your opponent, being blatantly racist, homophobic, islamophobic, xenophobic, etc., or if you're a guy, mansplaining). You get the point, I want to see a nice, clean round that is based in merit and education, not on one person yelling or personally attacking their opponent

Side note:

~Some cases will contain sensitive subject matter. If you think your case may need a trigger warning, it probably does and if you are unsure, please ask me personally prior to the round. If there is a chance your case does contain sensitive subject matter, it is your responsibility to have a back-up case or at least a "PG" version of your case in the event that you opponent is uncomfortable with your initial case.

~More importantly than anything I just said, have fun! And if you have any questions after the round, please feel free to ask me in the cafeteria afterwards or email me; I will typically keep my flows!

Osmane Sanogo Paradigm

5 rounds

yo whats up? I’m Osmane and I debated at Newark Science for 4 years. I was pretty average for a debater, never really too high level and barely won anything so take that in to account when preffing me.

Bring me Krispy Creme Donuts and i'll boost your speaker points by 0.2

GO SLOWER THAN NORMAL! I haven't judged in a solid minute and know only surface layer knowledge about this topic. I also have trouble hearing in general sometimes, so clarity is really important in front of me. I'll say clear twice before i start deducting speaks instead of saying clear.

Osmane's Cheat Sheet:

1 - Traditional Debate (Morals, not phil, like old school LD debate)

2 - Identity-related kritiks (fair warning: I'm not too good with highly abstract interpretations of identity),

3 - Counterplans, Disadvantages, Topicality

4 - Theory

Wildcard: Untopical Affirmatives - The more feasible/material it is to me, the more receptive it'll be to me. An untopical aff to use rhetoric in debate rounds to spread positivism is probably more receptive than an aff about throwing trash around as a symbolic way of fighting back against capitalism through ecological BURST!

I'm a first year, so DON'T assume that my judging will reflect the way I debated. I'm a wild card and you should pref me as such.

My email for speech docs is

My influences in debate have been Chris Randall, Jonathan Alston, Darius White, Elijah Smith, and Devane Murphy.

Note: Most of those influences are HIGHLY material people who take abstract things to their logical ends (i said most of them.). This means a material K that I can see logically working is better than some convoluted junk I can't understand. Use more common talk with me than debate jargon, I barely ever understood it.


-Newark Science

Basic things:

don't say racist, sexist, or messed up things like Death is good.

I enjoy a slower delivery to spread where I hear emphasis and a more persuasive approach to vocalizing your arguments. I'll award higher speaks if you speak as if you were an impassioned speaker.


I read these most of my junior and senior year. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. I do not want to see K’s messed up so I have a pretty high threshold for K’s. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as anti blackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. I'm very material in alternative explanations, so if you don't explain the alternatives . . let's just say winning your K will be harder. If your going to be running some sort of post-modernism, I HAVE ALMOST NEVER understood the abstract way people run it, so run it 'materially' if possible. I might not be the best for it but I'd rather you go for POMO that your good at then messing up hard on some identity-based K


wasn't ever really my thing, but go for it. I'm not too versed on CP theory.


ha. HA. HA! HA! no.

Just like people think that I love K’s because I debated for Newark, people think I hate theory which is pretty damn right. I hate frivolous theory and the rigid technicality based formatting of theory. If it's legitimate and I'm like "yeah naw that opponent did some abusive junk" i'll consider it though. I rather you make it an in-round disad as opposed to a separate theoretical argument. I default Education > Fairness, Reasonability and drop the argument.


Their fine. I feel like people love to read these crazy scenarios in order to magnify the impact. More power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense.


eh. neutral bout them. I rather a plan than a super abstract aff.


I don't like voting on this because everyone has their own idea of how it works. This is mine:

Neg has presumption until they read some sort of alternative (via k, cp, or whatever.) then it shifts to aff.


you drop it you lose.

Speaker points

Like I said, I really like passionate speakers. That'll boost up your points for sure.

Kathleen Scoggin Paradigm

3 rounds

[Last updated July 2019]

Please put me on the email chain: (she/her/hers)

TLDR: I’ll vote on anything as long as it is not morally reprehensible and you tell me why it matters. Flashing isn’t prep unless it gets unreasonable, time yourselves, you can sit or stand I really don’t care, give trigger warnings for topics such as sexual assault, suicide, self-harm or death good and ask and use your opponents pronouns - I will assume they/them unless told otherwise. Anything else feel free to ask me questions before the round.

If you need to leave the round for any mental health/safety whatever reason just message me or knock on the table and you can go get water or do whatever you need do. Debate safety is important and I will do what I can do to preserve it.

About me:

Debated for 4 years for Edina High School, 1.5 of them on the circuit. I am well versed in policy args and critical lit such as fem/queer killjoy, fem IR, Kristeva, disability studies, queer theory and set col.


1. Too many debaters forget that I need a claim warrant and impact to vote on an argument.

2. Extremely long overviews annoy me, just signpost and extend on case after a short overview. I don’t like doing work on embedded clash if I don’t have to.

3. Please go a little bit slower in front of me - long analytic dumps are hard for me to flow and I can only type so fast.

Long version if you really want this:


· Great, love it.

· Please win and warrant a link.

· Tell me why that matters.

K affs/Performance:

· Again, love these.

· Performance can be very good and powerful.


· Good, I understand this well and enjoy high level policy style rounds.

· Warrant the impact story/link chain.

· Competition for CPs needs to be explained.


· Slow on analytic dumps.

· Err towards over explanation.

· Read a little bit of this in HS but assume I know nothing about what you are talking about.


· I shouldn’t have to default to my own paradigm issues but if I do: no RVIs, reasonability and drop the argument.

· I have a high threshold for friv theory, substance is good.

· Warrant the abuse story.

· Slow down on this part of the debate specifically interps.


· I like this debate when it is done well, I read this a good amount my senior year.

· If you are hitting a K aff, give me clear layering because this can get very messy very fast.

· You need to warrant why T functions at a higher layer.


· Not a fan - I’ll vote on it if I have to but I think they are probably bad for debate and have a high threshold when evaluating them.

· All of this being said, if you are going to commit to a trick please warrant it and tell me why I should vote on it.

Stephen Scopa Paradigm

7 rounds


I debated at Pines Charter on both the national and local circuit and went to TOC my senior year.

General: I am very much a tech > truth person who will vote for any argument you make no matter how seemingly ridiculous or bizarre, all I need is a warrant. I also have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. My goal is to evaluate rounds with as little intervention as possible- that being said I was a debater too and understand when students disagree with my decision so feel free to grill me on the condition you aren’t hostile about it.

- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read in the round.

- I am not exactly the best at flowing, so when you are making analytic arguments you should label them and sign post as clear as possible. Also maybe take half a second after author names.

- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.

- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC- making an argument in the 2n that says something like “this was just a dumb blippy argument” is not sufficient. This goes for 2ar responses to NC arguments as well.

- Believe it or not, I will vote on disclosure theory. I would however, strongly advise against this strategy because I have an extremely low threshold for responses because I absolutely hate the argument. Honestly if you’re reading disclosure in front of me you should reevaluate your life because I can guarantee there’s a more strategic option.

- Don’t need to flash analytics to your opponent but I would like them

-Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such. This is becoming slightly annoying L

Theory: Go for it- this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced. I don’t “gut check” frivolous shells but obviously if you are winning reasonability then I will evaluate through whatever your brightline is. If neither debater makes arguments I default to the following:

- Drop the arg on theory, drop the debater on T

- Competing interps

- Norms creation model

- No RVI

- Fairness is a voter

Also, for counter inteprs “converse of the interp” is not sufficient, if your opponent says “idk what the converse is so I can’t be held to the norm” I will buy that argument, just actually come up with a counter interp.

Tricks: This is my favorite style of debate and I love a clever trick or a priori but that doesn’t mean I will instantly vote for you if you read them without winning why they are relevant (aka you are winning truth testing). The more clever your arguments are, the higher your speaks will be. Despite my love for them, I usually have a low threshold for responses since the arguments are usually fairly weak. If you obviously just included an a priori because I am judging you and don’t extend a conceded one, your speaks will probably suffer. I also prefer you be more up front with them in CX if your opponent catches them, I have a lot more respect for people who are straight up about their sketchiness. If you are not the best at answering these arguments I wouldn’t worry too much, I will be more than happy to disregard them if you are winning a role of the ballot that excludes them or a shell that indicts them. Also, calling something a trick doesn’t mean anything to me -- tell me what the implication of the argument is.

Ks: I really enjoy a good K debate. Despite my reputation, I read Ks quite often because not all judges were good for my preferred style, so I know quite a bit of K literature and how interactions work. The one caveat is that I won’t vote for arguments I just cannot understand at all (Shout out to Grant Brown<3). Otherwise I am totally down to judge a K debate. I have read Deleuze, Butler, Wilderson, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Edelman, etc in rounds before so I definitely think Ks like these are interesting and strategic. I occasionally enjoy judging these debates the most because of how interesting and unique the arguments are. However, I cannot stand unwarranted “this is just another link” arguments, you need to explain or give a warrant as to why what you say is a link actually is one. I also am not a huge fan of identity K's, and I may vote on some responses you disagree with, just as a fair warning. Additionally, I prefer to see line by line debate, and it seems as though a lot of Ks begin/consist of long overviews without much specific reference to arguments in previous speeches, which can be difficult to flow, so you may want to consider this when going for the K in the 2n/1ar/2ar. Ultimately if this is your favorite/ best style, you should go for it.

Larp: I was never a larper, never judged a high level larp round, and am probably not qualified to judge a really good DA v Util AC debate. I don’t particularly enjoy these debates, and you most likely will not enjoy me judging you but I will do my best to evaluate the round. If you can’t defend util against a dump or well justified framework you shouldn’t pref me, because “the aff is a good idea” will not get my ballot. (Update: For some reason people still stand up and larp and read disads in front of me so PLS don’t pref me or change up the strat, trust me it is best for both of us).

Fwk: I enjoy a good framework debate, and it is probably my favorite thing to judge, but it can become fairly difficult to follow at times. As long as you clearly label arguments and make sure to weigh I feel very comfortable evaluating these rounds. However, these debates can often become muddled and devolve into a chicken and egg debate, which makes it near impossible to resolve so be careful of that. My major has given me a new passion for interesting frameworks so I would love to hear whatever unique positions you got.

Speaks: I am generally high in my speaker point assignments for some reason, apparently I am pretty easy to impress. I average probably a 28.8. I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy- I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. I am also somewhat expressive when I think about how arguments interact so don’t mind my face. Also, if I can tell your 2n. is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.

How do I get a 30?

I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following

1) A trick I haven’t heard before

2) A good analytic PIC

3) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting

4) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before

5) Execute Skep really well/ trigger skep

Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time- win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes.

Noel Selegzi Paradigm

1 rounds

I like debates to focus squarely on the resolution. I prefer that debates on the theory and practice of debate take place in people's spare time. I also have little patience in debates for the word normally in spelled "critique" in English. That said, I judge debates based not on my preferences but rather on what debaters say in the round, and if two sides want me to decide a debate based on arguments focused on some issue unrelated to the topic, I will do so. I prefer that debaters speak at the pace of a normal conversation, though I realize for many debaters today that's, unfortunately, become anathema. I will let you know verbally or by putting down my pen and staring at you with a quizzical look if I am unable to follow you. I prefer ordinary language to debate jargon, and you should not assume that my understanding of the debate jargon you're using matches yours. I will rarely ask to see a piece of evidence since I believe it's up to the debaters to argue during the debate over the relative merits of the evidence they present. If I do ask to see evidence, I expect it to be readily available and for the context from which it was drawn easily apparant.

Martin Sigalow Paradigm

7 rounds

Email chain:

I'm out of debate and unwise to pref!

Conflicts: Lake Highland.

  1. No new arguments or arguments that are the exact opposites of a previously made argument.
  2. Severely mislabeling arguments is extremely bad.
  3. No arguments contingent on the identity of the other debater will be evaluated.
  4. I will not evaluate the debate at any point before its end.
  5. I default to offense-defense, competing interps, durable fiat, perms test competition, and that the aff defends implementation.

SunHee Simon Paradigm

7 rounds

Hey there!

Credentials that people seem to care about: senior (BA + MA candidate) at Stanford, Director of LD at the Victory Briefs Institute, did LD, policy, and worlds schools debate in high school, won/got to late elims in all of those events, double qualled to TOC in LD and Policy. Did well my freshman year in college in CX but didn't pursue it much after that. Now I coach and judge a bunch.

LD + Policy

Literally read whatever you want. If I don't like what you've read, I'll dock your speaks but I won't really intervene in the debate. Don't be sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, or a classist jerk in the round. Don't make arguments that can translate to marginalized folks not mattering (this will cloud my judgement and make me upset). Otherwise have fun and enjoy the activity for the 45 mins to an hour we're spending together :) More info on specific things below:

Stock/Traditional Arguments

Makes sense.


I get this.


I understand this.


I also understand this.


I understand this too.

I don't default to anything necessarily however I do know my experiences and understandings of debate were shaped by me coming from a low income school that specialized in traditional and critical debate. I've been around as a student and a coach (I think) long enough to know my defaults are subject to change and its the debaters' job to make it clear why theory comes first or case can be weighed against the K or RVIs are good or the K can be leveraged against theory. I learn so much from you all every time I judge. Teach me. Lead me to the ballot. This is a collaborative space so even if I have the power of the ballot, I still need you to tell me things. Otherwise, you might get a decision that was outside of your control and that's never fun :(

I will be able to evaluate whatever debate you want to have. Your job is to make signing my ballot easy. This usually happens when you debate the style you are best at instead of reading K arguments in front of me because you heard I'm a K judge.

On that note, let it be known that if you're white and/or a non-black POC reading afropessimism or black nihilism, you won't get higher than a 28.5 from me. The more it sounds like you did this specifically for me and don't know the literature, the lower your speaks will go. If you win the argument, I will give you the round though so either a) go for it if this is something you actually care about and know you know it well or b) let it go and surprise me in other ways. If you have a problem with this, I'd love to hear your reasons why but it probably won't change my mind. I can also refer other authors you can read to the best of my ability if I'm up to it that day.

Last thing, please make sure I can understand you! I understand spreading but some of y'all think judges are robots. I don't look at speech docs during the round (and try not to after the round unless I really need to) so keep that in mind when you spread. Pay attention to see if I'm flowing. I'll make sure to say clear if I can't understand you. I'll appreciate it a lot if you keep this in mind and boost your speaks :)


Honestly, the same things above apply. I never did PF so I'll do my best to adjudicate by flowing and coming to the best decision laid out for me by you, the debaters.


So excited to judge your round, learn from you, and help you learn through my decisions. Ask any questions before round if you need me to clarify something. I'm very honest if I didn't understand something so don't be taken aback by that in an RFD. Just do your best, defend things you have fun defending and enjoy :)

Melanie Spiegelman Paradigm

3 rounds

I am a parent judge but I have judged natcircuit tournaments into out rounds in PF

Please be respectful and courteous in round.

Please add me to the email chain:


Please weigh early and often - it makes for better rounds that are easier to judge.

Framework: Tend to stay away from framework debates. I care about the actual arguments that you present. If disagreement continues explain why you also apply to their framework. If Framework is very complicated, explain it in a less complicated manner. If I’m not able to understand what you are trying to convey, chances are I won’t vote for you.

Theory Debates: I don’t prefer theory debates.

Please do not spread. I want to make sure I get everything on the flow.

Andrew Sun-Yan Paradigm

7 rounds

hi, i did LD for montville township from 2014-2018. i was a pretty mediocre debater and its been almost 2 years since i last debated. take that as you will.

i was not the fastest debater; if you spread, just be aware that i might miss some things. this does not mean you have to speak like im a parent, but just as you do, i fear making the wrong decision because i couldnt flow an argument. spreading arguments that are flashed is not as big an issue, but i really can't keep up with max speed analytic responses made up on the fly (although i'm not discouraging you from making up analytics on the spot, I just want to make sure I catch all of them)

i would appreciate a nice big picture overview in your last speech

im fine with people reading most things, but as a general rule, the more complex your argument, the slower / clearer i expect you to be, This also goes for arguments im not very familiar with. im not very familiar with theory, T, K's beyond the common ones (common like cap, anthro, ableism), tricks, dense philosophy. i can understand how these arguments function, but it does take a clearer/slower explanation.

please slow down for taglines and analytics (if i dont fully understand a card / argument, i might be able to evaluate it if the tagline explains how it functions)

please go especially slow for card names

in general: be nice, provide warrants, signpost, interact with your opponent's arguments, be confident, sound like you are winning,

please weigh

Danielle Tadross Paradigm

3 rounds

I am a parent judge. I debated in high school but that was in the last century. This is my third year judging LD debate. My daughter is an LD debater so I am familiar with progressive debate but I have more experience judging traditional style. I believe in quality over quantity. Be persuasive and use evidence to back up your arguments.

Chris Theis Paradigm

7 rounds

THIS IS SUPER OLD. HAVE NOT UPDATED SINCE ~2012. Please ask if you have questions.

I'm meaning to update soon...

Affiliation: Apple Valley High School (MN)


Relevant Arguments

I default to viewing the resolution as a normative question, not a question of truth. However, that does not mean that what truth is necessarily irrelevant to normative decision making. With a well-developed justification, I will vote on most truth testing arguments. I prefer that debaters have a clear and specific advocacy. Each side needs to defend a world in order to be able to generate uniqueness for offensive arguments. Thus, both debaters need to be able to articulate a world they are defending in a more coherent way than "not x."

I am also generally opposed to voting on defense. In most rounds, I find that the concept of defense being decisive just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. That means that I will be very reluctant to vote on presumption or permissibility arguments that rely on defense to function. It is probably a waste of your time to read presumption arguments in front of me at all. While I can come up with extreme hypothetical situations in which I might vote on presumption, it has never happened.


I am not opposed to theory debates, I used to enjoy them, but I think the sheer volume of awful theory debates I have judged over the past view years has made my threshold for taking them seriously much higher than it used to be. I will still be happy to vote for a good and well-developed argument.

The following are some of my default assumptions on theory:

I default to evaluating theory as an issue of "competing interpretations".

I default to "dropping the arguments" not "dropping the debater."

I default to not viewing theory as an RVI.

I default to evaluating Topicality before other theory arguments.

I default to thinking that the status of a counterplan or K alt is dispositional unless specified otherwise. That does not mean I presume that conditionality is illegitimate, just that if neither debater makes arguments about the status I will assume it is dispositional because I believe that best models the way most other arguments are treated, you must defend arguments that are turned.

I default to thinking that fairness and education are important and that whether debate is "good" or not matters. This is a bias that you will almost certainly not be able to overcome.

All of these assumptions can be changed by debaters (except probably the last one) who make good arguments against them in round. I prefer that any arguments about my default assumptions be explained in context of the specific arguments that are at issue in the theory debate and not just be about those assumptions generally. For example, do not argue "you need to drop the debater to discourage bad debate practices." Do argue, " "you need to drop the debater because X argument has Y effect which makes dropping them the best solution."

I think that theory debates are messy because debaters are even worse at weighing theory arguments than they are at weighing most other arguments. The reason for that is that while there is a framework debate that determines the relevance of post-fiat arguments, debaters put no effort into developing what it means to be fair or educational in a way that allows for effective weighing later in the round. If you want me to buy your theory argument spend time developing a concrete conception of what it means to be fair or educational in the context of debate and use it to filter and weigh impacts.

I dislike the strategy that involves including an argument that demands debaters run interps by their opponent. It is just an excuse to change your advocacy after the fact because you are not ready to defend it. As long as debaters establish clear links in CX that is enough for me.


I will use the framework that is justified by the debaters in the round. I do not view the value/criterion as necessary. In fact, I think in many cases the value/criterion model actually makes the debate more convoluted and can create irrational decisions. As a result, I am very open to alternative frameworks. As a general rule I do not enjoy rounds in which the majority of the time is spent on framework. Battling Util/Deont dumps are frustrating and boring to judge. I want to hear a debate ABOUT THE TOPIC. Framework should explain why topical arguments are important they should not become the entire debate unless you are looking for terrible speaks.


I think that credible arguments must be supported by evidence. In general, I will prefer arguments supported by evidence to analytic arguments. That is because in most cases I feel that experts writing on the topic are probably more qualified that a 17-year-old high school student. This is especially true of empirical arguments.


I assign speaks based on a combination of stagey and how much I enjoyed or was annoyed by the round. Debates that I enjoy involve debate about the topic, debaters who I can understand, debaters who are smart and engaging, debaters who are pleasant to each other.

30: Amazing. I think you are debating your positions better than anyone else at the tournament could. You could not only win this tournament but would have a chance to win any tournament in which you debated at the level you did in this round.
29: Fantastic. Very few people could do a better job at debating your position. You have a good shot at making it to late outrounds.
28: Good. You did what you had to do and did not have very many large mistakes. You should clear.
27: All right. You did an adequate job. You will be close to clearing but it could go either way.
26: Below Average. You should not clear.
25: Bad: You need major improvements in pretty much every aspect of debate. Your record should be below .500.
<25: Offensive or offensively bad.

Arguments that I will not vote for

An argument that has no normative implications, except in situations where the debater develops and wins an argument that changes my default assumptions.

A strategy that attempts to wash the debate on purpose in order to trigger permissibility/presumption.

A contingent framework/advocacy that is "triggered" in a later speech.

Arguments/Practices I will immediately drop you for

Any argument that concludes that every action is permissible

Any argument that creates a hostile environment for either myself, the other debater, or anyone who is watching the debate.

Any argument that explicitly argues that something that we all agree is awful (genocide, rape, etc) is actually a good thing. This could either be an advocacy or a framework THAT THE DEBATER AGREES says horrible things are ok. If the other debater wins an argument that your framework justifies something horrible, but it is contested, then it may count as a reason to not accept your framework, but I will not drop you for it.

Conal Thomas-McGinnis Paradigm

7 rounds

I was told to revise my paradigm by my father. The jokes were apparently too much. To see my old paradigm, visit this link:


Tricks: 1

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 4


Lan Tie Paradigm

7 rounds

I am a parent judge, but I will do my best to understand and judge the fairly. Clear values and strong argument strategy are the most important factors to win a round. During the debate, please make sure to speak clearly, no spreading, theory, and other progressive arguments. I wish all debaters will have a great experience and enjoy the process regardless of a win or loss.

Becca Traber Paradigm

6 rounds

My email is beccatraber (at) gmail (dot) com. I want to be on the email chain. I don't disclose speaks.

I debated on the national circuit for the Kinkaid School, graduated 2008. I've been coaching and teaching on the national circuit since. I am finishing my dissertation at Yale University in Political Theory and continuing to help coach Lake Highland Prep and Success when I can.

I try to be as tab as possible, but we all know, a truly tabula rasa judge is impossible. Just know that everything I'm about to say is simply a preference and not a rule; given a warranted argument, I will shift off of just about any position that I already have or that your opponent gave me. The following are thoughts on specific issues of interest to many debaters, in only the vaguest order.

Speed: I have no problem with spreading -- all I ask is that you are still clear enough to follow. What this means is that you need to have vocal variation and emphasis on important parts of your case, like card names and key arguments.

Threshold for Extensions: If I am able to understand the argument and the function of it in the context of the individual speech, it is extended. I do appreciate explicit citation of card names, for flowing purposes.

ROB/LD FW: I prefer an explicit ROB and/or standard defended as a framework for evaluating the round. I do not have a preference as to what the ROB is, as long as it capable of filtering offense. I am willing and able to judge tricks debate or k debate. When civilizations clash, I regularly vote in both directions.

Policy FW/T-Must-Be-Topical: I regularly vote both that affs must be topical and that they don't have to be. I regularly coach in both directions. I think the question is very interesting and honestly one of my favorite parts of debate--when done interestingly and with specific interaction with the content of the aff.

Disclosure: Is by now a pretty solid norm and I recognize that. I have voted many times on particular disclosure interps, but in my heart of hearts think the ways that most people handle disclosure competing interps tends to lead to regress.

CX: CX is really important to me, please use it. You have very little chance of fantastic speaker points without a really good cross-x. I would prefer if y'all don't use CX as prep, although I have no problems with questions being asked during prep time (Talk for at least three minutes: feel free to talk the rest of the time, too). If you are getting a concession you want to make absolutely sure that I write down, get eye-contact and repeat to me what you view the concession as.

Do not be unnecessarily mean. It is not very persuasive. It will drop your speaks. Be mindful of various power-dynamics at play in the room. Something I am particularly bothered by is the insistence that a marginalized debater does not understand their case, particularly when it is framed like: [male coach] wrote this for you, right [female debater]? Or isn't there a TVA, [Black debater], you could have used [white debater's] advocacy. Feel free to mention specific cases that are topical, best not to name drop. I can't think of an occasion when it is appropriate to explicitly challenge the authorship or understanding of a particular argument.

When debating someone significantly less experienced: your speaks will benefit from explaining your arguments as straightforwardly as you can. I won't penalize you for the first speeches, but in whatever speech happens after the differences in experience level becomes clear, you should treat them almost as a pedagogical exercise. Win the round, but do so in a way where you aren't only trying to tell me why you win the round, but you're trying to make sure your opponent also understands what is happening.

Theory: I'm willing to listen to either reasonability or competing interpretations. I don't assume either fairness or jurisdiction as axiomatic voting issues, so feel free to engage on that level of the theory debate. I do really enjoy a well-developed theory argument, just make sure you are holding to the same standards of warranting here that I demand anywhere. Internal links between the standards and the interpretation, and the standards and the voter, are both key. Make sure you have a robust interpretation that isn't simply the same thing as the violation, particularly if you are going under competing interpretations paradigm. I love a good counter interp that is more than defending the violation--those result in strategic and fun rounds.

"Don't Evaluate After The 1ar": Feel free to run these arguments if you want, but know that my threshold is extremely high for "evaluate debate after [speech that is not the 2ar]." It is very difficult to persuade me to meaningfully do this. A better way to make this argument would be to tell me what sort of responses I shouldn't permit and why. For instance, new paradigm issues bad, cross-apps bad, no embedded clash, no new reasons for [specific argument] -- all fine and plausible. I just don't know what it means to actually stop evaluating later speeches. Paradigmatically, speech times are speech times and it makes no sense to me why I should obviate some of your opponent's time for any in round reason. If you have a specific version of this argument you want to check with me, feel free to do so before round.

K&Phil Debate: Kritikal debate, phil/framework debate, and high theory debate are all my favorites. I don't see them as different as all that, on the whole, and enjoy judging them all. I am familiar with a wide variety of critical literature.

Accessibility note for performances: If you don't flash the exact text of your speech, please do not play any additional sounds underneath your speaking. If there is sound underneath your speaking, please flash the exact text of what you are reading. I do not want to undermine the performance you want to engage in and whichever option you prefer is fine for me. It is fine to have part of your speech be on paper with music underneath and then turn the music off when you go off paper. I struggle to understand what is being said over noise and I'm uncomfortable being unable to know what is being said with precision.

Presumption: I don't default any particular way. I am willing to listen to presumption arguments which would then make me default, given the particular way the round shakes down, but my normal response to a round where no one meets their burden is to lower my standards until one person does meet their burden. Now, I hate doing this and it makes me grumpy, so expect lower speaker points in a situation where nobody meets their burden and nobody makes an argument about why I should presume any which way. This just points to the need to clearly outline my role and the role of my ballot, and be precise as to how you are meeting it.

Aikaterini Varsou Paradigm

5 rounds


I have a masters in computer science and a PhD in electrical engineering. I am the Director of Technology for an intellectual property firm, which means I manage people with technical backgrounds in doing research and proving infringement of patents. I work closely with attorneys and am myself a patent agent, who often has to work on rebuttal arguments and invalidating our counterparty’s positions. This is my second year of debate judging and I am looking forward to it because of its logic and closeness to my work.


I prefer clear arguments to speed and spreading. It is important to make clear what your argument is and what supports it. Proving your point and why it holds is key rather than confidently arguing about something without evidences. Please be clear, respectful to your opponent and have fun in the process.

Thank you and good luck.

Miana Vega Paradigm

7 rounds

General Info:

Miana Vega

Proud Boriqua Educator and Artist

National Debate Coach at John D. Wells, MS. 50

Full-time Undergraduate Student at John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Full time Paraprofessional in Brooklyn, NYC

Debate Career:

ACORN Community High School 2012-16: Policy Debate

Coached Leon M. Goldstien from 2016-17

Judging Policy and Public Forum from 2015- Present

Judging LD from 2018- Present

For the majority of my debate career I was double 2s, and later became 2N, 1A.

Overall Rules and Expectations:

I do not count flashing as prep unless you take a century.

If you do not have a paper copy of your evidence then you must have a viewing laptop or must share evidence via email/flash, upon request.

I believe that judges are NOT supposed to intervene in round under any circumstances, unless in the case of an extreme emergency.

I shouldn't have to tell you be respectful or to not use hateful, racist, ablest, or homophobic language. And I won't, if I hear it, I will automatically give the ballot to the other team. ABSOLUTELY NOT TOLERATED.

Some may think petty debaters or debaters with attitudes are amusing or cute, I don't. Treat your competitors with respect or it will affect your speaker points.

Judge Philosophy:

I believe that it is my responsibility as the judge of the round to remove any pre-exsisting notions or opinions from my mind of whatever topic you chose to debate over, and act as an objective observer who decides whether or not the aff is a good idea. Unless told otherwise in the round, this is the perspective I default to.

Minimal expectations are the following: If the negative does not provide any disads to voting aff then I will vote aff. If the aff does not prove that the aff is better than the status quo and has an actual solvency method, then I will vote negative. It is in your best interest (speaker points) to go far beyond these basic debate expectations. I'm generous with speaker points if you keep me engaged and make sure I understand you, they usually range from 27-29.5

I don't have any specific preference when it comes to argumentation and I will vote on virtually anything you want me to if explained well.

Christopher Vincent Paradigm

1 rounds

Christopher Vincent
Director of Speech & Debate
Isidore Newman School

Add me to the email chain:

Additional Conflicts: Dulles (NB & AW)- TX, Brown School (KY), Torrey Pines (CA)


Additional Conflicts: Holy Cross School (LA), Dulles (NB, & AW) (TX), Brown School (KY),
This is my 16th year in debate. I competed for 4 years in high school, 5 years at the University of Louisville, and was the graduate assistant for the University of Louisville debate team. I have been actively coaching high school LD and Policy for the past 8 years and was previously the Director at Brown and Fern Creek in KY, along with being the Director of Debate at LSU.

I view my role as a judge as an educator. While I believe that debaters should shape this activity, I do not believe that judges are or even can be neutral in this process. I will always try to embrace the teachable moment in debate. I debated for 5 years in what the community deemed "performance debate." If you put me in the back of the room you either know me, read this, or a combo of the two. Long story short: Do what you do, be who you are, and defend your actions in the debate.

I evaluate debates holistically, which means I prefer the debate to tell me a story and it requires more than just winning your argument is true. You MUST WIN WHY THAT ARGUMENT MATTERS. I will attempt to evaluate the debate as objectively as possible. I say "as possible" because I do not believe that judges can truly be objective. We are all humans, and we all think and formulate opinions and thoughts. Failure to do comparative analysis in debate will result in messiness, and inevitably some level of judge interventions (which you don't want).

Here are a few of my predispositions coming into the round:

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ARGUMENTS THAT ARE RACIST, HOMOPHOBIC, SEXIST, OR ABLEIST IN NATURE!!! Depending on the nature of the offense, this may result in an automatic loss!!!

1) Speed- Slow down on the tag lines and the authors. I will yell clear ONE TIME. After that, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. So, please don't be mad at the end of the debate if I missed some arguments because you were unclear. I make lots of facial expressions, so you can use that as a guide for if I understand you.

2) Dropped Arguments- Dropped arguments are not enough for me to vote someone down. Don't expect me to automatically pull the trigger on a dropped argument without you doing the work necessary and giving me an in depth analysis of why that argument shuts down the entire debate. I evaluate debates holistically.

3) Theory- Theory is not a substantive response to critical positions and arguments. This is not to say that I won't vote for theory, but you must prove ACTUAL IN-ROUND ABUSE. One of the unique aspects of debate, is that it gives us a chance to explore different positions, and to be critically self-reflexive. Thus, my interpretation of the topic may not be the same as yours, and that is okay. Theory seems to limit the liberating and unique educational opportunity this activity provides us.

-I do not believe in neutral education, neutral conceptions of fairness, or even ground, or limits. If you run theory, be ready to defend it. Actual abuse is not because you don't understand the literature, know how to deal with the argument, or that you didn't have time to read it. You should probably read their literature and engage it. I will still stand by this position. If you are not reading the literature then you probably link to their criticism in the first place. Don't be scared, just engage.

4) Critical Arguments- Don't run them just because I am in the back of the room. While I am familiar with a wide range of literature, and while I have coached students with a wide range of literature, I will not be impressed just because you do it too. There are implications to the things we talk about in debate, and I believe that our social location inevitably shape the beliefs and ideologies we hold. If you do not believe that there is a place for performative/critical arguments in debate, and if you believe that social location and subsequent discussions have no place in this space, I am probably not the judge for you.

5) PAPERLESS DEBATE: Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer.

TOC 2015 UPDATE: All ethics challenges will be decided through the infamous RuPaul Paradigm: "The Time Has Come for you to Lip Sync for your life."

Finally, make smart arguments and have fun. I promise I will do my best to evaluate the debate you give me.


I debated for 5 years at the University of Louisville and engaged exclusively in what the community deemed “performance debate.” I believe that debate is what you make it and you only get out of it what you want and what you put into it. I expect that if you put me in the back of the room you either know me, read this, or it’s a combination of the two. Be who you are and defend your actions in the round. The most important thing you should know about me is that I love debate and I believe that debate is a place where we should exchange ideas, beliefs, and differences. I view my role as a judge as an educator and while I believe that debaters shape the activity through the rounds, I don’t believe judges are neutral in this process. That means I will always attempt to embrace the teachable moment in the debate round when given the opportunity.

I promise I will flow the round but will probably not use the flow the same way you do. I believe that the debate should tell me a story and so I want to know how the arguments interact with one another and how they function. I will not examine arguments as isolated parts of a speech, but instead holistically.

I don’t believe affirmatives have to be topical. They can be, but they don’t have to be. You should just defend your actions.


PAPERLESS: Prep time ends when the jump drive leaves your computer and is in your opponent's hand.

Finally, make smart arguments, clash with your opponent, and defend what you say. I will do my best to evaluate the debate I am given. While I ideologically believe that identity shapes how we approach debate, and while I debated exclusively in one style, I was trained in traditional and nontraditional debate and so I will attempt to evaluate the debate I am given.

If you have any other questions just ask!!!

Lining Wan Paradigm

3 rounds

I am a parent. This is my fourth year judging debates, and third year judging public forum. Refer to my judging record to gauge my judging experience.

I know some debate jargon, but am still learning. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most experienced judge, I would rate myself as a 6. I prefer to watch a debate as a civil and intelligent professional exchange of opinions. Be courteous to everyone. Do not mis-interpret any evidences and have your cards ready in case I call them. (Mis-representing a piece of evidence is enough reason to lose a round. So be careful here. )

On speaking style, I prefer well organized and clearly articulated speeches.

Good luck and have fun!

P.S. I don't disclose in prelim rounds unless it is required by a tournament.

P.S. When judging, I base my decision on information presented to me in the round and how it is presented. Use your judgement when deciding how to engage me in conversations.

Michael Wang Paradigm

7 rounds

Hi, I debated for Syosset High School in Lincoln-Douglas/Public Forum for 4 years and graduated in 2019.

Note: It's been a while since I've debated/heard a round (my last experience w/ "progressive" debate was a year ago). What this means is that while I'll try to be as technical and proficient as possible in my judging, I may not be up to date with the way arguments are run and I'll need a while to get used to your speed if you're fast. Please be clear!


- Speed is fine - please ease into it though, it's been quite a while. AND be CLEAR!!!!

- I’ll vote for any argument I understand that has a warrant that coherently justifies the claim/impact. Again, it's been a while since I've had these debates, but in high school, I was most comfortable with value criterion/framework, theory/T, and LARP debates, so I'd be better at evaluating these arguments (I was less comfortable with K and high theory debates). You can run anything you'd like (as long as it's explained clearly!!!), but just keep this in mind for your prefs.

- I default truth testing, drop the debater, competing interps, and no rvis, but that's only if no other argument is made on either side.

Speaker Points: I’ll try to average a 28.5 and vary them based on strategy, efficiency, and argument quality. I won't change them based on what debate style you prefer. I’ll say clear/slow/loud as many times as necessary. Don’t be mean or rude, e.g. don’t spread or read tricks/theory/Ks against novices.

Have fun! Debate is a great activity, and it’s better when everyone is relaxed and has a good time. Feel free to ask me questions before the round if I’m missing anything here.

Kathy Wang Paradigm

5 rounds

now that multiple people have subtweeted me i guess it is time to properly update this paradigm on tabroom. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Conflicts for 19-20: stuyvesant (school), needham zl, american heritage boca delray nt

Background: i debated LD for stuyvesant from 2012-2016. i currently debate for the nyu policy team. i'm an assistant to the ld director at vbi. my primary judging background is in lincoln douglas debate -- i've judged literally hundreds of rounds now, but there's a smattering of policy here and there when i'm needed. either way, this paradigm should be applicable. here's a link to my judging record w speaks and all if anyone's morbidly curious. feel free to call me kathy, she/her/they pronouns or whatever you want.

email chain:

General/tl;dr: i find that my stance in debate is one of the least intervention. obviously it's impossible to be perfectly tab, but i won't needlessly impose anything ideologically on the round, with an exception for blatantly offensive or terrible things. try to have a good time and i'll be happy with whatever you do. i try my best not to screw up really bad but hey, i'm not perfect!

i'll lift a little from lawrence zhou's paradigm to describe decisionmaking: "I evaluate rounds by attempting to construct two separate RFDs, one for the aff, one for the neg. The RFD that I feel is the most logical, requires the least intervention, and most consistent with the arguments made in the round is the one I go with."

in addition, i care a lot about safety in round. debate can be an space for people as young as like, 13 or 14 to be wading through. it has a lot of power in being a very personal space but that can get p violent and unhealthy. if you are uncomfortable or unsafe at any time, please let me know. don't worry about feeling bad or feeling under the spotlight. i'll do my best for that not to happen. i think debate is certainly a special place, for good or for bad, and so comfortable environments for everyone in a round are extremely important to me. if ya only got a few years here, might as well make it enjoyable.

also !! please stop misgendering ppl in round !!

1) do you care if i defend the topic?: no.
2) do you care if i read t?: no. i've judged a lot of clash of civs rounds and gone both ways.
3) sit or stand?: whatever makes you most comfortable.
4) why do you keep looking left?: idk to hear you better i hear better out of my right ear so the ear faces you.
5) do you disclose speaks?: if i remember. i reserve the right to say no. if i do, usually at least one of y'all really doesn't wanna know.
6) how speaks?: ld average is a 28.5. haven't worked it out yet for policy.
7) tech or truth? tech. my threshold is that if i can re-explain an argument in the rfd, it's good enough to vote on.
8) anything you refuse to listen to?: blatantly offensive stuff like racism good or the sorts, double win/loss, "give me [x] speaks" arguments.
9) trigger warnings?: give them and be ready to adjust if your opponent is not okay. please give me a heads up for discussions of mental health and suicide that are articulated in a personal manner. you can read it, i'd just like a moment.
10) anything else important?: i can't really process layers of audio - it gives me a really bad headache and scrambles my brain. not saying you can't play music or other audio, just not simultaneously when you speak bc i will get close to nothing.

a shortcut to my understanding: LARP/Ks > Performance/High theory > Theory/Phil/Tricks.

please slow down for tags or author names. nobody likes blazing through things. add me to the email chain, but i won't flow it during the speech bc y'all should be clear!


specific argumentation:

LARP/Straight Policy: i enjoy these debates more than people think i do! doing traditional policy style stuff was very fun for me in high school. i won't be super read up on specific nuances (especially at the beginning of topics) so err on over-explaining context if you want to go for these. policy v policy rounds, in general, do not have as much ev comparison or weighing as they really ought to, so keep an ear out for that as well.

Kritiks: i think k debate is valuable and when it's done well, i really really enjoy it. i think i'm pretty well read in most k literature (feel free to double check though!), but here's a pretty important rule of thumb: if you think you are the only person in the pool (or even debate as a whole) to read your position, tech implications need to be explained because i tend to not enjoy voting on warrantless args :( this goes for more analytic phil stuff and high theory as well -- just because something sounds complicated does not mean you can skimp on a warrant for its implications and i've noticed debaters tend to forget that!

Analytic Phil: white people philosophy is kinda hard for me to get lol. i'll listen to it & have judged surprisingly many phil rounds so i think i understand basic LD phil just from exposure, but it's not really my area of the library. if you want to go techy on the phil debate, please make sure there exists some sort of framing mechanism that makes sense and a ballot implication under it -- a lot of the time phil debates get swarmed in handling framing nuances and not a lot on substance and that's really hard to handle. also please slow down on those analytic kant frameworks please.

Theory: fine. i'm getting really frustrated with a lot of theory rounds because it's very difficult to evaluate without intervening somewhere, since a lot of them (especially 1ar theory rounds) are just not fleshed out -- in situations like that, there needs to be more emphasis on in-round impacting and how things break down on a big picture level. tech is good but make sure your tech matters. idk what to do with floating impacts w/o implications.
defaults: comparative worlds (no, andrew, this doesn't mean you HAVE to read a policy advocacy, just that it's a comparative question between what's better: aff or neg.), drop the arg, reasonability, no rvis, presume whatever is closer to the status quo.

Tricks/A prioris: i mean, i'll listen to them, but anything i don't catch isn't in the decision and you gotta be clearer. i will be preeeeetty unimpressed if you run this kind of stuff against a novice. also, don't be a jerk. you know what an a priori is.


anyways, thanks for reading! do whatever it takes to make debate a rewarding space for you because you deserve to have a good and safe time in this activity. feel free to reach out to me for any other questions or concerns, about this paradigm or even if you just need a friend. i hope you find the strength to be the best and bravest you that you can be. good luck & have fun!

Jennifer Wang Paradigm

3 rounds

Lincoln East HS 19’, Columbia University ’23,

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Preferred name: Mína

I did 4 years LD debate in high school. Two of those years I did LD and two of those years I did Varsity Policy. I ended my debate career as a 2A in policy. (I’ve also dabbled in Big Q and am familiar with Congress and PF structures).

This is my first time judging at a TOC bid tournament. If you have any questions about my paradigm that I haven’t answered, this is my email.



  1. I tend to be tech over truth. But I will not feel comfortable voting up a blippy argument that went dropped over one very well-fleshed out argument. If you do try to win like this, just know that it may not always work out in your favor. I always try to go by the flow, though.
  2. My judging style is very tabula rasa. Run what you are comfortable with.
  3. I debated mostly K affs, but we ran some trad-ish stuff neg (so I know my framework and topicality).
  4. I evaluate framing and theory issues (framework, T, ROB, ROJ) first and filter all offense and defense made through the framework.


  1. I’m pretty good with speed (probably a 9-ish) on a scale of 1 being rlly slow and 10 being TOC policy fast. If you are unclear, that number will decrease. Similarly, if you are using the specific vocabulary of a literature base that I’m unfamiliar with, I’ll be able to understand what you are saying but will probably have trouble comprehending your argument. Thus if you plan on running an argument that I’ve indicated I’m unfamiliar with, be wary of my inexperience, explaining more and slowing down a little, relying less on jargon, will be to your competitive advantage. If you want me to yell clear if you are being unclear, tell me before the round. I’ll do so 2-ish times before I give up.
  2. Ks- love Ks. I’m most familiar with idtix arguments like: most args in the anti blackness lit base, queer theory, set col, mestiza consciousness, etc. I’m also familiar with the cap k (shocker), empire (maybe actually more surprising), and warren’s onticide. I’m less knowledgeable about POMO arguments, though I’ve tried learning about Deleuze. That being said, I love hearing arguments from all K lit bases. I love learning about Ks I’ve never heard of before. Be adventurous. Just remember you might have to explain more if you’re running, for example, Baudrillard than if you were running Afropess.
  3. K affs - also love em. I really enjoyed writing K affs as a 2A. That being said, I do really like a creative and solid topic link. I’ll be neutral if you run a K aff, but I’ll be super happy if you run a K aff with a good topic link.
  4. Framework: I debated against framework as a 2A and debated framework as a 1N MANY MANY MANY times. I get framework, I have nothing against it if executed well. Sometimes, I even think Framework has a very good point. I’ll evaluate framework, but I’ll also evaluate all offense the aff has against framework if you don’t respond to it.
  5. In-round stuff: please don’t be exclusionary, offensive, rude, violent, in general, an asshole. If you are called out on it and it’s made as an argument, I’ll vote on it. If not, I’ll dock speaks.
  6. Theory: go for it. Nothing against it. If you don’t flash theory standards and analytics, either slow down or risk me missing something. In Policy, I’ll get annoyed if you’e frivolous about it. In LD, I understand it’s a little bit more of a necessity so I’ll be less annoyed but still mildly irked.
  7. Policy arguments: even though I was a K debater I actually sorta enjoy watching these rounds. I wasn’t exposed to much of these, so really my enjoyment comes out of curiosity. I’ll warn you though, not particularly knowledgeable about the topic.

LD Stuff:

  1. General: As someone who was mostly exposed to circuit policy, I won’t really have trouble with any of the more policy-like aspects of LD. Speed, Ks, framework, go for it. The more LD-specific areas such as RVIs, I will have trouble with. For the most part, try to stray away from ultra-jargony theory terms. If you have any doubts about whether I know what an argument is or not, check before the round. Me learning about it after the round won’t factor into my decision for the round, but it will for the next round I judge.
  2. Frivolous theory: I’ll vote for it. I won’t enjoy voting for it. I also don’t know much about it.
  3. I don’t know much about the topic, but I’ll try to read up about it a little before the tournament.
  4. I realize that this part may be kind of sparse. For the most part, I evaluate LD rounds with the same criteria as Policy rounds. If you have any questions, don’t worry, just email me.

Ending notes:

I like debates where:

a. strategies are creative AND executed beautifully

b. I learn about new arguments or new things about old arguments

c. seemingly contradictory arguments are executed in unexpected, creative ways. And they are executed WELL. (By unexpected and creative ways, I don’t mean condo good). Keyword here is SEEMINGLY. If the arguments are just straight-up contradictory (i.e. cap good + cap bad), then idk. I mean you do you

d. people engage with the content and warrants of the opponents arguments. Please make the debate specific.

e. I’m okay if you want to be aggressive or a little bit sassy. In fact, some sassiness is fun. But please keep it in good taste. There’s a line, I’m sure you know when you’ve crossed it.

Don't force me to intervene. Please. I'm not an experienced enough judge to be confident about w/e decision I have to make and it will distress me.


I give around a 28.7 for average debaters. Rarely give 30s. It depends from there based on your speaking style, argument strategy, in-round conduct, etc.

Jonathan Waters Paradigm

5 rounds

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-present) Northview High School


I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches. Tell me your assessment of the round and enumerate the reasons you are winning.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. I have appreciated K arguments, but I don't really enjoy listening to theory heavy arguments. I'm probably not going to vote on theory unless a debater is being overly abusive.

Value/Value Criterion/Framework:

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.


If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case at

Reed Weiler Paradigm

7 rounds

Hey, I'm Reed. I did LD for four years at Lexington High School ('14-'18), went to TOC my junior and senior years, and reached elims at a bunch of bid tournaments & round robins along the way. I taught at NSD flagship over the summer and currently attend American University, studying public affairs and philosophy.

I don't want to waste your time with a huge, comprehensive explanation of every opinion I have regarding debate rounds, so if it helps, I try to model my judging after people like Sam Azbel, Jack Wareham, and Kaushal Balagurusamy.

I'll try my best to be objective and will evaluate pretty much any argument as long as it is properly warranted and implicated, with the exception of arguments that are actively exclusionary/racist/homophobic/ableist/etc.

I read mostly policy, philosophy, and theory my senior year, but have experience with and am totally comfortable voting on Ks and tricks. I don't think my preferences as a debater carry over a ton into how I evaluate rounds. I'll be just as happy watching a dense deleuze v. kant debate as I will be judging plan v. counterplan debates. Regardless of the content of your positions, all I really care about is whether you can execute your arguments well, demonstrate strategic vision, and explain things in a clear & understandable way.

Things that will get you higher speaker points:

-good CX

-persuasive abuse stories on theory

-good ev comparison

-genuine clash in framework debates

-smart/tricky LARP strategies

-demonstration of topic knowledge

*I will not make a decision that procedurally excludes any of the 5 LD speeches. What this means is if you ask me to "evaluate the debate after the 1ac/1nc/1ar/2nr", i will most likely ignore it, as I've found that doing so would create an incredibly arbitrary decision procedure that I don't feel would benefit anyone in the way they are hoping.

Do your best, have fun, and please ask questions if you have them. I am always willing to discuss my reason for decision/give comments after the round. If you feel the need to ask me anything before the round, shoot me an email:

Emily White Paradigm

6 rounds

Background: I’m a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Gender Studies, and I did both LD and policy (with a brief stint in PF) for Dallastown High School in Pennsylvania. I competed on both traditional and progressive circuits, so I’m pretty much cool with whatever you want to run. However, as a competitor, I mostly ran non-t affs, soft-left affs, and kritiks.

email chain:

**If you spread, EMAIL ME AND YOUR OPPONENT YOUR CASE. Ideally this applies to prewritten analytics as well (or really anything that is typed out and sendable). I cannot stress this enough! If you don’t, I’ll probably dock speaks and be a much less happy judge. I like to think I’m pretty good at flowing at high speeds, but there’s always the chance that I miss something if I don’t have a copy of it, especially since my hearing isn't the best.

Kritiks: I love them! This was about 80% of what I did in debate, so I love seeing a good K round. However, a bad K debate is probably my least favorite thing to watch, so don’t think that I’ll vote for any kritik no matter what - you need to explain your position clearly, especially your alt.

Non-T affs: I read these for most of my junior and senior year, so I’m very comfortable rejecting/reinterpreting the topic as long as you tell me why I should. As far as T vs. a non-t aff — It’s not my favorite thing to see (I just think reading a K or counter-method is more interesting and creative), but if it’s what you’re good at, go for it. aff still has to explain where they get offense and why topicality is bad, neg has to justify why the aff’s non-topical position is uniquely harmful/abusive, not just why defending the topic is good.

Phil/framework: I’m familiar with the basics (deont, virtue ethics, and consequentialism) more so than any other FW authors (especially really obscure ones). I’ll gladly judge other phil - I just may not have any experience with them, so you’ll have to explain it clearly and weigh well. Know your position well and clarify exactly what offense does and doesn’t count under your framework, and you should be fine.

Theory: I generally find it to be unnecessary and used to make the round inaccessible. If there is legitimately no other way for you to respond to your opponents, then read theory. Otherwise, be creative and use logic to tell me why their argument doesn’t make sense - don’t rely on tricky wordings or surprise interps to get my ballot.

Tricks: I'm ok with one or two spikes in an aff, but as far as a completely tricks case - please just don’t. I will not be amused, I will dock speaks, and you probably won’t get my ballot.

Brian Wiora Paradigm

7 rounds


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


Debate is fun! I enjoy judging good debates full of a lot of nuanced clash and weighing. The best debaters, in my opinion, are clear, well versed on the topic and, above all, persuasive. I think unwarranted arguments, tricks/spikes, and unnecessary/multiple theory shells are bad for debate and an unpersuasive strategy. Feel free to run what you want in front of me, but I am more likely to drop a claim than add a warrant or impact.

Things I like

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


-A good topicality debate

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

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

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

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

My Default Assumptions (unless proven otherwise in the round)

-I operate under an offense/defense paradigm.

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

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

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

-No RVIs on T.

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

Any other issue should be resolved by the debaters

Megan Wu Paradigm

7 rounds


interlake ’19 / swarthmore ’23

midway through bronx update: why has barely anyone read theory or phil in front of me? :(

hey, i’m megan! i debated on the national circuit for a couple years and qualified to the toc as a senior. during my senior year, i interned at the university of washington’s philosophy department, where i did research for prof. colin marshall (the coolest mentor ever) in comparative metaethics and deliberative democracy. i taught at nsd flagship, nsd philadelphia, and tdc, and now attend swarthmore college, where i debate parli and study philosophy (and math?¿?).

my senior year, i was coached by kris wright and katherine fennell. as a debater, my favorite judges were sean fahey and mark gorthey. alisa liu was also hugely influential on me.

i am profoundly deaf in both ears and have bilateral cochlear implants. i do not believe that this significantly impacts my ability to judge, as i debated on the circuit and wasn’t horrible at it; you should be clear, give overviews, slow down for anything important, and explain to me how i should write your rfd—as you should with any judge. i will flow off speech docs in the 1ac/1nc, but will not in rebuttals for anything besides advocacy texts and interps. i will call clear or slow in your speech if i can’t understand you.

i do not have any preferences for style of debate; my only preference is that you debate in the way you choose, as opposed to what you think i’d like to see. i will vote for any argument so long as it is fully warranted, won, and implicated. i won’t vote on links/violations that i can’t verify. the general structure of my rfd will be to identify the highest layer of the round, how offense should be framed on that layer, and who is winning the most offense under that framing.

i am most familiar with philosophical framework and theory/t debates and less familiar with policy/k debate. i won’t supplement a debater’s explanation of arguments with things i know that weren’t on the flow, so it should not matter if i’m unfamiliar with the literature of a k that is read because it is the job of the debaters to fully explain and implicate their arguments—nor will i help you out even if you read a framework that i know well.

i will attempt to operate under the shared assumptions held by both debaters—e.g. if both debaters collapse to theory shells in the 2n/2a but forget to read voters, i will act as if a voter had been read rather than ignore theory and vote on a random substance extension. however, it will always be to your benefit to debate in a non-messy way: even if the 2n collapses to T, concedes substance, and it is assumed by both debaters that substance flows aff, the 2a should still quickly extend the ac. you should also attempt to extend interps & violations. the more i have to think about what the shared assumptions of the round are (and the less clear you are about your ballot story), the more your speaks will suffer.

if i am unable to determine what the shared assumption is, and no argument has been made on the issue, i will assume the following defaults:

  • theory is drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps, fairness and education are voters, fairness > education
  • strength of link to weigh between layers, and theory > t > k if strength of link is irresolvable
  • epistemic confidence
  • presumption and permissibility negate
  • tech>truth

speaks are a subjective assessment of your choices in the round. some things that will improve your speaks are narrating me through your speech/ballot story, going for the right arguments, being chill, creative strategic choices/positions, argument innovation, getting concessions in cx (or not giving them), and sending speech docs before the round starts/quickly between speeches. things that will harm your speaks are being mean/aggressive/exclusionary/oppressive, not having a clear ballot story, forcing me to default on any issue, reading off docs for a significant portion of your rebuttals, and making low quality arguments.

other notes (mostly for west coast folks...)

  • if you read reasonability without a brightline, say only that “good is good enough,” or tell me to “gut check,” i will gut check competing interps. reasonability should have a brightline that tells me how to differentiate between abusive and nonabusive scenarios.
  • i would really prefer it if you read and normatively justify a rob/standard/vc, even if it's short. i tend to think that normative ethic spec is a true argument, and if neither debater indicates a framework and there is not a clear shared assumption of a certain framework, i will be forced to default to my intuitions to frame offense—which you likely don’t want because i’m not a utilitarian.
  • i will vote on an rvi if won.
  • i will vote on framework preclusion of impacts if won.
  • i don’t care if your theory shell is frivolous.
  • ethos is created through persuasion/passion/showing you have a ton of knowledge about the subject—not snarky taglines and personal jabs—and good ethos never comes at the expense of safety in the round.

ask me if you have any questions (especially if you're a small school debater). good luck and have fun debating!

Julia Wu Paradigm

7 rounds

Lake Highland Prep ’19


I debated for Lake Highland for five years and went to the TOC my sophomore, junior, and senior year.

UPDATE FOR BRONX: I will not vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the [insert speech] if the argument is made in the speech mentioned in the spike. For example, I won't vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the 2nr" if it's made in the 2nr. This is because any answer to the spike is technically a theory argument, making it unclear if even evaluating answers to the argument are legitimate. I will also not vote on this argument in any speech absent a clear articulation of what constitutes the theory debate and just generally have a low threshold for responses.

I don’t really have a preference towards judging any particular type of argument. As a debater, I read a lot of high theory, phil, theory/T, Ks, and sometimes I read tricks. You should read arguments in whatever style you are most comfortable with and I will do my best to evaluate the round. I'll always try to take the route of least intervention when I'm judging. As long as an argument has a claim, warrant, impact, I will vote on it. However, I will drop you for reading anything blatantly racist, misogynistic, ableist, anti-queer, etc.

If you're reading a confusing or dense position, make sure that you explain it well. Don't assume that I'll fill in the blanks for you if you make half-baked arguments just because I read something in that literature base as a debater. Also if you are reading blippy tricks just make sure you slow down enough that I can flow a warrant for all of them.

Here are my defaults (I will only use these if there is literally nothing said about these issues by either side and it will make me very sad):

  • truth testing (what it means for something to be "true" or "false" can be determined through a rob or framework)
  • my presumption default works the same as Grant Brown’s: “I default presume negative, unless there is an alternative advocacy (counterplan, kritik) in the 2NR without the choice of the status-quo, in which case I presume affirmative.”
  • permissibility negates
  • layers (theory, t, rob) can be weighed against each other

Speaks: I try to average around a 28ish but don't have a strict model of: do x for x speaks. I'll assign speaks based on good strategic decisions and knowing your positions well. Basically just be smart and don't be rude.

Here are some judges that I aspire to be like: Tom Evnen, Becca Traber, Grant Brown, John Staunton, Madi Crowley, and Vishaal Kunta.

If you have any specific questions, email me, facebook message me, or ask me before the round starts and I’ll be happy to answer them!

Yan Yuan Paradigm

7 rounds

I'm a parent judge who's been judging for 2 years on the nat circuit

Please don't spread - add me to the email chain:

I try my best to make decisions off the flow, not based on rhetoric, although speaker points will obviously reflect a mix of both

That being said, please make my decision as easy as possible - I protect the 2NR from shifty 2AR's, and weighing + clear ballot stories are a beautiful thing

Feel free to run any relatively stock positions like CP + DA, etc. - substantive debate should be fine if adequately explained

I've voted on progressive arguments before, including one off K's, performance affs, etc - but these are always a tossup and I don't trust myself to evaluate them very well

I understand basic util/deont (Kant mostly) syllogisms but don't hit me with the a. action theory b. bindingness stuff - just explain it thoroughly and make interacts

Speaks average out to a 28.5 and I'll try to keep it reasonable

Carolyn Zou Paradigm

7 rounds

I am affiliated with the following entities, and if you are too, you should conflict me:

Pennsbury, DebateDrills, Ronak Ahuja


I'm a first year out studying human rights. I've judged less than 25 rounds.

I did primarily LD in high school on the national circuit for two years and qualified for the TOC twice. I now do college policy.

The topic:

I taught at VBI LA2 (the topic prep session) but haven't thought about it afterwards.

You do you, with exceptions:

- Don't impact turn oppression or cheat.

- I can't hear speech over music. Send a doc.

- Very low threshold for answering tricks, (LD) truth testing, skep, and bad theory. Also, I don't evaluate unwarranted arguments.

I care very much about argument quality.

Argument quality is distinct from 'debate meta' and I think I am open to hearing justifications for many uncommon arguments (with the above exceptions), but explanation and weighing aren't optional. I don't mind unconventional arguments especially if they are strategically sound. When reading arguments that are more abstract, concrete/historical examples are very useful. This applies to both policy and k debate.

I strongly prefer arguments you'd hear in policy (both policy and K) -- and inevitably there will be shortcomings in my ability to be perfectly neutral. That being said, I will not vote you down for making a bad argument, only a losing one. Please note that my disposition towards arguments may affect if I perceive them to be winning or losing.

I very much like it when you pull lines from their cards or speeches to serve as links/hold them down to one explanation.

I will bump speaks for opensource + cites + round reports if you let me know that you do this.