Debating the Discord Part 1

2018 — Online, US

Ronak Ahuja Paradigm

I LOVE THE RVI jk its an uphill battle GL

Email - Pronouns - they/them

I debated for Chaminade and then Futures Academy in high school, and now debate in college at Binghamton.

Qualifications - I did Policy and LD, cleared at the toc twice in LD (doubles, semis), and got twelve total bids.

I'm down to listen to any style of debate- just do you.

Respect people's pronouns and do not be racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. Don't attempt to try to take my or your opponents flows/computers. Speaking during your partners speech is okay if there's a valid reason, ill flow you.

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.

*Unless told otherwise, I tend to decide these debates by asking the question of what impacts a ballot for either team would solve and filtering other arguments through that.

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 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.

Niko Battle Paradigm


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

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. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow.

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. Ensure to impact out your shells and extend that impact! Fairness is not a voter. Do not go for it as one in front of me. It is an internal link to something.

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.

I like it when you make my life simple. Provide for me a ROB or some type of framing mechanism and what are the net benefits to it, then filter your impacts and advantages through this perspective and show why your opponent's ROB/framing is bad or why it doesn't matter and turn their offense up sided down and proceed to collect your ballot. Negs do the same. Filter your offense through your ROB/ framing, turn the aff upside down. Proceed to collect your ballot.

Ninth Cat Paradigm

- I probably don't know jargon specific to your K.

- Extend your warrants.

- You can flex prep or whatever.

- I prefer substance to theory and tricks. I probably won't vote for a shell if it doesn't have good voter/paradigm justifications.

- I don't like blip storm.

- If you don't tell me otherwise, I assume textuality matters. You'd probably benefit from giving me the text of an advocacy/plan/CP/perm/interp (and make them well-written and so on).

- Very high speaks are awarded only based on entertainment value.

Lord Farquaad Paradigm

Discord: Whyfi #4921

Use that for the chain

Whatup, I did LD for 4 years in HS and am currently working on CX at Purdue. Boiler up.

I'm tab, go for whatever you want. That said, you're not going to have a good time if you spread but don't flash. Make my life easy and weigh, if neither side weighs, you will be making your life just as hard since I will have to inject my own weighing mechanisms - nobody likes that.


Specifically for this discord tournament (12/28/18):

General: This is a practice tournament; but if you're cool, you'll treat it like a real one.

Disclosure: Its fairly unreasonable to expect people to disclose when the topic hasn't even started on the circuit.

Stealing Prep: Take time before rounds to make sure your setup works: mic check, headphone check, etc. If you try to pull some shady stuff, especially in later rounds, its going to make me sad.

Tricks: Tricks are for kids. Take that as you will.

Alan Fishman Paradigm

Please include me on the email chain if there is one.

Also, is even better than email chains if you are comfortable using it, it is much faster and more efficient.

ETOC UPDATE: Go as fast on arguments in the doc as you would in person - I'll use the doc to keep up if the connection is bad. Slow down a little on analytics not in the doc though. Also, please do not make arguments about whether online debate will last or whether the coronavirus will change debate permanently - my way of coping is to see this as temporary. If those arguments are vital to a position you have been reading throughout the entire tournament, I will try to evaluate them, but please provide a content warning first. On a related note, arguing that the coronavirus or anything caused by it leads to extinction, structural violence, or other common post-fiat impacts is fine. Also, I should disclose that in close debates I may unintentionally hack against arguments saying that the coronavirus could lead to positive change, even if I would normally support whatever the change is.

TL:DR for LD: 1 - Theory, 2 - LARP, 3 - K, 4 - Tricks, 5 - Phil, 99 - Trad. I enjoy highly technical and creative argumentation. I try to evaluate the round objectively from a tech over truth perspective. I am more used to LARP and policy-style arguments but I have no problem voting on phil. I love circuit-style debate and I appreciate good weighing/uplayering. I enjoy seeing strategies that combine normal and "weird" arguments in creative and strategic ways

TL:DR for Parli: Tech over truth. I don't believe in the trichotomy, please read a plan or other stable advocacy text every round. Plans and CP's are just as legitimate in "value" or "fact" rounds as in "policy" rounds. I prefer theory, K's, and disads with big-stick or critically framed impacts to traditional debate, but I'll listen to whatever debate you want to have. My favorite event is high school circuit LD and I'm down for creative arguments. I do not allow off time thank yous but I do allow off time road maps and content warnings.

Five years of experience debating in NPDA parli, three years NFA-LD. I don't care about delivery or politeness (just don't be cruel to your opponents), and I don't want you to watch my nonverbals. I try to evaluate the debate objectively based on the flow without intervening.

CASE/DA: Be sure to signpost well and explain how the argument functions in the game of debate. I like you to have strong terminalized impacts - don't just say that you help the economy, tell me why the economy matters. I think generic disads are great as long as you have good links to the aff. I believe in risk of solvency/risk of the disad and I rarely vote on terminal defense if the other team has an answer to show that there is still some risk of offense. I do not particularly like deciding the debate on solvency alone. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.

SPEED: I can handle spreading and I like fast debates. In all forms of carded debate, I have a very high threshold for abuse on speed theory/K for arguments that were included in a speech doc that was shared with me and the other team. I do not really care about clarity if I have a speech doc I can follow along with. In general, if I am going to vote on an argument against speed, you need to prove that you asked your opponents to slow down and they did not. As hard as it is to establish a brightline for speed, it is impossible to establish a brightline for clarity. While I do prefer you not use speed to exclude the other team, I won't drop you for it unless they convince me I should. I do not intervene against you if you exclude lay/traditional judges from the round with speed - they have their own ballots and I can't speak for them. I'm unlikely to vote on the idea that one way of speaking is inherently "better" than another, and I actively HATE the argument that debate should be held to IE/speech-style standards of communication. I also believe that it doesn't matter whether debate is understandable to laypeople in the audience - your words only need to be understood by the other team.

THEORY/T: I love theory debates - I will vote on any theory position if you win the argument even if it seems frivolous or unnecessary - I do vote on the flow and try not to intervene. I will even vote on PMR/2AR theory if there is an egregious violation in the MOC/NR that did not happen in the LOC/NC. I default to fairness over education in non-K rounds but I have voted on critical impact turns to fairness before. Be sure to signpost your We Meet and Counter Interpretation. I do care a lot about the specific text of interps, especially if you point out why I should. For example, I love spec shells with good brightlines but I am likely to buy a we meet if you say the plan shouldn't be vague but don't define how specific it should be. RVI's are fine as long as you can justify them, and I will not intervene against a dropped RVI. I do not need reasons why fairness and education matter unless you are comparing them to something else or to one another. I default to competing interpretations with no RVI's but I'm fine with reasonability if I hear arguments for it in the round. I default to drop the debater on shell theory and drop the argument on paragraph theory. I am perfectly willing to vote on potential abuse - I think competing interps implies potential abuse should be weighed in the round. I think extra-T should be drop the debater.

Rules are NOT a voter by themselves, and I rarely read the rules of events that I judge. If I am going to vote on the rules rather than on fairness and education, tell me why following rules in general or following this particular rule is good. I will enforce speaking times but any rule as to what you can actually say in the round is potentially up for debate. In cases of rules violations, I will almost always prefer not to get anyone kicked out of the tournament - even if the rules of the event recommend that as a penalty. Also, if you threaten to report me to the tabroom for not enforcing the rules I will instantly drop you. Also, I will always allow debaters to debate a different topic than the one the tournament assigned if both sides agree, and I will keep it a secret if asked.

COUNTERPLANS: I will usually vote for cheater CP's unless theory is read against them. PIC's are fine as long as you can win that they are theoretically legitimate, at least in this particular instance. I believe that whether a PIC is abusive depends on how much of the plan it severs out of, whether there is only one topical aff, and whether that part of the plan is ethically defensible ground for the aff. I think that condo is good but I try to be neutral if I evaluate a condo bad shell. I hate dispo and I think all CP's should be either condo or uncondo. However, I do not like to "judge kick" counterplans and if the neg doesn't explicitly kick the CP/alt in their last speech I will assume they're going for it and giving up the status quo.

IMPACT CALCULUS: I default to magnitude because it is the least interventionist way to compare impacts, but I'm very open to arguments about why probability is more important, particularly if you argue that favoring magnitude perpetuates oppression. Timeframe is more of a tiebreaker to me - unless you show how the timeframe of your impact prevents the other impact from mattering. In debates over pre fiat or a priori issues, I prefer preclusive weighing (what comes first) to comparative weighing (magnitude/probability).

KRITIKS: I’m fine with kritiks of any type on either the AFF or the NEG. The K's I'm most familiar with include security, ableism, Baudrillard, rhetoric K's, and cap/neolib. I am fine with letting arguments that you win on the K dictate how I should view the round. I think that the framework of the K informs which impacts are allowed in the debate, and "no link" or "no solvency" arguments are generally not very effective for answering the K - the aff needs some sort of offense. Whether K or T comes first is up to the debaters to decide, but if you want me to care more about your theory shell than about the oppression the K is trying to solve I want to hear something better than the lack of fairness collapsing debate, such as arguments about why fairness skews evaluation. If you want to read theory successfully against a K regardless of what side of the debate you are on, I need reasons why it comes first or matters more than the impacts of the K.

IDENTITY/PERFORMANCE: I think that these arguments are important and should be taken seriously, and while I want to let you read them and talk about the things that you are passionate about, but at the same time debate is a competitive activity with the burden of rejoinder, so if you set up the debate in such a way that the other team can't negate your argument without negating your identity, I will be more willing to vote on framework. Also, I don't think that reading framework against these positions makes you a terrible person - I am willing to listen to both sides of the T vs Identity K debate. However, please do not attack your opponents' marginalized identities to deliberately trigger them - if you do that, you are the worst kind of person and I will have a hard time justifying a decision for you.

REBUTTALS: Give me reasons to vote for you. Be sure to explain how the different arguments in the debate relate to one another and show that the arguments you are winning are more important. I would rather hear about why you win than why the other team doesn't win. In parli, I do not protect the flow except in the most extreme circumstances. If your opponents make a new argument it is your responsibility to call point of order. I also like to see a good collapse in both the NEG block and the PMR. I think it is important that the LOR and the MOC agree on what arguments to go for.

PRESUMPTION: I rarely vote on presumption if it is not deliberately triggered because I think terminal defense is rare. If I do vote on presumption, I will always presume neg unless the aff gives me a reason to flip presumption. I am definitely willing to vote on the argument that reading a counterplan or a K flips presumption, but the aff has to make that argument in order for me to consider it.

SPEAKER POINTS: I give speaker points based on technical skill not delivery, and will reduce speaks if someone uses language that is discriminatory towards a marginalized group. I no longer give everyone 30's, but I do try to give speaker points in a way that is fair to everyone.

Also, I believe that debaters should not wear professional clothes to tournaments because professional dress is a social construct that reinforces privilege. I won't vote you down on my own initiative for it, but I am willing to vote on arguments about why debaters should not dress professionally. This article describes how I feel about professional dress in speech and debate:

Some of my pet peeves as a judge:

- When the AFF says they "believe" in the res or the NEG says they "don't believe" in it. You were assigned your side at random.

- When debaters start their speech with a quote

- When NEG says that Trump will roll back the plan

- When anyone calls the debate round a "day" or talks about "today's debate" - it's annoying because there are usually multiple rounds in a day

- Please do not set the criterion to net benefits for one particular country or region unless you read social contract theory as your framework (especially in parli). I have a very low threshold for letting NEG win that net benefits should include everyone. However, I am fine with other parametricized forms of net benefits, like structural violence first or extinction first, I just don't think that whether someone's life matters should be dependent on lines drawn on a map.

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy that are not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round.


If there is no flex time you should take one POI per constructive speech - I don't think multiple POI's are necessary and if you use POI's to make arguments I will not only refuse to flow the argument I will take away a speaker point. If there is flex, don't ask POI's except to ask the status of an advocacy, ask where they are on the flow, or ask the other team to slow down. Anyone who asks or takes an unnecessary POI in a round with flex will lose a speaker point - I think that keeping POI's intact in a format with flex is rooted in problematic notions of politeness. I don't care about "protected time". I think it's a silly and unnecessary rule.

I think that parli structurally favors MG theory so I believe that MG theory should have a higher threshold than LOC theory, but I won't judge it any different unless the negative tells me why I should, because I dislike intervening.

I do not believe in the trichotomy. I don't think that resolutions being worded as questions of fact or value is mutually exclusive with having a plan text.


I judge PF similar to parli. I do acknowledge that the second constructive doesn't have to refute the first constructive directly though. Dropped arguments are still true arguments (though you can answer them anytime before FF to have the answer on my flow). I care as much about delivery in PF as I do in parli (which means I don't care at all). I DO allow technical parli/policy style arguments like plans, counterplans, topicality, and kritiks. I think there are good arguments for why these arguments should not be in PF, but I won't make them for you - you have to say it in round.

Speed is totally fine with me in PF, unless you are using it to exclude the other team. However, if you do choose to debate at speeds comparable to policy, you should email your evidence to me and the other team. If you want a theory argument or an argument about the rules being a voting issue, please tell me. Just saying "they are cheating" or "you can't do this in PF" is not enough.


I think policy is an excellent format of debate but I am more familiar with parli, so I am not aware of all policy norms. Therefore, when evaluating theory arguments I do not take into account what is generally considered theoretically legitimate in policy. I am okay with any level of speed, but I do appreciate speech docs. My email is

David Griffith Paradigm

8 rounds

David Griffith

Oak Park and River Forest 20

Kentucky 24

Email chain please:


---Tech over truth. I will vote on any argument. Stupidity is stupid. If you think an argument is bad, you should beat it easily.

---Prepare a card doc for the end of the debate after the 2NR/2AR. Even if I don't use it completely, it will always be more helpful than not.

---I flow on either my computer or on paper depending on the day and my mood. I line arguments up next to each other when doing so. This means that the more you stray from line-by-line and rely on big overviews, the more you invite judge intervention as I have to piece back together what arguments are intended to answer each other.

---I'm fine with inserting rehighlightings if the rehighlighted parts are read during CX. If not, you have to read them during the speech.

---I try to divorce my own ideological preferences from by judging. This means that while I may be annoyed at what you have to say, I try not to let that cloud my judgement. However, this paradigm is meant to outline how I both view debates and the arguments that I may be more or less likely to be persuaded by. This is by no means a rulebook. If you debate well, you should have no problems separating me from my ideology.

---I am not a good judge for you if your strategy revolves around arguments that are only there as a joke or because you thought they were funny.

---CX starts when you ask a question. This involves any question about what they have read in their speech. If you don't know what they said, flow. If I don't know what they said, you're in a good spot anyway.

---Online debates are really tricky to judge. I would prefer that every debater has their webcam on while speaking and that each speech sends analytics when possible.

K Affs

---Aff teams will do better in framework debates when they either forward a counter-interpretation justified with a predictability argument grounded in the topic literature or they impact turn the negative standards. I am unlikely to be persuaded by counter-interpretations that are either unlimiting or lack a reason why we should be able to predict them before a tournament.

---Neg teams will do better in framework debates when they go for impacts specific to the act of debating over the course of an entire topic. This means less of a focus on fairness as an prior impact and more of a focus on fairness and predictability as internal links to the benefits of researching a limited topic.

---Given the trend of K affs being willing to grant the negative links to topic disads/heg good in the 1AC or 1AC CX, I am confused why more negative teams are not going for these arguments. That being said, I won't hold it against you if those debates are not your thing.

---K v. K debates are definitely where I am most out of my element. This is not to say that I am unwilling to judge them, but I expect clear reasons why the aff is a bad idea from the negative. Absent that, I suspect that I may intervene more than either side would like me to just because of my lack of familiarity with how these debates typically function.


---Framework determines the role for the negative, not for the affirmative. This means that framework arguments about something the aff should have done better are unlikely to win my ballot.

---I am likely to evaluate links to the aff's representations. However, I am also likely to evaluate a risk of the affirmative's advantages and compare them to the link. This means that links should not serve as a substitute for impact calculus.

---Not a fan of the common "tricks" associated with going for the K (fiat double bind, Antonio 95, etc.). I am likely to grant the affirmative a lot of leeway if the debate comes down to one of those arguments.

---I am much more likely to vote negative if there is a robust alternative in the 2NR. Negative teams would be well-suited to make arguments for why that alternative solves the case.

---I don't understand why fiat not being real matters.

---Good, detailed case debating will make these debates a lot easier for the negative. I will almost always vote aff if a 2AR is a large extinction outweighs push if the K is even slightly mitigated.

---I tend to value framework less than maybe I ought to. This is more of a warning than a suggestion to not go for framework as much.

---CJR take: Abolition is pretty good. Stop saying "non-reformist reform" as a substitute for a real argument.


---The trend of being unwilling to vote on topicality confuses me. I love T debates. I also love talking about grammar.

---Predictability and precision matter a lot more to me than a lot of other people. I think that the more precise an interpretation is, the less it matters how good its limits are on the topic in a vacuum. If a "bad" definition is more precise or predictable, this is only a reason we should've written the resolution better.

---Competing interpretations is almost always the way I'll evaluate these debates. Reasonability only matters if the affirmative wins their interp is reasonable. This seems obvious to some, but (for some reason) not to others. Reasonability alone is not a winning 2AR.

---Topicality is a frequently question of competing models. Accordingly, I am unlikely to be persuaded by "no in-round abuse" or "you read X number of off-case arguments."

---CJR take: every neg team should be going for T-Enact against courts affs. I have yet to hear a compelling reason why courts affs are topical that isn't infantile whining about losing a bit of aff ground on one of the biggest topics in recent history. The neg evidence is so much better than the aff evidence that I am beginning to question why people are even considering courts affs to be topical. Read the part above about predictability. Reading evidence from a random JD candidate is not a winning argument if you plan on going for precision. Email me if you want to chat about it. The fact that this is the longest line in this entire paradigm should indicate the strength of my feelings on this issue.

---T-Substantial usually sucks.


---Conditionality is good and justifies judge kicking the counterplan.

---Creative permutation articulations win debates. These should start in the 2AC.

---By the 2AR, solvency deficits should be quantifiable. This means there has to be comparative impact calculus for why the solvency deficit matters.

---By the 2NR, I should understand what the counterplan does.

---Theory is cowardice. Answer the CP.

---CJR take: love the Process CP. Don't talk about the aff if you don't have to.


---Framing pages are stupid.

---Impact calc matters a lot. By the end of the 2NR, your goal should be able to win the debate even if I give them the whole aff.

---Turns case is huge, but are largely a question of sequencing. Affs should exploit time frame differentials with turns case arguments by proving that their would impacts happen before the disad is triggered.

---1AR gets new answers to new block arguments.

---Likely to be persuaded by fiat-based arguments to no link out of rider disads.

---CJR take: did I mention framing pages are stupid? Like, really stupid. If the negative drops them, I still find myself voting neg about 1/2 of the time. Maybe more. Don't drop them, but also don't read them please.

Wyatt Hatfield Paradigm

Strake Jesuit Class of 2020

Email -

Debate is a game first and foremost.

I qualified to the TOC Junior and Senior year frequently making it to late Elims

Summary of my debate style - I was a memer who just enjoyed the activity while reading all types of arguments but with a twist. I think debate is often boring with debaters just reading blocks and not being innovative.

Please note that I have strong opinions on what debate should be but I will not believe them automatically every round they have to be won just like any other argument. Tech>truth no exceptions unless under extreme circumstances which I don't think will happen, if they do then I will update this.

I am not a fan of identity based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponents identity.

Speaks -

How to get good speaks

- be entertaining either with good music good jokes etc

- explain something to me really well

- in order to get super high speaks 29.5 + in front of me you really need to do something new or innovative, reading your 2NR doc on something will never get you this high no matter how good it is. A new meme or strategy is almost a guarantee of this speaks range.

- making arguments that I really like or agree with, this includes Catholicism and Monarchism.

do any of these things and you will for sure get above a 28.5

How to get low speaks

- Having bad strategy choice

-being really rude or mean. Aggression can be a part of a good strategy but being aggressive to the point of making your opponent uncomfortable is what I mean.

- Swearing or cursing, try to keep it professional and respectful please.

Styles of debate -

Before I get into every style just know that I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them, this is just to say what my bright line for winning the arguments tends to be.

K - If you are one of the 10% who actually knows really well what you are talking about and you can show it to me, you will get very high speaks. Just make sure to explain it super well as I think well done explanation allows you to use the K in a more strategic way on other flows. I will not vote on something I don't understand. Be warned I will not walk into the round thinking an impact is true, I will vote on impact turns to any argument, you need to be ready to defend the impact of the K as I'm not going to accept it as true automatically.

Larp - This was my main Strat when I couldn't read theory and I do enjoy a good larp debate. Being a good larper requires knowing your evidence more than your opponent and CX is where this becomes clear. If you know your Aff and you have good evidence you will get good speaks.

Tricks - If you just blip storm a ton of aprioris I will probably miss some so please be clear with what you're doing. That being said if you are just reading some stupid generic aprioris or skep I will not be impressed and you will not get higher speaks. please be innovative.

Theory - Make sure to be clearly extending and weighing your standard and please read paradigm issues. I don't get this new trend of not reading voters it really makes me sad. I will vote on anything no matter how frivolous if its won. If the round becomes a messy theory debate with little to no weighing done I will be leaning towards fairness impacts first.

Phil - If you have skep or permissibility triggers make sure to do a good job explaining why they are triggered just saying "extend this card it says trigger skep in the tag gg" does not do it for me. Side note I really enjoy theological debate if it’s possible. I promise good speaks if you make the debate interesting. Do with that what you will.

FinalsAt Inactivity Paradigm

8 rounds

Last Updated - pre-Loyola/Grapevine '20

Jack C Hays '19

UH Debate '23

Conflicts 2020-21 -

I am a consultant for Westside High School's policy team, specifically working with Westside KS and Westside RY.

In addition, I currently coach (here we go) Trinity Valley KK, Coppell VS, Plano East DJ, Lindale PP, Garland LY, Memorial DX, Newsome DB, Westlake AK, Mount Pleasant RP, Princeton TK, Cooper City NR, Cardinal Gibbons RS, and George Ranch NS in LD. I have previously coached Lovejoy KC.

I have a personal friendship with Plano West NG, so I conflict him too.

I graduated from Jack C Hays HS in 2019.

Don't call me "judge" or any other honorific please. Patrick is fine. Fox is fine if you don't wanna call me Patrick.

Stats for nerds - I judged 75 debates (excluding locals, including TFA) in the 2019/20 season. Of these, I voted aff 41 times and neg 34 times. I sat precisely one time (semis of TFA, I voted neg on T). In clash of civ debates, I vote aff marginally more in K aff v Framework debates (begrudgingly), and also vote aff marginally more in policy aff v K debates (less begrudgingly), which makes my overall voting record in those rounds almost exactly 50/50 K/policy. I just vote aff a little bit more - if I had to guess I'd say it's due to my lack of sympathy for 2NR implicit clash (plus a lot of just bad K 2NRs) and my willingness to give the 2AR a bit more leeway on extrapolation from the 1AR in LD.

IMPORTANT - Really, really not okay with cards written by high school debaters at time of publication. I won't flow them. This is not negotiable. You may be academic authorities on some things someday, but you definitely aren't yet.

My LD debate tier list -

Policy aff vs the K

- Evidence-heavy policy rounds

- K v K

- GOOD K aff vs Framework debates


- Interesting phil debates

- Shitposting/dumpster fires - I think fucking with people can be amusing as a strategy


- BAD K aff v Framework debates

- Cool theory debates


- GOOD tricks debating (if there is such a thing)


- BAD tricks debating

I have no clue why I judged so many tricks debates in 2019-20. I hated every second of basically all of them and was constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop when I inevitably made an incoherent decision because someone assumed I understood more than I did.


I debated for 5 years in policy and LD. Cleared at some bid tournaments, TFA and UIL State, decently competitive, blah blah blah. I debate for the University of Houston (Go Coogs!) under Ricky Garner and Rob Glass, where I have accomplished nothing notable so far, as I am bad. I actively coach and judge a lot, (I spend about the same time coaching policy and LD, but I judge LD a lot more).

I study literature. I'm currently working on academic research pertaining to disability, psychoanalysis, and ecology/the Anthropocene.

My biggest influences in debate are Aimun Khan and JD Sanford (my former coaches), videos of Berkeley MS on the internet, and Philip DiPiazza (my eternal ordinal 1).

I have hearing damage in my left ear. Please sit to/speak from the right of wherever I happen to be in the room. Or don't, if you want me to miss the d-subpoint of your sick 2NC procedural fairness dump. Up to you.

I don't flow off the doc.

I was a small school debater (whatever that means in the era of Debate Drills). This does affect my view of debate, but only in very specific circumstances.

What does Patrick Fox like?

Cajun food, jazz, Chance the Rapper, and cool sneakers.

In terms of debate though, good, strategic execution. I don't really care much about the content of your arguments - debate is cool because you get to debate, not because I get paid to judge. I obviously read a very specific subset of the policy and K debate spectrum, and I certainly prefer judging those debates, but I think I'm decently proficient in adjudicating everything.

With that being said, a few things universally signify good debate to me -

- Proficiency at the game - this isn't just being techy/lots of lbl. It's also collapsing to your best arguments, isolating clear offense at the top of the 2N/AR, and impacting out your arguments as fully and aggressively as possible. Write my ballot, don't drop things, and cover your ass ("even if we lose x..."). I value you demonstrating in-depth knowledge of your arguments. 1ARs that substantively explain offense for a perm and articulate aff internal links in the context of the K? Very nice. Reading the Gordon evidence against any K that mentions race? Big sad.

- Good arguments - I prefer debates that substantively engage over debates that evade clash, but if something stupid makes it's way into the last speech, I get it. In general, I'm more convinced by (and find more strategic value in) a few well-developed arguments than 8 blippy bad ones.

Good debaters have truth and tech. I'm still tech > truth, but with the caveat of burden of proof > burden of rejoinder - if I don't know what the warrant and impact of an argument is, I don't care if it's conceded. However, this also means I'm happy to vote on bad arguments that are mishandled - my threshold for answering them is basically pointing at it and going "trash, here's why..." - if you can't do that, you are worse than those bad arguments.

What does Patrick dislike?

John Yoo (totally a war criminal) and the French (too much colonization, food is overhyped).

Also, the inverse of above. 2NRs that don't collapse, bad strategies, etc.

These are arguments I will never vote on. These are non-negotiable.

- Arguments that make debate violent. Racism/sexism/ableism good, animal suffering good (the vegans got to me), etc. My role as educator > my role as police, so I err on the side of playing things out - if gendered language becomes an argument, for example, I'll let the debaters hash it out until it becomes an active safety issue for the participants in the room. Where that distinction falls is entirety up to me.

- I do not feel comfortable making decisions about the personal behavior or character of minors or coaching staffs that occur outside of debates. Arguments about things that are observable within the debate are fair game, and I have no tolerance for racism, etc - see above.

- Arguments that directly contradict your CX. It's binding. I flow important info.

- Arguments that procedurally exclude an entire speech - no LDers, I'm not going to "evaluate theory after the 1AR". I will not flow this argument. I will explicitly stop flowing and glare at you.

What are miscellaneous thoughts that might be important? (I update this regularly)

I'm not gonna give you a 30 for asking.

Overviews need to be shorter. Most explanation can and should be done on the lbl.

New rule about "independent voters" - every time you say this without giving me an actual warrant for why it is "independent" of the rest of the debate, I won't flow the argument and you lose 0.5 speaks. It's giving good K debaters a bad name, as well as trivializing actual microaggressions in debate.

"Pre/post-fiat" is language and distinction that died years ago and means nothing to me. Saying it docks your speaks.

The Rider DA is a barren wasteland of an argument.

I am much better for policy debates than people think. My favorite arguments in high school were well-researched process CPs. I love dense, technical case throwdowns. I read a policy aff my first year of college. I would much rather see this than a garbage K 2NR to pander to me. Yao-Yao was my first coach.

That being said, I'm probably in a clash debate. I think I'm good for both sides of this, as I tend to have very few ideological predispositions. I say "very few" with two caveats - 1. I think some form of dialogue/role for negation is good and there should be a general telos and stasis for discussions - my ideal affirmative articulates a model of debate that has both but doesn't link to the impact turns, and 2. I tend to think clash > procedural fairness > topic ed. Both of these are changed by good debating.

I think a lot about competition theory and normal means. It's actually one of my favorite parts of debate to nerd out about, and I find that well-researched process CPs and DAs that link based on the nature of normal means (NOT the Rider DA) are actually really good debates to have in front of me. Relatedly, I think the better 2AC response to such strategies is having the competition debate, not just theory.

I am a strong believer in intrinsicness theory on DA questions. I have never has anyone debate it out into the 2AR in front of me, but I would be very interested in seeing it and quite open to voting on it as terminal defense.

Average performance for the pool (i.e: 3-3/low 4-2) = 28.4. 29+ and you should be in the bid round/bid, 29.4+ and you should be in late elims. 30 and you have done something that genuinely impressed me or seriously changed what I consider to be good debating. I have yet to give out a 30.

LDers - you must set up floating PIKs in the 1NC for me to give them to you in the 2NR. When does it float otherwise? You don't have a neg block.

I am a 2N. I think condo is good. This is one of my harder opinions to debate past, barring egregious instances (i.e: fiating out of straight turns, CPs with tons of conditional planks).

That being said, judge kick is an abomination.

I care about DAs and K links turning case a lot.

Baudrillard people - "banal" is pronounced "buh-nol", NOT "bane-ul". lol.

Side Quests

General shitposting/being fun to judge - generally higher speaks - I refuse to let myself ever take this activity as seriously as I am supposed to. Bonus points (literally) for:

- Making fun of one of my debaters

- Making fun of a coach I'm friends with

- Making fun of me

- Making a joke about Eric Schwertfeger, Rob Glass, or Ricky Garner specifically

- Good jazz, hip-hop, or sneaker jokes

Matt Moorehead Paradigm

he/him, appleton east ‘19, wisconsin ‘23

email chain or questions:

conflicts: appleton east, northview ys, lynbrook kd, enloe tc, greenhill mk

tl;dr - i genuinely love debate - i am incredibly opinionated as a coach and debater, but judging i try to hold your ability to debate your position well over my personal beliefs on those positions - pref me if you can explain your argument well, regardless of what it is. i think i can judge any debate fairly well, but the better you collapse, explain, and impact out arguments, the more you will understand and/or like my decision.

the best debates involve well-researched positions, rigorous line-by-line contestation, and strategic argument development - regardless of what style you choose debate, i have found these beliefs always lead to the best outcome

extra stuff:

1. i debated four years at appleton east in wisconsin. i did national circuit ld and dabbled in policy. i broke at the toc, got a couple bids, cleared at nsda twice, taught at nsd flagship, and have coached locally and nationally for appleton east and other independent national circuit debaters

2. ishan honestly says this better than me, but not all arguments come into round at 100% risk - debate is more than just words on a flow, and it should take more to convince me that something like suffering is bad than good - the strength of your argument is correlated with how well warranted your justifications are for it, it's incredibly difficult to win arguments that contradict all common sense when they're warranted by blips - the easiest way to not worry about this is to read fleshed out and truthful arguments

3. random points: internal links and impact calculus are where any debate is won, no judge kicks unless you tell me to, affs must defend a change from the status quo, it’s hard to fill in holes in your arguments/try to understand deep literature buzzwords without explanation, warrant why something is an independent voter, i have only given above a 29.4 to two people and rarely go below 28.3

4. i appreciate positivity - being inclusive/wholesome and making me laugh will help your speaks and being a bad person or speaking over gender minorities will definitely hurt them

have a great day and best of luck! :)

Aniruth Narayanan Paradigm

Aniruth Narayanan (He/Him/His)

Berkeley M.E.T. '24

C. Leon King High School '20

I picked up a bid in LD, quartered at states, blue key, sunvite, and got to early elims a couple places my junior year and only went to one tournament my senior year, so I consider myself able to judge most debates although it has been some time since I've debated so I may not be up to date on the latest debate trends.

Put me on the email chain (before the round please):

I've never sat (judged at 4 tournaments so far, couple of elim debates with a few 2-1s) and I have no intention to.

If you debate traditionally, skip down to the end and don't worry about the other stuff.

If you are debating a novice/new debater, read arguments that 1. make sense and 2. explain them well while being nice.

Prefs Shortcut (this is kinda long because I wanted to be as detailed as I could, but overall you should be fine)

Phil/Theory - 1

LARP - 2

K – 3 (but if you’re willing to explain the warrants and taglines you should be good)

Yes, I'll vote on tricks and spikes and stuff but try to make them good. The worse the argument, the lower the threshold for response and the more work you have to do to justify it.

Short Version

Your round is about to begin, so let me address your most pertinent questions.

I will listen to any argument except those that are exclusionary - if you find yourself asking "is this exclusionary?" it probably is. Give trigger warnings - again, use the same thought process. If you use a lot of big words and complicated ideas and have to ask yourself whether you need to explain it, you should probably explain it. Yes, I will understand the lack if you're reading Lacan, but you must demonstrate that you understand your argument through explanation. Same goes for cross - if you can't answer basic questions (same example of Lacan) of what the Real is, it's not a good look.

I don't have a preference for what I like (really) as long as 1. you understand what you are saying and 2. you explain it to me. I need you to explain and extend the claim, warrant, and impact coherently for me to vote on something - if something is entirely conceded, you still need to do work extending it, although not as much. Everything needs to have a warrant for me to vote on it.

I normally read philosophy - the exception being that I never read Deleuze for some reason (but I am familiar with his works) - so this includes Derrida, Habermas, Nietzsche, Laruelle, Glissant, etc. I love theory, it's incredibly strategic and the first thing I really learned. I also go for Wilderson as well, and I occasionally larp and read analytic frameworks. Basically, as long as you understand what you are saying and I can repeat that, you should be fine.

I will say "clear" and "slow" as many times as need be - but it might get annoying after a while. If you don't clear/slow when I say it, your speaks will reflect that. Go as fast as you want - I don't really care about speed - as long as you are clear. I flow by ear and I will not flow off the doc. Say author names clearly and pause to show where taglines are, where evidence begins and ends, things like that.

I also really like CX. Please use the time to try and point out flaws while holding your ground respectfully. CX is not prep. Use it wisely.

Long Version

General Stuff

I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I have some defaults (see long version) but these are easily changed if you just bring it up in the speech with a warrant. Take what you think debate should be and what you are good at it and explain it to me as a reason to frame the debate in that way and vote for you. Regardless of my personal opinions, I will vote on arguments that are won as long as they are not exclusionary and don't advocate things like oppression is good.

You need to respond to all arguments even if they are completely absurd - if they have some semblance of some warrant you should at least mention that it is unwarranted.

Debate is a game for me. Strategy is the most important thing in what you do - that is what really impresses me when I look at the round holistically when trying to make a decision.

To ensure the round goes the way you want it to, do a good job explaining stuff. If you don't explain things exactly how you want me to evaluate it (i.e. layering) even on the same level of the debate, that means I have to try and resolve things without intervening by understanding how arguments work.

Here's an example of what I mean. Hopefully it makes sense.

Let's say Debater A reads Framework X and Debater B reads Framework Y. Debater A has some theoretical justifications for Framework X that go straight conceded and are extended through the round. Debater B makes arguments for why Framework Y controls the internal link to Framework X which is contested. Debater A has responded by saying that Framework Y only matters because of Framework X.

Neither debater has done (enough) analysis for how their arguments interact; thus, it is questionable as to wins the framework and makes my head hurt. If either debater had talked about their justifications in context of the other justifications, then that would mean that debater has resolved the round; else, I have to resolve it, much to the chagrin of a debater.

I think that the biggest thing, if you want my ballot, is to do comparative analysis and weighing with even if situations. For example, if there's a lot of arguments on some irrelevant part of the flow, you should tell me that. But if there's a lot of clash on the one thing that's deciding my ballot, then you need to tell me a macro-level story with micro-level arguments to support that story. Collapsing is very good. It's a very important part of strategy.

Overviews should be used with a purpose of some sort.

I do not really presume to a side. I also will not say that a layer is a wash - if you both read theory arguments that aren't weighed or something of that nature, I will determine how the arguments are resolved even if it takes time. If it takes time simply because you both did not clarify or explain well, that's going to reflect in speaks.

I default to comparative worlds - easily changed. If you want me to evaluate things like a prioris, you need to either 1. Justify truth-testing or 2. Implicate a prioris somehow in a comparative worlds paradigm.

I default that layers can be weighed against each other if you don't give me a reason why they can't. I don't know "embedded clash" if you don't bring it up - I won't do the work for you. I may realize it and bring it up later, but I won't cross-apply some extension to some other part of the flow if you don't bring it up.


I like theory. I think that theory can be very strategic and some shells simply don't have offense to a counter-interp. That being said, if you go for reasonability, you need to give me a brightline or it's entirely up to me. I default a little weirdly. If the shell is a question of norm-setting, which I will determine based on the interp, then I default RVI, education as a voter, and competing interps. If the shell is a question of in-round abuse, then I default No RVI, fairness is a voter, and competing interps. I will only use these if and only if - and this is not something you should do - no one brings them up at all.

I will vote on disclosure theory. I think it may be strategic sometimes if the counter-interp has no offense. I personally have my own views on disclosure; these will not affect my evaluation of your disclosure shells. I really like creatively planked disclosure shells that make it really hard to justify that particular combination of actions.

I also think 1AR theory is legit, 2NR theory is not really legit, and 2AR theory is definitely not legit except in the most extreme scenario. These are all defaults - just mention your side of the issue and these go away.

Phrasing things as "voting issues" such as when reading condo bad need to be clear theory arguments for me to evaluate them as theory for uplayering. You need to do some work to get me to vote on these. Blips, however short as long as they can be caught and are explained with a warrant and implication are great for me to vote on especially if you explain them in the context of the entire debate.


I like tricks. They're great. My favorite thing is when people trick out phil or LARP or something else. Creative tricks are good; bad tricks are bad. If someone catches you being sketchy, be upfront and honest about it. New implications are great, but I need to see the pieces come together in the round about what it does for you.

Spikes are also great, but try and make them accessible. Clearly number them, space them, do whatever you need to. It won't be a problem for me, but I ask you be inclusive to all when you format your case so that it's accessible.

If you want new 2n responses or me to evaluate the theory debate after the 1ar or something of that nature, those must be in constructive speeches. I won't allow new 2n responses justified in the 2n - that's too late.


This is probably my favorite kind of debate. I read this most of the time, and I think it's blatantly clear when you're spreading off stolen prep from the wiki (which you should recut at a minimum) or from backfiles compared to when you cut the argument yourself. In CX, if you can't explain your theory coherently, I'm going to keep that in mind for speaks. If it's really bad, it'll be hard to win off that ethical framework.


Go for it - just make sure if you use big words in the tagline that the average high school English teacher would not understand, I probably won't either. Give me clear overviews and go through the 2NR in a systematic manner for high speaks.


Engage in it - I default epistemic confidence but if you mention epistemic modesty with a real warrant and win it I will use it. I never really LARPed, but I understand how to. I think weighing and evidence comparison is pretty cool when done well.

NonT Affs

I'm good with these but I don't really read these. Articulate a clear ballot story of why you should win. I've always read T-Framework and similar arguments against these so keep that in mind, it's not unwinnable in front of me so go for it if it’s your thing, but explain why I should vote for you.

If something is an independent voter, do some work explaining why it is an independent voter and weigh it in the context of the round. Just saying a phrase like "percon - it's an independent voter. It's pre-meditated murder" is the opposite of this.

Flashing/Emailing/Stealing Prep

Prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer or when the email has been sent. Putting the document together is prep. Again, it is prep. Stealing prep is a no-no, just take some prep - it looks much better for your ethos.


This is kind of sketch for me. I think it depends on the specific nature of what sort of skep you’re reading and how you’re implicating it – there’s a difference between reading skep against a performance aff and using skep triggers in a phil debate to frame why your framework should win. Again, if you have to ask yourself whether you should be reading this, you probably shouldn’t.


I'll disclose speaks - ask me if I forget.

Scale depends on the tournament, in general I'll average a 28.5 but I'm very sympathetic to the screw as it's happened to me many times.

If you can guess my favorite Kanye song (at that moment), I will award you with 0.3 speaks. Each time someone gets it right, I will change the song. If you attempt a guess but then get it wrong, I will subtract 0.2 speaks from what you normally would have received. The helpfulness of the clue is determined by how well you did in the round. If you do not participate in this, it is very difficult, almost impossible, to get a 30.

Clipping Cards

If there is an accusation of clipping cards, the accuser needs to let me know. I will stop the debate and render a decision - if the accuser is correct, they will win the round; if the accuser is incorrect, they will lose the round. Keep this in mind before accusing someone of clipping. If I see it, I will automatically drop you. My definition of a clipped card is one that is misrepresenting the original evidence in some manner, such as cutting in the middle of a sentence to exclude the word "not" right before something.

If you have any more questions, ask me before the round.

I really don't know why it's this long, but if you made it this far, then you made it this far I guess. gg and gl

Traditional/Lay Debate

I think traditional/lay debate is pretty cool. I will take into account mainly how persuaded I am by your argument; no this does not mean I vote for whoever spoke the best, but the way in which you deliver an argument probably does matter. Keep the debate clean, crystallize/give clear voters, have a clear case, and be nice and respectful.

Alex Pluto Paradigm

do whatever the fuck you want, im just here to say who won. I go off the flow and will accept any argument, just explain it. I mainly run set col. And i Hack vs Matthew Moorhead

Julonni Washington Paradigm

Bio - Former CUNY Debater (2013-14) and current high school coach

For the e-mail chain:

For PF: You're getting a judge with some policy background and policy (let's just face it) is a more rigorous form of debate. This means you have liberty to run more than the CBI and debate blog vetted positions in front of me. You will be better off taking advantage of that. However, I don't appreciate the mental gymnastics it takes to understand many policy positions and you folks get less speech time to spin arguments so please keep it relatively simple.

For Policy: I'll try my best to be a fair judge and vote based on the merit of the arguments presented in a given round. That being said, I think that debate (at least the way it's done at tournaments) is a game and thus do not appreciate teams who try to avoid being topical or enjoy running far left identity arguments. Beyond that, what you would deem as wise strategy and advice from most circuit judges applies for me as well. Some side notes though....

- I lean generally on the side on Condo good in theory debates.

- Any type of competition works for a counterplan. Explain the net benefit clearly if you plan to go for a CP

- Affirmative teams should spend as much time as possible on the case debate explaining why the aff is a good idea and outweighs the negative

- Good impact calc is necessary to resolve close debates and can clean up messy link clash on the off case flows.

- Politics DA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nearly every K

Carolyn Zou Paradigm

conflicts: DebateDrills

hi! i'm carolyn (they/them) and i debated for 4 years for pennsbury high school. i competed locally for two years and nationally for the two years after that in LD & qualified to the toc twice. i read both policy and kritikal arguments & specialized in virilio/baudrillard.

i like good and innovative debates, meaning i appreciate smart analytical arguments very heavily over vague and non-contextual blocks. likewise, i would like 1ncs to answer the case on the case page.

i dislike bad and bureaucratic debates. dropped arguments without warrants aren't arguments.

zero risk is possible

i don't vote for disclosure theory unless they lied/said it was going to be a different aff. however, i bump speaks if you do cites & open-source & round reports, just lmk before i submit

similar skepticism of other theory, generally don't read it unless you'd read it in front of a college policy judge

i flow cx