NDA High School Tournament 3 Tech

2019 — Newark, NJ, NJ/US

Vaughn Akridge Paradigm

8 rounds

Thanks for taking the time to read this paradigm, as well all of the other paradigms you're probably reading right now too, so lets begin shall we?

I am a graduate of East Side High School (class of 2012) and I have been debating for four years while I was at East Side High School. I did policy debate for three years and then I did Lincoln-Douglass debate in my last year of high school because I had a lot of partner issues. I am currently attending Essex County College majoring in Liberal Arts and I am projected to graduate in Spring of 2019 and I plan on attending Rutgers Newark to major in History and/or Public Administration.

For Novice Debaters

-Please, please DO NOT RUN OFF CASE ARGUMENTS IN THE 2NC! I will not evaluate those arguments whatsoever. If you're going to have a neg strat then run everything you're going to run in the 1NC. The 1nc ought to be your foundation for any type of arguments you plan on using throughout the round!!

-I am ok with open cross-ex but don't dominate your partner with questions that your partner ought to be asking during the session. And it's okay to be assertive and concise during cross-ex but don't be rude towards your opponent

-Don't use up all of your prep time for one speech, you're going to need it when it matters the most, and never use it for the 1NR, because the 2NC is basically 8 minutes worth of prep that you can use to your advantage.

-give me a road map (the order of the speech) and make sure to signpost during the speech as well

-I'm ok with speed reading so as long as you are clear and concise with your arguments and how you present them to me. If you can't, then that's also fine because debate is all about being persuasive, regardless of your pace. Also, if you have time at the end of your speech, try to include a summary of the arguments you presented so I as the judge can have a clear picture on how your arguments will interact with your opponent's arguments and so on.

As for the rest of this paradigm, here are my other preferences (for JV/Varsity Debaters)

-I ABHOR THEORY ARGUMENTS THAT ARE USED TO GET FREE WINS! Unless if a situation occurs in which you have to run theory BECAUSE the opposing team is being abusive or if they're being really vague and ambiguous, becoming more and more abstract and unclear with their arguments altogether. Basically, if they are giving you bogus claims as to why they should win the round then put them in check with theory. That's how I feel theory should be PROPERLY APPLIED, NOT ABUSED TO GET A CHEAP WIN

-Topicality is another argument that I don't like but I don't totally dislike either. Like theory, the situation has to present itself in a way that will be smart for you to run the argument. So as long as you don't drop it and try to bring it back in the later speeches for a cheap win, I will evaluate it. I do evaluate the K of topicality as well so as long as you can explain in your own words how running topicality is inherently bad and why its bad for debate. Arguments that you run analytically will have to have some sort of validity in order for me to truly evaluate it as a judge, which is why it is important to use your warrants that were previously stated in the round to back up said analytical arguments.

-I'm totally fine with the staple arguments (i.e. CP's and DA's). And for CP's specifically, if you're running a PIC, I'd really appreciate an overview of the pic for the sake of comprehension.

Side Note: if you plan on kicking out of any these types of arguments, make sure to "close the door" on them properly so the aff doesn't gain access to any offense on those flows. By "closing the door" I refer to making the argument that explains why the argument was conditional and explaining how and why the aff ought to not gain any access to the offense they've made on those arguments by pointing out how in the neg and aff world the aff arguments wouldn't function as solvency but rather as a solvency deficit to the 1AC on those particular flows.

-Kritiks to be honest, is my favorite off case argument so as long as you know how to run it correctly. When it comes to certain kritiks that I've never heard, or really don't get, I'd appreciate it if you can give a quick explanation how the kritik functions in the neg world if you have any time leftover in your speech. When it comes to critical affs, explain how racism or other "isms" functions through the social institutions functions to oppress "x" marginalized group(s) of people the 1NC claim to solve for in the kritik.

-If the aff doesn't address the K thoroughly with a permutation argument or impact turns the K, make it your priority to extend it throughout the case, don't let them get away with defensive/non-answer type arguments that don't address the core issues the K is intending to solve for. However, if they do go for a permutation argument and it's just impact defense to the alternative, then explain why the perm isn't feasible in a world where the aff wants to have their cake and eat it too (i.e. Severance).

-when it comes to framework, I evaluate it in the round as the clearly established bright line that both teams ought to adhere to, purely on a mechanical level. If one team establishes the framework as the guiding point of the discussion but fails to use it as a weighing mechanism to give me an idea of how the round is supposed to play out then there's really nothing else for me to see on a macro level.

-Essentially, if it doesn't meet the brightline, they'll functionally concede to it without a justification as to how they'll meet that brightline better than you. However, if the brightline is upheld and extended throughout the round as the prerequisite/starting point to whatever discussion that needs to be had then I will evaluate it as the argument as is. By the way, I also prefer framework arguments that promote an idea that is able to be utilized in the most holistic way possible. Policy Option Framework arguments I do prefer as well, so as long as its something that is explicitly mentioned and maintained in the debate as mechanism in which the policy option is the starting point to the discussion at hand, whatever that discussion may be.

-during Cross Examination, do not stick to just one question and expect to get a different answer. If they don't answer the first time around go to the next one, and the next one and get them to concede to your side of the debate because that is what cross-ex is for and that is how it should be utilized. And please, DO NOT GO ON A RANT when you're the one asking questions. Just keep the questions concise and rapid, three minutes can go by like nothing so please use those three minutes wisely. Additionally, BODY LANGUAGE IS YOUR BEST FRIEND DURING CROSS-EX. I say this because as a judge, it shows me that you are confident and persistent in the questions that you are asking/answering.

-DO NOT SAY ANYTHING OFFENSIVE AND TRY TO JUSTIFY IT, and by offensive I mean anything that is racist, sexist, or just completely taboo. I will dock your speaker points!

aside from that, just have a good time and if you lose, that should be the least of your worries. this is literally just a learning experience that commodifies arguments to get your point across. I'm sure you have a much better life outside of this extra curricular activity...but if it is something you devote yourself to on a daily basis then by all means pursue your goals and strive to be the best that you can possibly be. Don't let anyone stop you from reaching your goals, not even me!

Akilah Akridge Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Saied Beckford Paradigm

8 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 debating coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy and Christopher Kozak

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu

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.

You can run theory. Just be good at it, because if you provide a lackluster attempt at it in a round, it is not going to be a heavily weighted when deciding the winner.

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!

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!

Victoria Borges Paradigm

8 rounds

I used to read these in High School all the time, I hated it when it was too long. So I will try to make this short and descriptive.

In General

I do not like performative contradictions, unless you read a theory argument on why it is good. I won't on impulse vote for contradictions unless debaters change my prespective.

So if you say one thing in one speech, and then completely change your paradigm in your last speech, I'm going to be confused on what I'm voting for, so by default I won't vote for you.

I would vote on almost anything, just debate it.

Aff

  • I am not very fond of hege.
  • I don't mind Non-topical aff's but I will have a hard time voting you up on FW, if you do not explain to me why you're aff is not only key to debate, but key to the topic. Do that, and you're good.
  • Not just about who's impact is bigger, it's about if the aff solves for it's impacts as well.
  • I like specific explainations on what the aff does exactly and how that will interact in the real world to solve for you impacts. I want that story.

Neg

T:

LOVE topicality.

However, I do hate generic T's like "should" and "substantially is X%". Unless the aff is incredibly tiny with the how much increase/decrease with w.e they are doing.

I like specific T's. I like specific examples of how the round itself was a demonstration of abuse in future rounds.

Although I love T, as someone who also loves K's, I do believe it T's can lead to silencing. K of T is legit. So make sure you answer it. Well.

Thoery: eh. It's cool.

  • I think condo is legit, but I've also debated why it is bad.
  • Topical CP's suck.
  • Fiat has it's up's and downs.
  • Pref con is a gray area. I can go either side.

CP's:

  • Hate XO.
  • If it is not mutally exclusive, I probably won't vote on it.
  • I think CP's that a team has originally created is super awesome.
  • I don't mind consult CP's but you're going to have to explode how the consultation is key to net-benefit, and why it solves better for your own impacts and the aff's impacts.

K's: Love performance! But I hate it when a team makes a performance, but forget to explain the reason why they are doing it. I've seen teams always say, "extend the narrative" and never tell me why the narrative plays an important role in the round.

  • Reject Alt's are fine. But explain the concept of rejection and the role it plays outside and inside the round.
  • I like specific links. Like any other normal person.

I am familiar with:

  • Abelism K it was my thing my senior year.
  • Cap
  • Anthro
  • Queer Thoery
  • Whiteness

DA: eh.

  • I hate the ridiclous impats. You're going to have to explain to me why it would happen.
  • Don't just do impact calc, do comparative analysis.

About me: I debated for Technology High School for 4 years, and currently I love K's and K Affs. However during my first year of high school debate I hated them so I can understand the importance of FW from a personal level, and a technical one. I ran performance my sophomore year. I also have ran policy aff's before.

Kylah Broughton Paradigm

Not Submitted

Luis Carrera Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Kevin Cenac Paradigm

Not Submitted

John Clarke Paradigm

I debated for CUNY for three and 1/2 years so I ran a decent amount of arguments dealing with policy but not so much in the critical aspect of debate rounds. I vote on anything as long as it is given to me in the rebuttals clear, concise and logical. Even though I am not profound in certain kritiks, as long as they are explained to me then I will most likely vote for it, unless I disagree with the viewpoint of that kritik. My viewpoint deals with race arguments and how it prevents certain impacts such as genocide. I am really patient so I will not take time for jumping files but please make sure that it doesn't prolong the round for too long. Please be sure to accommodate for the other team if all your files are on the computer and you flow on it as well.

Gery Evans Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Monique Evans Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Elijah Glenn Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kevon Haughton Paradigm

8 rounds

Ive done Policy Debate for 7 years from high school through to college. In college I debated for Rutgers University Newark. I qualified to the NDT 3 times and was a CEDA Quarter finalist in 2016.

Affiliation - Blake Debate

Public Forum

Ultimately the biggest problem I see in PF debate is a lack of warranting, evidence comparison, and impact calculus. These three things are essential to winning my ballot. Also, I am a very technical judge, I flow everything (including cross) and dropped arguments are true arguments.

In terms of evidence - please read actual cards and do not just "paraphrase" authors.

Warranting and evidence comparison is essential. Extending a bunch of claims without reasoning is not persuasive. Why should I prefer your evidence over your opponents evidence. Similarly you need to compare the impacts, do not just extend your own impact while ignoring the opponents, why does your impact outweigh? Saying evaluate the "cost benefit analysis" is NOT impact calculus.

If an argument is in the Final Focus but was not in the Summary I will not evaluate it.

Finally, if you use racist, sexists, transphobic, ableist, xenophobic, classist, heteronormative, or another discriminatory or oppressive discourse you will not win my ballot and your speaker points will be greatly effected.

Erlea Jimenez Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Alex Landrum Paradigm

8 rounds

Name: Alex Landrum

Affiliation: Wylie HS '18

Rutgers-Newark 22'

Contact: landrum.alex42@gmail.com

Experience: Wylie HS 15-18, Rutgers-Newark

***TL;DR***

"When I understand the words you say I take them more seriously

Do what you want. I follow tournament rules, try not to throw things"

-Michael Antonucci

Don't be a bigot, you'll lose. If both of teams are bigots, I'll flip a coin

My only actual preference is to judge people who are enthusiastic about debate and their arguments. I want you to care. When you care, odds are I'll care too.

***Long Version???***

I'm skeptical of the utility of these things since it seems that no one listens to these anyway. But here we are

I will do my best to evaluate the round exactly as presented to me while leaving my personal opinions about arguments and ideas out of the RFD. However, for those of you who want to know, I do have some specific thoughts on certain matters. This is not to say that you should take me paradigm as gospel though. I try to keep an open mind and will listen to most arguments and strategies. That being said... you do you. There's a reason I continue to edit this page.

I may ask to see evidence after the round if it is a legitimate point of tension in the round but other than that, if i have to look at evidence to evaluate the debate you're making me do too much work.

Arguments:

Preface - I've run everything from politics, to afropess. My preference when I debate leans heavily critical but I've run and judged strict policy strats too. I can judge whatever you want to throw at me and despite my personal argument choices I am just as happy to judge a good DA/CP as I am to judge a K v. K debate.

K affs/nontraditional affs- Affs should probably defend something although my interpretation of "something" is flexible. I'm good for these affs but the explanation of these arguments are important since I'm not omniscient.

K - I mostly debate the K, but that means I generally have a higher threshold to vote on it. Ks should definitely have links engaging the actual implications of the 1AC (more than a state link). I would say I'm familiar with a number of lit bases but don't ever assume that I know what you're talking about.

DA - Make SMART disads. explain the internal link story. The more specific to the aff the better

CP - CPs have the potential to be cool. Make smart cps. specific net benefits and concrete competition.

T - I have to admit, I like a good T/FW debate but there's a lot of mistakes made on both sides that make this kind of debate difficult. The Aff usually forgets to extend their aff but odds are the 2NR will forget to extend a terminal impact anyway. I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise

Case - Case debate is underutilized. I think most affs are bad. Not to say you shouldn't ever run aff, or I will never vote aff. I just think that affs always have some sort of fundamental contradiction/fallacy etc. that is inevitable in an event where we simulate praxis. Neg teams need to exploit that on the case page, and aff teams need to be ready to answer larger questions of solvency.

Theory - I actually really like a good theory debate. I think one of the most interesting things about debate, is your ability to debate debate. However I hold a high threshold to vote on it in the 2NR/2AR. You have to extend terminal impact calculus (which means shells like disclosure theory AND SKEP are rarely ever voters in my eyes).

Random thoughts

I like puns and scifi/comic references.

Speed is cool. Clarity is cooler. If I can't understand your tags/analytics/line-by-line I have no way of flowing it

Once I've signed the ballot the round is over. No returns or refunds. DO ask me informational questions about the RFD. DON'T argue with the decision. If it's a paper ballot I'll just start taking off speaks

Long overviews are OK. The same way I look at speed applies here. If I can't understand you, or your overview is a total mess I won't be able to evaluate it to its full potential.

I try not to read evidence. However, I will if I feel it is absolutely necessary to resolve the round. I will default to the speaker's interpretation of the evidence unless otherwise contested.

Queen LouAllen Paradigm

I am a versatile judge as long as the argument is well articulated. I have no real preference for arguments but it is a requirement to run the argument as it was intended to be ran. I need a clean cut story as to why you win, meaning there should be some type of summary in your last few speeches somewhere I do prefer global over views instead of overviews on each argument but I will still flow the overviews as to where you put them regardless. I do no work for either team meaning if its not there, it will not be evaluated so if you are going for an argument and haven't put in the work for it, depending on what the other team does, you will be voted down. Other than that I don't judge upon ethos but keep it cordial during the debate, have a great time and good luck to you.

Mariah Matthews Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Monben Mayon Paradigm

8 rounds

[[[[[[[LD]]]]]]]]'

Not best judge for theory

The framework debate should be prioritized in EVERY SPEECH. I prioritize persuasion, TRUTH over TECH, and clarity.

and

Criteria for high speaks: Your arguments are supported by specific evidence and I am able to follow your arguments THROUGHOUT the round (obviously, the winner will get the higher speaker point. I rarely give low point wins.)

and

Read the policy section. It applies to LD as well.

POLICY

1. Whether the politic you're endorsing is institutional or communal, please show up with a method that makes sense and works

- you cant just put a bunch of kritikal literature in an aff, say the world sucks, and be like "at least the conversation is good" OR throw me a whole bunch of inherency about pollution in the South China Sea with one solvency card from a Huffington Post article

- I personally have done more K debate but I also admire the style of traditional debates: state action, counterplans, disads, give me all of it. I'll bump your speaks if you read a disad with a terminal impact that isn't nuclear war or extinction lmao

2. If you're going to go for discourse as an impact/voter, tell me how the discourse you provide affects the demographic for which you are advocating and

- In other words, what does "burning it down",or "the libidinal economy", or "post-metaphysical dynamics" mean for shorty in line at the welfare office? What about that white dude in the coal mine in Arkansas?

3. Cross Ex is binding, say it wit' ya chest.

A hack for my ballet: The more simple the better. Aff should do something and the ideal neg strategy should be some case specific case turns coupled with a kritik or counterplan

[[[[[PUBLIC FORUM]]]]]]

- I've done PF at several national and local tournaments

- Keep in mind that public forum debate serves to communicate complex messages with public forums so your discussion should ALWAYS sound/seem accessible to those who don't debate. No super special language, arguments about what should be"common sense/knowledge", or bad attitudes.

Quick questions and stuff: monbenmayon@gmail.com // Monben Mayon on Facebook

Lizbett Mendoza Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Andres Monclut Paradigm

8 rounds

I've debated policy debate 4 years in high school and 3 years in college as a part of the Rutgers Newark Debate Team. I have used all kinds of arguments; I am familiar with both traditional and critical forms of debate. I willing to vote for any argument provided that it is warranted. I really value responsiveness, if an argument is dropped a team could spin that into a victory, but there needs to be a clear explanation of all the steps to impact and explain why said impact is something I should vote on. I willing to vote on T or Theory but if you want to win on those arguments, there has to be a bigger emphasis on clear-cut definitions, examples, and overall impact of violations. I'm comfortable with both traditional and k affs.

Temitope Ogundare Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vladimir Pavlov Paradigm

Email: vl_pavlov@hotmail.com

Top 'things everyone should be aware of with me judging' level

Please add me on the email chain.

This year I am teaching debate at the middle school level on the Immigration topic. I am also still actively involved on the college level, just not to the extent I might have been previous years. I dont think this changes much of what else you'll read in my paradigm, I would just recommend that if you are reading an argument that requires some in depth explanation of the topic area it might be in your best interest to slow down a bit so I understand that nuance.

In my first year of judging last year I've judged over 30 rounds on the healthcare topic including at Wake, UT-Austin as well as local tournaments like Cornell and West Point plus a bunch more for high school and middle school this year.

I debated for NYU for 3 years. Most ran policy affs, but have gone for many things on the neg.

Since NYU teams run the gamut from traditional policy to critical args to performance, do whatever you're best at in front of me. Execute and compare in rebuttals and you'll be on the right track.

Left to my own devices, I default to 2 conditional options for the neg, reject the arg not the team, and presumption goes neg unless the aff gives a warrant for why it should shift but I'll listen to whatever interpretation you want to go for.

Impact framing makes my life and yours easier especially in clash of the civilization rounds. When in doubt, do it old skool, spell out why you win simply and how your args short-circuits the ability of the other side to access their impacts [too few negs do this and without that step, the 2AR has a lot of ground to play with unencumbered].

Debate probably has rules, I generally default to those rules. The rules of debate are up for debate, Im game.

Frankly, Im willing to listen and vote on anything. Despite my background, if your argument if well executed Ill be happy to vote for it. I hope this goes without saying but this DOES NOT mean I will vote on ANY sort of arg that promotes any level of oppression. Never the less, if you feel like you need to know how I view certain args, details are below.

Timing ends when you tell me it ends, I dont believe it should count as prep to save and send a file. Dont touch your computer or write anything when prep isnt going.

I flow on paper, while im fine with speed this means, especially for rebuttal speeches, that if you make a blippy argument and move on in your speech, dont get offended if I dont vote on it since Im not able to get it down properly as ill be moving on to the next arguments youre making and trying to get those down. If its a killer argument slow down and spend time on it. Explain why it wins you the debate.

Affirmative: You do you, I love hearing affs that approach the topic from a new perspective.

Often times affirmatives get caught up in neg arguments and dont refer to what they are trying to defend. At the end of the debate I want a clear articulation of your affirmative story and what impacts Im supposed to vote on.

Case Debates: Really enjoy good case debates, unfortunately they dont seem to be very common.

Neg: You do you, and Im fine with voting on it. I think love hearing things that divert from typical strats. If you want to run the death K please do. Ive gone for anything from DAs, to Ks, to T so Im familiar with a wide range of debates.

DAs: I like them. BUT. DO NOT READ 30 POWER TAGGED CARDS THAT HAVE 4 HIGHLIGHTED WORDS EACH. You've been warned. Generally the Links and internal links are pretty weak in most DAs, so try to have a clear articulation how you get to your extinction scenario. The more clear this is, the more happy ill be to vote on it. Topic specific DAs are fantastic. A great part of debate is the research and knowledge about the topic that debaters gain. When you read a well thought out DA it shows a great knowledge and effort into the topic.

CPs: Go for it. Im fine with PICS or consult CPs. Have a clear net benefit.

Ks: Something Ive done a lot of. Gone for Biopower, Cap, University, and others. Still, dont assume I know your literature. I love hearing various Ks and I also want clear articulations and showing an understand of what your K is trying to say. Ideally I want to hear a clear articulation of an alt, and some articulation of how it functions in the real world. I also want smart links, while you can read generic links, I love hearing links developed in the debate based on the other teams arguments or in round actions. The more specific the link is to the aff the better. Generic health care links wont get you as far as aff specific links.

Links of omission are not links. If the aff doesnt call you out on it, I guess youll get away with it. If the aff does, youll be in a very bad spot.

Im probably not the best judge for high theory Ks. I tend to think that just because you used a lot of long words in rapid succession that doesnt constitute an argument. If youre able to use your K as a basis for real world implications, or simplify it down to something closer to everyday language youll be okay.

FWK: Happy to vote on it. Just because I prefer topical affs doesnt mean that by saying "policy FWK good" you will win a debate against a non-topical aff. You still have to explain to why framework matters and why your framework should be preferred. That goes both ways, if a non-topical aff wins the flow Ill vote for the aff.

Performance: Not a style of debate Im too familiar with. If you read a performance aff with me as a judge I will do my best to evaluate it but I do have a high threshold to vote on it. But then again Ive also voted for affs that didnt say anything for the 1AC. At the end of the day anything goes.

Theory: It seems this resolution has lent itself be very heavy on theory, especially in the novice division. So be it I suppose, if thats what you must do. Just this year Ive already heard theory arguments morph into one big super theory argument that involves 3 theory violations, far too often with zero relevance to the round. If you must run theory please make sure you understand the theory you are reading.

Generally becomes a debate of two teams reading blocks of text against each other with 10+ points. Unless one side horribly mismanages this flow it probably wont mean too much at the end of the debate. If you go beyond reading walls of text, and actually make an argument out of the Theory argument you go for, this could become a voter at the end of the debate. Although it seems like its really rare that a deep debate happens on this flow.

If you cant prove actual in round abuse I doubt you'll get my ballot. For potential future abuse args you need to win in round abuse.

These were some short thoughts on debate, by no means complete and will update as I spend more time judging. If you have any questions feel free to email me.

Jose Rivera Paradigm

1. I hate spreading slow down if you want me to flow your arguments, if its not on my flow its not a part of the round. It doesn't matter how well its explained or extended. At best depending on speech it will be a new argument and will be evaluated from then forth. I do want to be part of the email chain, my email is thehitman.310@gmail.com, note that just because I am part of the email chain that does not mean I flow everything I read, I only flow what I hear so make sure I can hear your arguments. Beware I will be following along to make sure no one is cutting cards and I will call out teams for cutting card so be sure to do things correctly. I will drop cards before the team and continued cutting will result in me stopping the round and contacting tab.

2. I hate theory, and have only voted on it once. Also I don't like arguments on Race don't run them, the chance i will not vote on them is very high. Every Other argument is fine and long as they are well articulated and explained(See 3). In order to vote on an argument there needs to be an impact to it and I need to know how we arrive to the impact. But I want to know more than A + B = C, I need to know the story of how we arrive at your impact and why they matter. I will not simply vote on a dropped argument unless there is no other way to vote an I need to make decision, I consider this Judge intervention and I hate doing this. You as a debater should be telling me how to vote I will have to deduct speaker points if I have to do any work for you.

3. At the beginning of each round I am a blank slate, think of me as 6 or 7-year-old. Explain arguments to me as such. I only evaluate things said in round, my own person knowledge and opinion will not affect. For example if someone in a round says the sky is purple reads evidence the sky is purple and it goes uncontested then the sky is purple. I believe this is important because I consider anything else judge intervention which I am highly opposed too and again will result in speaker point deduction. That being said I default to a a standard policy making framework at the beginning of each round unless I am told otherwise.

4. Last but not least be respectful to me and to each other, and I would appreciate good show of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of a round. Any disrespect of any kind will result in speaker point deduction on a per incident basis. Continued disrespect will result in notifying tournament staff. Although I do not expect it will go that far.

Hannah Stafford Paradigm

8 rounds

I debated for 8 years in policy debate, in high school I debated at The Blake School and in college debated at Rutgers-University. I currently coach policy and PF at The Blake School.

Public Forum

Ultimately the biggest problem I see in PF debate is a lack of warranting, evidence comparison, and impact calculus. These three things are essential to winning my ballot. Also, I am a very technical judge, I flow everything (including cross) and dropped arguments are true arguments.

In terms of evidence - please read actual cards and do not just "paraphrase" authors.

Warranting and evidence comparison is essential. Extending a bunch of claims without reasoning is not persuasive. Why should I prefer your evidence over your opponents evidence. Similarly you need to compare the impacts, do not just extend your own impact while ignoring the opponents, why does your impact outweigh? Saying evaluate the "cost benefit analysis" is NOT impact calculus.

If an argument is in the Final Focus but was not in the Summary I will not evaluate it.

Finally, if you use racist, sexists, transphobic, ableist, xenophobic, classist, heteronormative, or another discriminatory or oppressive discourse you will not win my ballot and your speaker points will be greatly effected.

Policy Debate

Apparently my philosophy was deleted when the judge wiki was taken down - this will be posted shortly before I judge my next policy tournament :(

Mariam Tariq Paradigm

8 rounds

I’ve competed in Policy Debate at Science Park High School/University High School (Jersey Urban Debate League now known as Newark Debate Academy) in Newark, NJ.

*Experienced Judging in LD, Policy Debate as well as Public Forum.*

 

-I prefer debaters to stand when speaking.

 

Speed: I generally don’t mind debater spreading as long as they are clear when they are reading evidence. I would like for debaters to slow down when reading tags. I want to be able to hear your warrants in the evidence. If you are going to be making any analytical arguments be sure to slow down for that as well.

 

Cross-Examination: I love C-X! Good C-X that is. Open C-X is OK with me as long as the debater whose turn it is does most of the speaking.

 

Speaker Points: 27 is average, I generally don’t go lower than a 25.

 

Evidence: Evidence should readily be available to everybody participating in the debate round. If there’s evidence read that doesn’t have any citation, I will disregard it. 

 

I really appreciate it when debaters in rebuttals provide an overall summary of the round and crystallization. 

The team that makes the best arguements and overall does superb job pursuading me wins!

 

LD: Standards should be clear (Values and Criterion) 

Amna Tariq Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Kristin Towkaniuk Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Ashley White Paradigm

8 rounds

I've debated in Lincoln-Douglas for Newark Science, and since graduating I judge local and national tournaments. I am NOT very familiar with Policy debate so please keep that in mind. As long as you are clear and concise in your speech I will be ok with moderate spreading. Theory arguments are cool, but I'm not a big fan of K's and critical arguments if it can be avoided. Please be aware of your judge and don't be offensive or disrespectful during your arguments. Be sure to focus on the big picture argument and tell a story or paint a picture to win me over I like to be walked through your points I won't do any work for you when voting.

ryan hemnarine Paradigm

8 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.

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).

heaven montague Paradigm

8 rounds

Debating for seven years - seen it all and sure it’s nothing new.

I accept anything ask more questions or email me hmontague1@gmail.com

chaz wyche Paradigm

8 rounds

I reserve the right to end the debate due to anti-blackness